Cryptography-Digest Digest #175, Volume #13 Fri, 17 Nov 00 04:13:00 EST
Contents:
Re: MUST READ IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND ASTROLOGICAL ORIGINS (Pete Stapleton)
Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ?? ("kihdip")
Re: short encripted message (my first first cript agor) (Richard Heathfield)
Re: Q: fast block ciphers (Thomas Pornin)
Re: Q: fast block ciphers (Thomas Pornin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Stapleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MUST READ IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND ASTROLOGICAL ORIGINS
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:13:21 GMT
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 19:45:48 -0500, "A [Temporary] Dog"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:15:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob
>Officer) painted a red bull's eye on his forehead, ascended the altar
>of Fluffy and shouted:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 19:19:39 GMT, in alt.astrology "Jodream"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Pete Stapleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> Pete comments:
>>> SNIP
HERE IS THE PART THAT WAS SNIPPED
From: Pete Stapleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: MUST READ IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND ASTROLOGICAL ORIGINS
Pete comments: In order to understand the origins of this
first science of astrology- you must understand what Velikovsky
discovered - our present planetary configuration within our solar
system is brand new - has only been with us since 686 BC.
Note that all our historical time lines stop prior to
686 BC. The kings lists which claim to show a line of
history well into the 1400 bc - do not. Ptolemy's
Eclipse tables go back only to 580 or 590 BC. There isn't
anything that is evidence of an unbroken line of history
past 686 BC.
Here is the kind of evidence Velkovsky discovered - which
put and end to the astronomers "steady state" theory
of the formation of our solar system. One that was
being touted so fervently by the astronomers prior to
Velikosky. Now, some 50 years after Velkovsky published
his book Worlds in Collision - the astronomers have
adopted his Catastrophic theory. And all without
any mention or credit to his name. Nice guys.
What you read below again shows with great clarity that astronomers
know nothing of what actually takes place up in the sky - a problem
that must be solved as soon as possible now that we know the
electro-magnetic energies which originate up there are the first cause
of all human behavior. We cannot leave such important research in
the hand of a group who will only do the research they are allowed to
do and then only if they are paid.
As follows:
>From - Thu Oct 16 14:53:18 1997
From: Amy Acheson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: "Velikovsky & Planetary Catastrophe"
>Folks:
>
>I got several replies and most of them weren't very clear about what they
>were saying. Let me explain some and clarify MY question:
>
people call this a "highly elliptical" orbit,
>which is the opposite of a circular orbit. Since ALL comets start pretty
>far out from the sun (ones close up have been melted by now), ANY comet
>that swings into the inner solar system has a very eccentric elliptical
>orbit.
First of all, I don't agree with his statement that ALL comets start
pretty far out from the sun. This is a deduction from the
uniformitarian assumption that all the bodies in the solar system were
formed 4 billion years ago. If they were all formed 'way back then,
and they continue to disrupt at the rate we've observed them
disrupting in the past few centuries, then all the close up comets
would have disrupted by now. [Note that I'm decribing a similar
phenomonon but not using the term that Rob used -- melted -- because
by using that term Rob assumes two other mainstream astronomical
concept that I disagree with: 1) that comet's tails are caused
by solar winds melting their fragile icy structure, and 2) that comets
are basically icy snowballs.]
In order to explain the fact that some comets have actually survived
for 4 billion years, conventional astronomy has had to invent an
imaginary Oort cloud way out beyond Pluto where these fragile bodies
live safely out of reach of the sun until they manage to perturb each
others' orbits enough for an ocassional one to fall into the inner
solar system and circle (ellipse?) around for a while, growing and
losing a tail with every orbit, before it, too, completely melts down.
By the way, taking the rate of disruption of comets over the past
couple of millenia (there were 57 comets recorded the year Julius
Ceaser died -- all naked eye; they hadn't invented the telescope)
points to either a recent (a few thousands of years ago) comet-making
event or an impossibly large number of comets "in the beginning" 4
billion years ago.
>There are lots of speculations as to why a comet starts falling in from
>way far out in the solar system to the inner system. Some of them just
>have very long period orbits and only show up every few thousand years.
Hale Bopp is one of those.
>Other ones may have had very circular orbits way out there, but were
>disturbed by passing very close to another body and have had their orbits
>changed so that they are newly eccentric. This body would have to pass
>pretty close to them, however, and would have to be pretty massive,
>compared to the comet.
None of these suggestions takes into account Bob Grubaugh's recent
orbital analysis which showed that of the 15 brightest comets of this
past century, all of them, regardless of the length and eccentricity
of their orbits -- Haley's and Hale Bopp included -- intersect the
plane of the ecliptic in the same small sector of the asteroid belt.
This would tend to indicate that they weren't formed 'way out there in
the Oort belt, but more likely originated in a fairly recent event
that occured in that part of the asteroid belt. [Probably the
asteroid belt itself is also a result of that event.]
>When a body has a very eccentric orbit, its velocity isn't constant over
>the course of an orbit. As it swings far out, it slows down
>considerably. As it passes close by the parent body, it's going its
>fastest. In the case of comets, this means that they are moving pretty
>fast when they get to the inner solar system. "Pretty fast", for our
>purposes here, means SEVERAL KILOMETERS PER SECOND faster than the
>planets that live in the inner solar system.
>
>It's worth mentioning here that a body in a given orbit can only move at
>a speed consistent with that orbit. In a given spot in a given orbit
>only ONE velocity is permissible. If the body is speeded up or slowed
>down somehow, then the orbit has to change to reflect the new speed.
>This means, for example, that the earth or v enus can only move at a
>certain rate in their path around the sun, any faster and their orbits
>would change.
Perhaps oversimplified, but this is a fairly straightforward
description of Newtonian Mechanics. What he's leaving out is that at
certain points in these orbits, it's easier to change due to the
influence of another body. That's why NASA is flying Cassini past
Venus twice and Jupiter once to build up orbit changes that will take
it to Saturn with a minimum of rocket fuel. The two-body problem (how
two bodies interact gravitationally) is easy to solve. With three,
it's much more diffucult (a huge prize was awarded by the French
Government to the astronomer who finally solved it in the late
1700's, I think.) The nine-body problem (nine planets) hasn't been
solved yet.
>Another thing worth mentioning is that the planets, due to the way the
>solar system was formed, have pretty circular orbits. Pluto has the most
>eccentric orbit, so eccentric that it sometimes moves inside Neptune.
>It's eccentricity is 0.248. This is still FAR less eccentric than a
>comet's orbit that comes in close to the sun, but it's more eccentric
>than the other planets.
Again, he's assuming that if Venus was a comet, it must have come from
the Oort cloud and had similar eccentricities to what scientists today
define as a comet. Velikovsky's case for Venus being a comet depends
on the definition given by the ancient observers, not modern
astronomers, which is a star with a tail, and may or may not be
associated with any amount of orbital eccentricity. By the way, Venus
still has remnants of a tail, reaching almost to the earth's orbit.
It was discovered just recently by the SOHO satellite.
[Wal Thornhill suggests that it is the eccentricity of comets -- not
their fragile snowball make-up -- that causes them to grow tails (as
they cut across the changing potential of the solar magnetic field)
and that, if you kicked an asteroid into an eccentric orbit, it would
"become" a comet, and that Venus appeared to be a comet because of
eccentricity, and that even the whole Saturnian system became a comet
(that is, grew a tail) when it was captured by the sun. But he (Wal)
never gave me and Mel an adequate explanation of (A) why Kahoutek
didn't grow a spectacular tail and (b) why Velikovsky (at the
MacMaster's Conference in '74) predicted that it wouldn't. But we're
jumping way beyond the discussion of cometary Venus here.]
>Here are eccentricities for all the planets:
>
> Mercury 0.206
> Venus 0.007 <<-- !!!
> Earth 0.017
> Mars 0.093
> Jupiter 0.048
> Saturn 0.056
> Uranus 0.046
> Neptune 0.010
> Pluto 0.248
>
>Interestingly, venus has the most perfectly circular orbit of the
>planets. This orbit is so circular that it's farthest from the sun is
>about 67239000 miles, but it's closest is about 67237400 miles, a
>difference of only about 1600 miles -- far less than the radius of the
>planet (in other words, DAMN circular). Earth, by comparison, varies
>about 13,500 miles from high point to low point.
The most circular orbits in the solar system are those of Uranus' 15
moons. And, funniest thing, these orbit Uranus' equator, which is
tilted almost perpendicular to the ecliptic. How they got that way
and why they're so circular is a mystery. But it's a mystery that
says something to me: 1) They sure as hell didn't form gradually over
millions of years out of a rotating solar disc in the plane of the
ecliptic, and 2) Until you can explain, with current astronomical
processes, how these moons got so circularized, you better not use
those processes to deny what ancient observers claim to have seen.
{By the way, are you aware that the same astronomical errors about the
orbit of the planet Venus were made in both Babylon and ancient
Mexico? They both claimed an invisibility of 90 days at superior
conjunction, something completely impossible under the present-day
orbits of earth and Venus.}
>By contrast, a comet which swings out by Pluto, then swings in through
>venus' orbit will have a long axis about 40 astronomical units long, but
>a short axis about 1.5 to 2 a.u. long. If you put this through the
>equations, you find an eccentricity of greater than 0.9.
Again, Velikovsky never said that Venus came from out beyond Pluto --
that's Rob's assumption from his modern definition of a comet.
Velikovsky says Venus origiated from Jupiter within human historical
memory. In Grubaugh's model, Venus originated from Saturn in the
vicinity of the present day asteroid belt. In Thornhill's model
Venus, earth, Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, bunches of moons and proabably
asteroids, too, did come from outside the solar system in one clump
sometime in the recent past (over a similar range of time as since the
dinosaurs).
>All of this goes to show that comets have MUCH more eccentric orbits than
>planets and are moving much faster than planets when they reach the inner
>solar system.
>Now, keeping all of this in mind (it's a lot, I know), we can reach an
>interesting conclusion. If a body is in an elliptical orbit that goes
>from the distant edge of the solar system down to the inner solar system
>(the orbit comets follow), then the body is going much faster than the
>planets when it reaches the inner solar system. If you want that body to
>STAY in the inner solar system (say if that body is to become the planet
>venus) it must SLOW DOWN A HELL OF A LOT when it reaches the inner solar
>system. Somewhere, you have to come up with a force that will impart
>many kilometers per second of change of velocity to a body the size of
>venus. Even worse, this acceleration has to happen WHILE IT'S IN THE
>ORBIT YOU WANT IT TO HAVE. In other words, the body can't come sailing
>in, hit some other body on the way, then find it's way into venus's slot.
> If you want it to wind up where venus is, you HAVE to correct its
>velocity as it reaches venus's orbit.
Again, he's taking into account only gravitational interactions, and
simplifications of them at that. Astronomers don't understand why our
solar system has a Bode's law configuration, but Wal Thornhill's
plasma model indicates that the low eccentricities and orderly
distances between planets is a function of the fact that interacting
systems settle into non-interacting systems at a fairly hasty rate.
He thinks that each of the planets makes a "home" for itself at the
limit of the next inward planet's electrical influence. That
interplanetary electrical discharges (recorded in the past as
thunderbolts of the gods, but not seen in present day, thank
the gods) will have exactly the effect Rob is calling impossible:
circularizing orbits. [Another "by the way" here: when ancient
artists picture the thunderbolts of Zeus, they show the football shape
of a plasma discharge in a vacuum rather than the long jagged
lightning bolts we're familiar with in thunderstorms. Where do you
think they got that idea?]
For example, I take it that
>Velikovsky claims venus interacted with earth and may have gotten some
>delta-v from that interraction. That's fine, but it's not possible for
>ANY delta-v recieved in EARTH's orbit to lead to a body settling down in
>venus' orbit.
A plasma interaction between closely approaching planets could have
wielded so much delta-v and delta-g (gravity changes) and delta-m
(mass changes) that the orbital outcome of any interaction is
mathematically unpredictable. {By the way, such interactions would
have left fragmented magnetic anomolies like those discovered on the
moon by the Apollos and last week on Mars by Surveyor.}
At BEST, this might lead to an elliptical orbit that
>swings down to be tangent with venus, then up to be tanget with earth.
>In this best-case scenario, venus would have ample opportunity to hit
>earth again, have its orbit (AND the earth's) effected to become MORE
>elliptical and so on. This best case orbit still has MUCH more energy
>than venus' orbit today.
Here Rob's assuming that only Venus' orbit changed, and that the earth
and other planets are still where they always were. Velikovsky never
made any claims about previous solar system order, except for the
minor mention that earth may have once (before the Venus thingy) been
a satellite of Saturn, the statement from which Dave Talbott took his
inspiration.
>Here's another datum for you. Jupiter has several satellites, but a few
>of them are thought to have been "captured" by Jupiter, not part of its
>original formation. These were probably asteroids which got to close to
>Jupiter and came under it's gravitational influence. All of these
>captured satellites have much more elliptical orbits than the Jupter's
>proper satellites, they have more inclined orbits (relative to the
>others) and some of them even move in retrograde (that is they orbit in
>the opposite direction from the others). Things "captured" don't tend to
>have circular orbits, because there is no force to give them the push
>that will "cirularize" their orbits as they are captured.
Jupiter's "captured satellites" are all distant ones -- the
equivilants of the outer planets to our solar system, which are the
most eccentric of our planets. The inner planets move closer and
faster, so their orbits will regularize more quickly. The Brittish
astronomer, Lyttleton, showed by computer model that at the distance
from the sun of earth's orbit, three hundred revolutions was enough to
stabilize almost any random beginning configuration into a Bode's-law
configuration. And he was using only gravitational interactions.
Needless to say, lots more than three hundred years have passed since
1500 BCE, the time Velikovsky places the Venus episode.
>
>So, I return to my original question at long last:
>
>If venus is a captured comet, what force imparted a
>many-kilometer-per-second change of velocity to put it into a very
>circular orbit?
And, to summarize my answer: Venus being a comet doesn't necessarily
imply capture from outside the solar system, although it doesn't rule
out the possibility. In either case, gravitational interactions alone
are capable of circularizing its orbit. But both the ancient records
and modern discoveries in cosmology suggest that electromagnetic
interactions also played a significant role.
--Amy
>>>
>>>> What you read below again shows with great clarity that astronomers
>>>> know nothing of what actually takes place up in the sky
>>>
>>>Bwaaaahaaaa Nuts!
>>>
>>>Funny how often you post since Thomas Passed on.
>>>I recall the way you flounced out of here each time he posted . . . . ^._.^
>>>
>>> -
>>>He's ROTFL at this one.
>>>Godspeed Tom!
>>>Jo
>>>The only demons he ever encountered were you and Jeffy.
>
>Demons? "Barking Dog" Jeffcoat and Peat? Hell has truly fallen on
>hard times of they qualify as demons.
>
>>Jo,
>>That's should be RIHLHAO
>>
>>[RIHLHAO (rolling in heaven laughing his ass off)]
>
>I wasn't privileged to meet, or even exchange posts with him, but I'm
>sure he is.
------------------------------
From: "kihdip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ??
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:18:57 +0100
Doesn't this slow down the development of new and better cryptographic
algorithms ??
I mean, if someone had already patented a XOR operation, and claimed that
noone should use this in any ciphers, we would have to wait until his patent
expired.
I know - XOR's are simpel and obvious - but where's the limit ??
Right now we have a massive discussion on software patents in Europe.
The argument of slowing/stopping the development is a quite good one against
patenting software.
Kim
"John Savard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:42:04 +0100, "kihdip"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>
> >With IBM, RSA and Counterpane as the direct 'inventors', how could
Hitachi
> >come up with this foolish patent idea ??
>
> One step in these algorithms, a rotation of bits _which is controlled
> by a key-dependent variable_, was first claimed by itself in the
> patent for a Hitachi block cipher, just as the patent for the IDEA
> block cipher specifically claims the technique of using operations
> from different groups to obtain cipher strength, not just the specific
> algorithm for IDEA itself.
>
> John Savard
> http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:28:20 +0000
From: Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: short encripted message (my first first cript agor)
Alien8 wrote:
>
> $X&#^&2@&@*&#X&4E%!
> --END--
See if you can crack this message, which has been ROT-13'd twice for
extra security:
Read the FAQ.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Pornin)
Subject: Re: Q: fast block ciphers
Date: 17 Nov 2000 08:57:29 GMT
According to Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Then why is GF(p) modulo a prime modulus, such as in IDEA?
GF(x) is "the" field of size x. When x is prime, it just happens that
any field of size x is isomorphic to Z_x, the usual field of numbers
modulo x.
When x = 2^n, any field of size x is isomorphic to a field of
polynomials over 2 reduced modulo a prime polynomial of degree n.
(As a side note, all fields of size 2^n are not mutually isomorphic)
When using GF(p) where p is prime, the usual way to represent the
elements of that field is to use numbers from 0 to p-1 (which means,
since GF(p) is isomorphic to Z_p, use Z_p). When using GF(2^n), the
most efficient way is to use the isomorphic field consisting of n-bit
Z_2 polynomials, represented as binary words of length n. Other
representations would be possible, but with this representation, the
addition and multiplications in the field are relatively easy to code
(addition is just bitwise xor, multiplication is made with n shifting
and xoring, and a feedback identical to what is used in LFSR).
GF(2)^n is the set of vectors of size n, and coefficients in Z_2. It is
a vector space. One can map a field structure on such a vector space,
but then it would be called GF(2^n).
To sum up, do not mess with the mathematical notations: if you want a
field, use a field notation.
--Thomas Pornin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Pornin)
Subject: Re: Q: fast block ciphers
Date: 17 Nov 2000 09:02:18 GMT
According to Lauri Pesonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Any faster block ciphers out there?
It all depends on what hardware you have. If the cpu is an
Intel-compatible one (Pentium or so), RC5 and RC6 might be good
choices (RC6 only on PPro and beyond, since it uses multiplications).
On an Alpha, DFC will be better. Rijndael is also quite fast on most
architectures. Think about CS-Cipher too, especially if you can use
it in bitslice representation (which somehow prevents enciphering
in CBC mode a unique stream, but could do marvels for enciphering
simultaneously a few dozens streams).
--Thomas Pornin
------------------------------
** 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 (and sci.crypt) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
