Linux-Advocacy Digest #687, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form ("jet")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: RIP the Linux desktop (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: RIP the Linux desktop (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:11:18 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 02:04:50
> [...]
> >No, it was researched by NRO. Most of academia is way behind what
> >research is doing.
>
> Most research is misguided experimentation, though, GreyCloud. I know
> you feel very sure and secure about the results you worked on, but it is
> only the math, not the verbal explanations you used, which were proven
> by your experiments. It isn't until the math makes it into academia
> (and is thus turned into reliable and comprehensible language, if at
> all) that it can be considered even loosely related to real-world facts.
>
> "Most of academia", after all, really just means "outside my specialty".
>
> >However, MIT is doing a lot of research in some rather bizarre areas
> >these days.
>
> I don't think there's any areas left that don't qualify for the term
> 'bizarre'. :-)
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Well, how about a few statements that Academic physics is busily
plugging up the holes with paper?? Actually, take a look at
holograhpy. MIT now calls it non-local physics.
Cut one snip of a hologram.. shine a laser thru that snip of a
hologram.. and you still get a complete picture of the original.
Non-locality has an immense impact on the way the universe seems to be
made up.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:12:26 -0700
Chronos Tachyon wrote:
>
> On Sun 20 May 2001 03:10, GreyCloud wrote:
>
> > Chronos Tachyon wrote:
> [Snip]
> >>
> >> Individual photons always travel exactly at c, no matter what medium they
> >> are traversing. However, in a non-vacuum medium, the photons will be
> >> constantly absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons of atoms that lie in
> >> their path. This process slows the collective wave of light down. Of
> >> course, this is just the common sense explanation and doesn't really
> >> touch on quantum physics.
> >>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> This is called the Cherenkov effect; it is effectively an "optical boom".
> No matter in the universe can travel at or faster than c (the speed of
> electromagnetic radiation, a.k.a. light, in a vacuum), but since light
> waves slow down in a dense medium (like the water surrounding a nuclear
> reactor), high energy particles like electrons emitted by the reactor can
> exceed the *local* speed of light in the medium. It has nothing to do with
> photons traveling faster than the speed of light -- photons ARE light!
>
Only to the human eye.
> You can read more about it (thanks Google!) at
> <http://chemistry.about.com/science/chemistry/library/weekly/aa100200a.htm>
>
> --
> Chronos Tachyon
> Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
> Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
> [Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:18:23 -0700
Stephen Cornell wrote:
>
> > "Dr S.J. Cornell" wrote:
>
> > > Electrons are quite happy moving at (near enough) c when they are
> > > moving in normal, even very small, cables; they have very little
> > > choice, because at some point the propagating EM field has to satisfy
> > > boundary conditions with the outside world - not an issue when you're
> > > _inside_ a waveguide.
>
> You know, I really can't believe I wrote that. This is total bollocks
> - electrons' speeds in conductors are typically very slow. However,
> the *charge density waves* do have to move at the same speed as the EM
> waves in the air (or whatever) outside the cable, in order to satisfy
> boundary conditions for travelling waves. This speed is actually
> nothing to do with the speed the electrons move at, because electrons
> communicate via the EM field.
>
> Moreover, the stuff I was getting at concerning waveguides will only
> be important when the wavelength is comparable to the diameter of the
> cable. Since VHF usually has wavelengths measured in metres rather
> than centimetres (for 100MHz transmissions, it would be about 3
> metres), this effect would not be enough to drop the group velocity
> down to 0.88c. However, I can believe that this effect is the major
> cause of dispersion in these cables (smearing of the signal due to
> differing components travelling at different speeds). It would matter
> for some microwave frequencies, but I guess you don't normally
> transmit those down a coax cable.
>
> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
> > Um... that isn't what the gov. funded accelerators show. The best one
> > tried to accelerate an electron to near c speed and it was noted that
> > this one electron was now the size of a baseball.
>
> Well, if you accelerate an electron to 0.88c, its kinetic energy is
> approximately equal to its rest energy(*), about 0.5 MeV. You would
> have to accelerate your electron over about 500000 Volts (in free
> space) before you got this kind of speed, so it's clearly not an issue
> for UHF Electronics.
>
> Regarding _size_, however: CERN's Large Electron Positron Collider
> used bunches of electrons and positrons accelerated to within a
> fraction of a percent of c, and these were constrained within a beam
> only a few centimetres across.
>
> > Adm. Grace Hopper was one of the people I met who harped on this
> > subject a lot. What I think you are getting at is the perceived
> > speed in copper... sort of like pushing peas thru a straw... fifo
> > style. The actual electron will never go at c or even near it.
> > Like I said, the NBS says its .88c.
>
> I really can't grasp your `passing peas through a straw' analogy, but
> the velocity certainly isn't the physical speed of the electrons.
>
> However, it isn't a property of _copper_ either - the `0.88c' figure
> is (almost certainly, since it's not due to waveguide dimensions) due
> to the dielectric constant of the material in the cavity. Charge
> density waves can travel over the surface of a copper wire at whatever
> speed they want to, provided the EM field satisfies boundary
> conditions with whatever is outside the wire.
>
> (*) [(1-(0.88)^2]^{-1/2} = 2.10..., i.e. energy is approx 2.1 m_0 c^2
> --
> Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
> University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
Quite true. As the frequency of the EM wave increases... take note...
the EM waves start to act LIKE light. In waveguides, RF is treated like
light waves. As an aside, on an aircraft carrier using X-band, the
technicians had to use Kotex dipped in alcohol and dragged thru the wave
guides to clean out the dust. When the frequencies increase the
energies start traveling on the surface rather than thru the media,
showing that electrical waves do travel slower at low frequencies but
inside the media. Going faster requires that the energy not be impeded
by the physical... namely copper or silver or whatever the conductor.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:21:42 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 02:15:27
> >Gary Hallock wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Karel Jansens"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > But electromagnetic radiation is not carried by electrons in a vacuum,
> >> > but by photons. Photons have no mass, so they are not affected by
> >> > relativistic increases of mass: Zero times infinite still remains zero.
> >>
> >> To be precise, photons have zero rest mass.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >
> >That wasn't what I was taught. I was taught that photons are a quantum
> >packet of energy. Light waves carry packets while traveling thru a
> >media.
>
> But if you're dealing with quantum particles (packets) then the fact is
> that they don't travel "through a media". The math conclusively proves
> that photons take *every possible path* between point A and B, including
> a grand tour of the entire rest of the universe, a traveling salesman
> problem only God could even contemplate. They only look like they go
> "from A to B through a straight-line path" (as they all universally
> appear to do, in direct observation) because the "sum of all paths"
> statistically makes it look that way; they average out, you might say,
> to a straight line. Yet to claim that the particle 'does' or 'does not'
> take any particular path is nonsensical, in the mathematics.
> Conversely, of course, to claim that the particle both 'does' and 'does
> not' take any single path is nonsensical, in language.
>
> >When changing media the quantum packets are dumped and exchanged
> >so to speak and light will bend. Also heat is given up due to the
> >exchange. Speed of the quantum packet is variable.
>
> This MUST be one way of explaining it. There MUST also be other ways of
> explaining it. In fact, I don't think it is ironic so much as it is
> predictable that there are an infinite number of different linguistic
> explanations that describe how the particle works moving through any
> combination of contingencies between point A and point B. But to claim
> that only one 'straight line' explanation, call it "proof C", is
> correct, even though all of them would be grammatically correct,
> comprehensible, and even valid explanations of the math, might be
> thought of as a "sum of all possible explanations", which reduce to the
> mathematical explanation alone.
>
> So, know your math is correct, GreyCloud. But recognize your
> explanation is, by definition, bollocks. Unless, of course, it is seen
> by some observer as the least number of terms explaining all
> contingencies, as the eminent scientist William of Ockam (Occam) proved
> centuries ago; then it is 'correct' because it is accurate, consistent,
> and practical *enough*, though it is never entirely any of them. It
> really just all averages out, and the only explanation impervious to
> Occam's razor is math, in any case where math is available.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
To provide a more mundane explanation of this effect... a telescope
pointed at the sun.
How long will it take to melt or distort the lenses? What distorts the
lenses? Heat. Where did the heat come from? Quantum exchange and
twice.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "jet" <[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 00:23:38 -0700
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.
J
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:26:39 -0700
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> Gary
Here I go again... and may get into trouble soon too. No unclassified
papers were written about it. But DOD provided a classified physics
class on the subject.
Look at it another way... in waveguides, the EM waves act like light
waves. The energy travels along the metallic surface of the waveguide...
not in it. Conversely, lower frequencies, the EM waves travel thru the
conductor and at a slower speed.
Peer review is not what the gov. really cares about, just results that
work.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:29:05 -0700
Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>
> T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> >
> How come that we don�t see infrared?
>
> I simply can�t believe this discussion. And that from americans, where the
> world thought they are great engineers and scientists.
> I think you should start making horseshoes again, because you will need
> them badly in the next years. Just forget about electricity and such other
> advanced stuff.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
Widen your paradigm man. One can't possibly stay stuck in one thought
forever.
Constant review of what appears to be true today can be false tomorrow.
History bears out this thinking.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:30:21 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 May 2001 21:29:34 +0200, Peter K�hlmann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >How come that we don�t see infrared?
>
> For the same reason you can't hear a bat sending out it's sonar, the
> wavelength is out of the spectrum for which the human eye can respond,
> or in the case of the bat, the human ear.
>
> We as humans can see light from blue to red. The word INFRA-red means
> it is past red in the EM spectrum.
>
> >I simply can�t believe this discussion. And that from americans, where the
> >world thought they are great engineers and scientists.
> >I think you should start making horseshoes again, because you will need
> >them badly in the next years. Just forget about electricity and such other
> >advanced stuff.
>
> Huh?
>
> flatfish++++
> "Why do they call it a flatfish?"
I know... what people can't see won't believe in. They rely too much on
their limited senses to break away from their limited paradigm.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:32:24 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 02:21:00
> >Gary Hallock wrote:
> >>
> >> In article
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Radio waves are not light! Radio waves have been measured by the NBS at
> >> > 88%.
> >>
> >> 88% of what? The speed of light? But what light? Visible light?
> >> Infrared? Ultraviolet? Does the speed of light depend on the frequency?
> >> You do realize that is exactly what you are saying, don't you?
> >
> >Of c.
> >
> >Radio waves are not the same as light waves.
>
> The only difference is the *frequency*. The question is whether there
> is any difference in the particles (quantum packets/photons) between
> visible and radio frequencies waves. So far, your explanation has not
> provided any, so your consideration of the frequency of the wave as
> having anything to do with the speed of the particle are confusing.
>
> >> > The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum! 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.
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > Interstellar space is full of energies... and full of unseen
> >> > gravitational disturbances.
> >>
> >> Been watching too many cheap sci-fi movies?
> >>
> >> Gary
> >
> >No... seems you are the victim of the "giggle factor".
>
> Gary is an old master at that, in fact. Rarely does his first response
> in any thread fail to contain a blanket rejection of the intelligence or
> knowledge of the original poster.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
You are quite perceptive of the frequency factor. As the frequency
increases the more the EM wave acts like light. It is a variable
transformation.
--
V
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:22:33 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> The article pushes out a bunch of platitudes that come down to: 'The
> current software is immature, we might as well give up'. If anyone had
> said in 1997: 'Linux isn't a complete copy of Unix yet, and NT4 is
> coming, we might as well give up', we wouldn't even *have* these desktop
> environments. Someone is willing to program them, who is some half-assed
> idiot of a columnist to tell them they shouldn't?
That's what I thought. Why bother when Windows is already there? Ack!
> My money is on this article being meant to keep the developers from
> becoming complacent, by pointing out that a there still is a lot of
> polishing to do. I agree with that, the basic infrastructure of a good
> desktop environment is there. I know, I use it every day, but it is by no
> means polished enough for the mass market. It's only little glitches, but
> they must go.
Right on!
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:26:55 +0100
In article <9eb0sg$j35$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > It must be the exception rather than the rule.
>
> Your problems were/are spurred from an unsupported card (for anti-aliasing),
> and bad memory. Nothing to do with Linux what so ever.
One one machine, yes. However, on my older machine, the problems were
nothing to do with faulty memory, but with Mandrake itself.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:15:59 +0100
In article <9ec11j$oql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> And once again, who cares? What is it to you or any of us? Linux
> was just fine before it was noticed by money chewing corporate
> types (like yourself) and will be just fine after.
>
> We didnt make it for *you*.
No wonder Linux is an also ran in the desktop.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
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 00:34:23 -0700
"Kim G. S. OEyhus" wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Kim0
>
> 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! Radio waves have been measured by the NBS at
> >> 88%.
> >> The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Interstellar space is full of energies... and full of unseen
> >> gravitational disturbances.
> >>
> >
> >--
> >Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
> >record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
> >looking any better.
Maybe its because you never worked for the gov. at all.
Maybe you spent too much time trying to pass your pyhsics classes
without much thought to original thinking... I can't thing of one
original thinker... Gallileo. Are you by chance a naysayer?
Be being a naysayer, one can't possibly progress.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:38:01 -0700
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Edward Rosten wrote:
> >>
> >> > Radio waves are not light! Radio waves have been measured by the NBS
> >> > at
> >> > 88%.
> >>
> >> Really, they are. 88% is (IIRC) the speed of em propogation in a wire
> >> (or co-ax possibly).
> >>
> >> > 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!
> >
>
> Well, the National Institute of Standards and Technology seems to have
> been able to measure the speed of light in a vacuum.
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=universal_in!
>
> Gary
I wonder what the NBS would say? Doesn't say what the setup was. I
would more fully trust a measurement in outer space at some great
distances.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:39:13 -0700
Edward Rosten 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!
>
> It's quite easy to withdraw all air from something. People have been able
> to make almost perfect vacuums for a while now.
>
> >> > It has been measured, tho, in space that light without quantum
> >> > packets travels instantaneously.
> >>
> >> er...? Light consists entirely of quantum packets, ie photons.
> >
> > In air or media like glass or water, yes ... contains photons. But in a
> > vacuum???
>
> The same.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> (You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
>
> /d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
> r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
> }d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
Taking into account the electronic devices limitations, and the small
distance available, I do not believe an accurate measurement can be
taken.
--
V
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:31:21 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> With all due respect of course, but can it be that you have so much
> experience on other OS's that you overestimate your knowledge a little?
> You constantly seem to miss things that are blindingly obvious to a lot
> of Linux users. Can it just be that you miss something obvious because
> you keep thinking that you know what you're doing and go:'naah, can't be
> that. That'd be too simple'?
Naa! Can't be that!
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:41:09 -0700
Eric Remy wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> >In air or media like glass or water, yes ... contains photons. But in a
> >vacuum???
> >An experiment in space someday will answer that question.
>
> Been there, done that. Or perhaps you think that the various detectors
> we've been flying in space for 40 years aren't sensitive to detect
> single photons?
>
> Or that the detectors mounted in ultra-high-vacuum chambers that friends
> of mine use can't detect single photons?
>
> --
> 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 |
So people would be lead to believe about the exact timings of NASA.
.88c and c aren't that big of a difference between here and voyager.
And JPL wasn't all that accurate about getting things precisely timed
either... how many mars probes have we lost now to screw ups??
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
