HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: craigen@ace.acadiau.ca (DOUGLAS CRAIGEN)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:12:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.133448.1631@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:

>I think it is pretty ridiculous for people to say that they don't read
>sci.physics because the signal to noise ratio is too low. Most News
>reading programs have features that allow you to scan the subject
>lines to decide which articles are worth reading. In almost all cases
>of articles that are unfit for sci.physics.research, it is possible to
>make such a judgement from the subject line alone (in my experience).
>Ithaca, NY

   The problem is that it takes some (negative) experience reading any 
group (including sci.physics) to be able to make such judgements quickly and 
easily.  The low signal to noise ratio tends to scare people off before they 
have the experience with the group to be able to find the "good stuff" (i.e. 
the stuff they would want to read) quickly.  Besides, even "good" topics 
eventually turn into a flame war.  Take Blair's reply to my last posting 
under this heading for an example.  My words annoyed him, so "RE:
sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators" received its most 
colorful language so far as a result.  If I was among those inclined to take 
up such battles, this heading would become very cluttered very quickly, and 
the rest of you would have to start filtering out the stuff that the two of 
us submitted.


===================================================================
  Doug Craigen, Department of Physics, Acadia University,
  Wolfville, N.S., B0P 1X0, (902) 542 - 2201 x150

  Da seaweed is always greena
  In somebody else's lake
      -Sebastian (the crab in "The Little Mermaid")
From: metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The Big Bang Never Happened
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:26:34 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Department of Physics
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu

In article <C0JL5B.6s4@well.sf.ca.us>, metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:

(various points about the Big Bang and alternative cosmologies deleted, for
 the moment)

I'm posting this just to let you (and anybody else who cares) know that I'm
not ducking the issues; I'll write a point-by-point on Monday.  But I've
got to get some work done today, and I'm out-of-town all day Saturday.
But I WILL post on Monday.

-- 
SNAILMAIL:                                       AT&TMAIL:
Chris Metzler                                    313-764-4607 (office)
Department of Physics, University of Michigan    313-996-9249 (home)
Randall Lab, 500 E. University
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1120 USA

E-MAIL:  metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranormal,new.age
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Weird message - does any one know meaning?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:38:21 GMT


I would greatly appreciate an explanation of following message if any
one knows what it means? Please e-mail me with your response. Thank you.

Subject: Is enclosed a threat?
From uucp@mv.MV.COM Fri Jan  8 20:58:37 1993
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 23:57:39 -0500
From: uucp@mv.MV.COM (0000-uucp(0000))
Subject: Warning From uucp
Apparently-To: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us

Subject: Warning From uucp

        virgin!mail unhtel!virgin!nhstrat!rlyeh!cthulhu   (Date 01/07)
The job will be deleted in several days if the problem is not corrected.
If you care to kill the job, execute the following command:

        uustat -kvirginN3725

        Sincerely,
        mv!uucp
                            .
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Gravity & Rubber Sheet Analogy Problem
Keywords: gravity, general relativity
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:10:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc.mcirvin.726858610
Distribution: usa

bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:

>gt1057a@prism.gatech.EDU (gt1057a JOHNSTON,KEITH) writes:

>>In almost all explanations of gravity as warped space, the analogy
>>used is two-dimensional.  A mass deforms a "rubber sheet", causing
>>a depression in the two dimensional space . ...

>You're supposed to contrast the warped rubber sheet to the flat rubber
>sheet, on which an object will move in a straight line forever -
>analogous to the universe of special relativity.  Note, by the way,
>that the fact that there are only depressions in the rubber sheet 
>corresponds to the fact that gravity is always attractive (mass is always
>positive).

Hmm... speaking entirely in terms of intrinsic geometry, the sheet looks
more or less the same if I push it down or pull it up.  

Which really leads to the thing that frustrates me about the rubber-
sheet analogy:  it completely ignores the most important contribution
to gravitational attraction, which is the curvature you see when moving
in the *time* direction.  The omission is least grievous when dealing
with light, where it only omits half of the effect.  With slowly-
moving massive objects, it becomes impossible to see why they'd fall
toward depressions in the rubber sheet without postulating that "downward"
force at work again.
-- 
Matt McIrvin         I read Usenet just for the	tab damage!
==== =======         = ==== ====== ==== === === === =======
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there important unresolved issues?
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:10:09
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<MERRITT.93Jan12102855@macro.bu.edu>
	<1993Jan12.222932.20890@galois.mit.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu's message of Tue, 12 Jan 93 22:29:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.222932.20890@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

> Here I agree.  In particular, the "lightly moderated" idea seems to
> conflict with the idea held by some moderators that 20 posts per day is
> about right.  A somewhat more precise charter of the newsgroup might be
> in order.

In the future, these two ideas might conflict; today, though, I regard
this as a nonissue.  I just don't forsee more than 20 posts per day
being submitted to sci.physics.research.  

Some day in the future, when traffic grows by another order of
magnitude, we'll have to do something about it.  I don't know whether
that will mean tightening the standards for submission, or splitting
the group, or adding more moderators and just accepting a
higher-volume group, or something else.  I am sure, though, that I
don't want to solve the Usenet problems of 1995; we can solve them
when the time comes.

For now, I don't think we need to worry very much about this.  I think
it's about time for me to post the CFV, actually...  By now, I think
that most everybody has a good idea of what kind of group is being
proposed, and has had time to decide whether or not they want such a
group.


--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ynecelc@sx.mont.nec.com (Ellison Chan)
Subject: Re: Accellerating Spaceship (yet another bird in a plane)
Organization: HNSX Supercomputers
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:50:57 GMT

In article <6850@tuegate.tue.nl> johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers) writes:
>jdsiegel@garnet.berkeley.edu (Joel Siegel) writes:
>
>>>For example, if you had two chunks of matter, one negative and
>>>one positive, the negative chunk would move away from the positive
>>>chunk because of repulsion.  However, the positive chunk would move
>>>toward the negative chunk, trying to catch up.  So, toss a chunk of
>>>negative matter out the door of your spaceship, and away you go!
>
>>Ahhh... perpetual motion?  That could be better than warp drive! :-)
>
>Yes, if it was true. But matter with a negative mass would react just
>the same as matter with a negative electrical charge. 2 negative
>{charged or mass} particles attract each other, 1 negative and one positive
>{charged or mass} particle repulse each other. And negative electricity
>doesn't give you a perpetual motion :-(

As a matter of fact, there is such a natural occurence.
(For the electrical case only)

It's call the "electron-positron" pair. They are unstable and very short-
lived. During their life, they orbit each other, but eventually annihilate 
each other.

However, in search for the perpetual motion machine, could not the
ATOM be considered as such? Since the electrons are in constant motion
around the nucleus and does not radiate away it's energy -- or does it
have to be on a macroscopic level to be considered a machine? 

-- 
Ellison Chan, Comp. Sys. Analyst               2350 Place TransCanadienne
HNSX Supercomputers Inc., NEC Corp.        Dorval, Quebec, Canada H9P 2X5
E-mail: ellison@SX.Mont.NEC.COM          (514)684-7705, FAX (514)684-8619
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TOP in TIME
Date: 11 Jan 93 13:28:19
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<MATT.93Jan11102448@physics2.berkeley.edu>
	<11JAN199314280385@utahep.uta.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: sawyer@utahep.uta.edu's message of Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:28:00 GMT

In article <11JAN199314280385@utahep.uta.edu> sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes:

>     Sure, which is why for a (background subtracted) rate of N+/-stats
> +/-syst events in L pb-1 of luminosity, the mass is M. Then we say if
> this mass in consistent or not with the LEP results. In other words, 
> the other way around from the analysis you did. The LEP constraint on 
> the top mass is rather broad, something like +/- 50 GeV, and the 
> mean "best fit" value varies from 120 to 170 for Higgs masses from 50 
> to 1000 GeV.

Oh, I certainly agree with that.  All I said was I thought that, if
the CDF and D0 events really are top, it's not terribly likely that
the mass is 130 or 140 GeV.

I don't think we ought to take the LEP fits all that seriously as a
measurement of the top mass, and certainly not as a measurement of the
Higgs mass.  They depend on the details of the symmetry-breaking
sector of the Standard Model, after all, and our ignorance about that
sector is almost total.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22619 news.groups:25435
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there important unresolved issues?
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:14:19 GMT
	<C0p77H.LJK@news.ucs.mun.ca>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: kforward@morgan.ucs.mun.ca's message of Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:30:53 GMT



In article <C0p77H.LJK@news.ucs.mun.ca> kforward@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Ken Forward) writes:

   In article <MERRITT.93Jan11100049@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
   >In article <MATT.93Jan10010325@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
   >>   One specific question: I, personally, don't have any very strong
   >>   preference for either sci.physics.research or sci.physics.moderated.

   >I think sci.physics.moderated is more accurate and it allows for 

I rather strongly prefer sci.physics.research - it parallels
sci.math.research and will hopefully describe the group better...

 but then I'm a namespace freak ;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22652 sci.astro:13901
From: CDHWilli@cen.ex.ac.uk (C.D.H.Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Solution to non-rel QM problem?
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:11:31 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Computer Unit. - University of Exeter. UK

A small bit of a larger model boils down to the following QM problem.
It looks simple enough to be "standard".  Anybody know a reference with
the solution in it, or have any code, or insight before I get the
sledgehammer out?

Thanks in advance.

An electron is in spherical cavity with walls ca 15eV high.  The cavity
radius is constant and in the range 1nm...2nm.  (I have a solution to
that bit).  I now introduce an excluded volume of radius ca 0.05nm into the
cavity and position it at some radius r from the centre of the cavity.
How does the groundstate energy of the electron vary with r?

Charles                    C.D.H.Williams@exeter.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tao@fine.princeton.edu (Terry Tao)
Subject: Re: Do physics!... hoisting myself by my own petard!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:53:32 GMT

What is the net.etiquette on posting someone's email?  I don't mind
personally that much, but it sounds like taping conversations or
something...

Anyway, Sarfatti, I would appreciate you not posting any more of our
email discussion in sci.physics.

Terry
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: u108502@beta.lanl.gov (Andrew Poutiatine)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA   - STRICTLY FOR DEVOTED READERS OF: TIME HAS INERTIA
Keywords: Attention Mr. ELI HAWKINS
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:33:09 GMT

In article <abian.726458073@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> STRICTLY FOR DEVOTED READERS OF:   TIME HAS INERTIA
>
>Dear Mr. Eli Hawkins,
(Stuff deleted)
>
>With all of this if you ask me what is the greatest (if such a thing 
>exists) human intellectual achievement,   I will say:
>
>                     THE ORDINARY LANGUAGE
>
>The ordinary language is the best tool which develops, sharpens and 
>polishes the human intellect.  The ordinary language is the REAL MIRACLE 
>OF CREATION. IT IS THE MECHANISM OF RATIONALITY. IT IS THE MECHANISM OF 
>REASONING.  THE ORDINARY LANGUAGE IS THE LIFE OF THE LIFE.    
>  
>Our sorrows, our joys, our decisions, our plans, our agenda of life,
>our social, scientific projects etc., are , all, all formulated and 
>expressed in THE ORDINARY LANGUAGE.
>
>Our approval of a scientific theory, our approval of a mathematical
>theory, our acceptance of a formula or equation or a principle  ex-
>pressed in the most formal and technical language, our appraisal of
>that formulation  IS DONE IN ORDINARY LANGUAGE.  
>
>A high tech product is judged, praised, accepted or rejected  BY MEANS
>OF JUDGMENT MADE IN ORDINARY LANGUAGE.  
>
>The understanding of a proof of a complicated highly nontrivial 
>theorem  or of a statement IS FINALLY DONE IN ORDINARY LANGUAGE.

(More stuff deleted)

Dear Alex (can I call you Alex??)

I have been following this thread off and on for some time now, and it occurs
to me that you are greatly misunderstood.  I believe that it is not because
you ideas are profound or obscure, but rather because you choose to use words
in a nonfamiliar way.  You seem to redefine many of your concepts, and use
terms in ways that the readers of this newsgroup are unfamiliar with.  In 
fact I recall you writing (not an exact quote) "PHYSICS IS WHAT I SAY IT IS."
This is interesting to me since it is redefining common words and various
parts of the language.
An ordinary definition of the word _ordinary_ (Webster) is "...not uncommon
or exceptional...," and your language on this net is both uncommon and 
exceptional, and hence not ordinary.

My question is this, if the ordinary language is "the greatest...human
intellectual achievement...," the "...mechanism of rationality...," "...the
mechanism of reasoning...," and if "our approval of scientific theory...
mathematical theory, our acceptance of a formula (etc. etc....)... is done in 
ordinary language.," then why do you choose not to use it?

I imagine that someone of your education, and achievement certainly is 
capable of using the ordinary language, but it is clear (or should I say 
unclear?) that you do not, so why not?

Thanks for considering this.
	-AIP

 
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22636 news.groups:25442 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2737
From: bob@1776.COM (Robert Coe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: How about sci.physics.speculation as well?
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 16:59:13 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: 1776 Enterprises, Sudbury MA

kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
> sci.physics.orthodox is a bad name, as it has a negative taste.
> ("Ah, that's where the old orthodox physicists post, those with the
> spider webs on their paradigms.")  It's almost as bad as calling your
> proposed s.p.speculations group s.p.crackpot instead.

Now we're getting somewhere!  If people had to choose between posting
to sci.physics.orthodox and posting to sci.physics.crackpot, maybe that
would weed out a lot of the chaff that seems to be the main problem with 
sci.physics.  :^)

   ___            _                                           -  Bob
   /__) _   /    / ) _   _
(_/__) (_)_(_)  (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ bob@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Functional minimization with constraints
Keywords: conjugate gradient, quasi-Newton, Newton Raphson
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:27:22 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <C0pFE0.D8n@sci.kun.nl> alexp@sci.kun.nl (Alex Priem) writes:

>Better yet, try 'Numerical Recipes'. 

I left that out on purpose. It is not a bad book per se, but it implicitly
encourages people to use the included code samples as if they were polished
production code. These are _not_ the state of the art, and the otherwise
uninformed reader can get into some peculiar misconceptions. It is
generally better to either use a widely available public domain code
written by professionals (also known as 'your tax dollar at work') or
to write your own after having studied the literature a bit if you are
aware of some of the issues.

_Numerical Recipes_ has a place when you're after something quick and
dirty and you haven't been around the block before. However, many of the
subjects covered have been classic questions of scientific computing
for decades, and it really isn't necessary to settle for less than first
rate. This casts no aspersion on the value of NR as a teaching tool,
where the code samples provide an opportunity to teach simplified versions
of the often much less penetrable 'no-holds-barred' production codes.

In optimization in particular, the clooge (and _yes_, that's the correct
spelling) of using LINMIN may reduce the clutter and length of the book,
but it does not bear much resemblance to the _correct_ way to do it,
on the other hand, it's pedagogically much nicer since the student can
see quite clearly how the one-D minimization is parlayed into the
multidimensional case.

Finally, NR is not a comprehensive treatment of optimization, especially
when it comes to nonlinear constraints, which (if memory serves) were
mentioned in the original request.

So better yet, don't stop with just NR on this question.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
From: smorris@tweedledum.ucsb.edu (Stephen Morris)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why are elementary particles small?
Keywords: baseballs, elementary particles, schrodinger
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:37:11 GMT
Reply-To: smorris@tweedledum.ucsb.edu (Stephen Morris)
Distribution: world, rec, usa, na

In article <1993Jan3.235010.17976@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu  
(Barry Merriman) writes:
>Why are elementary particles small?
>
>Clearly, the ones that comprise our bodies must be much smaller than
>ourselves, but why are there no other elementary particles that are
>the size of, say, a baseball?
>
>If there were an elementary particle the size of a baseball,
>what color would it be? What would happen if you touched it?
>

If I saw an elementary particle the size of a baseball, I certainly 
*would not* touch it!

Aren't "elementary" particles supposed to be point-like?  Or little strings or  
something?  One as big as a baseball seems to contradict this definition of  
"elementary".  A point-like particle as heavy as a baseball would be its own  
black hole ... an excellent argument against touching it!

I recently read Erwin Schrodinger's little book called "What is life?".  The  
question of why atoms are so small is discussed there.  He starts with   
essentially thermodynamic considerations to argue that people must be much  
larger than atoms to be stable against thermal fluctuations.  He then exposes  
the apparent contradiction that genes seem to be too small to be stable by this  
argument, and is lead to conclude that the basis of genetics must be a molecule  
with stable isomers of the molecule forming a code ... all this before the  
discovery of DNA!  A great book, available from Cambridge University Press.

S.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:21:34 EST
From: <BAV2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Budding Physicist

In article <93007.100220STANTONK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, Ken
<STANTONK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> says:
>
>My seven year old asked me a question that left me scratching my head.
>Since I am not a physicist, I need your help.  :^)
>His question started with queries about temperature scales, absolute
>zero and so on. That I could handle. :^) Then, he asked what the MAXIMUM
>possible temperature was, according to theory. My answer was, "What?".
>He explained further to me, "Well, I understand that temperature is a measure
>of the speed of the molecules. And you told me that Einstein's theory
>means that if the molecules were travelling at the speed of light, they
>should be energy, not matter. So, what temperature should that be, according
>to the theory?" And I thought questions like this were only supposed to
>start when they reached age 16   :-/
>
>HELP!   Please reply directly to my email address since I don't subscribe
>to this news group.  Thanks. Ken Stanton.


Your error is that the temperature is not exactly a measure of the
molecules' velocities, but rather of their energy. As the thermal
velocities of molecules approach light speed, their kinetic energy goes
to infinity (you may remember that this is one of the causes why one
cannot reach this velocity) and so does the temperature.

You have a bright kid, howevere. It would be a shame if he will be
spoiled by the rotten American education system

-Boris