More on mobile phones & other wireless devices

On 23 Apr 2007 07:21:17 -0700, Corvus Corvax
wrote:

On Apr 23, 2:28 am, (Bill Z.) wrote:

Actually , I do understand it, even if you don't. Feynman definitely
did. And he did have a sense of humor and joked a lot (including his
joke about no one understanding quantum mechanics).

I'm glad YOU understand it. I've been thinking hard about it for many
years, and I am still completely confused. Here are some things I need
help with:

* How do I formuate a self-consistent quantum field theory in a space
with no global timelike Killing vector?
* How do I handle quadratic divergences in scalar fields?
* What is the origin of flavor symmetry?

I and many of my friends would be very grateful if you could help us
out.

Right. And when you're done, please completely explain Schrödinger's
Equation -- every part of it.

CC
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On 23 Apr 2007 16:13:16 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Corvus Corvax writes:

On Apr 23, 2:28 am, (Bill Z.) wrote:

Actually , I do understand it, even if you don't. Feynman definitely
did. And he did have a sense of humor and joked a lot (including his
joke about no one understanding quantum mechanics).

I'm glad YOU understand it. I've been thinking hard about it for many
years, and I am still completely confused. Here are some things I need
help with:

* How do I formuate a self-consistent quantum field theory in a space
with no global timelike Killing vector?
* How do I handle quadratic divergences in scalar fields?
* What is the origin of flavor symmetry?

I and many of my friends would be very grateful if you could help us
out.

You might start with the difference between relativistic quantum
field theory and quantum mechanics (particularly given that we
were talking about the properties of atoms and molecules, not
elementary particles). You know, the sort of stuff we had pretty
much nailed down during the first half of the 20th century.

I knew you wouldn't answer his questions. You just like ot drop names.
You don't really know how to use them.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:09:13 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Corvus Corvax writes:

On Apr 23, 7:13 pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:

You might start with the difference [... yadda yadda yadda ...]

Wow. Clueless, humorless, AND pedantic. Extra point for trying to name-
drop Richard Feynman. Have at 'im Mikey. He deserves you.

You have the nerve to call me "clueless" when you post an irrelevant
question

Which, coincidentally, you couldn't answer. That's what happens when
one name dropper meets a better one.

when the topic of discussion was the interaction of matter
and electromagnetic radiation from a small electronic device operating
at a frequency of 1 or 2 GHz?

And BZ, feel free to have the last word. I know you can't resist.

Over and out.

Buzz off. BTW, I wasn't name dropping. I had quoted something Feynman
had said and then MV tried to misquote a humorous

but accurate

remark from a
lecture he gave, so I replied with an anecdote that a friend who had
taken one of his classes told me.

Which was irrelevant.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business...ness-headlines

The economics of global warming

By Andrew Leckey

As I write this, a rock band plays loudly down the block at a "Stop
Global Warming" university rally, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is staring
right at me.

Well, not actually Arnold himself.

The California governor's famous face is staring out from the covers
of Newsweek (headline "Save the Planet -- or Else") and Fast Company
("His Green Ultimatum Will Create Huge New Markets Across California")
sitting on my desk.

Schwarzenegger, whose Humvees now run on hydrogen and biodiesel fuel,
has become a national figure in the push for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.

The aggressive California Global Warming Solutions Act, scheduled to
go into effect in January, mandates a 25 percent reduction of carbon
dioxide emissions by 2020. As Schwarzenegger recently met with federal
Environmental Protection Agency officials in Washington, asking for a
waiver in order to enact that state law, he was talking up green
issues all over town.

The band should not be confused with Al Gore's "Live Earth" concert
series planned for July. "Live Earth" will raise money to battle
climate change.

At the corporate level, ConocoPhillips became the first major U.S. oil
company to call for a federal global warming emission cap. It joins BP
PLC in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership in espousing that goal.

"We believe that the science is quite compelling and that climate
change is certainly attributed to human activity and to the
substantial use of fossil fuels," Jim Mulva, chairman and chief
executive of ConocoPhillips said.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled the federal government is
responsible for regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars. The
Bush administration has refused to impose mandatory limits and also
contends any global agreement must include China and India.

Looking at this from a business standpoint, a federal emissions cap
most likely would be less stringent on oil and auto companies than a
wide variety of rules enacted by states. The auto industry would
prefer an across-the-board emissions cap for all industries, including
utilities, rather than one that singles out cars.

As global warming emerges as a national priority, the way it is
tackled will affect many industries and the overall economy. Companies
are beginning to take positions and choose up sides, not just on
direction of the action but its forcefulness.

The public ultimately dictates the course taken, since negative
publicity and financial pressure gains every company's total
attention. While the goal of a better environment seems a "no-
brainer," the process isn't. Within a complex unfolding drama with
global repercussions, the motives of all the players involved must be
scrutinized.

Mass Murderers COALition wrote:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business...ness-headlines

The economics of global warming

By Andrew Leckey

As I write this, a rock band plays loudly down the block at a "Stop
Global Warming" university rally, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is staring
right at me.

Well, not actually Arnold himself.

The California governor's famous face is staring out from the covers
of Newsweek (headline "Save the Planet -- or Else") and Fast Company
("His Green Ultimatum Will Create Huge New Markets Across California")
sitting on my desk.

Schwarzenegger, whose Humvees now run on hydrogen and biodiesel fuel,
has become a national figure in the push for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.

The aggressive California Global Warming Solutions Act, scheduled to
go into effect in January, mandates a 25 percent reduction of carbon
dioxide emissions by 2020. As Schwarzenegger recently met with federal
Environmental Protection Agency officials in Washington, asking for a
waiver in order to enact that state law, he was talking up green
issues all over town.

The band should not be confused with Al Gore's "Live Earth" concert
series planned for July. "Live Earth" will raise money to battle
climate change.

At the corporate level, ConocoPhillips became the first major U.S. oil
company to call for a federal global warming emission cap. It joins BP
PLC in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership in espousing that goal.

"We believe that the science is quite compelling and that climate
change is certainly attributed to human activity and to the
substantial use of fossil fuels," Jim Mulva, chairman and chief
executive of ConocoPhillips said.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled the federal government is
responsible for regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars. The
Bush administration has refused to impose mandatory limits and also
contends any global agreement must include China and India.

Looking at this from a business standpoint, a federal emissions cap
most likely would be less stringent on oil and auto companies than a
wide variety of rules enacted by states. The auto industry would
prefer an across-the-board emissions cap for all industries, including
utilities, rather than one that singles out cars.

As global warming emerges as a national priority, the way it is
tackled will affect many industries and the overall economy. Companies
are beginning to take positions and choose up sides, not just on
direction of the action but its forcefulness.

The public ultimately dictates the course taken, since negative
publicity and financial pressure gains every company's total
attention. While the goal of a better environment seems a "no-
brainer," the process isn't. Within a complex unfolding drama with
global repercussions, the motives of all the players involved must be
scrutinized.


So who is doing the concert to help fix the global warming that is
happening on Mars? Mars' icecap is melting too!

Pollution 'must' be bad there too eh? What 'do' those Mars Rovers run
on anyway? ;-)

Mike

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 23 Apr 2007 07:21:17 -0700, Corvus Corvax
wrote:

On Apr 23, 2:28 am, (Bill Z.) wrote:

Actually , I do understand it, even if you don't. Feynman definitely
did. And he did have a sense of humor and joked a lot (including his
joke about no one understanding quantum mechanics).

I'm glad YOU understand it. I've been thinking hard about it for many
years, and I am still completely confused. Here are some things I need
help with:

* How do I formuate a self-consistent quantum field theory in a space
with no global timelike Killing vector?
* How do I handle quadratic divergences in scalar fields?
* What is the origin of flavor symmetry?

I and many of my friends would be very grateful if you could help us
out.

Right. And when you're done, please completely explain Schrödinger's
Equation -- every part of it.

LOL. It's well covered in any number of undergraduate text books, so
I'll simply refer you to those - if you want me to teach you physics,
you can pay me to do it.

I can tell, however, that you are really desparate to get out of
your cell phone nonsense. :-)


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 23 Apr 2007 16:13:16 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Corvus Corvax writes:

On Apr 23, 2:28 am, (Bill Z.) wrote:

Actually , I do understand it, even if you don't. Feynman definitely
did. And he did have a sense of humor and joked a lot (including his
joke about no one understanding quantum mechanics).

I'm glad YOU understand it. I've been thinking hard about it for many
years, and I am still completely confused. Here are some things I need
help with:

* How do I formuate a self-consistent quantum field theory in a space
with no global timelike Killing vector?
* How do I handle quadratic divergences in scalar fields?
* What is the origin of flavor symmetry?

I and many of my friends would be very grateful if you could help us
out.

You might start with the difference between relativistic quantum
field theory and quantum mechanics (particularly given that we
were talking about the properties of atoms and molecules, not
elementary particles). You know, the sort of stuff we had pretty
much nailed down during the first half of the 20th century.

I knew you wouldn't answer his questions. You just like ot drop names.
You don't really know how to use them.

Vanderman is desparately trying to get out of a the fact that he made
a fool of himself. :-) Of course I'm not going to answer his
questions. It has nothing to do with what we were supposedly talking
about. Why Vanderman is latching onto it is obvious: people who are
drowning will grasp at straws. :-)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:09:13 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Corvus Corvax writes:

On Apr 23, 7:13 pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:

You might start with the difference [... yadda yadda yadda ...]

Wow. Clueless, humorless, AND pedantic. Extra point for trying to name-
drop Richard Feynman. Have at 'im Mikey. He deserves you.

You have the nerve to call me "clueless" when you post an irrelevant
question

Which, coincidentally, you couldn't answer. That's what happens when
one name dropper meets a better one.

Liar - I didn't drop any names. *You* quoted something out of a text
book and I replied with an anecdote that I heard from a friend who
had taken one of his classes to show why what you quoted was merely
a joke. Even funnier, if you had actually read the text you quoted
with any real understanding, you'd have known that what followed was
a very clear and understandable explanation.

Vandeman's infantile remaining text dropped

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:49:38 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 23 Apr 2007 16:13:16 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Corvus Corvax writes:

On Apr 23, 2:28 am, (Bill Z.) wrote:

Actually , I do understand it, even if you don't. Feynman definitely
did. And he did have a sense of humor and joked a lot (including his
joke about no one understanding quantum mechanics).

I'm glad YOU understand it. I've been thinking hard about it for many
years, and I am still completely confused. Here are some things I need
help with:

* How do I formuate a self-consistent quantum field theory in a space
with no global timelike Killing vector?
* How do I handle quadratic divergences in scalar fields?
* What is the origin of flavor symmetry?

I and many of my friends would be very grateful if you could help us
out.

You might start with the difference between relativistic quantum
field theory and quantum mechanics (particularly given that we
were talking about the properties of atoms and molecules, not
elementary particles). You know, the sort of stuff we had pretty
much nailed down during the first half of the 20th century.

I knew you wouldn't answer his questions. You just like ot drop names.
You don't really know how to use them.

Vanderman is desparately trying to get out of a the fact that he made
a fool of himself. :-) Of course I'm not going to answer his
questions.

As I said, I knew you wouldn't, because you CAN'T!
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:53:28 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:09:13 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Corvus Corvax writes:

On Apr 23, 7:13 pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:

You might start with the difference [... yadda yadda yadda ...]

Wow. Clueless, humorless, AND pedantic. Extra point for trying to name-
drop Richard Feynman. Have at 'im Mikey. He deserves you.

You have the nerve to call me "clueless" when you post an irrelevant
question

Which, coincidentally, you couldn't answer. That's what happens when
one name dropper meets a better one.

I was talking about your physics jargon, which you thrpow around just
for effect.

Liar - I didn't drop any names. *You* quoted something out of a text
book and I replied with an anecdote that I heard from a friend who
had taken one of his classes to show why what you quoted was merely
a joke. Even funnier, if you had actually read the text you quoted
with any real understanding, you'd have known that what followed was
a very clear and understandable explanation.

Vandeman's infantile remaining text dropped
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande