🚀 go-pugleaf

[This is a test to see whether I can successfully followup articles and
get them distributed from this new usenet installation.  Please ignore
any thought-provoking ideas which may follow... ;-]

> I used to think that.  A seminary student I once knew suggested to
> me that maybe people really led better lives in the middle ages.
> I thought he was crazy.  

Some of them did.  Kings, princes, bishops, ....  The rest didn't.  There
are also a lot of people in the world today who aren't any better off than
their ancestors were 1000 years ago.  The benefits of modernity have mostly
applied to people in a few parts of the world.  That doesn't mean that those
benefits don't exist.

> I will explain.  The point I am making is that the widely published
> and popularized discussions of what happened during the first instants
> of the universe (if you can believe that there ever was such a thing)
> are not science in the sense generating hypotheses that can be tested
> by experiment but are very much science in the sense of religion.

Nonsense.  An important part of any science is taking the current theories
and using them to make predictions (or postdictions, in this case) to the
point of absurdity.  This is commonly known at "testing to destruction",
and it can be very effective.  Unlike religions, science doesn't insist
that its practitioners always be right.  Just testable.  Granted, it's
hard to see how we might test theories about the first millisecond, but
then, a couple of years back it was hard to see how we might test theories
about the shape of the earth's core or the events inside a supernova.  Now
we know some ways of testing such things...

> And my argument to support both assertions is that discussions
> about this primordial instant can only be so much nonsense.  Why?
> because we don't even know about the world around us (witness
> high Tc superconductivity--there is even talk now of a fifth force!!!!!)
> So how on earth :-) can someone pontificate about a time billions
> of years distant, at densities of matter never otherwise attained,
> and when the whole fabric of the universe was small enough to dance on the
> head of an extra-universal pin.  

In some cases (such as Einstein's famous Gedankenexperimenten), the absurd 
results turn out to be valid.  If you think this isn't science, well, then, 
you just don't understand science.  It also borders on being mathematics; 
it is in fact the application of mathematical methods to scientific theories.  
Historically, it has been quite productive in many scientific fields.  The
only real danger in such wild theorizing is that people may take it far too
seriously, in which case it tends to become religion and not science.

> Any physicist who seriously proposes that the laws
> of physics as observed from earth are just as valid then and there
> as they are here should be shot.  Such discussion is, as science, absurd,
> but as religion, right at home.

Nah, he/she should just be subject to others discovering ways to test his/her
wild calculations.  That's the only way such ideas can ever make it into the
realm of real science, anyway.  But it's often rather embarassing for all
parties involved.  On the other hand, if we were to shoot all scientists who
do wild, absurd conjecturing, we'd have knocked off many of our best scientists
in their early days.  For instance, back in the 40's, it was patently obvious
to most scientists that the genetic code had to be carried in proteins.  Some
renegades suggested that it was in DNA, but that was absurd; DNA is far too 
simple a chemical to hold so much information.  

> > 	The God of Science differs from all others in favoring the
> > intelligent, well-informed, and skeptical. For them she performs 
> > miracles. All other gods seem to avoid these people for their 
> > demonstrations.
> 
> A sentiment
> which everyone must recognize is not science but religion.  In fact,
> this is the very creed I imagine being intoned on NOVA every time
> I watch it.  :-)

Nah, just history.  Anyhow, don't tell me what I must recognize! (:-)  
Let's face it, faith healers are universally charlatans, out to get your 
bucks.  If you believe otherwise, well, you are free to give them your 
money, sucker.  Don't expect me to.

> I would put at a higher priority: superconductivity,
> peace in the middle east, truth, justice, better networks, parallel
> computing, ....

Oh, right!  If we wait for these things to happen, we'll see the sun
cooling down first.  Well, maybe superconductivity and parallel computing; 
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the others.  Better to waste money 
on research that just might pay off, than invest it on chasing such wild 
geese.

> 		... I'd like one of these guys that knows so
> much about what happened during the first second of the universe
> to tell me what its like at Neptune's core, or for
> that matter two inches below the surface of Venus.

Some of them are sufficiently arrogant to have made the calculations.  And
some of them just might be correct.  Ya wanna hear about the super-conducting 
earth-size diamond that may be the core of Jupiter?   How about the reasons
why Jupiter (and possibly Saturn) may be the home of most of the life in the
solar system?  Now if we could only get funding to go out and test these and 
other absurdities...

It wasn't so very long ago that even most scientists thought it absurd that
rocks could fall from the sky.  Now it's accepted that major extinctions have
been caused by rocks falling from the sky.  One could be headed our way right 
now.  I'd like to know just how absurd this is, before it hits me.

Looking for some common ground in this discussion....

In article <73600013@uiucdcsp> pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>And lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writing about science and modern medicine said :
>> ... But they beat the hell out of the way it used to be. ...
>
>I used to think that....  But now, older and wiser,...I have grave doubts.

O.K.  Presumably life in the Middle Ages was better in some respects
than life in modern developed nations, and worse in other respects.
I suspect that the ways in which it was better are few.  What do you
have in mind?

>...
>The point I am making is that the widely published
>and popularized discussions of what happened during the first instants
>of the universe (if you can believe that there ever was such a thing)
>are not science in the sense generating hypotheses that can be tested
>by experiment but are very much science in the sense of religion.
>And my argument to support both assertions is that discussions
>about this primordial instant can only be so much nonsense.  Why?
>because we don't even know about the world around us...

I think you are overstating your case here.  Extrapolation is a
commonplace in science, and often it works very well.  (And when it
doesn't, there is usually some interesting science to be done.)  If
you are saying that scientific theories are nonsense when they
concern things we cannot directly experiment with, then you must
reject most of astronomy and physics (and perhaps mathematics?)  as
well as cosmology.  After all, we can't directly test theories of
gravity or electromagnetism with objects much bigger than a
laboratory; we have to observe things we can't influence.  Yet our
theories of gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena work as well
in the large as they do in the small, as far as we can observe.

The newly discovered effects such as high-temperature
superconductivity and the disputed "fifth force" are very minor in
terms of their effects on the universe as a whole.  That's not to
say that we might not someday discover a phenomenon that
invalidates our theories about, say, the early universe.  If so,
then (one hopes) there will eventually be a paradigm shift, and
(one hopes) our theories will approximate reality more closely
than before.  That's part of science; it's no reason to STOP doing
science!

By the way, it's possible to simulate the conditions of the early
universe at least locally -- in collisions of high-energy particles.

>From fmm@princeton.edu :
>> Velikovsky's "speculations" conflict with some of our most
>> basic scientific knowledge in a variety of disciplines.  
>
>Of course.  The controversy with Velikovsky was over pre-publication
>censorship and his "unscientific" but reasonable methodology which
>was based on finding similarities in the mythologies of widely dispersed
>cultures.  His claims are no worse than those about the great
>primordial instant--both are bunk, but Velikovsky was a lot more 
>original about it.

There's a basic difference, and it's not originality.  Velikovsky's
speculations conflict with things we *know* about as well as anything
one might claim to know.  (That's not a valid reason for censoring
his views, of course.)  Modern cosmological theories are reasonable
extrapolations from things we know; while they are definitely
uncertain, they suffer from no such conflict.

>fmm@princeton also explained how the supercollider can not benifit
>from the recent discoveries in high Tc superconductivity,
>and while I am skeptical I must admit he may be right.
>Nevertheles he was silent on the issue
>of why we have to do this research now and can't wait
>til a time when we can better afford it....

That's a good question, I agree.  Personally I would love to see the
SSC built, because I am interested in the things it might reveal.
And as far as my own tax dollars go, I have no complaint about the
cost.  However, there are plenty of other good projects to be
funded, and given a more-or-less fixed budget, I think the money
would be better spent elsewhere.

>fmm@princeton also says:
>> ....In any case, mortality is not the sole measure of health!  You
>> might also consider what modern medicine has done to alleviate
>> physical suffering.
>
>This is truly dubious!  I don't mean to be insulting, but 
>you must have your eyes closed to be so remarkably naive.
>Don't you know there is a debate raging right now in the medical community
>over mercy killing?  Doctors are getting to the point where they
>can't take it any more and are rebelling against the pain they cause
>to the terminally ill.  This is a new phenomenon, people were never
>tortured like this before.

I presume you mean "tortured in this way before".

>Another debate is raging over the so called cancer cures.  People
>go through hell to be 'cured' from cancer, but the survival rates
>mostly have not gone up.  Many people who have been 'cured' of
>cancer say that if they get it again they will die instead.
>And of course you can't get morphine over the counter anymore.
>Physical suffering florishes today.

These are good points, and I don't dispute the last one.  However,
they don't invalidate what I said.  Let me clarify:  modern medicine
has made available many procedures and treatments that can alleviate
suffering.  (By "modern", I include things like anaesthesia, aspirin,
and the germ theory of disease, not just the latest techniques of
surgery, chemotherapy, radiation treatment, etc.)  If one doesn't
want the benefits and costs of modern medical treatments, one doesn't
have to consent to treatment.

>Finally fmm@princeton said I was welcome to go live the life of a
>savage.  More naivity, if fmm@princeton would think about it instead
>of comming back with a knee-jerk jingoism he would realize himself
>that no one has such an option.  Indeed there are no savages left, at
>all.  Primitive societies have been destroyed; the subjugated remains
>are at feeble caracatures.

Let's not start a flame-contest here.  What I said was, "return to
a prescientific way of life."  Granted, you can't forget all your
scientific knowledge, nor can you find a culture that has not been
altered by contact with industrialized societies.  But you can
certainly decline most of the fruits of science and technology, if
you think it would help you lead a fuller life.

--
Miller Maley  609-987-2808 | ...!princeton!fmm | 3x10^5 km/sec. It's not just
Princeton Computer Science | fmm@princeton.edu | a good idea. It's the law.

In article <121@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes:

>Show me a middle-ages king with central heating/air conditioning!

The Romans knew how to build houses with central heating.  A kind
of air-conditioning was brought about with clever architecture.
They also know how to construct indoor plumbing.  All of these
techniques were learned from earlier civilizations.

In article <73600013@uiucdcsp> pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>I used to think that.  A seminary student I once knew suggested to
>me that maybe people really led better lives in the middle ages.
>I thought he was crazy.  How could I even talk to someone so dense
>as that.  But now, older and wiser, having seen something of our
>modern world--not just the fairy land campuses, not just the hedonistic
>narcissistic yuppiedoms, I have grave doubts.
>
>Those words--narcissist, hedonist--come from antiquity.  Those were
>scienceless times but deeper and more intellectual as our language still shows.

A short checklist:

- intestinal parasites.
- lice.
- no changes of clothing.
- no underwear.
- no hot water for baths.
- no soap until post-Roman times. (Technology in the service of mankind! )
- no running water, or else downcreek from someone else's running water.
- outhouses.
- no dentists - and tooth decay was NOT invented recently.
- backbreaking labor - literally. Dawn to dusk till you die of it.
- dietary deficiencies.
- vitamin D deficiency in winter. You too can be Snow White or a dwarf.
- creosote poisoning of the lungs. See further, teepee and longhouse. You
	too can live in a chimneyless room with an open fire.

Oddly enough, people living on tropical islands escaped almost all of this
(except the intestinal parasites). I guess swimming in warm salt water kills
lice.  Seafood and tropical sun fix all the deficiencies. Few fires. No need
of clothes. If the birth rate was controlled (by infanticide), life was OK.
Well, not very intellectual, actually, and heavily marred by war,
restrictive religions ("taboo"), and fun customs like ritual
self-mutilation.  Sigh.
-- 
	Don		lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu    CMU Computer Science

In article <121@aplcomm.UUCP>, jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt) writes:
> 
> Show me a middle-ages king with central heating/air conditioning!
> Show me a middle-ages bishop with a morning cup of coffee!
> Show me a middle-ages prince with usenet!
> 
> The purpose of civilization is to keep me comfortable and entertained. ;~)

	So here we have it, the definition of civilization is central
air conditioning, hot coffee, and Usenet,  and here I thought that those
constituted the end of civilization as we know it! :-)
-- 
	        Craig Werner   (future MD/PhD, 3.5 years down, 3.5 to go)
	     werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine
              (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
                      "If I don't see you soon, I'll see you later."

In-reply-to: pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu


>> I don't understand.  What possible connection could high Tc
>> superconductivity have with cosmology? ...

This is too funny!  There IS a connection--a rather direct one!--between
superconductivity and cosmology: both use the same methods to model phase
transitions.  Indeed, the first symmetry breaking mechanisms proposed for
gauge theory were lifted straight from well-known formulas for changing
energy density in superconductor theory as one crosses Tc.  Following the
analogy, gauge bosons acquire mass via the Meissner effect: just as super-
conductors repel magnetic fields, so too does the Higgs field act to limit
the range of the vector bosons.  And--so says modern cosmology--the universe
was born via just such a phase transition: the temperature dropped below Tc,
symmetry was broken, a new lower energy minimum was reached, and all of
matter and energy was created in compensation of that lowering of the en-
ergy minimum.

At the moment, the formula in superconductor theory can be derived for low
Tc from the solid-state physics of Cooper pairing.  In contrast, this cannot
yet be done for either high Tc or the Higgs field.  I'll speculate further
on this state of affairs below.

>I will explain.  The point I am making is that the widely published
>and popularized discussions of what happened during the first instants
>of the universe (if you can believe that there ever was such a thing)
>are not science in the sense generating hypotheses that can be tested
>by experiment

The microwave background and the primordial helium density are both sub-
ject to experimental test.  Both are difficult measurements, and individu-
ally can be accounted for in many ways.  Accounting for both at once is
the tricky part.  But cosmologists are not resting on their laurels, but
always eager to test whatever new predictions they can make.

For example, cosmological arguments predict that there are at most 4 lepton
families.  This will be put to test at SLAC, as soon as they get their W/Z
factory going.

More interesting to me is a paper I came across a year or two ago whose
contents were, roughly, that with a two order of magnitude increase in
clocking accuracy and the discovery of a few more millisecond pulsars, that
it would be possible to detect the effects of the calculated background
gravitational radiation predicted by most inflation cum supergravity theor-
ies.  This refers, of course, to events during the first 10^-43 seconds of
the Universe.

>	       but are very much science in the sense of religion.
>And my argument to support both assertions is that discussions
>about this primordial instant can only be so much nonsense.

You can argue such, but the scientists who eventually followup on the paper
I mentioned above are probably not the morons you would have us believe they
are.  I wish them all the luck in the world.

[Anybody else out there think Taylor and Bacher deserve Nobel prizes?]

>							      Why?
>because we don't even know about the world around us (witness
>high Tc superconductivity--there is even talk now of a fifth force!!!!!)
>So how on earth :-) can someone pontificate about a time billions
>of years distant, at densities of matter never otherwise attained,
>and when the whole fabric of the universe was small enough to dance on the
>head of an extra-universal pin.

How???  Quite simply, the laws of physics were presumably much simpler
under those circumstances!  One force and one kind of particle.  If the
world back then was as complicated as the world is today, then yes, it
would all be a silly project.  As it is, this very simplicity allows for
predictions.

>Any physicist who seriously proposes that the laws
>of physics as observed from earth are just as valid then and there
>as they are here should be shot.

Only if he thinks his act of assertion makes it true.  Any physicist who
makes such a proposal and follows it up with predictions about what astron-
omers will see is only doing his job.

>				   Such discussion is, as science, absurd,
>but as religion, right at home.

You seem to be describing the parts of your argument that I'm replying to,
mostly--(I agree that there's a lot of bad eggs out there): various asser-
tions about "science" that reflect on your beliefs about science, and not
its actual practice.  Your earlier characterization of OMNI as being a truer
reflection of science than SciAm is only begging the question.  I consider
OMNI just another porn rag.  (What a coincidence!  Guess who publishes OMNI?)

Which reminds me, a very recent Weekly World News had the amazing scientific
result that old Stone Age man looked like Elvis Presley, with an artist's
conception of the full reconstruction.  Why should I believe the editors of
WWN's assertions that *this* is science?

>fmm@princeton also explained how the supercollider can not benifit
>from the recent discoveries in high Tc superconductivity,
>and while I am skeptical I must admit he may be right.

So what if you are skeptical?  Go read PHYSICS TODAY where the issue has
been beaten to death for the past year in the letters column.  If you know
better, they'd love to hear from you.

>Nevertheles he was silent on the issue
>of why we have to do this research now

Then I'll make some suggestions.

(1) De Rujula, Weinstein, and others have proposed to use Tev-Pev neutrinos
    for doing whole earth tomography.  One Earth diameter of rock and iron
    should be just the right distance.  Earthquake prediction and the like
    would surely benefit.  This requires SSC-level energies.  Their actual
    proposals get further out: for maximum tomography benefit, they want to
    try floating the SSC out at sea!  I posted a short description with
    references about a year ago.

(2) I posted a summary last year of the economic high-tech spin-offs that
    CERN has been directly responsible for by always being on the cutting
    edge of engineering/computing/electronics techniques.  Not a justifica-
    tion in itself, but it doesn't hurt to know that it isn't money down
    the tubes.

(3) Perhaps high-energy physics will be able to repay its debt to supercon-
    ductor theory by showing how to re-interpret an explanation for the Higgs
    field (derived after extensive experiments on the SSC paved the way, us-
    ing limits imposed by cosmology to help) as a model for a really clever
    super high Tc superconductor.  Perhaps not.

(4) Questions in inflationary cosmology--uh oh, there's that subject matter
    again--have suggested the question of whether our vacuum is stable or
    only metastable.  This seems to be dependent on the top quark's mass,
    with stability if the top mass is < 100 Gev.  Currently it looks like
    its mass is > 50 Gev; this comes from an analysis of higher than ex-
    pected beauty mixing.  If it turns out the universe is only metastable,
    I'm sure the sooner we figure out what to do about it, the better off
    we will all be.

These are none of the reasons I favor SSC, by the way.  I favor it because
I'd like to see some real interesting physics.

>				        and can't wait
>til a time when we can better afford it.

We *can* afford to do it now.  Just stop spending 10x its cost on SDI and
poof, we've got an SSC and lots more.  Whether we should do so is another
question: one of politics, not science.

As to whether to postpone it or not: if it's postponed, the technical skill
needed to make SSC will probably evaporate.  NASA has had this problem.

>Personally, if we are talking about big projects, I would rather
>see an effort to decode the human genetic code, and after that
>other species too or maybe even first.  There are many things that
>I would put at a higher priority: superconductivity,
>peace in the middle east, truth, justice, better networks, parallel
>computing, ....
>Maybe planetary missions,

Hey, this all sounds good to me!  And throw in the efforts to first map the
human genome and launch the AXAF (Advanced X-ray Astronomical Facility) while
you're at it.  And an observatory on the moon.  And maybe a Lyndon LaRouche
first colony on Pluto project.

ucbvax!garnet!weemba	  Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"We should consider it as one of the most astonishing errors of the present
age that so many people listen to the words of pseudoprophets who, in place
of the dogmas of religion offer scientific dogmas with medieval impatience
but without historical justification."	     --Baron Lorand von Eotvos

In article <740@actnyc.UUCP>, gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> In article <121@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes:
> 
> >Show me a middle-ages king with central heating/air conditioning!
> 
> The Romans knew how to build houses with central heating.  A kind
> of air-conditioning was brought about with clever architecture.
> They also know how to construct indoor plumbing.  All of these
> techniques were learned from earlier civilizations.


	Not to belabour the obvious, but the Romans lived about a
thousand years before the Middle ages and their western Empire pretty
much collapsed five hundred years before.

	Judging from Roman Britain, the main use the people of 
the early Middle Ages made of Roman buildings containing hypocausts 
was to use them as handy quarries.    For example, the tower of the 
cathedral in St Albans is constructed from Roman brick salvaged 
from the Roman villas at Verulamium, some few miles to the north. 
It seems to be the case that the people of the early Middle Ages in 
Britain were unable to profit from Roman architectural techniques
even when they had examples to study.   Even at the end of the
middle ages, central heating was pretty much unknown.

	This is less true, apparently, in continental Europe, where
some buildings of the Carolingian Empire are conscious imitations
of late Roman constructions, for example, Charles the Great's chapel
at Aix versus Ravenna.  However, this may be due to cultural exchange
with the Eastern Empire.

	I'd like to see a reference to the evidence that the Romans 
learned about hypocaust construction from earlier civilizations.
Are we thinking about the other towns of Latium here?

Jon.

> In article <121@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes:
> 
> >Show me a middle-ages king with central heating/air conditioning!
> 
> The Romans knew how to build houses with central heating.  A kind
> of air-conditioning was brought about with clever architecture.
> They also know how to construct indoor plumbing.  All of these
> techniques were learned from earlier civilizations.

Termites have known climate control for millions of years.

But did medieval kings know the wonders of plastics? 

Good thing we don't live in the middle ages or we might be subject to
plagues.  (This is intended to be ironic, so restrain your didactic
impulses.) 

> In article <73600013@uiucdcsp> pax@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> >I used to think that.  A seminary student I once knew suggested to
> >me that maybe people really led better lives in the middle ages.
> >I thought he was crazy.  How could I even talk to someone so dense
> >as that.  But now, older and wiser, having seen something of our
> >modern world--not just the fairy land campuses, not just the hedonistic
> >narcissistic yuppiedoms, I have grave doubts.
> >
> >Those words--narcissist, hedonist--come from antiquity.  Those were
> >scienceless times but deeper and more intellectual as our language still shows.
> 
> A short checklist:
> 
> - intestinal parasites.
> - lice.
> - no changes of clothing.
> - no underwear.
> - no hot water for baths.
> - no soap until post-Roman times. (Technology in the service of mankind! )
> - no running water, or else downcreek from someone else's running water.
> - outhouses.
> - no dentists - and tooth decay was NOT invented recently.
> - backbreaking labor - literally. Dawn to dusk till you die of it.
> - dietary deficiencies.
> - vitamin D deficiency in winter. You too can be Snow White or a dwarf.
> - creosote poisoning of the lungs. See further, teepee and longhouse. You
> 	too can live in a chimneyless room with an open fire.
> 
> Oddly enough, people living on tropical islands escaped almost all of this
> (except the intestinal parasites). I guess swimming in warm salt water kills
> lice.  Seafood and tropical sun fix all the deficiencies. Few fires. No need
> of clothes. If the birth rate was controlled (by infanticide), life was OK.
> Well, not very intellectual, actually, and heavily marred by war,
> restrictive religions ("taboo"), and fun customs like ritual
> self-mutilation.  Sigh.
> -- 

Some of the luxuries of island life:

 - tidal waves
 - volcanoes
 - lice (despite what you say)
 - typhoons
 - malaria
 - malnutrition
 - raids by neighboring tribes (cannibals, slavers)


Some of the luxuries of our medieval ancestors:

 - rootedness
 - certainty (as outlined in the Bible)
 - identity with nature

These should not be minimized, especially since most Americans have no 
inkling of the security these engender.













.

In article <7831@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
>(1) De Rujula, Weinstein, and others have proposed to use Tev-Pev neutrinos
>    for doing whole earth tomography.  One Earth diameter of rock and iron
>    should be just the right distance.  Earthquake prediction and the like
>    would surely benefit.  This requires SSC-level energies.  Their actual
>    proposals get further out: for maximum tomography benefit, they want to
>    try floating the SSC out at sea!  I posted a short description with
>    references about a year ago.
>
Now this is fascinating, and deserves to be split out into a separate
subject.  It seems to me that what you really need to do for this is to
put your SSC in orbit.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt      Unisys, Silicon Valley       vanpelt%unisv@ubvax
Bring back UNIVAC!                           ...uunet!ubvax!unisv!vanpelt

In article <740@actnyc.UUCP> gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>In article <121@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes:
>
>>Show me a middle-ages king with central heating/air conditioning!
>
>The Romans knew how to build houses with central heating.  A kind
>of air-conditioning was brought about with clever architecture.
>They also know how to construct indoor plumbing.  All of these
>techniques were learned from earlier civilizations.


Yeah, I lived in Italy for 3 years, and paid a few visits to these
"houses with central....."
There is a difference between "know how" and "did".  For current
examples, see our space program.

(opinion:  They STILL don't have it figured out in a lot of places!!!)








Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5

In article <240@unisv.UUCP>, vanpelt@unisv (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <7831@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
>>(1) De Rujula, Weinstein, and others have proposed to use Tev-Pev neutrinos
>>    for doing whole earth tomography.

I'm so embarrassed: that's Weinberg.

>Now this is fascinating, and deserves to be split out into a separate
>subject.

I posted such an article on this last year--someone else can look it up and
summarize.  It was in Physics Reports 1984 or so.

>	   It seems to me that what you really need to do for this is to
>put your SSC in orbit.

You got it!  And remarkably enough, one of the SSC site proposals submitted
was for outer space.  Too bad it didn't make it onto the short list.

ucbvax!garnet!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

> In article <7831@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
> >(1) De Rujula, Weinstein, and others have proposed to use Tev-Pev neutrinos
> >    for doing whole earth tomography.  One Earth diameter of rock and iron
> >    should be just the right distance.  Earthquake prediction and the like
> >    would surely benefit.  This requires SSC-level energies.  Their actual
> >    proposals get further out: for maximum tomography benefit, they want to
> >    try floating the SSC out at sea!  I posted a short description with
> >    references about a year ago.
> >
> Now this is fascinating, and deserves to be split out into a separate
> subject.  It seems to me that what you really need to do for this is to
> put your SSC in orbit.
> -- 

What would you use to detect neutrinos?  

Also, what kind of image would you obtain if there were no interaction 
between the earth and the stream of neutrinos?

If a miniature detector could be built, transterran communication
would be possible.

> In article <121@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes:
> 
> >Show me a middle-ages king with central heating/air conditioning!

> The Romans knew how to build houses with central heating.  A kind
> of air-conditioning was brought about with clever architecture.
> They also know how to construct indoor plumbing.  All of these
> techniques were learned from earlier civilizations.


the word plumber comes from the old latin word for lead

In article <240@unisv.UUCP> vanpelt%unisv@ubvax.ub.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <7831@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
>>(1) De Rujula, Weinstein, and others have proposed to use Tev-Pev neutrinos
>>    for doing whole earth tomography.  One Earth diameter of rock and iron
>>    should be just the right distance.  Earthquake prediction and the like
>>    would surely benefit.  This requires SSC-level energies.  Their actual
>>    proposals get further out: for maximum tomography benefit, they want to
>>    try floating the SSC out at sea!  I posted a short description with
>>    references about a year ago.
>>
>Now this is fascinating, and deserves to be split out into a separate
>subject.  It seems to me that what you really need to do for this is to
>put your SSC in orbit.

There you go!  Build two of whatever you use to launch it, and the
spare can launch the next twenty or thirty years of the space program
in one fell swoop.  Talk about your big, dumb boosters!

[Notice the "Followups-to:" line!]

Kent, the (Birthright Party's Choice for Chief Somnambulist) man from xanth.
"The Birthright of Humankind is the Stars!"

+-------------------------------------------------------+
|\~                                                     |
| |~  .  o  o  .    :;:    ()    -O-    0     . O       |
| |~        ^                                           |
|/~         |                                           |
|      You are Here                                     |
|                                                       |
|Wouldn't you rather be out there -->                   |
|                                                       |
|Support the Birthright Party Today!                    |
|                                                       |
|(Note: Above diagram NOT to scale.)                    |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

[This lovely banner, available at a terminal near you for a donation
 of a mere 3 5/7 Quatloos, brought to you through the keyboard talents
 of Michael P. Seidel, Press Secretary Nominee to the Administration
 of the Chief Somnambulist Candidate.]

Join the KENT FOR PRESIDENT movement in talk.bizarre!

In article <53@avsd.UUCP>, govett@avsd (David Govett) writes:
>> >(1) De Rujula, Weinstein, and others have proposed

Whoops, it's not Weinstein, it's not Weinberg, it's Glashow.

>What would you use to detect neutrinos?

Would you believe they plan to hear them?

>Also, what kind of image would you obtain if there were no interaction
>between the earth and the stream of neutrinos?

A totally blank picture.  Obviously, this is not part of their proposal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, enough people have e-mailed to me that I'm writing this article on
the subject.  The reference is A De Rujula, S L Glashow, R R Wilson, G
Charpak, "Neutrino Exploration of the Earth", PHYSICS REPORTS, v99, #6
(1983), pp 341-396.  While normally that journal is too arcane for all
but the professionals, this article is a delightful exception.  Anyone
who knows elementary physics can read the whole thing, while those who
get by on SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN or even ANALOG could read about 1/3 of
the article, which consists of general descriptions of their idea.  (Un-
like the popular literature, they do not take the time to explain basic
notions.  But if you're interested in the stuff already, you probably
won't need them.  Indeed, this is why I don't like the popular science
literature much anymore--seeing "neutrino" or "prime number" defined for
the zillionth time bores me.)

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the properties of neu-
trino that you've been told about before--their ability to penetrate
millions of light years of matter without interacting--needs qualifi-
cation.  The cross section (== interaction probability) of neutrinos
increases with energy.  Thus, by the time they reach Tev-Pev energies,
the earth is only semi-transparent, and significant rates of neutrino
interaction will occur.

They propose three applications: Projects GENIUS, GEMINI, GEOSCAN.

Project GENIUS (Geological Exploration by Neutrino-Induced Underground
Sound) is meant to aid searches for deposits of oil and gas.  They plan
to detect neutrinos by *listening* for them.  They estimate that the neu-
trino impact will create a small noise about .1% of the background.  The
rough idea is that careful analysis of this signal as they vary the beam
energy will reveal the speed of sound underground, plus give a rough map.

Project GEMINI (Geological Exploraton with Muons Induced by Neutrino In-
teractions) is meant to detect high-Z ore (= heavy metals), since the rate
of muon formation near the surface will be sensitive to atomic number.  The
detectors for this are special muon trucks.

Project GEOSCAN is meant to determine the vertical density profile of the
earth, especially the core, as a form of Whole Earth Tomography.

They estimate that an appropriate accelerator would cost 1-3 gigadollars.
While primarily meant as a research instrument in high-energy physics, by
planning ahead they hope to get much more out of it.  They view the whole
thing as technically feasible but financially impossible; note that this
was the pre-SSC view of the matter.

I suspect they also plan to get nice tans out it.  You see, to maximize
the ease of aiming this accelerator, they suggest floating it out at sea.
They propose somewhere isolated bay, with calm seas, a coral reef for an-
choring the device, etc.  They didn't name any islands in particular, but
it wasn't hard to guess general locations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I should point out things like the above are one of the reasons that so
much science fiction leaves me unimpressed.  REAL science is so much more
mind-blowing.

WOW!  That theory goes STRAIGHT UP into the CLOUDS!  AMAZING!!

ucbvax!garnet!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

In article <1291@uop.edu> todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) writes:
>> In article <121@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes:
>> 
>> >Show me a middle-ages king with central heating/air conditioning!
 
>> The Romans knew how to build houses with central heating.  A kind
>> of air-conditioning was brought about with clever architecture.
>> They also know how to construct indoor plumbing.  All of these
>> techniques were learned from earlier civilizations.
 
 
:the word plumber comes from the old latin word for lead


The use of a heavy-metal poison does not bode well for indications of
advanced civilization.

Sort of like the mess we got.....





Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5

> 
> The use of a heavy-metal poison does not bode well for indications of
> advanced civilization.
> 

Case in point: Led Zeppelin groupies (not that they
represent any conceivable advanced civilization).