dark matter -- particles of unusual size?
Dan Goodman
Some physicists are proposing that the universe's mysterious dark matter
consists of great big particles, light-years or more across. Amid the
jostling of these titanic particles, ordinary matter ekes out its existence
like shrews scurrying about the feet of the dinosaurs.
http://cl.extm.us/?fe851d7273670c787c-fe3117727760037d771076\
--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://dsgood.blogspot.com or
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Aaron Bergman
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
> From Scientific American:
>
> Some physicists are proposing that the universe's mysterious dark matter
> consists of great big particles, light-years or more across. Amid the
> jostling of these titanic particles, ordinary matter ekes out its existence
> like shrews scurrying about the feet of the dinosaurs.
> http://cl.extm.us/?fe851d7273670c787c-fe3117727760037d771076
[I deleted the backslash so the link works.]
I'm not sure it's really appropriate to call those particles giant
particles. It's really the compton wavelength of the particles that is
large.
For a nice work on cracks in the /\CDM model, some suggested solutions
and analyses thereof, try this by Paul Steinhardt:
<http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/osdark.pdf>
Aaron
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> From Scientific American:
>>
>> Some physicists are proposing that the universe's mysterious dark
>> matter consists of great big particles, light-years or more across.
>> Amid the jostling of these titanic particles, ordinary matter ekes
>> out its existence like shrews scurrying about the feet of the
>> dinosaurs.
>> http://cl.extm.us/?fe851d7273670c787c-fe3117727760037d771076
>
> [I deleted the backslash so the link works.]
>
> I'm not sure it's really appropriate to call those particles giant
> particles. It's really the compton wavelength of the particles that is
> large.
I suspect an explanation which made this understandable to me would be
about the length of an Analog science article. And this sounds like
something Analog might want an article on
-- from you, or from someone else.
> For a nice work on cracks in the /\CDM model, some suggested solutions
> and analyses thereof, try this by Paul Steinhardt:
>
> <http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/osdark.pdf>
Downloading now. Thanks!
David Johnston
>From Scientific American:
>
>Some physicists are proposing that the universe's mysterious dark matter
>consists of great big particles, light-years or more across. Amid the
>jostling of these titanic particles, ordinary matter ekes out its existence
>like shrews scurrying about the feet of the dinosaurs.
Assuming that this was right, is there anything we could do with these
things?
Dan Goodman
First, perhaps we ought to find out what they could do with us....
Aaron Bergman
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
> Aaron Bergman <aber...@physics.utexas.edu> wrote in
>
> > Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From Scientific American:
> >>
> >> Some physicists are proposing that the universe's mysterious dark
> >> matter consists of great big particles, light-years or more across.
> >> Amid the jostling of these titanic particles, ordinary matter ekes
> >> out its existence like shrews scurrying about the feet of the
> >> dinosaurs.
> >> http://cl.extm.us/?fe851d7273670c787c-fe3117727760037d771076
> >
> > [I deleted the backslash so the link works.]
> >
> > I'm not sure it's really appropriate to call those particles giant
> > particles. It's really the compton wavelength of the particles that is
> > large.
>
> I suspect an explanation which made this understandable to me would be
> about the length of an Analog science article. And this sounds like
> something Analog might want an article on
> -- from you, or from someone else.
You just sort have to accept something like de Broglie's formula that
the wavelength of a particle is h / p where h is Planck's constant and p
is the momentum. If the mass is really small, you can have a really big
wavelength. Now, think of the galaxy as a big pit full of water. The
particles are waves on the water. If the wavelength, the distance
between the peaks is really big, you can't have a large number of them
in the pit. That's basically what it comes down to.
The particles, on the other hand, when they interact still interact like
pointlike particles. They're no different from anything else except for
the very small mass.
(Neutrinos, I'd guess, are moving too fast to get stuck in the potential
well of the galaxies. These particles are produced at much slower
velocities. Neutrinos, in fact, are moving so fast that they mess up the
formation of large scale structure, so you can't have too many of them.)
Aaron
Karl M. Syring
If the ultra-high energy proton in the cosmic radiation are produced
by a conversion of dark matter, you could build a really big ray gun
or a planet-busting bomb.
Karl M. Syring
Karl M. Syring
>
> The particles, on the other hand, when they interact still interact like
> pointlike particles. They're no different from anything else except for
> the very small mass.
But is it theoretically possible that the dark matter is subject to
other("new") forces than gravity?
Karl M. Syring
Tina Hall
>> From Scientific American:
>>
>> Some physicists are proposing that the universe's mysterious
>> dark matter consists of great big particles, light-years or more
>> across. Amid the jostling of these titanic particles, ordinary
>> matter ekes out its existence like shrews scurrying about the
>> feet of the dinosaurs. http://cl.extm.us/?fe851d7273670c787c-fe3
>> 117727760037d771076
This sounds interesting, if I knew what exactly dark matter was
supposed to be... Is there any handy (direct) link to a text vaguely
outlining that in simple terms?
> [I deleted the backslash so the link works.]
> I'm not sure it's really appropriate to call those particles
> giant particles. It's really the compton wavelength of the
> particles that is large.
> For a nice work on cracks in the /\CDM model, some suggested
> solutions and analyses thereof, try this by Paul Steinhardt:
> <http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/osdark.pdf>
'Cracks'? And what's '/\CDM'?
--
Tina - Hopeless Optimist.
...
Let it end in hellfire! (Vehumet, Dungeon Crawl)
CrossPoint/FreeXP v3.40 RC3. Usenet/Fidonet gateway, no internet access.
Aaron Bergman
Sure. They can interact with themselves, within limits.
Aaron
Remus Shepherd
> In article <Xns9556D3E6EAA...@209.98.13.60>,
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
> > Aaron Bergman <aber...@physics.utexas.edu> wrote in
> > > particles. It's really the compton wavelength of the particles that is
> > > large.
> >
> > I suspect an explanation which made this understandable to me would be
> > about the length of an Analog science article. And this sounds like
> > something Analog might want an article on
> > -- from you, or from someone else.
> You just sort have to accept something like de Broglie's formula that
> the wavelength of a particle is h / p where h is Planck's constant and p
> is the momentum. If the mass is really small, you can have a really big
> wavelength. Now, think of the galaxy as a big pit full of water. The
> particles are waves on the water. If the wavelength, the distance
> between the peaks is really big, you can't have a large number of them
> in the pit. That's basically what it comes down to.
> The particles, on the other hand, when they interact still interact like
> pointlike particles. They're no different from anything else except for
> the very small mass.
As I read the article, they're not actually proposing giant particles.
They're proposing scalar fields (of unusual size) that act like giant
particles in that they gravitationally attract one another and they clump
like bosons. They're akin to phonons and excitons -- 'made up' particles
that are used to make solid state equations easier to work with. They're
not 'real' particles that you could, for example, crash a spaceship into.
Of course, if we were viewing a proton from the inside it might look like
nothing more than a scalar field too...
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Mark Fergerson
"Dark Gravity"? Sounds suspiciously like a book title to me...
Mark L. Fergerson
Dan Goodman
> Aaron Bergman <aber...@physics.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>>> From Scientific American:
>>>
>>> Some physicists are proposing that the universe's mysterious
>>> dark matter consists of great big particles, light-years or more
>>> across. Amid the jostling of these titanic particles, ordinary
>>> matter ekes out its existence like shrews scurrying about the
>>> feet of the dinosaurs. http://cl.extm.us/?fe851d7273670c787c-fe3
>>> 117727760037d771076
>
> This sounds interesting, if I knew what exactly dark matter was
> supposed to be...
The _experts_ don't know exactly what it's supposed to be, either.
As I understand it: the detectable matter in what we can observe of the
universe isn't enough to account for certain things which 1) do happen
and 2) are supposed to be caused by the mass of matter. Dark matter is
matter which can't yet be detected.
Tina Hall
> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>> This sounds interesting, if I knew what exactly dark matter was
>> supposed to be...
> The _experts_ don't know exactly what it's supposed to be,
> either.
<g>
> As I understand it: the detectable matter in what we can observe
> of the universe isn't enough to account for certain things which
> 1) do happen and 2) are supposed to be caused by the mass of
> matter. Dark matter is matter which can't yet be detected.
That does sound rather simple, thanks. :)
And that's it? It could be anything? Anyone's guess is as valid as
the next one's? From sub-atomic particles, to lumps of 'dark-rock',
or even sort of organic, or a yet unknown 'form of/particularly
shaped' energy (lacking the right term, of course)?
I'm wondering how this dark matter stuff could end up in a story,
where the limits are...
--
Tina - " "
New favorite word: elocution.
Should be a subject in school.
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>
>>> This sounds interesting, if I knew what exactly dark matter was
>>> supposed to be...
>
>> The _experts_ don't know exactly what it's supposed to be,
>> either.
>
> <g>
>
>> As I understand it: the detectable matter in what we can observe
>> of the universe isn't enough to account for certain things which
>> 1) do happen and 2) are supposed to be caused by the mass of
>> matter. Dark matter is matter which can't yet be detected.
>
> That does sound rather simple, thanks. :)
>
> And that's it? It could be anything? Anyone's guess is as valid as
> the next one's? From sub-atomic particles, to lumps of 'dark-rock',
> or even sort of organic, or a yet unknown 'form of/particularly
> shaped' energy (lacking the right term, of course)?
This week, that's sort of true. But someone writing a story now might
find it coming out right after one theory is proven true.
> I'm wondering how this dark matter stuff could end up in a story,
> where the limits are...
It's been used a few times.
Kevin Karpenske
news:MSGID_2=3A240=2F2199.13=40fidonet...@fidonet.org:
> I'm wondering how this dark matter stuff could end up in a story,
> where the limits are...
I could let on that that's rather the chief premise behind my
"Quailish" novels, but then I'd have spoiled everything!
Er, wait.
--
Kevin Karpenske, krk at firefox dot com
- writing blog: http://www.firefox.com
Krijn Mossel
> From Scientific American:
>
> Some physicists are proposing that the universe's mysterious dark matter
> consists of great big particles, light-years or more across. Amid the
> jostling of these titanic particles, ordinary matter ekes out its existence
> like shrews scurrying about the feet of the dinosaurs.
> http://cl.extm.us/?fe851d7273670c787c-fe3117727760037d771076\
But do they want vengeance?
Krijn
James Nicoll
Tina Hall <Tina...@kruemel.org> wrote:
>Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>
>>> This sounds interesting, if I knew what exactly dark matter was
>>> supposed to be...
>
>> The _experts_ don't know exactly what it's supposed to be,
>> either.
>
><g>
>
>> As I understand it: the detectable matter in what we can observe
>> of the universe isn't enough to account for certain things which
>> 1) do happen and 2) are supposed to be caused by the mass of
>> matter. Dark matter is matter which can't yet be detected.
>
>That does sound rather simple, thanks. :)
>
>And that's it? It could be anything? Anyone's guess is as valid as
>the next one's? From sub-atomic particles, to lumps of 'dark-rock',
>or even sort of organic, or a yet unknown 'form of/particularly
>shaped' energy (lacking the right term, of course)?
Actually, while they can't say what dark matter is, they do
know what it is not, and that is regular baryonic matter as we are
made out of. Or at least there are limits as to how much of it can
be, according to the cosmological models currently in use, and most
of it isn't.
>I'm wondering how this dark matter stuff could end up in a story,
>where the limits are...
Well, one suggestion is that there could be a type of matter
that does not interact with our sort except through the weak nuclear
forces and gravity. As a result it is effectively invisible and
intangible (or unlikely to interact, in any case) and since gravity
is such a weak force, they are hard to detect that way.
I think Anderson used a planet made of material like this. It
be detected because a planet sized collection of this stuff has a fair
sized gravitational field, but it was otherwise a "ghost" planet.
stuff
--
"I mean, you don't seem like a bad guy to me..."
"I don't? I got a death touch, an army of killer robots and a skull
drawn on my chest and I don't look like a bad guy to you? I think
you could be in the wrong business."
Tina Hall
[dark matter]
>> And that's it? It could be anything? Anyone's guess is as valid
>> as the next one's? From sub-atomic particles, to lumps of
>> 'dark-rock', or even sort of organic, or a yet unknown 'form
>> of/particularly shaped' energy (lacking the right term, of
>> course)?
> This week, that's sort of true. But someone writing a story now
> might find it coming out right after one theory is proven true.
But wouldn't that be neat rather than bad?
I vaguely recall some thread somewhere about old fiction and the
things it predicted for the future being now either true or utterly
false, and today such stories aren't written anymore because people
know too much to make up stuff that'll be known to be untrue in 20
years or so.
With this dark matter thingy, it's kind of exiting because this can
still happen. That you could write a story today, and that it could
turn out to be false or true tomorrow, either way I'd think it neat.
--
Tina - Vaguely Precise.
Xom smiles on you.
You hear a splash. (Dungeon Crawl)
Tina Hall
> Tina Hall <Tina...@kruemel.org> wrote:
[dark matter]
>> And that's it? It could be anything? Anyone's guess is as valid
>> as the next one's? From sub-atomic particles, to lumps of
>> 'dark-rock', or even sort of organic, or a yet unknown 'form
>> of/particularly shaped' energy (lacking the right term, of
>> course)?
> Actually, while they can't say what dark matter is, they do
> know what it is not, and that is regular baryonic matter as we
> are made out of. Or at least there are limits as to how much of
> it can be, according to the cosmological models currently in use,
> and most of it isn't.
What does 'baryonic' mean?
I didn't have anything in mind that's made out of the same stuff we
- or the rest of this planet - is made out of, but something
different, that could still vaguely look the same (or looks entirely
different). The question is, does it have to be some tiny particles
floating around, or could it exist in larger assemblages? Is there
anything specific it has to do (to agree with the formulas that came
up with it in the first place), or could it be anywhere? Does it
just have to be 'massive' (not meaning 'weighty/large' but, well,
just 'something that adds mass to the universe')? Does it have to be
somewhere far away, or could it sit under a rock on our planet?
(With different properties, would it _have_ to influence the weight
of this planet? That'd make it observable, but if it's different,
could it sit here and it's properties don't have its mass 'show up'
here...)
>> I'm wondering how this dark matter stuff could end up in a
>> story, where the limits are...
> Well, one suggestion is that there could be a type of matter
> that does not interact with our sort except through the weak
> nuclear forces and gravity. As a result it is effectively
> invisible and intangible (or unlikely to interact, in any case)
> and since gravity is such a weak force, they are hard to detect
> that way.
Gravity is what holds the solar system in shape, no? (See above
question, if dark matter floated around here, it'd be observable, or
do small amounts not count? How would they tell the difference
between normal and dark matter, then?)
> I think Anderson used a planet made of material like this. It
> be detected because a planet sized collection of this stuff has a
> fair sized gravitational field, but it was otherwise a "ghost"
> planet.
Sounds interesting.
--
Tina - What context?
Elyvilon says: Go forth and aid the weak!"
Trog says: Kill them all! (Dungeon Crawl)
James Nicoll
Tina Hall <Tina...@kruemel.org> wrote:
>> Tina Hall <Tina...@kruemel.org> wrote:
>
>[dark matter]
>>> And that's it? It could be anything? Anyone's guess is as valid
>>> as the next one's? From sub-atomic particles, to lumps of
>>> 'dark-rock', or even sort of organic, or a yet unknown 'form
>>> of/particularly shaped' energy (lacking the right term, of
>>> course)?
>
>> Actually, while they can't say what dark matter is, they do
>> know what it is not, and that is regular baryonic matter as we
>> are made out of. Or at least there are limits as to how much of
>> it can be, according to the cosmological models currently in use,
>> and most of it isn't.
>
>What does 'baryonic' mean?
Composed of poets? No, that would be Byronic...
The regular matter you are familiar with, more or less.
snip
>> Well, one suggestion is that there could be a type of matter
>> that does not interact with our sort except through the weak
>> nuclear forces and gravity. As a result it is effectively
>> invisible and intangible (or unlikely to interact, in any case)
>> and since gravity is such a weak force, they are hard to detect
>> that way.
>
>Gravity is what holds the solar system in shape, no? (See above
>question, if dark matter floated around here, it'd be observable, or
>do small amounts not count? How would they tell the difference
>between normal and dark matter, then?)
Gravity is very, very weak, although long ranged, so it makes a
lousy sensory field.
A hunk of this sort of dark matter would be be invisible
and intangible.
>> I think Anderson used a planet made of material like this. It
>> be detected because a planet sized collection of this stuff has a
>> fair sized gravitational field, but it was otherwise a "ghost"
>> planet.
>
>Sounds interesting.
I'd recommend looking at wikipedia's entry but I seem to recall
you don't do usenet.
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>
> [dark matter]
>>> And that's it? It could be anything? Anyone's guess is as valid
>>> as the next one's? From sub-atomic particles, to lumps of
>>> 'dark-rock', or even sort of organic, or a yet unknown 'form
>>> of/particularly shaped' energy (lacking the right term, of course)?
>
>> This week, that's sort of true. But someone writing a story now
>> might find it coming out right after one theory is proven true.
>
> But wouldn't that be neat rather than bad?
>
> I vaguely recall some thread somewhere about old fiction and the
> things it predicted for the future being now either true or utterly
> false, and today such stories aren't written anymore because people
> know too much to make up stuff that'll be known to be untrue in 20
> years or so.
That's unlikely to be true for one category of predictions -- the
"Obviously, _this_ will be the same as it's always been" category. The
Soviet Union lasting well into the 21st Century or later; tobacco use at
the same level as in the 1940s, with no added restrictions....
And this category includes things which have _already_ become untrue.
In the 1950s, English sf writers blithely took it for granted that
England would continue to be a major world power -- a status it had
already lost. (Note that I said "England" rather than "United Kingdom".
Those writers ignored the rest of the UK; American writers ignored the
rest of North America.)
For scientific predictions? One way to judge that is to see where sf
writers are placing habitable planets. Are they putting their planets
where there's a good chance astronomers will soon be able to tell
whether such planets exist?
> With this dark matter thingy, it's kind of exiting because this can
> still happen. That you could write a story today, and that it could
> turn out to be false or true tomorrow, either way I'd think it neat.
An idea just came to me: A science fiction writer _all_ of whose
predictions fail. If he says a country will be poor and lawless, it
will become wealthy and peaceful, for example.
Tina Hall
>> [dark matter]
>>> Actually, while they can't say what dark matter is, they do
>>> know what it is not, and that is regular baryonic matter as we
>>> are made out of. Or at least there are limits as to how much of
>>> it can be, according to the cosmological models currently in
>>> use, and most of it isn't.
>>
>> What does 'baryonic' mean?
> Composed of poets? No, that would be Byronic...
Hmmm...
> The regular matter you are familiar with, more or less.
Oh, crisps and chocolate. <g> Or maybe not chocolate (maybe that's
the true reason why chocolate is said to make people over-weight;
it's quite dark too...).
>> Gravity is what holds the solar system in shape, no? (See above
>> question, if dark matter floated around here, it'd be
>> observable, or do small amounts not count? How would they tell
>> the difference between normal and dark matter, then?)
> Gravity is very, very weak, although long ranged, so it makes a
> lousy sensory field.
Gravity comes from mass, though, right? Lots of mass = lots of
gravity...?
> A hunk of this sort of dark matter would be be invisible
> and intangible.
Even if it's right in front of your nose? Do they 'make up' this
dark matter to account for gravitational effects that can't be
explained otherwise? (That's how I understood this.) If not, then
what do they try to explain/fill out what holes with this stuff?
I mean, if it's just mass that isn't explained by what people know
is floating around, it can't be right here on this planet because
it'd just be part of what makes it weigh how much it does... (Just
trying to figure out what/where it is definitely not... Don't want
to check beneath my bed, there's already greeblings there. ;) )
>>> I think Anderson used a planet made of material like this. It
>>> be detected because a planet sized collection of this stuff has
>>> a fair sized gravitational field, but it was otherwise a
>>> "ghost" planet.
>>
>> Sounds interesting.
> I'd recommend looking at wikipedia's entry but I seem to recall
> you don't do usenet.
This is Usenet; I don't 'do' internet. :)
--
Tina - Spinning gorilla on the grand piano of words.
What good is an answer when you don't understand the question?
Vogon Jeltz for President!
Warrick M. Locke
Tina...@kruemel.org says...
"Dark matter" has to be fairly widely scattered around, more like a gas
between the stars than things like invisible suns and planets. If it were
concentrated in places where there's already ordinary ("baryonic") matter
it would simply add to the mass we see, and nobody would know there was a
mystery involved, precisely as you noted below. See, you understand this
better than you think you do!
>
> I mean, if it's just mass that isn't explained by what people know
> is floating around, it can't be right here on this planet because
> it'd just be part of what makes it weigh how much it does... (Just
> trying to figure out what/where it is definitely not... Don't want
> to check beneath my bed, there's already greeblings there. ;) )
No, I think you can be confident that the greeblings won't be disturbed.
Regards,
Ric
Tina Hall
>> [dark matter]
>> I vaguely recall some thread somewhere about old fiction and the
>> things it predicted for the future being now either true or
>> utterly false, and today such stories aren't written anymore
>> because people know too much to make up stuff that'll be known
>> to be untrue in 20 years or so.
> That's unlikely to be true for one category of predictions -- the
> "Obviously, _this_ will be the same as it's always been"
> category. The Soviet Union lasting well into the 21st Century or
> later; tobacco use at the same level as in the 1940s, with no
> added restrictions....
I was thinking of technology. This sounds more like sociology or
something...
> For scientific predictions? One way to judge that is to see
> where sf writers are placing habitable planets. Are they putting
> their planets where there's a good chance astronomers will soon
> be able to tell whether such planets exist?
That doesn't strike me as the same sort of thing, either, though I
guess it comes closer, but just doesn't fit the idea I had in mind
(which is a bit vague, about critters on mars, stuff below ground,
light speed, that sort of thing).
>> With this dark matter thingy, it's kind of exiting because this
>> can still happen. That you could write a story today, and that
>> it could turn out to be false or true tomorrow, either way I'd
>> think it neat.
> An idea just came to me: A science fiction writer _all_ of whose
> predictions fail. If he says a country will be poor and lawless,
> it will become wealthy and peaceful, for example.
Do you know of any such writer?
Jonathan L Cunningham
>Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>> I vaguely recall some thread somewhere about old fiction and the
>> things it predicted for the future being now either true or utterly
>> false, and today such stories aren't written anymore because people
>> know too much to make up stuff that'll be known to be untrue in 20
>> years or so.
>
>That's unlikely to be true for one category of predictions -- the
>"Obviously, _this_ will be the same as it's always been" category. The
>Soviet Union lasting well into the 21st Century or later; tobacco use at
>the same level as in the 1940s, with no added restrictions....
Slide rules!
(Who *is* Slide anyway?)
For _things as they are now/near future_ and often assumed over
longer timescales:
Space battles fought with weapons operated by people.
Aircraft with human pilots (other than just for leisure).
Road vehicles with human drivers. Roads.
Children taught in schools.
Institutions with a location: libraries, universities, hospitals,
places of employment such as offices, supermarkets, factories.
A future in which there are no AIs (which might happen, but will
look as silly as slide rules if AIs get made).
Telephones/communicators as distinct objects.
Working for a living.
Everyone (human) still has a basic human body plan. (I think this
quite likely, but it will seem very quaint if it doesn't happen
like that.)
People growing old.
People living on planets (seems unlikely, IMHO, for 99.99999% of
the population).
Religion.
Atheists.
Reading and writing.
And probably lots more. Which all goes to show ... something.
Jonathan
--
Use jlc1 at address, not spam.
Tina Hall
> Tina...@kruemel.org says...
>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> A hunk of this sort of dark matter would be be invisible
>>> and intangible.
>>
>> Even if it's right in front of your nose? Do they 'make up' this
>> dark matter to account for gravitational effects that can't be
>> explained otherwise? (That's how I understood this.) If not,
>> then what do they try to explain/fill out what holes with this
>> stuff?
> "Dark matter" has to be fairly widely scattered around, more like
> a gas between the stars than things like invisible suns and
> planets. If it were concentrated in places where there's already
> ordinary ("baryonic") matter it would simply add to the mass we
> see, and nobody would know there was a mystery involved,
> precisely as you noted below. See, you understand this better
> than you think you do!
:) Just trying to figure out whether I understood it right, or my
thoughts went off the wrong direction (so I hoped for a definite
'yes' or 'no' in reply to the above and below), and of course how
this rather interesting stuff could be sneaked into a story.
>> I mean, if it's just mass that isn't explained by what people
>> know is floating around, it can't be right here on this planet
>> because it'd just be part of what makes it weigh how much it
>> does... (Just trying to figure out what/where it is definitely
>> not... Don't want to check beneath my bed, there's already
>> greeblings there. ;) )
> No, I think you can be confident that the greeblings won't be
> disturbed.
Well, apart from the cat, who occasionally tries to dig them out.
<g> (That's the indication that they're there, after all, because us
humans can't see them. Just like dark matter, they're only indicated
by the otherwise unexplained behaviour of what we see... Do you
think dark matter and greeblings are related?)
--
Tina - Vaguely Precise.
Xom smiles on you.
You hear a splash. (Dungeon Crawl)
Helen Hall
>
>An idea just came to me: A science fiction writer _all_ of whose
>predictions fail. If he says a country will be poor and lawless, it
>will become wealthy and peaceful, for example.
Um... Were you planning to do anything with this idea, Dan, because it
just prompted a short story idea involving my editor hero. And not
many story ideas lend themselves to having editors as heroes.
Helen
Helen Hall ** Wales ** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk/
Dan Goodman
> On 02 Sep 2004 22:13:29 GMT, Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>An idea just came to me: A science fiction writer _all_ of whose
>>predictions fail. If he says a country will be poor and lawless, it
>>will become wealthy and peaceful, for example.
>
> Um... Were you planning to do anything with this idea, Dan,
No -- go ahead and use it!!
> because it
> just prompted a short story idea involving my editor hero. And not
> many story ideas lend themselves to having editors as heroes.
>
> Helen
> Helen Hall ** Wales ** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk/
>
--
Zeborah
> Institutions with a location: libraries, universities, hospitals,
> places of employment such as offices, supermarkets, factories.
Locations are useful for places like libraries, universities, and places
of employment for reasons other than just the space they occupy. By
physically going to that location, you move yourself into the mindset of
the task you want to do. I do a lot more study when I say "I'm going to
study now," and go to the library than when I say "I'm going to study
now," and sit down at my desk.
Physical movement may not always be necessary to change the mindset,
however; the process of logging in may be enough.
But as long as we use our bodies, I think significant numbers of people
will want to physically go places for at least some occasions -- it may
not be necessary to go there to work, but to socialise with your
friends, it's a bit more real in meat-space than even your best virtual
reality with hi-fi pheremones attached.
> Telephones/communicators as distinct objects.
This one's not true even now.
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
Keith Morrison
>> For scientific predictions? One way to judge that is to see
>> where sf writers are placing habitable planets. Are they putting
>> their planets where there's a good chance astronomers will soon
>> be able to tell whether such planets exist?
>
>That doesn't strike me as the same sort of thing, either, though I
>guess it comes closer, but just doesn't fit the idea I had in mind
>(which is a bit vague, about critters on mars, stuff below ground,
>light speed, that sort of thing).
The thing about habitable planets bugs me a bit these days. If a star
is discovered to have a system not able to support life, but there's
no particular reason for it--it could had it been arranged properly--I
don't see why that invalidates a story where the presence of an
inhabited planet is referenced.
After all, in assorted other varieties of fiction, you have cities,
countries, islands and such things that don't really exist on Earth,
but that doesn't present a problem for the writer.
--
Keith
Dan Goodman
> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>
>>> For scientific predictions? One way to judge that is to see
>>> where sf writers are placing habitable planets. Are they putting
>>> their planets where there's a good chance astronomers will soon
>>> be able to tell whether such planets exist?
>>That doesn't strike me as the same sort of thing, either, though I
>>guess it comes closer, but just doesn't fit the idea I had in mind
>>(which is a bit vague, about critters on mars, stuff below ground,
>>light speed, that sort of thing).
> The thing about habitable planets bugs me a bit these days. If a star
> is discovered to have a system not able to support life, but there's
> no particular reason for it--it could had it been arranged properly--I
> don't see why that invalidates a story where the presence of an
> inhabited planet is referenced.
It doesn't _invalidate_ the story. But some writers would be embarrassed
by it.
The first piece of fiction Larry Niven sold ("The Coldest Place")
depended for its surprise ending on the fact that Mercury had a dark
side. After it sold but before it was published, this fact turned out
not to be a fact. According to Fred Pohl (the editor who'd bought it),
Niven sent a letter offering to repay the money he'd gotten for the
story.
Warrick M. Locke
> > No, I think you can be confident that the greeblings won't be
> > disturbed.
>
> Well, apart from the cat, who occasionally tries to dig them out.
> <g> (That's the indication that they're there, after all, because us
> humans can't see them. Just like dark matter, they're only indicated
> by the otherwise unexplained behaviour of what we see... Do you
> think dark matter and greeblings are related?)
>
>
gröblings (they use the umlaut over here sometimes, just to be perverse.)
Perhaps we will have to wait for full communication with felines before
we solve the mystery of dark matter. Then it will be easy: just ask Puss.
:-)
Dogs may know something about it as well (Darling, whatever is that
animal barking at?) but, sycophants that they are, will simply tell us
what they think we want to hear.
Regards,
Ric
Neil Barnes
news:MPG.1ba30a0b6...@news.mesh.net:
> Dogs may know something about it as well (Darling, whatever is
> that animal barking at?) but, sycophants that they are, will
> simply tell us what they think we want to hear.
There's a rather fine Larson cartoon showing a couple of dogs
plotting... one is telling the other 'and to really freak out your
human, just stare at the cupboard door, let your hackles rise, and
growl...' :)
Neil
--
note - the email address in this message is valid - Hotmail have
improved their spam killing no end. Ignore previous suggestions
to use ntlworld.
Jonathan L Cunningham
>Jonathan L Cunningham <sp...@softluck.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> Institutions with a location: libraries, universities, hospitals,
>> places of employment such as offices, supermarkets, factories.
>
>Locations are useful for places like libraries, universities, and places
Maybe. Maybe not. :-). Who *really* knows?
"Mommy, what's a library?"
"It's a place where they keep a whole stack of books."
"What's a book?"
"Well, first you plant a tree ..."
"What's a tree?"
"Well, back in the fifth millenium, when I was a little girl, just
like you are now ..."
>Physical movement may not always be necessary to change the mindset,
>however; the process of logging in may be enough.
I think I was just responding to Dan's comment and the subject lines.
SF is not about trying to predict the future. I was just listing
things we take for granted.
The process of changing one's clothes is another way to affect
mindset.
>But as long as we use our bodies, I think significant numbers of people
>will want to physically go places for at least some occasions -- it may
So do I. But what places, and what occasions? :-)
>> Telephones/communicators as distinct objects.
>
>This one's not true even now.
And yet, and yet, how common they are in SF!
Helen Hall
>Helen Hall <mh...@baradel.demon.co.uk.please.delete.this> wrote:
>
>> On 02 Sep 2004 22:13:29 GMT, Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>An idea just came to me: A science fiction writer _all_ of whose
>>>predictions fail. If he says a country will be poor and lawless, it
>>>will become wealthy and peaceful, for example.
>>
>> Um... Were you planning to do anything with this idea, Dan,
>
>No -- go ahead and use it!!
>
Thanks. I roughed out an outline yesterday, and I'll try and get a
first draft done asap. My writing goal for this year includes writing
and submitting 3 short stories. So far, I have only finished the
first draft of 1 new story, so this idea is greatfully received.
Helen
--
Tina Hall
[greeblings...]
>> us humans can't see them. Just like dark matter, they're only
>> indicated by the otherwise unexplained behaviour of what we
>> see... Do you think dark matter and greeblings are related?)
>>
> They may very well be, but that says more about cats than it does
> about gröblings (they use the umlaut over here sometimes, just to
> be perverse.)
Heh. (Where's 'here'?)
> Perhaps we will have to wait for full communication with felines
> before we solve the mystery of dark matter. Then it will be easy:
> just ask Puss. :-)
Oh dear. The only 'word' Einstein throws at me on occasion is 'nein'
('no'), not that she tries others, but it's too elevated for me to
understand. I'm better at interpreting her Looks, which don't seem
all that suited to explain things. (Apart from "You're really a few
bells short of a full christmas-tree decoration, aren't you." Which
isn't really all that much of an explanation, either, even though it
explains some things.)
I don't think they'd bother to tell us. Having observed us humans
for so long, they might either enjoy their superior status, or keep
us ignorant for our own good, or maybe both.
> Dogs may know something about it as well (Darling, whatever is
> that animal barking at?)
Hehe. I've just added something along that line to my VUP last
night, but that's not greeblings being the cause...
> but, sycophants that they are, will simply tell us what they think
> we want to hear.
True. They also might just patiently listen to whatever nonsense we
suggest, wag their tail in sympathy, and pretend not to understand a
word of what we say. Oh, that's what they do already...
--
Tina - " "
A new plaything!
Suffer! (Xom, Dungeon Crawl)
Zeborah
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 10:27:01 +1200, zeb...@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
>
> >Jonathan L Cunningham <sp...@softluck.plus.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Institutions with a location: libraries, universities, hospitals,
> >> places of employment such as offices, supermarkets, factories.
> >
> >Locations are useful for places like libraries, universities, and places
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. :-). Who *really* knows?
>
> "Mommy, what's a library?"
>
> "It's a place where they keep a whole stack of books."
No, it's not. Even when books as distinct physical objects are gone,
libraries will still be useful as places for people to go in order to:
a) access resources that they can't afford to buy themselves;
b) use technology that they can't afford to buy themselves;
c) talk to experts who have knowledge that they can't afford to get
themselves (ie knowledge of how to access information);
d) be in an environment that encourages them to actually study rather
than to cat-vacuum (not looking at myself in particular, oh no...)
Brian M. Scott
<zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1gjn2mo.1mgz3wnbym73iN%zeb...@gmail.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> Even when books as distinct physical objects are gone,
> libraries will still be useful as places for people to go in order to:
[...]
> d) be in an environment that encourages them to actually study rather
> than to cat-vacuum (not looking at myself in particular, oh no...)
In my experience there's hardly any *better* place than a
library for cat-vacuuming!
Brian
Zeborah
Well, sure: but if I can find a seat at the desk at the wall end of the
row of the books that I'm meant to be studying, and since I don't have a
wireless connection to the internet, I'm much more likely to get work
done than when I'm at home ("I'll just prune that tree"), in my room
("I'll just tidy that pile"), connected to the internet ("I'll just
check Usenet").
Julian Flood
"Zeborah" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote
[libraries]
> d) be in an environment that encourages them to actually study rather
> than to cat-vacuum
In the name of accessability and friendliness, all UK libraries are now play
pens.
JF
Brian M. Scott
<zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1gjnbo7.1ab0a8a19au4loN%zeb...@gmail.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
>> [...]
>> [...]
Ah, yes. I'm in very little danger of succumbing to the
first two 'temptations', than which almost anything usually
seems preferable, but the third is a problem.
Brian
Warrick M. Locke
> > Tina...@kruemel.org says...
>
> [greeblings...]
> >> us humans can't see them. Just like dark matter, they're only
> >> indicated by the otherwise unexplained behaviour of what we
> >> see... Do you think dark matter and greeblings are related?)
> >>
> > They may very well be, but that says more about cats than it does
> > about gröblings (they use the umlaut over here sometimes, just to
> > be perverse.)
>
> Heh. (Where's 'here'?)
Bad Hartz, Milam Grant, Texas N.A.F. -- no, wait... which timeline is
this again?
>
> > Perhaps we will have to wait for full communication with felines
> > before we solve the mystery of dark matter. Then it will be easy:
> > just ask Puss. :-)
>
> Oh dear. The only 'word' Einstein throws at me on occasion is 'nein'
> ('no'), not that she tries others, but it's too elevated for me to
> understand.
We had a cat, called Beavis, who didn't speak English but understood the
concept, i.e. he knew that humans had a different set of organizing
vocalizations. He had recognizable variants of "yes," "no," "go out,"
"rub" (my word for petting), and "eat" -- all verbs -- and knew that a
rising tone was a question ("may I") where a flat one was a statement
("eat" meaning another cat was eating.) He also knew "please" and
combined it properly with the others when he wasn't too impatient, which
I thought represented quite an accomplishment.
Beavis didn't have the vocal equipment for human language or the mental
capacity to form sentences; I'm not at all sure he used a grammar as
such, although the ability to say "go out please" may indicate such. He
was extraordinary, but communication with kitties may not be as far away
as one might think. The experience also made me think about alien
languages. There are people who think that aliens will have mental
processes that make their language impossible for humans to understand; I
don't agree. If they eat and interact within three-space, I believe we
will be able to communicate on a useful level.
[...]
> I don't think they'd bother to tell us. Having observed us humans
> for so long, they might either enjoy their superior status, or keep
> us ignorant for our own good, or maybe both.
Well, it's a matter of incentive. Cats have a moderately strong sense of
status and a set of displays and vocalizations that support it. Die Herr
Professor Doktor Graukatz will no doubt be pleased to explain, in long
rambling sentences loaded with jargon and delivered with condescension :)
> > Dogs may know something about it as well (Darling, whatever is
> > that animal barking at?)
>
> Hehe. I've just added something along that line to my VUP last
> night, but that's not greeblings being the cause...
Pity. I think I like greeblings much better than I'm going to like your
quasi-vampire...
> > but, sycophants that they are, will simply tell us what they think
> > we want to hear.
>
> True. They also might just patiently listen to whatever nonsense we
> suggest, wag their tail in sympathy, and pretend not to understand a
> word of what we say. Oh, that's what they do already...
Dan Goodman probably has abandoned this thread, which is a pity, because
he would probably remember the title and author of the story that made me
think of. The Dogs are really in control, and the guy who tries to expose
their plot is in bad trouble...
Regards,
Ric
Graham Woodland
>
>Dan Goodman probably has abandoned this thread, which is a pity, because
>he would probably remember the title and author of the story that made me
>think of. The Dogs are really in control, and the guy who tries to expose
>their plot is in bad trouble...
>
Cheers,
--
Gray
http://www.quilpole.demon.co.uk
"She does not get eaten by the sharks at this time."
- William Goldman, _The Princess Bride_.
Jonathan L Cunningham
>> "It's a place where they keep a whole stack of books."
>
>No, it's not. Even when books as distinct physical objects are gone,
>libraries will still be useful as places for people to go in order to:
Yeah, as Julian pointed out, it's not books any more. My *nearest*
library has toys and CDs. I must remember to pop in some time when it
is actually open, and ask if they've heard of books. I expect they've
got some somewhere.
Playing devil's advocate ...
>a) access resources that they can't afford to buy themselves;
Would have to be something that couldn't be accessed over the 'net.
>b) use technology that they can't afford to buy themselves;
Ditto.
>c) talk to experts who have knowledge that they can't afford to get
>themselves (ie knowledge of how to access information);
This, ISTM, would be the most important function. Except they wouldn't
be called libraries, or even virtual libraries. They'd be called
rassfixes, or some other word derived from rasfc.
>d) be in an environment that encourages them to actually study rather
>than to cat-vacuum (not looking at myself in particular, oh no...)
<interested> What would such an environment be like? I'm clearly
suffering from a failure of imagination here.
Back to (c), one of the very earliest SF novels I read (something
so forgettable I've forgotten what it was) had a profession called
something like "Nexus Officer" -- these were people whose job it
was to be generalists, because all the specialists were too
specialised to see connections between different fields of study.
That's what I wanted to do, except it still hasn't been invented
yet. I reckon librarians ought to be staking a claim for that role,
if they haven't done so yet.
ObSF: _Sucker Bait_ by Asimov(?) has a similar concept called
the Mnemonic Service, but it's not the same concept.
Graham Woodland
>On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 12:45:08 +1200, zeb...@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
>
>>> "It's a place where they keep a whole stack of books."
>>
>>No, it's not. Even when books as distinct physical objects are gone,
>>libraries will still be useful as places for people to go in order to:
>
>Yeah, as Julian pointed out, it's not books any more. My *nearest*
>library has toys and CDs. I must remember to pop in some time when it
>is actually open, and ask if they've heard of books. I expect they've
>got some somewhere.
>
in a borough formerly so 'progressive' that every one of the fill-in-
the-blanks Political Correctness Library Scandals imaginable has hit
local headlines at some stage in its recent history.
But it's still overwhelmingly booky. Its intake policy seems fairly
catholic (and is commendably strong on SF), and for all its patchiness
in places, it's an easy place to spend all day, for N = a very large
number of days, happily browsing books on almost any conceivable that
one's never heard of before. As for bias, it appears inclusive rather
than exclusive: some positions and tastes seem represented rather
disproportionately, but if a Goodkind is popular or a stiff-lipped
Imperialist Colonel (Rtd) with Views about racial character wrote a
definitive tomeset about Hannibal's campaigns fifty years ago, in they
go.
Yes: modest though it be, it *definitely* belongs to the genus
_library_.
I just thought I'd share that, in the interests of making the world a
brighter and happier place...
Zeborah
> On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 12:45:08 +1200, zeb...@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
>
> >> "It's a place where they keep a whole stack of books."
> >
> >No, it's not. Even when books as distinct physical objects are gone,
> >libraries will still be useful as places for people to go in order to:
>
> Yeah, as Julian pointed out, it's not books any more. My *nearest*
> library has toys and CDs. I must remember to pop in some time when it
> is actually open, and ask if they've heard of books. I expect they've
> got some somewhere.
I tend to feel that toys and computer games shouldn't be there. (Unless
possibly they're uncommonly educational while still fun. "Where in the
world is Carmen San Diego?", frex.) CDs, videos, and DVDs, though,
certainly should be.
> Playing devil's advocate ...
>
> >a) access resources that they can't afford to buy themselves;
>
> Would have to be something that couldn't be accessed over the 'net.
Yes. There may be licensing reasons why they can't be. Besides which
it's conceivable that not everyone will have the net; not everyone has
phones,still.
> >b) use technology that they can't afford to buy themselves;
>
> Ditto.
Currently microforms etc. In the future, [insert format here]-readers,
according to the latest format of choice for published books.
Or DVD-players, for that matter -- and your great-grandmother threw out
her DVD-player centuries ago, but you really have to watch this DVD for
your research project because someone's told you it's got some very
clear shots of a "toaster".
> >c) talk to experts who have knowledge that they can't afford to get
> >themselves (ie knowledge of how to access information);
>
> This, ISTM, would be the most important function. Except they wouldn't
> be called libraries, or even virtual libraries. They'd be called
> rassfixes, or some other word derived from rasfc.
I think this is the most important function even now.
> Back to (c), one of the very earliest SF novels I read (something
> so forgettable I've forgotten what it was) had a profession called
> something like "Nexus Officer" -- these were people whose job it
> was to be generalists, because all the specialists were too
> specialised to see connections between different fields of study.
>
> That's what I wanted to do, except it still hasn't been invented
> yet. I reckon librarians ought to be staking a claim for that role,
> if they haven't done so yet.
Not that role precisely. The role of librarians is more meta- than
that: I myself know nothing about psychological effects of diabetes,
but if someone comes to the desk desperately trying to look up that
subject I know a) which databases to try, and b) (in this case very
rapidly after a.) which other librarian to call who might have better
ideas.
> ObSF: _Sucker Bait_ by Asimov(?) has a similar concept called
> the Mnemonic Service, but it's not the same concept.
Asimov certainly did something with a similar concept, a short called
"Profession" which I first read in French.
Jonathan L Cunningham
>Jonathan L Cunningham <sp...@softluck.plus.com> wrote:
>> Playing devil's advocate ...
>>
>> >a) access resources that they can't afford to buy themselves;
>>
>> Would have to be something that couldn't be accessed over the 'net.
>
>Yes. There may be licensing reasons why they can't be. Besides which
>it's conceivable that not everyone will have the net; not everyone has
>phones,still.
Are we talking about now, the near future, this millenium or some
distant future time?
>> >b) use technology that they can't afford to buy themselves;
(snip)
>Or DVD-players, for that matter -- and your great-grandmother threw out
>her DVD-player centuries ago, but you really have to watch this DVD for
>your research project because someone's told you it's got some very
>clear shots of a "toaster".
I think, if the disc still exists and is readable, we must be talking
near future.
[multi-discipliniary generalists]
>> That's what I wanted to do, except it still hasn't been invented
>> yet. I reckon librarians ought to be staking a claim for that role,
>> if they haven't done so yet.
>
>Not that role precisely. The role of librarians is more meta- than
>that: I myself know nothing about psychological effects of diabetes,
>but if someone comes to the desk desperately trying to look up that
>subject I know a) which databases to try, and b) (in this case very
>rapidly after a.) which other librarian to call who might have better
>ideas.
That's now. It's a very important role, and could become even more
important. But I'd like to see generalists at the ur- level (is that
the right prefix?) not just at the meta- level.
[Hobby-horse alert] It's yet another reason why increased longevity
is important. If probably takes ten years to become expert in a field,
but longer, maybe twenty years, to become *very* expert.
So there isn't really time to become expert in, say, three disparate
fields and then explore how they can be combined.
Jonathan L Cunningham
<gr...@quilpole.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Jonathan L Cunningham wrote
>>On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 12:45:08 +1200, zeb...@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
>>
>>>> "It's a place where they keep a whole stack of books."
>>>
>>>No, it's not. Even when books as distinct physical objects are gone,
>>>libraries will still be useful as places for people to go in order to:
>>
>>Yeah, as Julian pointed out, it's not books any more. My *nearest*
>>library has toys and CDs. I must remember to pop in some time when it
>>is actually open, and ask if they've heard of books. I expect they've
>>got some somewhere.
>>
>Mine is not particularly well-supplied as libraries go, and is situated
>in a borough formerly so 'progressive' that every one of the fill-in-
>the-blanks Political Correctness Library Scandals imaginable has hit
>local headlines at some stage in its recent history.
>
>But it's still overwhelmingly booky. Its intake policy seems fairly
If you'd looked closely, you'd have seen the bulge in my cheek, caused
by my tongue.
But there are a number of libraries and branch libraries here, and the
one which is actually closest really isn't serving the most literate
part of the community. So although it probably does have some books
(I haven't looked in recently) if it is doing its job properly, they
will be the kind of books people living near want to borrow. You know,
the round, thin, shiny sort, that you put in your DVD player ...
Sorry, I tried to remain serious, but it's not possible when thinking
about that branch library: the cognitive dissonance between my mental
image of a "library" and the reality is too great, even if it does
have lots of books.
There are other libraries, and some of them seem to be used by
students as good places to study (as Z. suggests) -- the reference
section of the main library was fully occupied by such last time I
had occasion to visit it (some years ago now).
Pat Bowne
> Jonathan L Cunningham wrote
> >
> >Yeah, as Julian pointed out, it's not books any more. My *nearest*
> >library has toys and CDs.
My school's library has frogs, which I find an excellent idea. Not just for
libraries -- everyplace should have frogs.
When I lived in Edmonton, the local library had doves and bunnies. Not quite
as good as frogs, but close.
Pat
Tina Hall
> Tina...@kruemel.org says...
>> Warrick M. Locke <warl...@mesh.net> wrote:
>>> Tina...@kruemel.org says...
>> [greeblings...]
>>> They may very well be, but that says more about cats than it
>>> does about gröblings (they use the umlaut over here sometimes,
>>> just to be perverse.)
>>
>> Heh. (Where's 'here'?)
> Bad Hartz,
I first read this as (English) 'bad' + Hartz, and wondered what that
might be, then checked what the question was. <g>
> Milam Grant, Texas N.A.F. -- no, wait... which timeline is this
> again?
You ask me? I seem to be caught in a cartoon or a caricature or
something. (Saw some odd people in the tram today. [*])
>> Oh dear. The only 'word' Einstein throws at me on occasion is
>> 'nein' ('no'), not that she tries others, but it's too elevated
>> for me to understand.
> We had a cat, called Beavis, who didn't speak English but
> understood the concept, i.e. he knew that humans had a different
> set of organizing vocalizations. He had recognizable variants of
> "yes," "no," "go out," "rub" (my word for petting), and "eat" --
> all verbs -- and knew that a rising tone was a question ("may I")
> where a flat one was a statement ("eat" meaning another cat was
> eating.) He also knew "please" and combined it properly with the
> others when he wasn't too impatient, which I thought represented
> quite an accomplishment.
Indeed, this sounds very impressive. I don't think Einstein knows
that she's saying 'nein'. (She speaks through Looks quite well,
though, and trained me to recognize them. I do recognize almost all
of them, just sometimes I haven't got the slightest idea.)
> [...] The experience also made me think about alien languages.
> There are people who think that aliens will have mental processes
> that make their language impossible for humans to understand; I
> don't agree. If they eat and interact within three-space, I
> believe we will be able to communicate on a useful level.
I think both could be possible, completely strange mental process,
or aliens that manage to communicate with us. The other way round I
don't know, your Beavis adjusted to your language, too, after all,
instead of you (or I with Einstein) deciphering the quacks they
make.
>> I don't think they'd bother to tell us. Having observed us
>> humans for so long, they might either enjoy their superior
>> status, or keep us ignorant for our own good, or maybe both.
> Well, it's a matter of incentive. Cats have a moderately strong
> sense of status and a set of displays and vocalizations that
> support it.
They do? <looking at Einstein> All of them?
;)
> Die Herr Professor Doktor Graukatz will no doubt be pleased to
> explain, in long rambling sentences loaded with jargon and
> delivered with condescension :)
:) Where do I contact her?
>>> Dogs may know something about it as well (Darling, whatever is
>>> that animal barking at?)
>>
>> Hehe. I've just added something along that line to my VUP last
>> night, but that's not greeblings being the cause...
> Pity. I think I like greeblings much better than I'm going to
> like your quasi-vampire...
LOL. :) That's understandable. Greeblings can't directly harm us,
after all.
>> True. They also might just patiently listen to whatever nonsense
>> we suggest, wag their tail in sympathy, and pretend not to
>> understand a word of what we say. Oh, that's what they do
>> already...
> Dan Goodman probably has abandoned this thread, which is a pity,
> because he would probably remember the title and author of the
> story that made me think of. The Dogs are really in control, and
> the guy who tries to expose their plot is in bad trouble...
:) Sounds nicely strange.
[*] An old couple, around 70 (I'm bad at guessing age, but trying
with some thought involved). She with almost vertical lines going
down from the corners of nose and mouth, he with a grin frozen on
his face, a bit like a clown's (not exaggerating), the lines (from
nose and mouth-corners) looked like a circus tent. The eyes were sad
and tired, though, but when he said something to the woman the mouth
still looked as if he was smiling.
I just found this very odd and very unreal.
Warrick M. Locke
gr...@quilpole.demon.co.uk says...
> Warrick M. Locke wrote
> >
> >Dan Goodman probably has abandoned this thread, which is a pity, because
> >he would probably remember the title and author of the story that made me
> >think of. The Dogs are really in control, and the guy who tries to expose
> >their plot is in bad trouble...
> >
> _Into Your Tent I'll Creep_, by Eric Frank Russell.
>
>
Regards,
Ric
Warrick M. Locke
> Warrick M. Locke <warl...@mesh.net> wrote:
> > Tina...@kruemel.org says...
> >> Warrick M. Locke <warl...@mesh.net> wrote:
> >>> Tina...@kruemel.org says...
>
> >> [greeblings...]
> >>> They may very well be, but that says more about cats than it
> >>> does about gröblings (they use the umlaut over here sometimes,
> >>> just to be perverse.)
> >>
> >> Heh. (Where's 'here'?)
>
> > Bad Hartz,
>
> I first read this as (English) 'bad' + Hartz, and wondered what that
> might be, then checked what the question was. <g>
>
> > Milam Grant, Texas N.A.F. -- no, wait... which timeline is this
> > again?
>
> You ask me? I seem to be caught in a cartoon or a caricature or
> something. (Saw some odd people in the tram today. [*])
Yes, I did some checking... this is the one with only one Kennedy as
Prime Minister, yes? In that case, it's Mineral Wells, Texas USNA. Or
perhaps the "N" is redundant... it gets confusing sometimes. Is the
younger Dzugashvili still Czar?
[...]
> > [...] The experience also made me think about alien languages.
> > There are people who think that aliens will have mental processes
> > that make their language impossible for humans to understand; I
> > don't agree. If they eat and interact within three-space, I
> > believe we will be able to communicate on a useful level.
>
> I think both could be possible, completely strange mental process,
> or aliens that manage to communicate with us. The other way round I
> don't know, your Beavis adjusted to your language, too, after all,
> instead of you (or I with Einstein) deciphering the quacks they
> make.
Oh, I do that, too; the cats around here now aren't as smart as Beavis
was, and one of them is deaf anyway.
[...]
> > Well, it's a matter of incentive. Cats have a moderately strong
> > sense of status and a set of displays and vocalizations that
> > support it.
>
> They do? <looking at Einstein> All of them?
>
> ;)
Yes. From your descriptions, Einstein has relegated you to lower status
than she holds, but you haven't been very complete in the descriptions.
[...]
>
> [*] An old couple, around 70 (I'm bad at guessing age, but trying
> with some thought involved). She with almost vertical lines going
> down from the corners of nose and mouth, he with a grin frozen on
> his face, a bit like a clown's (not exaggerating), the lines (from
> nose and mouth-corners) looked like a circus tent. The eyes were sad
> and tired, though, but when he said something to the woman the mouth
> still looked as if he was smiling.
>
> I just found this very odd and very unreal.
"Smile! Things could be worse!"
So I smiled, and sure enough, things got worse :-)
Regards,
Ric
Graham Woodland
>On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 17:49:38 +0100, Graham Woodland
><gr...@quilpole.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Jonathan L Cunningham wrote
>>>On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 12:45:08 +1200, zeb...@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "It's a place where they keep a whole stack of books."
>>>>
>>>>No, it's not. Even when books as distinct physical objects are gone,
>>>>libraries will still be useful as places for people to go in order to:
>>>
>>>Yeah, as Julian pointed out, it's not books any more. My *nearest*
>>>library has toys and CDs. I must remember to pop in some time when it
>>>is actually open, and ask if they've heard of books. I expect they've
>>>got some somewhere.
>>>
>>Mine is not particularly well-supplied as libraries go, and is situated
>>in a borough formerly so 'progressive' that every one of the fill-in-
>>the-blanks Political Correctness Library Scandals imaginable has hit
>>local headlines at some stage in its recent history.
>>
>>But it's still overwhelmingly booky. Its intake policy seems fairly
>
>If you'd looked closely, you'd have seen the bulge in my cheek, caused
>by my tongue.
>
florid but genuine cry of distress.
>But there are a number of libraries and branch libraries here, and the
>one which is actually closest really isn't serving the most literate
>part of the community. So although it probably does have some books
>(I haven't looked in recently) if it is doing its job properly, they
>will be the kind of books people living near want to borrow. You know,
>the round, thin, shiny sort, that you put in your DVD player ...
>
>Sorry, I tried to remain serious, but it's not possible when thinking
>about that branch library: the cognitive dissonance between my mental
>image of a "library" and the reality is too great, even if it does
>have lots of books.
>
Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.
Cheers,
Mary Anne Stout
>
[about libraries, and Zeborah said most of what I was going to say]
>
> [Hobby-horse alert] It's yet another reason why increased longevity
> is important. If probably takes ten years to become expert in a field,
> but longer, maybe twenty years, to become *very* expert.
>
> So there isn't really time to become expert in, say, three disparate
> fields and then explore how they can be combined.
>
> Jonathan
Back when I was in library school, a large bunch of us sitting around in
the coffee room [its official name was "the student lounge" but faculty
used it, too, and caffeine was its primary purpose] discussed why we
were there, and then expanded our survey to include the rest of the room
and any passersby we could capture. The results were roughly 50/50: half
of us were there because we loved to read (not me; that was the English
degree) and the other half because we wanted to know everything, and
realizing, in some cases after acquiring graduate degrees in obscure
subjects, that life's too short for that, had settled for knowing how to
find out everything.
--
Mary Anne in Kentucky
Tina Hall
> Tina...@kruemel.org says...
>> Warrick M. Locke <warl...@mesh.net> wrote:
>>> [location] -- no, wait... which timeline is this again?
>>
>> You ask me? I seem to be caught in a cartoon or a caricature or
>> something. (Saw some odd people in the tram today. [*])
> Yes, I did some checking... this is the one with only one Kennedy
> as Prime Minister, yes?
<thinking>
Eh?
> In that case, it's Mineral Wells, Texas USNA. Or perhaps the "N"
> is redundant... it gets confusing sometimes. Is the younger
> Dzugashvili still Czar?
Who?
I really don't know. I think other timelines and realities begin
right outside my door, it's all so weird out there. Maybe there's
some uncertainty in space-time involved, an area or several
different ones, like a fog (or fogs) except it's probability
particles instead of water, or something.
I've observed something else weird, something to do with chaos
liking a certain level; I can only have n whole objects, if I buy
something new, something old will break, so the number doesn't
change. I buy a new CD player, it breaks down, I buy another CD
player, it breaks, too (that one slipped out of my grip and landed
conspiciously unfortunate), I buy yet another one (two actually),
chaos gives up on them and the fridge light goes off. I buy a new
frying pan (the old one is wobbly), and the zipper on my rucksack
falls off (or maybe the zippor on the pencil-pouch), I buy a basket
for the cat and the monitor gets funny (I had another lying around,
fortunately), I buy a pot (used for the cat's water) and my bikelamp
breaks... (Not sure whether the order is quite correct, but it
approximates what I've been observing lately, there's more, too...)
My bike ('Mike') suddenly went throughoughly knackered (because I
bought a new lamp), as opposed to just rickety, and I had that fixed
yesterday (which was quite entertaining; the freshly fixed hind
wheel was suddenly in the same state it had been when I arrived at
this friend's place, after I'd _seen_ him fix it, successfully, for
most of the late afternoon/early evening), I also got a new and
nifty saddle, a better bell, a new front wheel (one that actually
matches the now new and nifty hind wheel), and the right-hand break
actually works properly. New Mike rides like butter (where old Mike
at the end rode as if the breaks where permanently engaged), and
makes hardly any funny noises at all.
Now I'm wondering what will break because of that... Any bets? <g>
I also wonder where the soul of a bike might be located, with so
many parts exchanged, I'd hate to think I abandoned poor old Mike.
> Yes. From your descriptions, Einstein has relegated you to lower
> status than she holds, but you haven't been very complete in the
> descriptions.
It's more that I treat her that way most of the time (because I want
her to feel safe and comfortable, happy if possible), but what
ultimately counts is who decides (and enforces, while still
respecting her oddities) the visits to the vet and such stuff, no?
:)
I treat her as equal basically because I feel like it, that it can
be quite different shows the disturbed state she was in when she was
dropped off at our place; no chance at any status but 'unwanted' or
something like that with the horrible woman she lived with before.
In the end, bullies are only successful if you let them, cats or
otherwise. :)
[old couple, him with a grin engraved in his face]
>> I just found this very odd and very unreal.
> "Smile! Things could be worse!"
> So I smiled, and sure enough, things got worse :-)
<g>
Sadly, that sounds very appropriate.
--
Tina - Spinning gorilla on the grand piano of words.
What good is an answer when you don't understand the question?
Vogon Jeltz for President!
cd skogsberg
>>c) talk to experts who have knowledge that they can't afford to get
>>themselves (ie knowledge of how to access information);
[...]
> Back to (c), one of the very earliest SF novels I read (something so
> forgettable I've forgotten what it was) had a profession called
> something like "Nexus Officer" -- these were people whose job it was
> to be generalists, because all the specialists were too specialised
> to see connections between different fields of study.
_Voyage Of The Space Beagle_, by A.E. van Vogt? Though there the
profession was "Nexialist". Been ages since I read it.
/cd
--
Strategic incompetense is the best defense!
-- Anders Henriksson
Brian M. Scott
wrote in <news:slrncjs2...@tiphareth.krfsm.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> [...]
I liked what Panshin did with the idea in _Rite of Passage_,
splitting it into ordinologists and synthesists. It's the
former who more resemble librarians.
Brian
Jonathan L Cunningham
:-).
I would have decided on a third option: to live forever[1].
I haven't quite figured out how to do it yet.
Jonathan
[1] The title of at least one book: _To Live Forever_ by Jack Vance,
which, IIRC, is nothing to do with libraries.
Jonathan L Cunningham
Hmmm. You're right, but that wasn't actually the book I was thinking
of. Or maybe I was, but I thought I wasn't. Or maybe I was mixing
up plots from more than one book. Or ... :-).
So thanks. I need to read it again :-).
Mary Anne Stout
Option 3 would, I fear, include the frustration of not being able to
_read_ everything. Not even everything good.
Andrea Leistra
Tina Hall <Tina...@kruemel.org> wrote:
>Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>
>>> This sounds interesting, if I knew what exactly dark matter was
>>> supposed to be...
>
>> The _experts_ don't know exactly what it's supposed to be,
>> either.
>
><g>
>
>> As I understand it: the detectable matter in what we can observe
>> of the universe isn't enough to account for certain things which
>> 1) do happen and 2) are supposed to be caused by the mass of
>> matter. Dark matter is matter which can't yet be detected.
>
>That does sound rather simple, thanks. :)
>
>And that's it? It could be anything? Anyone's guess is as valid as
>the next one's? From sub-atomic particles, to lumps of 'dark-rock',
>or even sort of organic, or a yet unknown 'form of/particularly
>shaped' energy (lacking the right term, of course)?
Afraid not.
There are very good reasons (which, given your response to an attempt to
explain the primary colors of light on rasfw I won't try to explain unless
you really want me to) why the dark matter can't be ordinary matter;
basically, it can't be made of protons and neutrons. This means that
rocks, hydrogen gas, organic or pseudo-organic stuff, and the like are all
excluded; it basically has to be some exotic particle. (I don't want to
call the stuff subatomic, because it wouldn't be a constituent of atoms.)
It is gravitationally bound, however, rather than streaming around through
the universe like light.
--
Andrea Leistra
Tina Hall
> Tina Hall <Tina...@kruemel.org> wrote:
[dark matter]
>> And that's it? It could be anything? Anyone's guess is as valid
>> as the next one's? From sub-atomic particles, to lumps of
>> 'dark-rock', or even sort of organic, or a yet unknown 'form
>> of/particularly shaped' energy (lacking the right term, of
>> course)?
> Afraid not.
> There are very good reasons (which, given your response to an
> attempt to explain the primary colors of light on rasfw
I kept telling you that I'm not interested in having that explained
in a newsgroup, you kept insisting to try to explain something
completely beside what I was actually talking about, and made no
sense. Ignoring the request to just leave it wasn't all that nice,
and you have no reason to complain that it was futile, you were
warned all along, after all, and didn't even understand what I
meant. Since telling you all of this didn't work, I just stopped
replying.
> I won't try to explain unless you really want me to)
Did you dig out this old thread just to say this?
I don't really think your explanations are of any use to me.
--
Tina - Vaguely Precise.
Xom smiles on you.
You hear a splash. (Dungeon Crawl)
Andrea Leistra
Tina Hall <Tina...@kruemel.org> wrote:
>> I won't try to explain unless you really want me to)
>
>Did you dig out this old thread just to say this?
No; I haven't been reading the group much lately, and didn't remember
to check the date and notice the thread was old. Sorry.
--
Andrea Leistra
James A. Donald
Andrea Leistra:
> There are very good reasons (which, given your response to an
> attempt to explain the primary colors of light on rasfw I
> won't try to explain unless you really want me to) why the
> dark matter can't be ordinary matter; basically, it can't be
> made of protons and neutrons.
"can't be" is a little strong. "Seems unlikely" would be
better.
There is a strong preponderance of evidence that dark matter
cannot be ordinary matter, but the question is as yet far from
proven. Could small brown dwarf stars, old white dwarfs,
medium sized black holes, or perhaps old socks.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
xVDmnKc0F9Q3QWF13fOT9fEEV9swQksyPNo70lzV
4KOezYmr/Ep7uRCOLE4KJP+vBy+EOHJQUu1sL54Ch
Andrea Leistra
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> --
>Andrea Leistra:
>> There are very good reasons (which, given your response to an
>> attempt to explain the primary colors of light on rasfw I
>> won't try to explain unless you really want me to) why the
>> dark matter can't be ordinary matter; basically, it can't be
>> made of protons and neutrons.
>
>"can't be" is a little strong. "Seems unlikely" would be
>better.
>
>There is a strong preponderance of evidence that dark matter
>cannot be ordinary matter, but the question is as yet far from
>proven. Could small brown dwarf stars, old white dwarfs,
>medium sized black holes, or perhaps old socks.
How do you propose to get around the big bang nucleosynthesis
constraints? Or the WMAP results, for that matter, which also
place separate constraints on the amount of baryonic matter and
the total matter?
There is room for a small amount of the dark matter to be baryonic,
yes. But not most of it.
--
Andrea Leistra
James Nicoll
Andrea Leistra <alei...@mint.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>In article <g836l0l05fa7m7prj...@4ax.com>,
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> --
>>Andrea Leistra:
>>> There are very good reasons (which, given your response to an
>>> attempt to explain the primary colors of light on rasfw I
>>> won't try to explain unless you really want me to) why the
>>> dark matter can't be ordinary matter; basically, it can't be
>>> made of protons and neutrons.
>>
>>"can't be" is a little strong. "Seems unlikely" would be
>>better.
>>
>>There is a strong preponderance of evidence that dark matter
>>cannot be ordinary matter, but the question is as yet far from
>>proven. Could small brown dwarf stars, old white dwarfs,
>>medium sized black holes, or perhaps old socks.
>
>How do you propose to get around the big bang nucleosynthesis
>constraints? Or the WMAP results, for that matter, which also
>place separate constraints on the amount of baryonic matter and
>the total matter?
>
--
"I dreamed they locked God up/ In my basement
And he waited there for me/ To have this accident
So he could drink my wine/ And eat me like a sacrament."
"Saddle in the Rain" John Prine
James A. Donald
Andrea Leistra:
> > > There are very good reasons (which, given your response
> > > to an attempt to explain the primary colors of light on
> > > rasfw I won't try to explain unless you really want me
> > > to) why the dark matter can't be ordinary matter;
> > > basically, it can't be made of protons and neutrons.
James A. Donald:
> >"can't be" is a little strong. "Seems unlikely" would be
> >better.
Andrea Leistra:
> How do you propose to get around the big bang nucleosynthesis
> constraints?
There are plenty of assumptions in the big bang
nucleonsynthesis model that can be tweaked, and quite a few of
them were tweaked in order to get the right results.
The big bang neucleosynthesis model, while plausible and
consistent with all available evidence is far from proven.
Maybe the universe bounced at large but finite density. Maybe
the segregation of matter and antimatter occurred late in the
process.
It is a model. Whenever people have troubles with a model,
they throw in a few more parameters. Cosmologists have been
throwing in quite a few parameters lately, some of them more
plausible than others. Maybe the big bang nucleosynthesis
occured as estimated, but the initial expansion was uneven,
leaving behind lots of unstable white holes, effectively
locations where the expansion had not yet happened. These
white holes then proceeded to decay, spitting out matter,
matter which being spat out in a relatively cool universe,
would not be subject to big bang nucleosynthesis.
We know the fine structure constant was non uniform, and
slightly different from its present values in the early
universe - an astonishing fact that drops a big hint about
spontaneous symmetry breaking, a hint that no scientist has yet
made sense out of. Maybe back in the very early days of the
universe it was way different from its present values, which
would put the initial nucleosynthesis calculations way off.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
T07Xft7/v5vyzQandhS0YDSL7fFWpLHfr0GIC/2y
4Axo0CagQTptbbOpWT6QnXXgupWuxztfv3AlOoLP4
Neil Barnes
on slate and produced:
But surely the remainder consists of those peanuts that packs the
equipment used to look for for it?
Neil
Carl Dershem
news:pan.2004.09.24....@hotmail.com:
Somehow, this reminds me of several packages we've gotten at work recently
- instead of peanuts, they're packed with plastic bags that have been
inflated. The potential parallel to POUS (Particles Of Unusual Size) has
some potential.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Somehow, this reminds me of several packages we've gotten at work recently
>- instead of peanuts, they're packed with plastic bags that have been
>inflated. The potential parallel to POUS (Particles Of Unusual Size) has
>some potential.
And more than half of the airbags I get aren't recyclable. I can take
batches of peanuts to the UPS/Mailboxes Etc. place.
--
Marilee J. Layman
G.W. Bush says "results count!"
That's why I'm voting for Kerry