Conference hydra::dejavu

More than 450 years after Copernicus proved the Earth revolves around the
sun, millions of adult Americans seem to think it's the other way around.

A phone survey of 2,041 adults conducted in July asked 75 questions
designed to test knowledge of basic science, margin of error 3%

Asked whether the Earth goes around the sun or the sun around the Earth,
21% replied incorrectly, 7% didn't know.  Of the 72% correct, 45% said
it takes one year for the Earth to orbit the sun, 17% said one day, 2%
said one month and 9% didn't know.

Asked (true/false) if lasers, an essential component of SDI, work by
focusing sound waves, 36 % answered correctly, 29% incorrectly, and
35% didn't know.


In an election year, in which candidates are discussing issues like
the Strategic Defense Initiative, acid rain, the greenhouse effect and
the space race, the survey indicates many Americans have little idea
what they are talking about.

((Extracted from Associated Press in Oct 24 Worcester Telegram)) MWR

    re: .0
    
        Is Morton, JR. (emphasis on the Junior) harmful?
    WEll, if domination, control, manipulation, better thans,
    cigarettes, adolescent humor and blame, righteous anger
    and lets-do-it-my-way attitudes aren't harmful, then,
    NO, he isn't harmful.  If, on the other hand, you don't
    want to have anything to do with the above and believe
    that there is a happier alternative, then, Yes, it may
    be harmful to your enlightenment.
    
    Frederick
    

    In my opinion, what Morton does is to rattle people enough that
    their TRUE selves will come out. Morton himself, is a show. There
    is a definate method to his madness. He's entertainment. The people,
    however, are speaking for themselves. He will very willingly give
    them enough rope (or force it on them) to either support themselves
    or hang themselves. No matter what Mort does, it's usually very
    clear at the end of a show who the real people are and who the phonies
    are.
    
    Steve

re: .3 

    I've only seen a small portion of one show (yuck) and choose not
    to see anymore.  Rather than revaling TRUE selves as suggested in .3, 
    it seems to me that all he does is turn peoples ego's themselves and
    against each other - to the point they will defend anything as long
    as it is not what their 'adversary' is defending. 

    Terry

    > Entropy being the observed tendency of nature, two entities seem
    > capable of reversing it, intelligence and crystals, are there
    > others?
    
    I'm not sure what this question has to do with the rest of the
    posting but I'll answer it anyway.
    
    The second law of thermodynamics states, roughly, that in a closed
    system which is sufficiently close to kinetic equilibrium entropy
    will not decrease.
    
    When one of the two conditions of the law are violated, then it
    is commonplace for entropy to decrease.  In effect, the degradation
    of organization outside the system is "borrowed" against to
    create local decreases in entropy (increases in organization).
    "Water always flows down-hill", but if one looks at a swiftly flowing
    stream one can find eddies where some of the water is flowing
    up-hill at any given moment.
    
    The most commonly cited example of an anti-entropic system is
    *any* living thing (not just intelligent ones).  A plant, for
    example, takes the fairly highly entropic carbon dioxide gas
    and water and turns them into much more highly structured
    sugar molecules.  It does this by taking advantage of the large
    energy differential between the sun and the plant's leaves.
    
    On a different time scale, one can look at the sweep of evolution,
    with the slow development of constantly more and more complex
    life forms as the same kind of situation -- powered, ultimately,
    by the same disequilibrium between the earths biosphere and the
    suns surface.
    
    It is pretty easy to find examples of local decreases in entropy
    when you look at situations which are not almost in a state
    of equilibrium.  A frequently cited, non-biological example is
    the development of Raleigh-cells.  If you take a fluid, such as
    water, and place it between two plates, heat the bottom plate
    and cool the top one, and look at the way that the fluid circulates
    you will find that it forms nice neat geometric convection cells
    -- specifically hexagonal ones, with the fluid rising in the
    center of each cell and falling to be reheated at the edges.
    
    Other more "natural" examples would be the formation of planets
    stars, galaxies, etc. by accretion and aglomeration (whatever
    theory you accept to explain that process of accretion and
    agglomeration).  The creation of the lighter elements in the
    immensly (by Earthly standards) unbalanced conditions of a
    stellar interiour, and the creation of the heavier elements in
    the immensly more (by ordinary stellar standards) unbalanced
    conditions in a supernova, provide some other examples.
    
    I'm going to have to think some more about it (thermodynamics
    not being my strongest area) but I rather strongly suspect that
    crystals -- despite appearances -- are not particularly anti-entropic.
    Rather I would guess that the appearance of regularity in what
    we consider important and relatively concrete (the positions of
    the atoms) occurs so that the overall entropy of the system including
    components which seem less concrete to us (e.g., the energy fields)
    increases.  Crystals form because the crystallyn form represents
    the state of minimum internal energy and systems "roll downhill"
    to energy minima.  But they "'roll downhill' to energy minima"
    as an expression of the second law of thermodynamics.  A higher
    energy state means internal energy differentials which represent
    lower states of entropy.  The formation of the crystal represents
    a process by which energy differentials are decreased (equals
    entropy is increased).
    
    					Topher

    re .5 (Topher)
    
    The trick is that thermodynamics is a statistical model of the 
    universe, and for the cases where statistics works well (large numbers
    of sample points, continuous or nearly continuous linear interactions,
    nothing relativistically large or quantum-small) the thermodynamic
    model of the universe works perfectly.  Locally, entropy
    can decrease, but over the ENTIRE SYSTEM (which might be as 
    big as a county, a planet, or a solar system) entropy continues
    to increase.
    
    	For example:  plants grow, volcanoes erupt, fires burn,
    		steam expands.  The common things we see every day.
    
    Classical thermodynamics breaks down in those circumstances where
    it's basic assumtions break down; in the case of masses that are
    relativistically large or fast, or in the case of interactions which
    involve such small quantities that Planck's constant (and the other
    gruesome parts of quantum mechanics) become apparent.  
    
    	For example:  recoilless absorption of gamma rays in 
    		isotopically pure cobalt, the direct conversion of
    		mass to energy as the mass falls into a rotating 
    		black hole, superfluidity of flow in liquid helium II. 
                Not the most common things in the world...
                                                          
    -----
    
    The bottom line is that entropy is subject to an uncertainty like
    that of distance.  As the system becomes more and more askew from
    the original (statistical) model, the entire concept of "entropy"
    suffers a Heisenberg-like uncertainty effect. 
    
    What does "entropy" mean in a system of one electron and one proton?
    Energy is still defined, volume is still defined, temperature is still
    defined, but the entropy of such a system (although still defined)
    doesn't have any real meaning. 
    
    It's like saying "this electron is here"; the statement of an electron
    "being" anywhere isn't just wrong, in the quantum-mechanical universe,
    the statement itself is meaningless.  Electrons aren't anywhere
    in particular... nor can one discern any particular electron from
    any other electron... nor does the word "here" mean anything like
    what humans mean when they say the word "here".
    
    	-Bill (waiting for Topher or Steve K. to define my wave function
    		into nonexistence. :-) ) 
                                                   

    Reply to .6, Yerazunis,
    
    And don't forget that what you're explaining was also explained in
    the Theroy of Dissapitive Structures, which I think Topher alluded
    to with "living things".

    I call the MDJ show "Rednecks on Parade."  It is to real debate
    what Saturday night wrestling is to real wrestling.
    
    
    John M.
    
    P.S  To Steve Kallis and other Christians, Happy Halloween. 
     
    To Mikie Morgan and other pagans, Happy Samhain (or whatever you call
    it). 

    Reply to .8, John,
    
    Thanx a bizillion. Hope you find something to celebrate also.

    Reply to .3, Steve,
    
    Are you saying that Mort is a Redneck Zen Master? B^)

    Re .0 (MWR):
    
    >What is the social purpose of shows like M.D. Jr.?  I fear some people
    >take them more seriously than The Gong Show.  Is it healthy catharsis
    >or do they pose a threat to adult mental stability akin to violence
    >watched by children?
                
    The social purpose is entertainment, pure ans simple.  For some,
    however, it does act as a catharsis.  Frankly, I prefer his showboating
    style to that of a Phil Donahue, who is essentially doing similar
    things, but at a less raucous level.
    
    >... Whatever anyone may think of 'loudmouth' Mort, he and
    his Otheren are on the air, for good or ill...
                                        
    If you want to see a show that makes Morton Downey, Jr. look like
    calm reason, watch the Wally Cole show some time. 
    
    Re .1:
    
>                        -< Is ignorance an epidemic? >-
  
    Probably.
    
>Asked (true/false) if lasers, an essential component of SDI, work by
>focusing sound waves ...
 
    Who ways lasers are _essential_ in an SDI systyem?  I can think
    of several SDI techniqies that don't require lasers at all.  The
    point?  Whoever did the report should bone up on his or her science
    and/or technology.
    
>In an election year, in which candidates are discussing issues like
>the Strategic Defense Initiative, acid rain, the greenhouse effect and
>the space race, the survey indicates many Americans have little idea
>what they are talking about.
 
    Alas, often the candidates don't either. :-)
    
    Re .8 (John):
    
    >P.S  To Steve Kallis and other Christians, Happy Halloween. 
    
    Thank you; I had a good one.  Hope you did the same.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.            

    
    Speaking of lasers, how do you cool one in space?  Is there some
    way to radiate all that heat into space fast enough?
    
    
    Guy
    

    Easy to cool 'em.  Boil water, blow the steam off into space.
    Works great; some of our oldest satellites used water boiling into
    a vacuum for cooling their transmitter _tubes_ .  Not for very long,
    of course :-)
    
    	-Bill

RE: .11 (Steve)
    
    > Who ways lasers are _essential_ in an SDI systyem?  I can think
    > of several SDI techniqies that don't require lasers at all.  The
    > point?  Whoever did the report should bone up on his or her science
    > and/or technology.
    
    I think, Steve, that you are demanding a bit too much precision.
    The original SDI concept -- the impenetrable "peace shield" --
    consisted of multiple different technologies working in perfect
    concert.  The supposed practicality of the system as a whole relied
    on almost all of the different component systems working (almost,
    because there were a few alternatives proposed).  Several of those
    systems involved laser systems -- big or bigger.  Lasers were
    without question an essential part of the original SDI system
    (which is what most people, including Reagan, seem to think the
    military is still talking about).  Indeed, there is very good
    reasons to believe that the whole SDI concept was cooked up by
    Teller to assure large amounts of cash would be available for
    his pet development projects -- most of which involved big lasers.
    
    A second reasonable -- though loose -- interpretation, given the
    context is that an understanding of lasers, their capabilities
    and limitiations is essential in making informed decisions about
    election issues.
    
    					Topher

    Re .14 (Topher):
    
    >I think, Steve, that you are demanding a bit too much precision.
    > ...
    > Lasers were ...an essential part of the original SDI system
    >(which is what most people, including Reagan, seem to think the
    >military is still talking about).
    
    Point is, the clause was a throwaway.  One might well say, "...
    lasers, essential in bar-code-scanning cash registers ..." which,
    given the current state of the art, is accurate.
    
    My problem with such throwaways is that _in the context of trying
    to show the ignorance of the general public_, the reporter makes
    his or her own technical gaffe.
    
    The point the reporter was trying to make was that if the voting
    public didn't know whether sound waves, light waves, or whatever,
    was central to a laser's operation, _and_ that lasers were essential
    to an SDI system, the poor, unwashed voter was operating in total
    ignorance as to the practicability of any proposed SDI system. 
    The suggestion was that the questioner, who _of course_ we assume
    knows the mechanism, we also assume _of course_ is better informed
    about the voting issues than the poor slob who doesn't understand
    the lasing function.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    
    
        Morton Downey  Jr is the result of a communist plot to make
    American conservitives look bad. ;-.
    
    Tom_K

    RE: .16
    
    American conservitives don't need Mort to make them look bad.
    
    
    
    John M.

    I heard on the radio this morning that Morton Downey Jr. and Geraldo
    Rivera are going to be on Saturday Night Live tomorrow night, and
    will be interviewed, by the Church Lady.
    
    Now, isn't *that* special?
    
    Should be interesting...I'm betting the Church Lady and Morton are
    going to get along famously.
    
    DW

    re:18 ....I can hear it now : "So tell us Morton, what drives a
    man like you to call people all kinds of nasty names...mmm... 
    let me see.....could it be......SATAN!!!!!!!
    When I first saw MDJ I thought it was funny...it reminded me of
    those interviews they give wrestlers. But, after a while, the act
    gets old (after maybe three shows) and Mort has revealed himself
    as one hell of a Bullsh*tter: graduated from about 400 universities,
    owned a basketball team, worked for the CIA and numerous other 
    governmental agencies, marched in every protest for every cause
    since 1960.... The guy is a phoney!
    

Nope.  Seems someone threw a chair at old Geraldo on a soon to be aired
show about hate mongers.  The hate groups broke out into a fight (so what
a suprise), one of them threw a chair and broke Gerry's nose.  His Doc
told him to stay home in bed.  The church lady will have solo with MDjr.

Too bad.

Terry

    Well, it looks like Morton Downey Jr. finally met his match...
    
    I always suspected that protestant fundamentalism ran deeper into
    people's psyches than conservative extremism...
    
    Way to go, Church Lady.
    
    DW

	Pertaining to Downey, I just read a saucer rag that did an
article on his ufo abduction. He was left with a scar by his heart.
Appropriate, no? Any how he ran a disclaimer in subscript while airing
a tape of his hypnotic regression. 
	The mag. was the new ufo universe.
						Lew

    Mort is just filling a televisual marketing nitch like all the others.
    They are at best a money maker for the networks and at worst a great
    distraction for the public...   THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT.