Linux-Advocacy Digest #689, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 05:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Kim G. S. OEyhus)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 09:52:40 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>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".
Actually, travelling faster than the speed of light is perfectly possible -
it is just a question of mediums. Travelling faster than c, the speed of
light in vacuum, is not possible (at least, according to all current theory
and observations). Photons, of course, always travel at exactly the speed
of light through their current medium, and the "sort of a doppler effect" is
just technical-sounding babble. But sometimes solar wind particles hit the
Earth's atmosphere at a greater speed than the speed of light through air,
so for a brief time they are travelling faster than the speed of light in
their current medium. This causes a cone-shaped flash of blue light - the
equivilent of the sonic boom as objects reach the speed of sound in air.
>
>>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.
>
>>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.
You should not state these theories so matter-of-factly - there are far too
many open questions before you can say which theory best fits reality. For
example, while there are theories based on seven dimensions, there are other
equally plausible ones based on (IIRC) 10 and 26 dimensions. One of the
"curled up dimensions" theories was recently experimentally disproved,
incidently - it had suggested that two of the dimensions had a size of
around a millimeter, but careful measurements of gravity at that scale (not
at all easy to do) showed they could not be more than about 200 microns at
most.
>
>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.
I believe the conclusion regarding tachyons was that they may exists, but
can have no possible interaction with sub-luminar physics. So there is no
way to detect them or find out anything about them, even theoretically - we
might as well consider them not to exist. But they made for a good Blake's
7 episode.
>
>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.
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:03:10 -0700
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > How embarrassing? Light is radio waves, too; yet as waves, some
> > frequencies travel slower than others.
> >
>
> That's only true when light or any other em travels through a physical
> medium. In a vacuum (which is how this whole conversation started) all
> em waves travel at the same speed.
>
> > I would have thought that people on technical newsgroups, even advocacy
> > groups, would be aware of the duality of physics, and not waste time
> > quibbling about these things as if Usenet discussion will prove
> > conclusively something that all the great physicists in the world cannot
> > yet sort out.
> >
>
> I'm well aware of the duality of physics. I've gotten the impression
> that GreyCloud may not be since he seems to want to treat radio em as
> waves and visible light as particles when, in fact, they are both. He
> has said on a number of occasions now that light is not em. Pretty basic
> physics to be disputing while providing no evidence. The only thing he
> has done so far is quote some unnamed source inside some secret DoD
> department. That's not science. Science requires openess and peer review.
>
> Gary
Do you ever think that our gov. would tell the world everything? Do you
trust your Gov. completely? I know they haven't told everything... and
I end with no more conversation about it. I still rely on a pension
from them.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:05:18 -0700
Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
> > Karel Jansens wrote:
> >>
> >> GreyCloud wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> All electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed, which is the speed
> >> >> of light in a given medium. Radio waves are electromagnetic waves end
> >> >> will therefore never be slower than light.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > False, the National Bureau of Standards has already conceded this.
> >> > Even NASA has to correct for timing in transmissions to its far roving
> >> > probes.
> >> >
> >> > Electromagnetic waves are slower than light.... very much slower.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Is that the same bureau that decided that pi will be an even 3?
> >>
> >> One more time, and then I quit this silly thread: light is a form of
> >> electromagnetic radiation. All electromagnetic radiation is "carried" by
> >> photons. Photons can only travel at one speed: the speed of light in a
> >> given medium. This speed is not always the same, as it depends on the
> >> medium, but the highest possible speed is the speed of light in vacuum
> >> (c).
> >>
> >
> > Ever do a smith chart for a radio tower?? Ever hear of the zone of
> > silence?
> > A tower when radiating, depending upon its design, will have clover leaf
> > like nodes.
> > In between these nodes are less em waves. The difference is the electric
> > field that generates the radio waves. Much different than light
> > waves... like light from a candle for instance. Where's the electric
> > field here?
> >
>
> (Contradicting my earlier promise but...)
>
> Are you trying to prove your silly point by stating that radiowaves are
> prone to interference?
>
> --
> 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...
> ===============================================================
YES! Ever listen to FM radio in a car and all its noisy fluctuations??
Silly point indeed.
--
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 08:06:41 +0000 (UTC)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"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.
Done.
That is like light waves.
>> >> Radio waves have been measured by the NBS at
>> >> 88%.
>>
>> Dunno what that means. 88% of what?
So, you were unable to answer that.
>> >> 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??
Yes.
Extremely many times, and in many ways.
>> >> 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.
Completely wrong.
The earths optic atmosphere is only about 10 km, while the distance
to the Moon is about 300 000 km. This means that only 1/30 000 of the
trip is in the atmosphere.
>> >> 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.
And he were not able to answer that either.
>> >> Interstellar space is full of energies... and full of unseen
>> >> gravitational disturbances.
>>
>> Maybe this makes more sense in context.
Doesn't seem like that.
kkKim0
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:06:37 -0700
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > > > You are comparing two dissimilar research projects. Cancer research is
> > > > a noble research project. Looking for alien life that is sentient is a
> > > > waste of time. Really, all it will prove that some alien life HAD
> > > > existed many millions of years in the past... these aliens are not
> > > > accessible!
> > >
> > > That's a matter of opinion.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pete
> >
> > Which part?
>
> The alien part.
>
> --
> Pete
I wouldn't know. Never saw one. Unless SETI is hoping to monitor one of
them communicating near by of course. But then that is speculation at
best.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:08:00 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > > Why don't you post to rec.arts.sf.science, this is not the place to
> agrue
> > > about physics.
> >
> > True... but the argument is bascially that SETI project is a hoax. When
> > you download software to your personal computer and believe it is in a
> > just cause to search for ET, one can only look at the absurdities of
> > this research.
>
> Well, duh! You didn't expect it to be *easy*, now did you?
> It would be very hard to find *us* over couple of hundred of light years.
> About the only thing that we spill out that can be detected far enough is
> long range scanners (as used in cold wars to find nuclear missile). I
> understand that some of the russian ones continued operation for quite some
> time.
>
> > There are possible alternatives to long range
> > communications other than radio.
>
> Name one that is better.
>
> > The big complaint is the data that the
> > end user of SETI receives. I can't even determine if this data is
> > related to the search of ET. This data could very well be a derivative
> > of CARNIVORE or some other project.
>
> You can get the SETI's source and/or algortims, can't you?
>
> > After all, this is an unmoderated ng.
>
> Nevertheless, it is supposed to stay on subect.
So? Name anybody that has ever stayed on subject in this ng.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:09:14 -0700
Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
> > Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >>
> >> In article
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> GreyCloud wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >True... but the argument is bascially that SETI project is a hoax. When
> >> >you download software to your personal computer and believe it is in a
> >> >just cause to search for ET, one can only look at the absurdities of
> >> >this research. There are possible alternatives to long range
> >> >communications other than radio. The big complaint is the data that the
> >> >end user of SETI receives. I can't even determine if this data is
> >> >related to the search of ET. This data could very well be a derivative
> >> >of CARNIVORE or some other project.
> >> >
> >> >After all, this is an unmoderated ng.
> >> >
> >> >--
> >>
> >> I had always believed that gravity would bend and distort such signals
> >> into
> >> background noise over such vast distances. I suspected it would be
> >> impossible to hear anything anyway.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Charlie
> >> -------
> >
> > Precisely my point. Congress killed the funding to SETI quite a while
> > ago. It looks like now that SETI has resorted to a gimmick to get
> > handouts.
> >
> > Yes gravity does bend radio waves and to some extent light waves. Not
> > much signal left due to all the noise the stars are pumping out.
> >
>
> How much gravitational distortion is needed to garble beyond recognition
> the transmission of say, primary numbers?
>
Simple, the inverse square law.
Unless you hope to be intercepting ET on the moon that is.
> --
> 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...
> ===============================================================
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:11:49 GMT
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > >> >Note that current HP 9000's are Itanium *READY*, and have chipsets
>> > > > >> >compatible with Itanium, but are not shipping Itaniums.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Okay, same instruction set and same pin set also.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> But it's not the same chip then.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Well, okay....
>> > > > >
>> > > > >I'm not sure if they have the same pinouts or not. Their chipsets
>> might
>> > > > >reroute the pins depending on which processor is installed. But,
>> even if
>> > > it
>> > > > >is the same pinout, it doesn't mean much. It's the internal
>> architecture
>> > > of
>> > > > >the CPU that is the difference between EPIC and RISC, not its pinout.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Instruction sets are meaningless unless there's specific hardware
>> > > > inside the chip to tie the operations to specific hardware
>> > > > functions. We are not trying to say that one or the other
>> > > > is an emulation....
>> > >
>> > > Certainly Itanium *IS* emulating PA-RISC as well as x86.
>> > >
>> > > http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/advantage/aries.html
>> > >
>> > > "With our Aries emulator that will be bundled with all ItaniumT
>> processor
>> > > family systems, you can execute PA-RISC applications"
>> > >
>> > > > Further, since they have the same chip pins and the 9000's
>> > > > are therefore compatible with this new chip already, it's
>> > > > safe to say the only thing this manuever is doing is transfering
>> > > > the burden and cost from one Intel subsidy to the main body.
>> > > >
>> > > > There may be some slight improvement in newer chips, but
>> > > > the architecture is the same...
>> > >
>> > > You don't appear to understand what a processor architecture is. It's
>> > > architecture includes such things as pipelining, branch prediction and
>> > > speculation, loop unrolling, etc... these are all wildly different from
>> the
>> > > PA-RISC chip, and despite what you want to believe, they're not
>> > > pin-compatible, since these processors are installed in "packages" and
>> not
>> > > plugged directly into the motherboard.
>> > >
>> >
>> > But these are for the processing efficiencies... not the actual
>> > instruction set.
>> > Hp did say on their web site that the PA series can execute the IA-64
>> > instruction set.
>> > What Hp didn't say was if an emulator was needed or not. But emulating
>> > another processor would only be slow, so I don't think that this is what
>> > Hp is doing.
>>
>> Perhaps you misread something. Everything I have read, including the link
>> above state that the Itanium will execute PA-RISC in emulation, not the
>> other way around.
>
>Yes, I got it backwards. The Aries emulator runs on the Itanium to run
>PA-RISC programs.
>
Attention people of planet earth. HP-9000 will be running in
EMULATION on the Itanium.
I hope that got across okay.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:14:01 -0700
Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
> > Mig wrote:
> >>
> >> GreyCloud wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think the SETI program is a farce! No offense to you, but I often
> >> > wonder what good does it do them? Radio waves travel a little slower
> >> > than the speed of light. And if the radio waves are coming from many
> >> > million light years away I'd say it was very old news we would be
> >> > receiving. But I doubt they will get anything from it as they
> >> > advertise
> >> > they are looking for. All I know is that the end user gets a block of
> >> > data to crunch... do we really know what this data is? Could it be
> >> > entirely something else?
> >>
> >> Wow... thats new to me. Here en Europe all electromagnetic waves travel
> >> at the same speed in the same medium..Didnt knew there was a difference
> >> on the other side of the Atlantic
> >> Who cares if the news are mio. of years old. The purpose is to detect
> >> life elsewhere.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >
> > But that life may not be there anymore. So far nothing has been
> > detected.
> > Even Congress killed the funding to SETI... figured it was a waste of
> > money.
> >
>
> Let me start by stating that I am personally very sceptic about the
> existence of intelligent life outside our own planet. The evolutionary and
> anthropological road which leads to us is simply too full of weird
> coincidences and one-time conditions. Also, consider the fact that in the
> 600 million years that multi-cellular life has existed, only one proven
> case (well, sort of <G>) of intelligence has evolved.
>
> But being sceptic about intelligence does not mean that I do not think
> extraterrestrial life is impossible. Life appears to have started almost
> immediately after our planet was formed. This might indicate that this
> process must have occured many times over in the universe. At this moment
> however, we only have one way to investigate if life has evolved elsewhere,
> and that is by searching for intelligent life that can communicate with us.
> The search of SETI is not so much the search for intelligence as the search
> for life itself.
>
> In another 20 to 50 years, new space-based telescopes will probably be good
> enough to detect not only the simple presence of planets around nearby
> suns, but to actually be able to make spectrographic analyses of their
> atmospheres and detect the presence of chlorophyl-like molecules (or even
> some other, as yet unknown stuff). By then, SETI will have to redefine its
> goals.
>
Much better argument. How many intelligent life forms could survive
long enough to generate strong enough EM waves to be detected here?
Don't know. But then SETI presumes that ET uses EM waves. Could it not
be possible to use another form of communications other than EM waves?
Don't know, but I don't think it is impossible either.
I believe that there are intelligent life forms out on other planets,
but it is US that cannot find out if they exist. Especially if these
life forms are in a "dark ages" like we used to be in.
> --
> 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...
> ===============================================================
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:18:39 GMT
>
>Much better argument. How many intelligent life forms could survive
>long enough to generate strong enough EM waves to be detected here?
>Don't know. But then SETI presumes that ET uses EM waves. Could it not
>be possible to use another form of communications other than EM waves?
>Don't know, but I don't think it is impossible either.
>I believe that there are intelligent life forms out on other planets,
>but it is US that cannot find out if they exist. Especially if these
>life forms are in a "dark ages" like we used to be in.
>
>--
>V
It would probably be that due to viral infection, their
monopoly would have adopted thier own form of .net with
encrypted file system and the like. And we will never
hear from them at all as their .net is on another wavelength
and so commerce is not possible between their many re-boots,
re-loads, and general failures and we here on the good earth.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:20:56 -0700
Michael Marion wrote:
>
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> > In your case, yes. In my case, no. In the majority of cases, people are
> > voting with their money and buying Windows.
>
> Actually, in the majority of cases, poeple just don't know there's anything
> else out there. Most newbies would be better served by getting a Mac.
>
> > Can I do the same things on Windows that I can on Linux? Can I surf? Yes.
> > Can I read EMail? Yes (and no I don't touch Outlook Express etc.!). Can I
> > program? Yes (and I paid for the packages - they're a helluvalot better
> > than what I've seen on Linux).
>
> I can do most of the same things on windows.. not all of them, and it's
> definately no where near as reliable.
>
> The programming packages on windows are bloated pieces of crap from what I've
> seen.. and they cost a ton. All the programming I need to do is simple, and
> the programs needed to accomplish it are there when you install.
>
> > How much does one of these Sun boxes cost? �500? Screen as well?
>
> Don't know for sure.. especially since I don't know the conversion rate right
> now. You can look on store.sun.com for prices though. I doubt the monitor is
> included.
>
$950 for a SunBlade 100. I'm seriously thinking of getting one and I
already have a 19" monitor.
> --
> Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Senior Engineer-Qualcomm-http://www.miguelito.org
> More favorite error messages:
> "Press almost any key to continue"
> "System Error: the operation completed successfully"
--
V
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:16:21 +0200
GreyCloud wrote in message ...
>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.
>
You've been reading Scientific American again, haven't you? Stick to
something you understand, like the Beano.
Radio waves are a type of light waves. Visible light waves are a type of
light waves. If you are talking scientifically, "light" is just another
name for "Electromagnetic radiation" - saying "EM waves act like light
waves" is meaningless, since EM waves *ARE* light waves.
Different frequencies of light (such as radio waves and visible light) have
different properties, even though they share many common characteristics
(such as their speed). Why bring government conspiricies into something
people have known for centuaries?
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:20:00 +0200
GreyCloud wrote in message ...
>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.
>
How can anyone be so blind and so stupid as to repeat the same drivel
endlessly in the face of the facts? Go and look up your terms in a science
dictionary (or half-decent encyclopedia - i.e., not some Encarta junk).
Once you know what "EM waves", "light", "radio", and "visible light"
actually mean, re-read your posts and cringe.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
