From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Andrew John Farrow [andrew.j.farrow@btinternet.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 3:41 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Re: Depleted Uranium > Whether its radioactive or not, Uranium is still a heqavy metal poison, > not unlike mercury or lead. Definitely not to be inhaled if you can > possibly avoid it! This is something that the press usually forget ion > their anti-radiation hysteria. > > Dave > many hundreds of rounds of DU ammo have been fired i military ranges in our own countries - in confined areas . no signs of cancer clusters - range saftey offices arnt dropping like flies , are they ? although many hundreds of times more shells were used in iraq , trhe battle fields were huge - and basra city wasnt attacked by allied armour - the chief user of DU ordnance . . soi the dispersal must be mimimal - surley not enough to cause so much chaos in a civilian population the chemical and boiwar leaks from sadams own dabblings are IMO more likley a source oth this problem . some one else has posted the carinogen threat from petrochem byporodusts burn off , but , strange that kuwait hasnt caught the same . they had more oil burnt on them . didnt they ? anyway enough real world speculation , my OBDG theory is blame everything on NWI and the fallnout of their ops in the gulf war . *mothers* milk is never safe , even pasturised . w/- FAE . and i would never inhale it in any form . yours - andy , who has canceled all milk untill MIB assures me its safe :-) From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Graeme Price [graemep@immagene.mcg.edu] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 3:40 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Re: Depleted Uranium >> And of course DU is really nasty from a chemical point of view. >It's not "of course" to me. >I'm sure you are right, but are you able to some more quantitative info? Been done time and again (hint: check the ICE CAVE!!!), but basically... DU is a heavy metal. Heavy metals have lots of toxic effects on biological systems (they tend to screw up enzymes - DNA polymerases for one). DU is also nasty in that it tends to ignite when exposed to high levels of friction (i.e. when fired at supersonic speeds and undergoing rapid decelleration on impact: note that this also causes flash-fires inside enclosed spaces - like tank turrets... especially when there is plenty of ammo to cook off). This gives uranium oxide, which is a nice greyish-white dust, that can be inhaled. The body has no way of clearing uranium oxide dust from the lungs, so you will get lesions building up in the lung - think something like a cross between berylliosis (from inhaling beryllium) and mesothelioma (from inhaling asbestos) - try an encylopedia or basic medical textbook for more details, but they're not nice, in a sort of tumour-ish type way. Other problem is that uranium oxide is chemically pretty stable... so it's long-lived in the environment and will be a persistent chemical hazard for decades (especially in the dry - like deserts - where it can get blown around and inhaled easily: but if it gets into the water table, it's just as dangerous to anything that drinks it). So even if it's radiologically inert, it's chemically nasty. Of course ;-) Graeme graemep@immag.mcg.edu From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Andy Robertson [andywrobertson@clara.co.uk] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 3:54 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Re: Depleted Uranium Thanks. That clears up my misunderstanding: I knew U235 was not radiologically bad but I have long thought DU (which AFAIK is a byproduct of the Uranium refining / isotope separation industry) was poisonous not by itself but because of impurities. I should have checked the ICE CAVE but I thought this would be too specialised & technical a request. Obviously a deeply stupid mistake. Glove Cleaner ----- Original Message ----- From: Graeme Price To: Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:40 PM Subject: Re: DG: Re: Depleted Uranium > >> And of course DU is really nasty from a chemical point of view. > >It's not "of course" to me. > >I'm sure you are right, but are you able to some more quantitative info? > > Been done time and again (hint: check the ICE CAVE!!!), but basically... > From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of box_nine@ix.netcom.com Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 4:00 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: Re: DG: Dark Matter, Fractal & Chaotic Gates 3) Chaotic variation. Unless "anchored" somehow a Gate would detatch itself disperse and reform. In fact the ends of gates probably move about in space at high random speeds. Magical technology would be needed to find, bind and prepare both ends of such a gate. Note that in "Dreams in the Witch-House" Keziah Mason uses hypergeometrical curves to escape her jail cell. This suggests one of the following explanations: a) Someone in the know set up the jail so there was an escape route available for at least one cell b) Keziah bound the free-standing end of a gate to her location (although it must be interesting trying to find the right gate to hop into at times, unless there are limiting conditions our puny science knows nothing about), which implies that there's little required by way of materials in gate-binding. After all, unless something's very small (like colored chalk, say), it's going to show up in the searching and other rough treatment of said witch. It might be interesting to tie SAN and/or intelligence into ability to use gates. C.S. Friedman played with the idea of madmen being the best navigators in one of her novels, as I believe was mentioned previously. Steven From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Andy Robertson [andywrobertson@clara.co.uk] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 4:51 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Fractal & Chaotic Gates as GOO nervous system? ----- Original Message ----- From: > Note that in "Dreams in the Witch-House" Keziah Mason uses hypergeometrical curves to escape her jail cell. This suggests one of the following explanations: > > b) Keziah bound the free-standing end of a gate to her location (although it must be > interesting trying to find the right gate to hop into at times, unless there are limiting > conditions our puny science knows nothing about), which implies that there's little required > by way of materials in gate-binding. 100% right. Now, doesn't this link back to Will's thoughts about the Gate-network being "the skeleton of a GOO"? If a skeleton - _why_not_a_nervous_system_? Could this be how adepts can influence gates to travel? Assume this Universe-wide network of Gates makes up the Mind of a GOO, like our brain is made up of neurons. Entire, it has intelligence & consciousness. But each small segment, each individual "gate-tree", is like a neural network which the adept can "tickle" in the same way an insect crawling across our feet can can make them twitch. At similar risk. Perhaps _this_ is what allows someone without technology but with the correct mental discipline to escape via a gate? And what mental disciplines? Keziah Mason's case suggests that a contemplation of hypergeometric principles allows the adept to get in "tune" with the local "neurons" Nerves, skeleton, "in tune" - obviously only vague analogies as yet . . . . But look, this gives us the reason for the _instant_ communication. Unless it's hyperconnected, unless it's instant or nearly so it can't act as a universe-wide mind! Too slow! So when we "gate" we are exploiting abilities which evolved to transmit information across stellar distances inside the brain of a GOO! When we Gate we are going through a GOO's Brain! ----- ***** ----- Did this GOO develop spontaenaeously as "colonial" entity like a coral reef, made up from many "gate-trees" coming together? Each gate-tree had a rudimentary life and they learned to cooperate? What if there were many _different_ types of such space-strain entities, their final union greater than the whole? After alll our very cells started as colonial organisms. ----- ***** ----- If this is true, _evolution_ drove the development by these space_strain beasts of instant-communication, and transcended Relativity! Darwin victorious over Einstein! Hmmmmm!! The Glove Cleaner (who is going to sleep very poorly for thinking of this tonight) (I think we are dealing with a lower rank than AZATHOTH here, though, if Gates are limited to our Universe) From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Andrew John Farrow [andrew.j.farrow@btinternet.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 4:54 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: On Gates and similar matters IMHO - the discription of gates in the brian lumley - necroscope / vampire world books are as as good as they get . yours- andy From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of LizardRoi@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 5:03 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Jean-loup stand up In a message dated 00-03-27 16:16:12 EST, you write: << >I know you call us Limeys "rosbifs", but what is the correct French >insulting name for a Yank? >Speak up, man! We need to know! Come to mind : Amerloques, Ricains (both derived from "Americain"), or the usual "Yankee" though this one isn't used much nowadays. >> Is that the best they can come up with? Well, Lafayette, we are here...to help. Shit (merde) I came up with Merkin, and it's from a French word! Pronounced like "American" as rendered by a Texan\Oklahoman ("'Murr'can"). Merkin, derived from the famous Italian cartographer Merca Vespucci. Merkin, you know, a toupee for the pubes. Invented by the French so they could shave their naughty bits to relieve the itching from lice, but still be fashionable at the bidet. Just trying to help. If the best you can do is Amerloque or Ricain, you better skip the preliminaries and get right to dissing mothers. Mark McFadden And just to show my reflexive xenophobic irrational hatred of France, French and all things Gallic, I put a French word in my ID. From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Michael Layne [theherald@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 5:34 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Steam-powered Conspiracy On 26 March, 2000 AD, Philip A Posehn said, in relation to Davide's Steampunk Conspiracy, and the suggestions concerning Phineas Fogg and Captain Nemo: >Since you're undertaking this project don't forget...Capt. Nemo's men had >a weapon that sounds an awful lot like a lightning gun. Where did they >come by such a thing? Was it stolen Mi Go technology or did he make the >same dark bargain that MJ 12 made half a century later? The weapon Nemo's "Nautilus" crewmen used was not a "lightning gun", in the sense of an energy weapon that shot bolts of lightning. Rather (IIRC) it was a very well-constructed air rifle, obviously of corrosion-resisting metals, with a flask that could be charged from the diver's air tank. What made it so deadly was the bullet it fired -- a tiny, powerful capacitor jacketed in a frangible glass casing. These were apparently charged up from the "Nautilus"' electrical system prior to the dive, and could hold a charge for several hours. The airgun provided a sufficiently "soft" launch that the jacket didn't shatter on firing, but it shattered upon striking the target -- discharging the capacitor... The capacitor was charged to a fairly high voltage, and sufficient amps to normally kill the target outright -- as if it had been struck by lightning! A modified version of these rounds (the "Stingray" round for Gyrojet rocket pistols) can be found in GURPS Ultra-Tech. They would likely be stopped by most body armor, but metal armor would still conduct the charge and fry the target. IIRC, during one underwater hunt in "20,000 Leagues", a "Nautilus" crewman shows off both his excellent marksmanship and the stopping power of the weapon by shooting down an airborne seabird from underwater -- a nontrivial task considering he was doing this through the air/water interface... Michael Layne DGGF#688 theherald@hotmail.com who also appreciated "The Other Log of Phineas Fogg", which prompted me to go back and reread "Around the World in 80 Days", "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", and "The Mysterious Island", and go, "Hmmm...":) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of LizardRoi@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 5:44 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general In a message dated 00-03-27 12:22:16 EST, you write: << Simply speaking, science abhors paradox. If an idea leads to a paradox, it is wrong. Period. Things don't both happen and not happen, things aren't contradictory. If they seem contradictory, it is because we don't understand what's going on. >> Gosh, someone must have accidentally given you the Teacher's copy with all the answers, you lucky stiff. I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence in the sample I quoted. Everything after that is based on some assumptions I don't make. Because when we make an assumption, we make an ass out of u and mption. And before anyone starts swelling up in umbrage, I want to gently remind everyone that we *were* talking about how to play with Gates in a fictional setting. I mean, no one here is afflicted with the sort of hubris that blandly assumes it *knows* how the "real" universe works. Mark "Gates" McFadden From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of LizardRoi@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 6:03 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Steam-powered Conspiracy In a message dated 00-03-27 18:39:22 EST, you write: << The weapon Nemo's "Nautilus" crewmen used was not a "lightning gun", in the sense of an energy weapon that shot bolts of lightning. >> That would have been Nemo's "lightning gun" as portrayed in "The Mysterious Island" (1961). Ray Harryhausen stop motion effects, big brassy Bernard Herrmann score. Herbert Lom as Nemo. Incidentally, the sound of the lightning gun was worth a sample. Like the heat ray in the '53 War of the Worlds, but edgier. It's what I hear when some electrical weapons used by some fun guys are used. Mark McFadden From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of box_nine@ix.netcom.com Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 6:32 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: Re:Fractal & Chaotic Gates as GOO nervous system? Andy wrote: > ----- Original Message -----From: >If a skeleton - _why_not_a_nervous_system_? Could this be how >adepts can >influence gates to travel? Now THIS I like. Also neatly explains SAN loss in this instance, as you're communicating with a completely alien sentience. >And what mental disciplines? Keziah Mason's case suggests that a >contemplation of hypergeometric principles allows the adept to get in >"tune" >with the local "neurons" Compare with "The Hounds of Tindalos," where Halpin Chalmers contemplates equations as a focusing aid. Hell, to bring this more on topic, consider the Courtis equations. >Nerves, skeleton, "in tune" - obviously only vague analogies as yet . And there's a faint echo of the Vibe again... >Darwin victorious over Einstein! Or perhaps any universe with any real degree of permanence develops similar structures - cue various SF novels and stories suggesting the possibility of 'seeding' universes. Otherwise, you get zones with varying physical laws, a la Vernor Vinge's FIRE UPON THE DEEP. Steven From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Mused [mused@idirect.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 6:56 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: Re: OT-Physics in general Nope. In our reality it is not just a good idea, it is the law. Things like tachyons are mental exercises, not Postulated Particles (why does that sound like a sidekick's trademark exclamation) I think if we find a way past light it will be a tricky sidestep, like the game 2300 AD's stutterwarp (use electron tunnelling on a huge scale) I always wondered though, if you are behaving like a particle (like SW) and someone scans you with radar, you and the scanner will not know your position with any degree of certainty -----Original Message----- > I wonder if the fastest thing in the universe is not >light. I mean, is it possible that there is some other >medium that transmits faster, and would enable travel >to the far-flung corners of the universe to occur >relatively faster ? > > My question is based in reality, all Mythos stuff >aside. But I guess the answer and it's implications >could go a long way to convincing some of it's >reality. And no I don't want to go to another mailing >list to ask it!!! > > Thanks in advance, > > John > > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Mused [mused@idirect.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 6:59 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: The Doors of Perception Interesting. Matter is the dust that accumulates in the folds of spacetime. -----Original Message----- >Here's an odd thought. What if the whole idea of matter bending space is wrong? >What if it's the bending of space that creates matter? It would explain the whole >missing mass thing, there just hasn't been enough time for all the mass to form, >as well as introducing a whole new type of planetary formation theory. From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Mused [mused@idirect.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 6:58 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general -----Original Message----- > And before anyone starts swelling up in umbrage, I want to gently remind >everyone that we *were* talking about how to play with Gates in a fictional >setting. I mean, no one here is afflicted with the sort of hubris that >blandly assumes it *knows* how the "real" universe works. Call of Cthulhu isn't a history text? SHIT! Excuse me, I have to go rewrite an essay From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of David Farnell [daf@iwa.att.ne.jp] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 7:49 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: Re: FICTION: Tip for the day Now comes the problem for CO Christopher: Should he file this under Case Histories, Section 8, Items of Mutual Interest, or the DGML FAQ? Dave celebrating the lizard From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Mintarr@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 8:51 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Mind virus warning > > Hell, its even the sort of thing good programmers > > take into account when writing user interfaces. > > They take into account (say) the relative strengths of an individuals' sex > drive as compared to other biological or social imperatives ? Okay, so may I reacted to quikcly. ;) I was thinking more along the lines that things like shapes, colors, patterns, etc. and they're conscious and unconcious apppeal are taken into account. I vaguely recall something about red almost automatically drawing not only the eye, but it made people more likely to point to it with their mice. Anywho...OT...so I'll stop. Joel From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of jpetheri@cyberbeach.net Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 9:58 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: Depleted Uranium (hopefully the end) Since this is the third or fourth time that DU has been discussed on the list, this has to be a topic for the FAQ. Depleted uranium (DU) is the waste product of the enrichment process used to produce weapons material and reactor fuel for military and U.S. style civilian reactors. It is composed almost entirely of U-238, since U-235 is the fissile isotope. During the initial refining of the uranium ore (or re-processing of fuel or weapons material), almost all of the other elements would be removed. The concentration of decay elements will increase with time from initial enrichment. Uranium is very dense, very hard and refractory. It is a very good material to use as a projectile because of it's hardness and density. In an armour piercing round, it is desirable since it is self-sharpening (does not blunt as it penetrates) and is pyrophoric. The friction of passing through armour will ignite the DU which in turn ignites all of the flammables and explosives inside the target. As armour, DU is quite hard and refractory and provides superior resistance. It may also be used as ballast or loading in aircraft due to it's density. Uranium has no stable isotopes, although U-238 (DU) is more stable and has lower activity. Uranium is an alpha emitter, so it presents no radiation hazard as long as it remains outside the body. Once inhaled or ingested, however, it is a serious problem. Uranium is a heavy metal. As such, the primary target organs are the kidneys and liver. NIOSH identifies dermatitis and lymphatic problems as potential health effects. Someone else mentioned lung diseases similar to berylliosis, but I can't find any reference to those in NIOSH or similar websites. I think that lung cancer is the primary concern if you inhale that much uranium. Like every other metal, water soluble forms have greater systemic toxicity following inhalation or ingestion. This is simply a matter of more rapid uptake and transport to the storage sites (kidney, liver, bones) and target organs (kidney and liver). Insoluble forms of uranium (uranium oxide) will be absorbed and transported throughout the body but because this process takes longer, lung disease is more likely. This site is a US military site collecting information about Gulf War Syndrome, and explores DU issues. http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/ This site is British Ministry of Defense, and gives a more complete version of what I wrote. http://www.mod.uk/policy/gulfwar/info/du.htm As for the issue of low-level chronic exposure to environmental uranium (say, for example, on a firing range or in Iraq), here's the page for the Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) which looks after this http://www.army-itam.com/main.htm ======================================== John Petherick, CIH e-mail: jpetheri@cyberbeach.net ----------------------------------------------- Did you know ? Cyber Beach has extended its monthly plan to UNLIMITED surfing per month !! Happy Surfing ! http://www.cyberbeach.net ----------------------------------------------- Brought to you by Cyber Beach's BottleMail ! http://www.cyberbeach.net From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of David Farnell [daf@iwa.att.ne.jp] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 9:45 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: DG Fiction From: The Man in Black > You should submit your own version of me. Weren't you paying attention > when Davide in Italy requested a ton of me's. I sent mine in, but it was very lonely out there when the flood of submissions didn't materialize. Dave From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of David Farnell [daf@iwa.att.ne.jp] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 9:41 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: Re: Steam-powered Conspiracy From: Davide Mana > So, what I'm trying to do is to set up a Global(-ish) Conspiracy game in a > Victorian/Edwardian setting. I was beginning to work on something similar in my Space: 1889 game when it died off. The devious and dashing Foreign Office man, David Mann, was going to be the "Mr. Green," luring the characters into involvment in "Great Game"-style adventures. There was also an American agent named Scroggins (known for his distinctive black clothing and "Ugly American" personality) and a Scottish anarchist named Hagbard Mac Fadden--all of whom were actually working for Secret Masters (I still hadn't decided whether they were all working for the same group of Secret Masters or competing groups), but there was a planned Martian Religion/Tibetan Buddhism connection. Shambala and the Brotherhood of the Yellow Sign were not far behind. All "magic" was going to be Blavatsky-style pseudo-scientific spiritualism and psi powers, with a lot of Vulcan/Martian hypertech thrown in. Anyway, I hope to see a write-up on the Net--I'm sure I will rip off quite a bit for the next time I try to run such a game. Great for 1890s CoC, too. Dave From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of David Farnell [daf@iwa.att.ne.jp] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 9:27 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Fractal & Chaotic Gates as GOO nervous system? From: Andy Robertson > So when we "gate" we are exploiting abilities which evolved to transmit > information across stellar distances inside the brain of a GOO! > > When we Gate we are going through a GOO's Brain! Very nice--that's a compelling enough image that I think it's going to stick. > (I think we are dealing with a lower rank than AZATHOTH here, though, if > Gates are limited to our Universe) Don't see any reason to limit them, really. And this sounds like a great way of interpreting Yog-Sothoth. He dwells in the spaces between... Dave From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Michael Beck [msb216@is7.nyu.edu] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 9:39 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Re:Fractal & Chaotic Gates as GOO nervous system? Take it to the next level. Every single bit of Planck space is in fact a "cell" of some strange . . . well, we can't really call it life, can we. Perhaps "entity" might be better, or simply a "Thing". box_nine@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Andy wrote: > > ----- Original Message -----From: > > >If a skeleton - _why_not_a_nervous_system_? Could this be how >adepts can > >influence gates to travel? > > Now THIS I like. Also neatly explains SAN loss in this instance, as you're communicating with a completely alien sentience. > > >And what mental disciplines? Keziah Mason's case suggests that a > >contemplation of hypergeometric principles allows the adept to get in >"tune" > >with the local "neurons" > > Compare with "The Hounds of Tindalos," where Halpin Chalmers contemplates equations as a focusing aid. Hell, to bring this more on topic, consider the Courtis equations. > > >Nerves, skeleton, "in tune" - obviously only vague analogies as yet . > > And there's a faint echo of the Vibe again... > > >Darwin victorious over Einstein! > > Or perhaps any universe with any real degree of permanence develops similar structures - cue various SF novels and stories suggesting the possibility of 'seeding' universes. Otherwise, you get zones with varying physical laws, a la Vernor Vinge's FIRE UPON THE DEEP. > > Steven From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Philip A Posehn [paposehn@juno.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:55 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general Before anyone flames you, My answer is , "Perhaps..." Since I don't have a degree in physics eiher I'll probably make a few mistakes here but the basic quantum physics are right... I am referring to Bell's theorem. There exist a variety of sub-atomic particles that are found paired in their normal state. One member of the pair always has a spin exactly opposite of the other. If you alter the spin of one, the spin of the other will change to mirror its partner. Bell's theorem established through a mathematical process that I cannot begin to follow that if you seperate the pair of particles the one particle will CONTINUE to mirror any change you cause to the other NO MATTER HOW FAR YOU SEPERATE THE TWO. This was experimentally proven in the 1970's. This would seem to postulate INSTANTANEOUS communication between the 2 particles. It also implies some things that sound a lot like Hindu Cosmology. I'm sure I'm butchering the lecture badly. Several Physics students in the group may correct me on the details but the basic principles have been giving quantum physicists the shakes for years now. Phil On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:46:03 -0800 (PST) John Stanley writes: > > Just a quick question to the list. > > DISCLAIMER: Before you flame me for asking a stupid > question, you must know that I do not have any sort of > degree in physics, quantum mechanics, or any other > fundamental science degree. > > I wonder if the fastest thing in the universe is not > light. I mean, is it possible that there is some other > medium that transmits faster, and would enable travel > to the far-flung corners of the universe to occur > relatively faster ? > > My question is based in reality, all Mythos stuff > aside. But I guess the answer and it's implications > could go a long way to convincing some of it's > reality. And no I don't want to go to another mailing > list to ask it!!! > > Thanks in advance, > > John > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Philip A Posehn [paposehn@juno.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 11:00 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Steam-powered Conspiracy Maybe so. But I'd suggest that it would appear similar enough to a lightning gun to an 1870s investigator to make them believe that the poor misunderstood Capt. was in league with the Mi Go...and we're off to a good storyline. Phil On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:34:16 EST "Michael Layne" writes: > On 26 March, 2000 AD, Philip A Posehn said, in > relation > to Davide's Steampunk Conspiracy, and the suggestions concerning > Phineas > Fogg and Captain Nemo: > > >Since you're undertaking this project don't forget...Capt. Nemo's > men had > >a weapon that sounds an awful lot like a lightning gun. Where did > they > >come by such a thing? Was it stolen Mi Go technology or did he make > the > >same dark bargain that MJ 12 made half a century later? > > The weapon Nemo's "Nautilus" crewmen used was not a "lightning > gun", in > the sense of an energy weapon that shot bolts of lightning. > > Rather (IIRC) it was a very well-constructed air rifle, > obviously of > corrosion-resisting metals, with a flask that could be charged from > the > diver's air tank. What made it so deadly was the bullet it fired -- > a tiny, > powerful capacitor jacketed in a frangible glass casing. These were > > apparently charged up from the "Nautilus"' electrical system prior > to the > dive, and could hold a charge for several hours. The airgun > provided a > sufficiently "soft" launch that the jacket didn't shatter on firing, > but it > shattered upon striking the target -- discharging the capacitor... > The > capacitor was charged to a fairly high voltage, and sufficient amps > to > normally kill the target outright -- as if it had been struck by > lightning! > > A modified version of these rounds (the "Stingray" round for > Gyrojet > rocket pistols) can be found in GURPS Ultra-Tech. They would likely > be > stopped by most body armor, but metal armor would still conduct the > charge > and fry the target. > > IIRC, during one underwater hunt in "20,000 Leagues", a > "Nautilus" > crewman shows off both his excellent marksmanship and the stopping > power of > the weapon by shooting down an airborne seabird from underwater -- a > > nontrivial task considering he was doing this through the air/water > interface... > > Michael Layne > DGGF#688 > theherald@hotmail.com > > who also appreciated "The Other Log of Phineas Fogg", which prompted > me to > go back and reread "Around the World in 80 Days", "20,000 Leagues > Under the > Sea", and "The Mysterious Island", and go, "Hmmm...":) > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Daniel Harms [dmharms@acsu.buffalo.edu] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 11:27 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general At 08:54 PM 3/27/2000 -0800, you wrote: >I am referring to Bell's theorem. There exist a variety of sub-atomic >particles that are found paired in their normal state. One member of the >pair always has a spin exactly opposite of the other. If you alter the >spin of one, the spin of the other will change to mirror its partner. >Bell's theorem established through a mathematical process that I cannot >begin to follow that if you seperate the pair of particles the one >particle will CONTINUE to mirror any change you cause to the other NO >MATTER HOW FAR YOU SEPERATE THE TWO. This was experimentally proven in >the 1970's. This would seem to postulate INSTANTANEOUS communication >between the 2 particles. Probably not. What happens here has to do with the nature of measurement. To measure a system, you need to have some sort of energy emanate from it or bounce off from it, so that either our senses or instruments can register it. The trouble in quantum mechanics is that, to observe the system, you have to bounce quanta off of quanta, which disrupts the system you were trying to measure. However, if two quantum particles arose from the same event, you can measure one of them. That one is disrupted, but because the two have opposing spins, you know what the other one is doing, and can measure it indirectly. That's basically right, though the terminology and the fine details are probably off. Yrs., Daniel Harms dmharms@acsu.buffalo.edu The Internet: Learn what you know. Share what you don't. From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Scott Shafer [screamingjackass@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:44 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: USS Scorpion (long...) I have a player who was in a boomer. He says that the torpedo was hot, and that a Russian sub heard the running torpedo and blew the Scorpion out of the water. Evidently it was SOP to shoot first as soon as you heard a torpedo running. Scott > From: Dillis Freeman > Reply-To: dgrpg@delta-green.com > Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:58:09 -0800 (PST) > To: dgrpg@delta-green.com > Subject: Re: DG: USS Scorpion (long...) > > Temporarily delurking to make one observation: > > One other theory about the Scorpion is that the Sovs > took it out in revenge for the loss of a Golf class > ballistic missle sub (the one the CIA tried to > recover). The Sovs believed that this sub had been > rammed (either intentionally or accidentally) by an > American sub. There was some speculation at the time > (which lingers today) is that the Sovs wanted to teach > the US a lesson. > > Personally, I hold to the "hot-running torpedo" theory > myself. It makes the most sense. And, although the > Sovs weren't beyond sinking an American sub (afterall, > they intentionally downed KAL 007 because they thought > it was an EC-135, they took American aviators captured > in Korea and Vietnam back to the Rodina for > interrogation, and tested the SVD sniper rifle on > Americans in Vietnam) they didn't have enough to gain > from such a basically petty act. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > > From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Philip A Posehn [paposehn@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 1:50 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:26:32 -0500 Daniel Harms writes: Mr. Heisenberg will have the last word again, I suppose, although there are a lot of physicists who still support the "whole new ballgame" interpretation. If nothing else it makes for a stimulating thread. Phil > > Probably not. What happens here has to do with the nature of > measurement. > To measure a system, you need to have some sort of energy emanate > from > it or bounce off from it, so that either our senses or instruments > can > register > it. The trouble in quantum mechanics is that, to observe the > system, you > have to bounce quanta off of quanta, which disrupts the system you > were > trying to measure. > > However, if two quantum particles arose from the same event, you can > > measure one of them. That one is disrupted, but because the two > have > opposing spins, you know what the other one is doing, and can > measure it > indirectly. > > That's basically right, though the terminology and the fine details > are > probably off. > > Yrs., > > > > Daniel Harms dmharms@acsu.buffalo.edu > The Internet: Learn what you know. Share what you don't. > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Jonathan Turner [j.turner@irishnews.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:23 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: DG runabouts Just on a related note, does anybody know what exactly is packed into the US presidential protection vehicles? During the visit here I saw a couple of them up close, and those Cherokees seemed to be substanital pieces of kit. I've heard there's a full infirmary in one, while the others carry Secret Service agents toting assault rifles and LAWs. I assume there are packed with modifications like the CCS stuff? Anyone know? JT From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of David Farnell [daf@iwa.att.ne.jp] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 11:15 PM To: Delta Green List Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general From: Philip A Posehn > Bell's theorem established through a mathematical process that I cannot > begin to follow that if you seperate the pair of particles the one > particle will CONTINUE to mirror any change you cause to the other NO > MATTER HOW FAR YOU SEPERATE THE TWO. And formed the basis for the Ansible (see Orson Scott Card's "Ender" series), which has become an SF staple. This could also explain the superluminal aspects of Andy Robertson's "GOO-Mind Gate Network" theory. Dave PS: Note to Phil Posehn and Michael Beck: "4. Trim your replies. This cannot be stressed enough. What I mean by this is that when you make a two line reply (with twenty line signature) to a brilliant 77 line insight into Mi-Go spirituality; DO NOT INCUDE THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL POST~! This just makes you look like a monkey who can't cut and paste." --From the DGML FAQ From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Jonathan Turner [j.turner@irishnews.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:24 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Thermobaric weapons At 10:02 PM 3/27/00 +0100, you wrote: >one - ouch - when you land - w/- a 30.4 lb weapon in a tight trench - you >said jump . > Not the MiB, sucker! He carries one of those down his pants as a hold-out, for when he's too bored to do the job with his bare pincers! JT From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Jonathan Turner [j.turner@irishnews.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:29 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Re: Depleted Uranium At 10:40 PM 3/27/00 +0100, you wrote: >> Whether its radioactive or not, Uranium is still a heqavy metal poison, >> not unlike mercury or lead. Definitely not to be inhaled if you can >> possibly avoid it! This is something that the press usually forget ion >> their anti-radiation hysteria. >> >> Dave >> > >some one else has posted the carinogen threat from petrochem byporodusts >burn off , but , strange that kuwait hasnt caught the same . they had more >oil burnt on them . didnt they ? > > The difference is that the Kuwaitis don't have sanctioned blocking basic drugs for cancer treatment, on the off-chance they could somehow be mutated into chemical weapons... JT From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Daniel Harms [dmharms@acsu.buffalo.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:31 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Alternity / Dark Matter / Wizards of the Coast News Not to beat a dead horse, but... At 12:41 AM 3/24/2000 -0500, Alphonse wrote: (After I wrote): >>If anyone can give me a different interpretation of what it means to "drive >>support for all other game systems to the lowest level possible in the >>market" other than "bankrupting all other systems but AD&D", I'd like to >>hear it. >It's important to understand that when Dancey says "other game systems," >he specifically means "other sets of game mechanics," not "other RPGs" or >"other RPG product lines." >In short, he would like to see FASA publish SHADOWRUN using D20 rules, >Chaosium publish CoC using D20 rules, and on and on. He ideally wants a >plurality of games, but a singularity of rules systems. In return, he's >offering D20 at no cost and with no form of editorial oversight or >control. and then >It's also worth nothing that D20 does not equal D&D. I have to disagree with both of these. According to the terms of the agreement, you're absolutely free to create all the d20 material you want - so long as you don't include the character creation or experience rules. If you wanted to make your own RPG using d20, "...you'd have to deal with the fact that people will have to buy a fantasy-themed D&D player's handbook in order to get all the character creation and development material." (Dancey) So, in brief, you could indeed play CoC, Shadowrun, or whatever with d20 rules - but you'd have to have a copy of the Player's Handbook if you wanted to create a character, or hand out experience. I suppose an inventive designer could come up with a system that had neither, but otherwise, that book is hardly optional. And in my belief, any system, no matter what it's called, that requires a D&D book for play is D&D. Maybe D&D in funny clothing (and there's nothing wrong with that), but it's D&D. Yrs., Daniel Harms dmharms@acsu.buffalo.edu The Internet: Learn what you know. Share what you don't. From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of LizardRoi@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:45 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: Another Go quote "The Ancient Japanese considered the Go board to be a microcosm of the universe. Although when it is empty it appears to be simple and ordered, in fact, the possibilities of gameplay are endless. They say that no two Go games have ever been alike. Just like snowflakes. So, the Go board actually represents an extremely complex and chaotic universe." Max Cohen's mentor Sol Robeson in Pi Mark McFadden "Paranoia is the belief in a hidden order behind the visible." - Anonymous From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of LizardRoi@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:45 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general In a message dated 3/27/00 9:29:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, dmharms@acsu.buffalo.edu writes: << To measure a system, you need to have some sort of energy emanate from it or bounce off from it, so that either our senses or instruments can register it. The trouble in quantum mechanics is that, to observe the system, you have to bounce quanta off of quanta, which disrupts the system you were trying to measure.>> Someone once used a comprehensible metaphor to describe the implications of the Heisenberg Principle (in The Dancing Wu Li Masters IIRC). In layman's kitchen sink terms, the problem is similar to getting the temperature of a cup of tea right *now*. If you stick a thermometer in the tea, you've just cooled the tea by the degree of difference between the two initial temperatures. So your measurement is of the temperature after it reaches equilibrium. Heating the thermometer first doesn't fix the problem unless the you heat it to *precisely* the temperature of the tea, which means you would have to know the temperature before you attempted to measure it. <> Which means (and I am ramming my virtual tongue hard into my virtual cheek here) that after mangling the state of one quanta you can point to the one spinning in the opposite direction and say "But we didn't touch that one so it's in it's natural state." Y'know, it's a damn good thing that those evil twins are there so we can have something pristine and unobserved and random when we need it. I'm seeing a Monty Python routine where the scientists must get a report on a particle without looking at it, referring to it, or in any way acknowledge it. We'll call this particle Jehovah. Then John Cleese remembers that they can question the other twin, backwards, and clandestinely extrapolate on an alleged particle it is reported looks like such and such. So they rush the twin and go Medieval on it's ass, they grill it like the Spanish Inquisition. Which was really unexpected. I'm not so sure that any of this is OT. Those who were unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of the Einsteinian model now have some excellent descriptions of the complexities and even some formulas to apply in scenarios. I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of lurkers who have been saving some of these posts for reference later. Also, some of the counterintuitive poetry of quantum phenomena may be new to others. All of the models provide story seeds or simply rationalizations of behavior needed for a scenario. We've had metaphors and models that can provide useful rules of thumb. Use them as long as they are useful but switch models when you have to force things to fit. The quote refers to a *foolish* consistency. I tend to favor networking and messaging for my modelling, but like, duh. Three guesses what I do for a living. I find the information\signal to be more significant than the matter. I tend to see matter\energy as order we perceive in chaos, the stuff we notice because we find it significant. An infinite number of monkeys are typing away, we notice the complete works of Shakespeare, the OED, the Upanishads and so on and say, "See, there is story and grammar and rules of punctuation. It all makes sense. All that other stuff is just noise and chaos and coincidence and mass hypnosis." Right about now the rabbi is supposed to punch me in the nose and say, "So tell me, bubbelah, what hurts?" But rabbis are girly-men too devout and flabby to study martial arts.... ;-P "It's only a model." If that's too guru voodoo hippy Castaneda Crowley Leary Lilley Wilson Wicca Technomage mumbo jumbo for your tastes, feel free to use another model. All I can say is - the chicks dig it. We've Gated all over the universe. Sometimes we got jet lag, sometimes we got there before we left, and sometimes it was just like stepping through a door. I'm starting to see the QuIP network as a nervous system now, and wondering why I didn't see it before. As above, so below. Sacre merde! Gates as synapses. QuIP as a holographic memory. This was no boating accident. It was the List at work. A little shakin', a little tenderizin', and there ya go. Mark McFadden Will never wear a lifejacket again. From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of cd skogsberg [d97skog@dtek.chalmers.se] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:59 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Re:Fractal & Chaotic Gates as GOO nervous system? Michael Beck wrote: > Take it to the next level. Every single bit of Planck space is in > fact a "cell" of some strange . . . well, we can't really call it > life, can we. Perhaps "entity" might be better, or simply a > "Thing". For some stuff on planck-lenght cells as cellular automata cells, and "light [as] the simple shifting of a photon information pattern from cell to adjacent cell at every CA 'clock cycle'", see: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9809042 156 pages of rather heavy stuff, and, according to a string theorist of my aquaintance, crap (alas), but perhaps usable in a CoC game for weird science? /cd -- "Linux was made by foreign terrorists to take money from true US companies like Microsoft." -Some AOL'er. "To this end we dedicate ourselves..." -Don From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of David.Clements [David.Clements@astro.cf.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 4:32 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Philip A Posehn wrote: > I am referring to Bell's theorem. There exist a variety of sub-atomic > particles that are found paired in their normal state. One member of the > pair always has a spin exactly opposite of the other. If you alter the > spin of one, the spin of the other will change to mirror its partner. > Bell's theorem established through a mathematical process that I cannot > begin to follow that if you seperate the pair of particles the one > particle will CONTINUE to mirror any change you cause to the other NO > MATTER HOW FAR YOU SEPERATE THE TWO. This was experimentally proven in > the 1970's. This would seem to postulate INSTANTANEOUS communication > between the 2 particles. It also implies some things that sound a lot > like Hindu Cosmology. I mentioned this in passing in an earlier posting. Its thought that while entanglement works, its not possible to send information using it, so it doesn't break relativity and can't be used for communication. But this is an active area of research, so it would only be fair to say that we don't know the final answer yet. Dave From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of David.Clements [David.Clements@astro.cf.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 4:42 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Dark Matter, Fractal & Chaotic Gates On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Andy Robertson wrote: > To make such a network more plausible: > > 1) Fractal scaling - Cosmic phaenomena can not be pre-adapted to > human needs, Therefore gates must come all sizes. If there is no favoured > size there must be a self-similar scaling between them. The laws of physics may actually give you a favoured scale. One of the current ideas is that this is the planck scale, about 10^-35 m (IIRC), where Heisenberg uncertainty gets large enough to break down the structure of space. At this level the vacuum is thought ot be a seething mass of wormholes forming and reforming continuously. > 2) Non-simple structure - a Gate might (naturally) be more like a tree > than a tunnel. > > 3) Chaotic variation. Unless "anchored" somehow a Gate would detatch > itself disperse and reform. In fact the ends of gates probably move about in > space at high random speeds. Magical technology would be needed to find, > bind and prepare both ends of such a gate. This sounds lots like the current picture of the vacuum at small scales. Dave From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Davide Mana [doctor.dee@libero.it] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 4:47 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Fractal & Chaotic Gates as GOO nervous system? Greetings. I HATE this list when things like these happen.... The Glove Cleaner (quite appropriately) writes >Now, doesn't this link back to Will's thoughts about the Gate-network being >"the skeleton of a GOO"? > >If a skeleton - _why_not_a_nervous_system_? Could this be how adepts can >influence gates to travel? Gimme time! That's part of the stuff I'm currently working on (remember? Lloigor, Britain....?) Anyway - yes, gates could _ALSO_ help constituting the nervous system of a very large, extended being. Not exactly a GOO - or maybe yes.... More data in the future, if my editor will be happy with it and I'll be able to meeet the deadline.... Davide Mana Torino, Italy doctor.dee@libero.it The Ice Cave - http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/leiber/50/ice_cave.htm From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Richard Pace [rpace@idirect.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 10:09 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Alternity / Dark Matter / Wizards of the Coast News Daniel Harms wrote: > Not to beat a dead horse, but... > >In short, he would like to see FASA publish SHADOWRUN using D20 rules, > >Chaosium publish CoC using D20 rules, and on and on. He ideally wants a > >plurality of games, but a singularity of rules systems. In return, he's > >offering D20 at no cost and with no form of editorial oversight or > >control. > > and then > > >It's also worth nothing that D20 does not equal D&D. > > I have to disagree with both of these. According to the terms of the > agreement, you're absolutely free to create all the d20 material you want - > so long as you don't include the character creation or experience rules. > If you wanted to make your own RPG using d20, There's two licenses -- the D20 trademark license and the OGL license. D20tm is designed to allow other games producers to create D&D supplements so it's useless as a basis for a new RPG unless all you are doing is creating a D&D variant environment with new classes and races. The OGL is for creating new RPGs. You could essentially recreate the D&D PHB for your new RPG but you wouldn't be allowed to use the D20tm. > "...you'd have to deal with the fact that people will have to buy a > fantasy-themed D&D player's handbook in order to get all the character > creation and development material." (Dancey) > > So, in brief, you could indeed play CoC, Shadowrun, or whatever with > d20 rules - but you'd have to have a copy of the Player's Handbook > if you wanted to create a character, or hand out experience. I > suppose an inventive designer could come up with a system that > had neither, but otherwise, that book is hardly optional. Well, that's always been possible, but I think the intent is for other games manufacturers to use the OGL D20 mechanics instead of creating yet another new system of mechanics. The OGL version of the D20 mechanics doesn't require experience points or classes by the way. > And in my belief, any system, no matter what it's called, that requires > a D&D book for play is D&D. Maybe D&D in funny clothing (and > there's nothing wrong with that), but it's D&D. That's essentially correct, but it doesn't apply to the OGL. Richard -- I've added over twenty more images of my artwork to my gallery for your viewing pleasure! - http://webhome.idirect.com/~rpace/ From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of John Stanley [nytmair@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 7:25 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: OT-Physics in general I guess the reason I was asking in the original question, is because even though we have gone to the moon, have learned how to harness the atom, and can store vast amounts of information in relatively small areas, our science is still pretty much in it's infancy as compared to the age and vastness of the known universe. So my question was really saying, how do we really know light is fastest ? Sure, it works with our math, and our math works for the things we've proven using our math (lost anyone?) Apparently I've lost myself!!! Anyway, thanks to everyone for your thoughtful, and intelligent answers. John __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of William Timmins [wtimmins@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 7:54 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Re: OT-Physics in general >From: "Mused" >I always wondered though, if you are behaving like a particle (like SW) and >someone scans you with radar, you and the scanner will not know your >position with any degree of certainty Actually, this is somewhat correct. But indeterminacy (the 'cloud' of a wave) is inversely related to mass. So most particles have a pretty fixed location/energy. Big hunks of matter are also waves, but waves with a range so limited that it is almost undetectable. This is one problem with the quantum teleport thing. We can cause weird quantum effects with photons, but doing so with matter over significant distances is ... well. Almost infinitely more tricky. -Will ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Tolga Yanasik [yanasikt@superonline.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:01 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: sing baby sing like a bird Greetings, I'm curious about; What kind of drugs and chemicals are used in -illegal- interrogations and with what effect ? How should be the questions asked ? Thanks, Tolga From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Matt Cowger [mcowger@kc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 6:11 AM To: Secured Server1 Subject: DG: Souls for sale More signs of the coming apocolypse... www.bostonherald.com/bostonherald/lonw/soul03182000.htm +_+_+_+_+_+_+ Tenebrous Technologies- 'What we are up to is none of your business' A tradition in Guile, Deceit and Treachery since 1997 Matt Cowger, CEO mcowger@kc.rr.com http://home.gvi.net/~tenebrae Vox: (###)###-##### +_+_+_+_+_+_+ From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of William Timmins [wtimmins@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:19 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general >From: Philip A Posehn > > Bell's theorem established through a mathematical process that I cannot > > begin to follow that if you seperate the pair of particles the one > > particle will CONTINUE to mirror any change you cause to the other NO > > MATTER HOW FAR YOU SEPERATE THE TWO. As far as I understand the situation, here you go: There is a process that spits out a pair of electrons, with spin conservation. So that if the left electron has up spin, the right one has down, and vice versa. If you don't observe either particle, their nature is indeterminate. They are both up/down and down/up. If observer A and B, a lightminute apart, set it up so that they both observe one of the particles at the same time, they will always find the particles in agreement. If observer A observes one particle, the other becomes DETERMINED, not indeterminate, and all evidence of particle B will match what the observer knows of the first particle. There are several important things to remember: An indeterminate state is NOT the same as not knowing what state a particle is in. A particle which has taken a specific state is physically distinct from an indeterminate particle. For one thing, they behave differently. There is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, an attempt to explain the math that composes QM, that observations cause indeterminate states to collapse into discrete states (wave collapse). By this interpretation, it seems that by affecting one particle, you instantaneously cause an effect to occur with the other particle. This suggests that state information can travel instantaneously... which is a potential problem, for all the previous discussion about FTL. However, there is a (IMO) much better interpretation which fits and causes no paradox, the many worlds explanation (http://wtimmins.tripod.com/lore/manyworlds.html). Essentially, it argues that the observer is also a collection of particles and wave states. When you observe something, it doesn't cause the wave to collapse. It causes YOU to become a more complex wave. In the above example, observing an electron splits you into the you-who-observed-up, and the you-who-observed-down. This changes how you interact with the universe, as your consciousness is now segmented. Observations are now locked down for you, and your complex wave spreads to those you come into contact with. The universe segments. So your observation will always agree with further evidence (or other observers) because you have split into two components. The part of you who observed 'up' is in phase with another observer, or evidence, that sees the other particle as 'down'. Most physicists and other scientists steadfastedly reject this interpretation. But if you listen to their reasoning why, it almost universally stems from emotion... it just rubs them wrong. They want a small, tight, comfortable, certain universe. The vast spinning alternates emotionally displeases them. Whatever. Just a reminder that humans are humans. Perhaps they are avoiding SAN loss. ;) ObDG: Remember, no matter how much study or information you get, you can't cause SAN loss from those who refuse to accept it. -=Will ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com