HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Summary: Blanket condemnation of either astrology or religion is a mistake.
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:42:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <347@mtnmath.UUCP>, paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes...

>may be appropriate to recall that the Vietnam war was conducted by the `best
>and the brightest'. It was an attempt to solve by intellectual means
>a problem that could not be solved in that manner. One can argue that 60,000
>Americans and a great many more Vietnamese died in part because of the one
>sided intellectual approach to problems that dominates our culture.

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.  One side of a war always looses.  
So what?  One baseball team always looses the World Series.  Does the 
failure of the losing team imply that reason is inferior to astrology?
Give me a break.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: tomes@iastate.edu ()
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:14:17 GMT

In article <xeno.721443261@aviator.cc.iastate.edu> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>Well, lessee...  e=mc^2, right?  and particles/antiparticles are created
>in pairs?  e = 2*mc^2 = 2 * (.1kg) * (3e8m/s)^2 = 1.8e16 joules
>
>Wow...  I could run one millions microwave ovens on high for four and a half
>months...  And that's assuming 100% efficiency...  am I wrong?
>
>---Xeno

You are probably right, but my father told me when he was at MIT the cyclotron
pulled enough power to require them to wait for the grid to recover...

A big well-funded research facility might even have their own fission power
plant.  Or two. Or more.  Power (electrical, that is) doesn't seem to be the 
problem.

Maybe 1kg instead?  Ooooh, I can think of 2 or 3 things immediately that
are ideal applications for antiprotons...like stealth nukes.  Nothing that a
self-respecting government would be interested in.

Be afraid.  Be very afraid.   -The Fly (new version)
From: ahamad@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: time travell ??
Date: 4 Nov 92 23:02:01 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

I was surprised to see how many of the posting in this groups reffered to 
the ancients { civilizations from ancient China, the mayans ,the ancient
 Egyptians etc..} having exotic powers. Is it because there is so little 
known about them.  Come now guys just because these people had some genius
in the art of building collosal objects, which I am shure came through more
by accident than design , we cannot assign exotic power to these people.
we must understand that just because these guys were good in one area dose
not indicate that they were advanced in all sciences. Genius is a lopside 
development see. Comming to the question of using anti gravity devices for 
construction of the collosal objects, let us examin the recent world events
we see that when a country is under a despot he usually gets things done
regardless of the cost. The best examples come from the gulf war the Iran 
Iraq war and the communist countries
the only anti gravity device the ancients had was Slave labour
and the only secret powers the possed was ruthless repression.I would not
want to loose my head for dessent would I


So much for that

Now for the main topic of the post. I was wondering abouth the concept of
time travell
            Now let us assume that at future date that time travell is 
 possible. this then poses an intresting question why then have we not 
yet been visted by a time traveller. Now let us examin the consequences If by 
some mischance the time traveller enters our time continuitum he will 
inevitably destroy the time continuitum ie an anamoly will occur around him
this will prevent him from interacting with his present environs i.e he 
will be in a sort of limbo {get what I mean} .The consequence of the appearance
of the time traveller will not be difficult to imagine . All the laws of 
physics are invalidated around him could this mean that there could be a 
catastrophe at the interface. could this  mean that the time traveller could
see the past or future  go by but cannot interact with it
   I would like opinions about this and am open to all ideas
  


            
    
done regardless  of the cost . 
         
                           
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: im14u2c@camelot.bradley.edu (Joseph Zbiciak)
Subject: Einstein's Incomplete theory/Philadelphia Exp.
Organization: Bradley University
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:47:27 GMT



I hope I don't seem too out of place here.... I was reading a
post elsewere dealing with the Philadelhpia Experiment, that was
conducted by the US Navy in the mid-1940's.  This experiment was
apparently based upon some unfinished Field Theories proposed by
Albert Einstein in 1927.  If anybody has any information on
either these theories or the Philadelphia Experiment itself,
PLEASE EMAIL ME!  I would be greatly appreciative.

For those who are wondering what the Philadelphia Experiment was
about, here goes my half-witted (and possibly inaccurate) rough
description.  In the mid-40's, the Navy was attempting to build a
"cloaking device" that made a ship invisible to radar entirely.
In 1945, they tried this experiment full scale, on the USS
Eldridge.  But, not only did the ship become invisible to radar,
it also became entirely invisible to people around it, with
exception to its imprint in the water, and it actually showed up
in another port (Norfolk, Virginia) seconds later, only to
disappear againand reappear back in Philadelphia.  Members of the
crew (not all, only some) were submerged INTO the decks and hull
of the ship itself, while many of the others were severly injured
or burned.  Most of the survivers went insane.

I am *NOT* referring to the sci-fi movie that is a take-off of
this experiment.  Although that movie contains *some* historical
facts, it is *not* a valid reference in my book.

If anybody has ANY information on ANY of this, PLEASE EMAIL ME!!!
Thanks in advance!!!  :-)

--Joseph Zbiciak    im14u2c@camelot.bradley.edu

--
Joseph Zbiciak                         im14u2c@camelot.bradley.edu
[====Disclaimer--If you believe any of this, check your head!====]
------------------------------------------------------------------

F U CN RD THS U CNT SPL WRTH A DM!
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: Graviton beams?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:43:46 GMT

In <1992Nov12.133031@cozy.Prime.COM> dwolff@res-c4.Prime.COM (David Wolff) writes:

>Aw, Scott, you're thinking too small!  Why do we need a resonating cavity?
>Let's look at this a little more open-mindedly.

>What we really need is a doohicky or frammistat (yeah! a BIG one! :-) that
>collates the gravitons.  After mere minutes of thought, even I came up with
>a possibility.  Take a small black hole and have your gravitons rapidly
>circle it a few squintillion times, feeding in more gravitons as you go.

>Then turn off the black hole (uh... move it rapidly out of the way? details
>left for the alert reader) and fwoom! a beam of gravitons intense enough
>to wipe out Planet Furball, or at least turn off your TV...

>Federal grants for the above may be sent to me at...

>David Wolff

Naw...

Run on down to the hardware store and buy yourself a gravitational field
generator...  Set it to its highest setting (which would be 242.63 as proposed
by the ANSI committee on gravitational field devices), and pump a high energy
impulse into it...   Make yourself just one BIG graviton...  Of course, its
direction of travel may be somewhat unpredictable (although the ANSI standards
committees are trying to remedy this), but you will have created a
gravitational tidal wave that rivals the black hole method you've mentioned.

And since black holes are only available...  where else?  on the black market,
my method is more reliable and, of course, conforms to the current ANSI
standards...  which should, above all, be the best if only reason you choose
it.

So... how are gravitons affected by intense gravitational fields?  The concept
of a graviton filled orbital around a black hole gives me the willies.

---Xeno
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Size of a PHOTON?
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:38:47 GMT
 <xeno.720906588@pv34ad.vincent.iastate.edu> <mcirvin.721007824@husc8> <xeno.721093308@aviator.cc.iastate.edu>

xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:

>In <mcirvin.721007824@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:

>>The easiest way to get the moving baseball's gravitational field
>>is to perform a coordinate transform on a stationary baseball's
>>field.  If you don't have a black hole to begin with, you don't
>>get one. 

>I was hoping someone would bring this up...  An interesting side effect
>of this is that the baseball near the speed of light would have very little
>gravitational field in front or behind it.  At the limit of 'c' the field
>would become a plane.

Yes, this is true.  This is a consequence of general relativity.

>If this were true, it would imply that 'gravitational
>waves' were intantaneous and were not bound by the speed of light.

This doesn't follow.  The same thing, after all, happens in 
electromagnetism:  the electromagnetic field of a moving charge is
squashed into a pancake.  Light *waves*, however, travel at a finite 
speed c.

The analogy is nontrivial, as Tom van Flandern likes to point out;
whereas this apparent instantaneity only applies to particles
traveling in straight lines for E&M in flat spacetime, in general
relativity it applies to any object falling freely under gravity.
It has nothing to do with the speed of waves, which in both cases
travel at c.  It also doesn't allow the instantaneous transmission
of information, since distant parts of the pancake depend only on
what the charge or baseball was doing a long time ago.  If you
toss the baseball at time zero, the gravitational field doesn't
become pancaked at a distance d until a time d/c.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: time travell ??
Date: 10 Nov 1992 11:59 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov10.014223.156121@zeus.calpoly.edu>, mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes...
>>
>	My memory is not to good on this but I'm prety sure I read about
>somebody doing an experament whereby they put positrons into a storage
>ring. Measured the time it took for them to complete a revolution.
>Then took it to the top of a mountain and did it again. Since the
>particles act as a clock, they should react to the gravitational
>field of the earth acording to relativity. I thought that they reacted
>just as electrons would. 
>	Would this not imply that they have positive mass?

I don't remember the details myself, but a positron "mass" experiment 
*was* done many years ago.  I don't think they moved the apparatus, but
rather balanced some positrons in a tube using electric fields to balance
gravity.  Unfortunately, the experiment, which was done by a Stanford
physicist named Fairbanks, has subsequently been
questioned by experts due to technical complexities involving the adequate
shielding of stray electric and magnetic fields, which will overwhelm any
real effect due to gravity.  You can read about the details in a Physics
Reports article entitled, I think, simply "Antigravity," written a couple
of years ago.

The new experiment at LEAR, using antiprotons, is much more sensitive to 
gravity, because antiprotons have the same charge as positrons, but are
1836 times more massive.  The results are not yet in.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: tomes@iastate.edu ()
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:38:06 GMT

In article <xeno.721455967@aviator.cc.iastate.edu> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>
>Too dangerous...
>
>To keep plutonium from reacting, you just don't let too much of it pile
>up in one place, but to keep anti-matter from reacting, you must provide a
>constant field to contain it.
>

Since when did a certain large self-sustaining organization not accountable
to anyone start using common sense in its operations?  But large booms in 
the night are the norm there, anyway...

Chuck the Merciless

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: potter@charon.phys.rpi.edu (Curt Potterveld)
Subject: Re: A question
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:21:55 GMT

hwong@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Harris Wong) writes:


>Hi,
>	Where is the boundary of the universe? Is this a meaningful question
>to ask? 
>	Any comment?
>Harris


>Harris Wong	201 Gilman Hall, Dept. Chem. Eng.
>510-6420853	U.C.Berkeley, Berkeley, CA94720

From the basic Cosmology that I've had, I believe that the universe does have
a boundry. In early time, (I'm not sure how many sevonds after the big bang)
the universe went through an inflationary period where is expanded faster than
the speed of light, due to quantum mechanical forces. The universe is much 
bigger than what we can actually see.

What we actually see is sometimes called a Hubble Sphere. It is a sphere
ct in radius. t here is the life time of the universe ~10^10 years. This,
of course assumes we have perfect detectors. 

I'm not sure that the actuall boundry can be expressed meaningfully in three
dimensions. The analogies I've seen compare the expansion in four dimensions to
a balloon expanding in three. 

A better question to ask is whether or not the universe is Open or Closed.
This being whether the universe will continue to expand forever, or will it
collapse back on itself. None have been able to accurately answer this yet.
The problem is that the infaltion causes the universe to appeare very flat,
right on the line between open and closed.

Hope this helps,
Curt Potterveld
potter@charon.phys.rpi.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: dwolff@res-c4.Prime.COM (David Wolff)
Subject: Re: Graviton beams?
Organization: Computervision
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:30:31 GMT

In article <11NOV199212414486@csa1.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.204746.22583@mprgate.mpr.ca>, spani@mprgate.mpr.ca (Leonard Spani) writes...
> > 
> >Would it be theoretically possible, based on the current theories
> >about gravitons, to build the graviton equivilent of a laser?
> >(i.e. coherent graviton beams), and if so what would be the
> >properties of such a beam? How would someone go about building
> >such a device? 
> 
> Unlike electromagnetic radiation, which relects off matter, sometimes almost
> completely (a mirror!), gravity waves pass right through.  (There is 
> *some* scattering, of course, but it's minutely small.)  So you couldn't
> build a resonating cavity in the same way.
> 
> -Scott

Aw, Scott, you're thinking too small!  Why do we need a resonating cavity?
Let's look at this a little more open-mindedly.

What we really need is a doohicky or frammistat (yeah! a BIG one! :-) that
collates the gravitons.  After mere minutes of thought, even I came up with
a possibility.  Take a small black hole and have your gravitons rapidly
circle it a few squintillion times, feeding in more gravitons as you go.

Then turn off the black hole (uh... move it rapidly out of the way? details
left for the alert reader) and fwoom! a beam of gravitons intense enough
to wipe out Planet Furball, or at least turn off your TV...

Federal grants for the above may be sent to me at...

David Wolff

dwolff@RES-C4.Prime.COM

Disclaimer:  Reflecting Computervision policy is a non-goal of this posting.
FreeAdvert:  Esperanto, the international language *that works*:
             Call (800) 828-5944 for free info package (US or Canada)
WittyQuote:  Witty but very long saying condensed into a microdot: "."
Kibofodder:  nga Kibo egu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: "anthony tekatch" <anthony.tekatch@canrem.com>
Subject: anti-gravity device
Reply-To: "anthony tekatch" <anthony.tekatch@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: alt
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:36:54 EST


To: CHORLEY ??

CH>I have absolute irrefutable proof of an antigravity device, which, when

... drivel deleted

CH>        The principle of the MENSA-EFFECT was known to the ancient CHINESE an

CH>I will finish the rest of the discussion in ROT13

Finish it HERE, and explain the MENSA effect. If you've got proof then
explain it!

Anthony
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A question
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:15:51 GMT

young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:

>From article <1992Nov6.043452.3676@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, by hwong@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Harris Wong):
>>
>>Where is the boundary of the universe? Is this a meaningful question
>>to ask? 

>In his book, A_Brief_History_of_Time, physicist Stephen Hawking says:

>"The boundary coundition of the universe is that it has no boundaries." 
>-- quoted as best as I can remember.

That's a conjecture of Hawking's, concerning the proper means of
constructing a quantum theory of gravity.  It's very, very far from
a tested fact.
 
>By the way, it's an excellent book.  

It's not one of the best popular expositions of physics around, in
my opinion-- the introductory material is far too brief to impart
enough understanding to make the final chapters comprehensible.  The
movie by Errol Morris, however, is quite entertaining.
 
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: time travell ??
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:45:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In <1992Nov7.161752.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:

>So-called anti-matter has been shown to have "positive" mass.

Not so.  It is currently an experimental question which is receiving 
considerable attention.  No one knows whether antiprotons fall up or down.
We may know in a few years.

We *do* know that antimatter has positive energy density.  If antiprotons
fall up, then GR is not correct.  But we don't yet know.  Of course, most
people expect antiprotons to fall down.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Hey! Armchair physicist's!
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:45:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.140441.9535@ericsson.se>, etljmme@etlxd10h.etlxd (Jim) writes:
> Hi all,
> 
> I have a question to which I can only guess at the answer:
> 
> If gravity is a, er, side-effect of the warping of spacetime (the old "object on the
> sheet" analogy), then would gravity only have existed from the moment that the
> universe contained more than one object as otherwise, there would be nothing to
> interact with.  

Gravity exists if there is one object.  However, nothing would interact with
it.  This is the old tree falling in a forest question.  The tree falls and
makes a noise, but sound is the perception of this noise so there is no sound,
because there is no one to perceive it.
--Ray Cote
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:42:56 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: coyoacan.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov9.175829.60550@cc.usu.edu>, ronb@cc.usu.edu writes:
> 	We live in a universe that is comprised of at least 4 dimensions: 
> three dimensions of space and (at least) one of time.  Even though they are
> connected, they must be treated in some matters.  Space-time curvature being
> one of them.

You're adding in an unnecessary complication. You can describe the behaviour
of curved 3d space without adding that fourth dimension. There are other
reasons at the quantum mechanical level that may imply many additional
dimensions (I seem to recall 11 additional dimensions), but all of the
additional dimensions are VERY short (on the order of the plank length).

> [...] we are also able to visualize more than one possible future - which
> would not (I think) be possible in a universe with only one dimension of
> time.

Not so. Visualization has little to do with reality. An additional dimension
of time would be required if multiple futures actually existed. But just
imagining them does not require that additional dimension.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: mantel@adcalc.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: anti-gravity device
Date: 14 Nov 92 01:40:18 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: adcalc.fnal.gov

If some one out there honestly believes that creating an "anti-gravity"
device is possible well then I also have a perpetual motion machine and
use it to power my wine from water machine.
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Size of a PHOTON?
Date: 5 Nov 1992 12:33 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <Bx7y7o.GJ7@wrs.com>, gak@wrs.com writes...
>In article 4NOV199212204405@csa1.lbl.gov, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) tells me:
>>Read the FAQ.
> 
>The FAQ:  the repository for the established dogma of alt.sci.physics.new-theories!
>(Isn't an FAQ for this group oxymoronic?  :-)
>back to lurking...

I hope not.  It's actually the sci.physics FAQ, of course, but I post it 
here as the result of quite a few requests from readers of *this* group.
There are those who approach the "new-theories" group with pots which
are less cracked than the McElwaines of the world.  They would like to 
have some basic questions answered upon which to build an understanding
which will enable them to judge between various alternatives.

The questions in the FAQ are really only frequently asked on sci.physics.
If anyone wanted to tackle the job of writing a REAL new-theories FAQ, 
they are most welcome to try.  You get the job by volunteering.  I'm 
not sure exactly what you would put in it.  The nature of this group is
not quite as well suited to a FAQ as some others.  They have the same
problem on many other groups.  Alt.conspiracy and sci.skeptic come to mind.
But it might be worth a try.

-Scott  
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics