Linux-Advocacy Digest #688, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Karel Jansens)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Kim G. S. OEyhus)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:43:41 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Eric Remy in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 09:37:50
> >In article
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> > The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
> >>>
> >>> It has. You can also calculate the speed of light without measuring it
> >>> directly.
> >>
> >>Ah, but there is the rub... All light speed measurements have so far
> >>been done in AIR!
> >
> >So I supposed that air extends all the way out to the Pioneer spacecraft?
> >
> >GreyCloud, you're wrong. Completely. The speed of light in vacuum is
> >known to tremendous precision. If it wasn't, NASA wouldn't be able to
> >track spacecraft light hours away nor use radio ranging systems to
> >measure distances.
>
> I just love this shit. "GreyCloud, you are wrong; completely."
>
> GreyCloud didn't say a damn thing about whether the speed of light in
> vacuum is _known_ to any arbitrary precision. He pointed out that it is
> not *experimentally proven*, and in fact cannot be, since in order to
> measure light's speed, you must change its velocity, according to
> Heisenburg. Once Shroedinger's cat is out of the box, you can't stuff
> him back in and hope he isn't "really dead".
>
> I think the problem GreyCloud is having making himself comprehensible
> (hence, Eric's difficulty in providing any reasoning to counter it,
> resorting to the asinine 'you are completely wrong' bullshit) is
> confusion over the distinction between the terms "quantum packet of
> energy" and "particle [of light]", which is subtle but does exist. Both
> qualify for the word "photon", but the math you use must be distinct.
>
> GreyCloud's 'quantum packet' speeds up and slows down around matter, and
> does not achieve full c except in a perfect vacuum and taking Hiesenburg
> into account using statistics (requiring the counter-intuitive reading
> in certain trials of photons traveling at greater than c, proving even
> that a gedanken experiment, not an empirical one). But the photon
> always travels at c in all mediums; it is only the repetitive absorbtion
> and later emitting of photons by atoms of matter that seem to "slow them
> down" in a medium.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Thank you. I am not that strong in elucidating in any human language.
But I do remember what Heiman Rickover said about the Blue Light effect
in Nuclear reactors... "Truly astounding and we shouldn't really talk
about it."
--
V
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:39:39 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Light travels at different speeds thru different medians.
>
> For instance, if you looked into Pete's ear you wouldn't
> see any light as the median is much too dense for light
> to escape.
And if you look in Charlie's ear you'll see an IOU from Bill Gates.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 03:48:04 -0400
jet wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > jackie wrote:
> > > amusingly enough if homosexuality is genetic the genes promoting it may
> > > well be more numerous today because homophobia is so universal. that is
> > > to say, by forcing men who would prefer the only the company of men to
> > > marry a beard society has generated more of the very thing that might
> > ^^^^^
> > is this a typo?
>
> LOL! Aaron you have reached levels of ignorance that are shocking even for
> you!
>
> A beard is a member of the opposite sex a homosexual person gets married to,
> or has a similar kind of relationship with, in order to look straight.
Well EXCUSE ME for not being up on the latest homosexual slang.......
>
> J
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:46:28 -0700
Eric Remy wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Said Eric Remy in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 09:37:50
> >>In article
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> > The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
> >>>>
> >>>> It has. You can also calculate the speed of light without measuring it
> >>>> directly.
> >>>
> >>>Ah, but there is the rub... All light speed measurements have so far
> >>>been done in AIR!
> >>
> >>So I supposed that air extends all the way out to the Pioneer spacecraft?
> >>
> >>GreyCloud, you're wrong. Completely. The speed of light in vacuum is
> >>known to tremendous precision. If it wasn't, NASA wouldn't be able to
> >>track spacecraft light hours away nor use radio ranging systems to
> >>measure distances.
> >
> >I just love this shit. "GreyCloud, you are wrong; completely."
>
> Well, let's see. In the post I'm replying to, GreyCloud claims all
> measurements of c have been done in air.
>
> Statement truth: dead wrong.
>
> >GreyCloud didn't say a damn thing about whether the speed of light in
> >vacuum is _known_ to any arbitrary precision. He pointed out that it is
> >not *experimentally proven*, and in fact cannot be, since in order to
> >measure light's speed, you must change its velocity, according to
> >Heisenburg.
>
> You're very confused here.
>
> First, Greycloud claims radio waves travel at 0.88c. This is
> experimentally proven wrong *every* *single* *day*. It's true for
> certain media, certainly, but has nothing at all to do with c.
>
> Second, the HUP has nothing at all to do with the value of c. c is a
> fundamental physical constant. We know it to very high precision, and
> the HUP has *no* effect on this.
>
> >I think the problem GreyCloud is having making himself comprehensible
> >(hence, Eric's difficulty in providing any reasoning to counter it,
> >resorting to the asinine 'you are completely wrong' bullshit) is
> >confusion over the distinction between the terms "quantum packet of
> >energy" and "particle [of light]", which is subtle but does exist. Both
> >qualify for the word "photon", but the math you use must be distinct.
>
> And how does this deal with Greycloud's "Radio waves are not light" and
> "Radio waves travel at .88c" crap?
>
> Max, you're looking for something here that just doesn't exist.
> Greycloud doesn't understand what he's talking about.
>
> >GreyCloud's 'quantum packet' speeds up and slows down around matter, and
> >does not achieve full c except in a perfect vacuum and taking Hiesenburg
> >into account using statistics (requiring the counter-intuitive reading
> >in certain trials of photons traveling at greater than c, proving even
> >that a gedanken experiment, not an empirical one). But the photon
> >always travels at c in all mediums; it is only the repetitive absorbtion
> >and later emitting of photons by atoms of matter that seem to "slow them
> >down" in a medium.
>
> I'm well aware of this. Greycloud is still wrong. He's not even
> operating on this level: he totally misunderstands what radio waves are
> and believes that their speed has never been measured in vacuum.
>
> Here, let's try a similar sentence more along the cola lines and see how
> you react:
>
> "Linux is a MSDOS derivative, written by Dave Cutler and has never been
> used in a single commercial application"
>
> Would you bother to try and find any real truth in that sentance? It's
> obviously false.
>
> --
> Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
> "I don't like (quantum mechanics), | How many errors can
> and I'm sorry I ever had anything | you find in my X-Face?
> to do with it."- Erwin Schrodinger |
It figures... Eric, get out of your narrow Paradigm! Start doing some
original thinking for yourself instead of letting a professor tell you
how to think! Crap indeed! Even Gallileo is rolling over in his grave.
Tell that crap to the NBS!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:52:03 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 02:28:47
> [...]
> >In air or media like glass or water, yes ... contains photons. But in a
> >vacuum???
> >An experiment in space someday will answer that question. There may be
> >some observable phenomena from a great distance that may shed some light
> >on this. Certain spiral galaxies are a long long ways away in terms of
> >light years. These galaxies diameters are also measured in light
> >years... (the particular one in mind is one slanted at an angle). The
> >far back edge of that galaxy is farther away from the observer than the
> >front edge is. Q: why is that spiral arm in such nice proportions then?
> >It would seem that the back edge would be skewed by quite a bit.
>
> But in proportion to the distance to the galaxy, I should think. IOW,
> you would simply need both a very large and very far away galaxy to see
> the difference, statistically. Perhaps even a galaxy which is more
> light years across than it is light years away?
>
> I don't think the idea that light is not made of photons when it is in a
> vacuum is unsupportable by any valid theory, as far as I know (though I
> must admit that you should know more about this than I to begin with).
> So I can't help but think that in your "physics jumpstart" lessons, some
> of the math might have been analytically distinct from the lingual
> explanations you were given. Yet it is ironic that I should say this,
> as I know far far far less about the math involved, and probably the
> physics theory, then you do.
>
> I think perhaps, though, your speculation that photons cease to exist
> when matter is not around might dove-tail with the current speculation
> that "empty space" is a "seething foam of sub-atomic particles". But
> claiming that lightwaves aren't made up of photons in empty space is
> even more counter-intuitive, yet still supportable at some level of
> abstraction. Certainly in the macro world, it doesn't make a damn bit
> of difference if you believe photons still exist even when they're not
> bouncing off of something, since the only way to tell they are there is
> to put something in their way to be affected by their 'bouncing'. The
> entire standard model of physics indicates photons are "real" particles,
> and string theory does not turn them into illusions, but quite the
> opposite; makes photons only a special case of matter. One "vibrating"
> in a "frequency" or "pattern" that _means_ "moving at c through three
> extent dimensions".
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
You have helped to make me think more about this... the light wave
itself is without body, but for people to see light they need that
photon to perceive. In distant space, it would need the full pressure
of the light wave to propel a photon... but this would necessitate a lot
of energy to get the photon from a distant star to here. Other words,
attenuation and also radial dispersion of the photons. Also a lot of
time would be needed to get that photon from there to here. Even EM
waves attenuate over the inverse square of the distance. How would it
be that there is infinite energy to propel that photon from the farthest
distances then?
--
V
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 19:19:05 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Strictly OT: The subject line should be changed to "FTL Drives", but I
> don't change subject lines much anymore.
>
> Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001
>>In article
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>GreyCloud wrote:
>>>
>>>Possibly... but in a nuclear reactor there is a phenomena known as the
>>>"Blue Light" effect. The gov. has concluded that the blue light are
>>>photons travelling faster than the speed of light... sort of a doppler
>>>effect.
>
> "Apparently" traveling faster than the speed of light. It really is
> impossible to do so, to a degree beyond "we don't know how to do it".
>
>>Funny thing. The last physicist from a sub I met told me the same
>>thing. They were particles which never slowed down below the
>>speed of light.
>
> Those were called "tachyons", and as a part of serious physics theory,
> they disappeared at least a dozen years ago.
>
Oh, I don't know. There is still nothing in general relativity which
precludes the existence of tachyons. The problem is that they are on the
other side of the c-barrier, meaning that is will be very hard to learn
anything about them other than the theoretical possibility that they exist.
>>So interstellar travel is possible.
>
> It is still possible that interstellar travel is possible, it always
> will be. Because it may someday be feasible to travel interstellar
> distances without traveling faster than light. This could be a simple
> engineering trick, with 'colony ships', or it could use the new
> discovers about string theory to try to "cheat". It turns out there are
> probably seven dimensions which are incredibly small, but larger than
> Plank distances. These are 'curled up', and this accounts for the
> discrepancy between quantum mathematics and relativistic mathematics.
> Yet, as with the familiar three or four dimensions, they are present at
> every point in the universe.
>
> So it may simply be a matter of traveling half an inch, or less, very
> very slowly, through one of the extra curled up dimensions. But this is
> still speculative to the degree of fantasy, not simple science fiction.
> In the real world, it isn't so much that traveling faster than light
> poses problems; its that the terms no longer make sense. You are not
> 'traveling' through three dimensions when you go light speed, but merely
> succeeding in standing still in the fourth dimension: time. There is no
> way to access the extra dimensions, and we know this because we no that
> these extra dimensions are not accessible by matter, or matter would
> indeed access them in the natural world, at something larger than Plank
> distances but smaller than relativistic speeds. But, as I said,
> tachyons have already been mathematically disproved; 'spooky action at a
> distance' does not allow for magical hyperdrives, as far as we know.
>
> Think of it this way, it could be that for some reason yet to be
> understood, once we understand how to travel through these curled up
> dimensions to 'shortcut' interstellar distances, we will only then
> understand the math necessary to know why it will take centuries to
> travel that half an inch. NOTHING, not even 'information' (and that
> doesn't even really EXIST the way atoms and photons do) can travel
> faster than light speed; the term 'travel' and 'speed' and even 'light'
> don't have any meaning at such large relative velocities.
>
> We are captive of a relativistic universe. We will remain captive, for
> all time.
>
If anybody else is confused by this, I would like to take this opportunity
to endorse Michio Kaku's book "Hyperspace. A Scientific Odyssey Through
Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and The Tenth Dimension". Since I've read
it, the tenth dimension no longer holds any secrets to me, and I play
hyperguitar for fun <G>.
The April issue of Popular Science has an interesting article on Weird
Space Drives. Apparently NASA has committed itself (sort of, as usual) to
undertaking an interstellar mission within a 25 to 50 year timeframe. These
guys give a completely new meaning to the term "optimism".
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
Oh, wait...
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:56:50 -0700
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roy Culley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Would one of you physicists like to comment garbage below.
> >
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> Radio waves are not light!
>
> It's electromagnetic radiation, same as light.
>From a certain stance yes, and from another no. At lower frequencies,
EM waves do not even act like light.... do a smith chart on an antennae
and then tell me that that is like light waves.
>
> >> Radio waves have been measured by the NBS at
> >> 88%.
>
> Dunno what that means. 88% of what?
>
> >> The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
>
> Sure it has. _Physics Letters_ (12), 260, for one.
Has it been verified and rechecked??
>
> >> It has been measured, tho, in space that light without quantum packets
> >> travels instantaneously. Otherwise, the appearance of distant galaxies
> >> would be totally distorted beyond recognition.
>
> No, it hasn't. Laser light bounced from retroreflectors on the Moon takes
> a number of seconds to make a round trip. And much of that trip is in a
> good vacuum.
>
Have you taken into account the earths atmosphere , which varies over a
considerable distance to the moon?? Not much of that trip is in a hard
vacuum.
> >>
> >> But this is all irrelavant. Even if the speed of light were 1000 faster
> >> than what we know... the million light years of distance and time of a
> >> signal, let alone the attenuation of the inverse square of the distance
> >> would render any signal unreadable, let alone detectable.
>
> I don't know what kind of signal he's talking about, or what strength.
> It's no mystery that we can see other stars when you consider their
> output, the inverse square law, and Earthly optics. But maybe that's not
> the signal he's talking about.
>
> >>
> >> Interstellar space is full of energies... and full of unseen
> >> gravitational disturbances.
>
> Maybe this makes more sense in context.
>
> --
> "'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
hehe... saw that in one of General Electrics black boxes on a
submarine. Nothing more than a wire inside.
:-)
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim G. S. OEyhus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:01:24 +0000 (UTC)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Kim G. S. OEyhus in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
>>As you said, it is garbage. It does not make sense at all.
>>It is just physicsbabble, physics words put together somewhat
>>randomly, without meaning.
>
>For you, maybe.
Yes, for me, because as a physicist, I know what his words are supposed
to mean.
>It made a lot of sense to me, in fact it was rather
>fascinating, at least what I could gather given my ignorance of the math
>and even some of the terms.
The only math there was "80%" of something unspecified, and
"1000 faster". And this math, you claim to be ignorant of.
>I had never considered the issue of how
>'particles' of light can 'speed up' after leaving an area of dense
>matter.
Thats elementary physics.
>GreyCloud's description and explanation has nothing to do with 'babble';
>you seem to have missed the fact that he is trying to describe what
>others have used *mathematics* to prove. Whether you explain it as 'the
>quantum energy packet' going through some transformations, or just say
>"the last electron which absorbed a photon in the dense matter can only
>generate a photon traveling at full 'c'" are just two different
>linguistic explanations (one or the other or both 'randomly put
>together' to your perspective because you don't comprehend them
>correctly) for the same math.
As a physicist, I know those terms do not describe math at all,
but physical concepts.
>Arguing against one explanation might be logical, or even entertaining.
>Trying to indicate an opponent is somehow 'doltish' for understanding
>the explanation when you do not is ignorance, bigotry, and stupidity.
As I said, I understand the terms, and therefore can see that he
wrote rubbish. See the detailed explanation of the rubbish, by
Gregory L. Hansen, in this thread.
>For instance, did you know that photons do *not* travel only in a
>straight line? In fact, they take a path which is entirely "random,
>without meaning", or should I say they take an infinite number of such
>paths, between any arbitrary Point A and Point B.
I do not know that, because it is wrong.
What you present, is a very distorted and misunderstood version
of the multiple history calculations of quantumelectrodynamics.
>The correctness of the explanation is a matter of perspective. Only the
>math has any 'truth' to it.
No.
The correctness of an explanation, is determined by its internal
consistency, its language, and its correspondence to reality,
tested f.ex. by experiment.
Kim0
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 09:58:53 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 09:26:25
>>In article
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Of c.
>>>
>>> Radio waves are not the same as light waves.
>>
>>If that were true, it would be a major upset to all of physics. Where is
>>the evidence? What papers have been written about it. Has there been
>>the proper peer review?
>
>You'd have to be pretty clueless, Gary, not to be aware of the duality
>of physics. If radio waves were the same as light waves, how come we
>can't see them?
>
Max - you are making yourself look like an idiot. If you are going to be
condescending and patronising, at least express yourself accurately (I am
fairly sure you know what you are talking about (rare, but true), you are
just using impresise terminology).
Radio waves are a type of light waves. They are not the same as *visible*
light waves, as they have a different range of frequencies. The common term
"light" generally refers to visibile light, while the scientific term
"light" (as in "the speed of light") refers to the entire electromagnetic
spectrum, including radio waves, visibile light, and about a dozen other
categories, depending on how you split it up.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
