HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: Scientific writing (was Re: scientists who write literature)
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:38:11 GMT

In article <Dec.11.15.24.48.1992.2096@ruhets.rutgers.edu>, 
bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
|> hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite) writes:


|> >I consider Mermin's writing about his friend Mozart evidence to the
|> >contrary.  A glance at a few of these articles convinces me that he 
|> >is a better creative writer than 90% of the literature scholars 
|> >around today.  
|> 
|> OK, I'll call you on this.  Name five literature scholars (you can name 
|> five who write worse than Mermin, or five who write better, I don't care,
|> but they should be of approximately equal prominence in their fields as
|> Mermin is in his.)  Do you really know that or are you just saying it?

Well, you weren't addressing me, but I can't resist.  Here's my list, to 
permit me to play:

1) John Hollander
2) J. Hillis Miller
3) Harold Bloom
4) Marjorie Garber
5) Dorothy Mermin  (I don't know if she's as prominent as her husband, but 
	what the heck).

Many literature scholars, especially the best ones, write very well; many 
do not.  A lot of criticism is dreary, self-important prose that I suspect 
is modelled, ultimately, on science writing.  If that's true, than the 
science community has even more blame to bear.  On the other hand, 
deconstructionists deliberately write very, very badly, and that's 
entirely their own fault.

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: FEYNMAN GRAPH EXPANSION QUESTION
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:20:38 GMT
	<KILCUP.92Dec20145548@einstein.mps.ohio-state.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: kilcup@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu's message of Sun, 20 Dec 1992 19:55:48 GMT

In article <KILCUP.92Dec20145548@einstein.mps.ohio-state.edu> kilcup@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Greg Kilcup) writes:

> There are indeed computer programs, such as the Mathematica package
> FeynArts (ftp to: archive.umich.edu:/physics/mathematica/FeynArts.tar.Z),
> which can at least draw two loop graphs.  However, the four loop
> calculation of the electron anomalous magnetic moment was done
> without the aid of such programs.  There are 891 graphs, and in a
> seminar some ten years ago I heard Kinoshita remark that he was
> happy to be able to write down all the graphs in the space of an
> hour without missing one.

That's really impressive!  I doubt if there are many other people in
the world who could do it, though.  (Probably related to the fact that
there aren't many other people in the world who have devoted their
lives to high-order QED calculations...)

It's worth pointing out, by the way, one reason why I don't think
we're ever going to see computer programs that can evaluate Feynman
diagrams of arbitrarily high order: once you get beyond one or two
loops, it requires a fair amount of ingenuity to figure out how to
calculate them.  The method that we're all taught (Feynman- or
Schwinger-parameterization of the denomenator, then doing the loop
integral with some appropriate regularization scheme, then doing the
integral over the parameters) just doesn't work for more than one or
two loops: the integral over the parameters becomes undoable.  You
have to be creative, and figure out some trick.  See, for example,
T. Curtright, Phys. Rev. D21, 1543 (1980), who describes one such
trick for one particular three-loop diagram.
--
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: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA: a question
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:28:00 GMT

Abian,
 
You have said that the behavior of everything in the universe is governed by
your (A3), no? One question, two possible followups: do you know the above
to be true?
 
If yes, please tell me how things would behave if they were *not* governed by
(A3).
 
If no, why do you say it?

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Subject: Re: Another antigravity device
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:41:29 GMT

jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>
> ... the curvature of space due to the gravity prevents the lattice
> from being perfectly regular, at the cost of a large amount of
> energy.

Whadiya mean, "perfectly regular"?  From whose point of view?

- John
--
hagerman@ece.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: TEXAS ASTROPHYSICS MEETING at UCB
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:26:39 GMT


Brief report from the TEXAS/PASCO conference at UCB.

#1. The Hawking-Hartle wave function of the universe is wrong if the
variation of the scalar field potential is small compared to Planck energy
- that is the only region where calculations can be done.  It's wrong
because the universe nucleates in a minimum of the potential and does not
inflate and there is no matter.  In contrast the boundary conditon in which
universe tunnels out of nothing is at a max of the potential and inflates.

#2 "Eternal inflation" is wrong. In other words, universe has a beginning
but no end.

#3 Consistent classical self-energy of point electron possible by including
Newtonian gravity.

m(r) = m(bare) + e^2/r - Gm^2(r)/r

solve quadratic equation take positive root

m(r) = - r/2G + (1/G)sgrt[(r^2/4) + Gm(bare_r + Ge^2]


Lim (r ->0) m(r) = e/sqrtG

QED!

#4 I asked Kip Thorne if traversable wormholes are possible.  He says,
maybe.  He cannot say they are not.  Weak energy condition can be violated
in quantum field theory - so warp drive may yet become a reality.

Traversable worm holes - > warp drive

Quantum connection communication -> sub-space communication.


Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.religion.kibology,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA IN BED
Keywords: SURRENDER TO (A3) - NO OTHER WAY 
Organization: Two rooms filled with typography, in downtown Boston
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:07:46 GMT

[sci.physics]
In article <abian.724564988@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> 
>I gave and give  you NON-ANSWERS because that makes me feel secure and
>I act according to my (A3). Period.

You have an A3 period?  My period's been that way since I got pregnant.

>As far as your Logic is concerned, I have given you several times the
>non-answer
>   That Churchill during the air raids on London did  say:
>     "  For the SECURITY of our nation we must fight the enemy"
>he did not say
>    " since all dogs are cats we must fight the enemy"

I was there.  He distinctly said, "Need help quenching autofluorescence
in nudibranch brain--NANCY, HAND the MAN the DANDY CANDY!"

>    If you post any more questions to me  I will reply to you,
>as usual with a  NON-ANSWER .  

The only true NON-ANSWER is mu.  And I'm not talking Greek letters here!

>    THE COSMOS IS  ETERNALLY GOVERNED BY  (A3) -  NO WAY OUT

"RESISTANCE IS USELESS!" shouted the superconducting Vogon...

								-- K.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Subject: Re: How does Superman create thrust? (WAS Re: The Batman Light: How does it work?)
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:36:51 GMT

In article <1gb90gINN2te@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au> hoconnel@iti.org (Heath O'Connell) writes:
>dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>>In article <1fomgtINN3hb@hp-col.col.hp.com> dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser) writes:
>>>Seriously, it's his diet.
>
>>Diet of beans?
>
>>Neutrinos?
>
>We all ingest neutrinos, whether we want to or not. However, they go through
>you fairly quickly.

Sort of like beans, then.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA
Keywords: WHY DON'T YOU GIVE YOUR SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF GRAVITY?
Date: 14 Dec 92 06:55:19 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <abian.724024947@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
>  I have done so at least twice-  the last time just recently  yesterday, or
> the day before yesterday and I asked you to 
>    
>            GIVE YOUR EXPLANATION OF GRAVITY
>

Many have.  Perhaps their explanations have not reached your site?
Or maybe they weren't enough to convince you.  I think part of the
original challenge was not that they were to convince YOU, but that,
when placed beside _your_ explanation of gravity, they would
convince others over your theory.

>WITHOUT A HYPOCRITICAL DOUBLE TALK WITHOUT REFERRING TO 55 PAGES IN SOME BOOK,
>GIVE ME YOUR EXPLANATION WITHOUT SUBTERFUGE , WITHOUT A DISGUSTING COVER UP.
>   SO FAR NONE HAS GIVEN A CONVINCING DEFINITION AND ONLY CRITICISED AND
>   DISMISSED MY DEFINITION.  BE MAN ENOUGH TO GIVE YOUR DEFINITION WITHOUT
>   PUTTING DOWN MINE!!!         ^^^

Hm...so men have a monopoly on gravitational equations.  Is that (A34)?
I'm tempted to cross-post this to alt.women, just to start a massive
dollar-guzzling flamewar, but instead I'll just edit these follow-ups
to where they have belonged all this time: talk.bizzare.

	Jasonb
	As Opposed To Jasona, The Jason At Oxford
From: ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Another antigravity device
Date: 15 Dec 1992 20:06:46 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: euclid.math.ubc.ca

In article <1992Dec15.013620.24161@galois.mit.edu> 
jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

>Imagine an extremely (although not infinitely) rigid crystal.  It takes
>a huge amount of energy to deform the crystal lattice ever so slightly.

It occurred to me that such a crystal might at least be difficult to
rotate, for similar reasons-- uneven Lorenz contraction produces a
strain.

Keith Ramsay
ramsay@math.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: victor@watson.ibm.com (Victor Miller)
Subject: Re: Chaitin's Omega and QM (was: Bayes' theorem and QM)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:04:24 GMT
Reply-To: victor@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
	<COLUMBUS.92Dec14142145@strident.think.com>
	<1992Dec14.223229.22348@galois.mit.edu>
	<COLUMBUS.92Dec15102022@strident.think.com>
Organization: IBM, T.J. Watson Research Center

>>>>> On 15 Dec 92 10:20:22, columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss) said:

Michael> Oh well.  The cubic formula was discovered by Scipio del
Michael> Ferro, independently rediscovered by Tartaglia, and first
Michael> published by Cardano who gave credit to Tartaglia (I don't
Michael> remember if he also credited del Ferro).  So of course it is
Michael> almost universally referred to as Cardano's formula.  (Look
Michael> up the history of L'Hospital's rule sometime...)

There are lots of these.  I remember Lipman Bers telling me in 1965
about his trip to the Soviet Union.  He came across a statue in a
courtyard outside of a Mathematics Dept. that he was visiting.  He
asked his host who it was.  He replied "That's Ostragradskii.  He
proved Green's Theorem".  Actually Bourbaki gives him credit.
--
		Victor S. Miller
		Bitnet: VICTOR at WATSON
		Internet: victor@watson.ibm.com
		IBM, TJ Watson Research Center
		"Great artists steal; lesser artists borrow" Igor Stravinsky
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Re: Can space-time intersect itself?--Sure!
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 04:42:17 GMT

Actually, we can imagine scenarios in which an apparent 
spacetime-intersection occurs. 

The reason we don't usually think about it is probably that we 
can't imagine any physics which would give rise to this situation.
Contrast this with spacetime singularities (black holes, etc), 
which also destroy the manifold structure of spacetime, but whose 
presence is physically expected---so we investigate spacetimes
with singularities quite a bit.

Geometric Analogy: if I'm walking on a path---which I model as a curve,
or 1-D manifold---and I come to a crossroads, I'd be pretty much forced
to model it as an intersection, since standing at the cross roads
does not look like standing on a line: there are 4 ways to go, not 2.
Instead of the usual forwards/backwards directions, I see 
"two forwards" and "two backwards" directions at once.

Back to spacetime: if we experienced an event where we saw two 
distinct spatial slices at once---i.e., visually we would see two
completely different views at the same time, superimposed like
a double exposure---we would conclude that we went through a
spacetime intersection. This would be the signature of a spacetime
intersction---unrelated light from the two separate space time sheets arriving
at a single spatial point.

Since (sane) folks don't seem to see  "double exposures", and since
we have not thought of a physical process which would create
such, there is little stimulus to investigate intersecting spacetimes.


--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ggawboy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Galen F Gawboy)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA    k/r^2  WITHOUT BRAHE , KEPLER  or NEWTON
Keywords: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 10:22:39 GMT

In article <abian.724828510@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
 [ Tasteless bragging deleted].
>
 [ "Proof" that k/r**2 is the law of gravitation based on an optical
    analogy deleted. No demonstration of the applicability of "(A3)" to
    justifying this analogy was made.] 
>
>
>(A3)  THE PRIME CAUSE OF EVERY ACTION OF EVERY OBJECT (ANIMATE OR INANIMATE)
>      IS THE GAINING OF A FEELING OF SECURITY.

  If one of my students submitted a "proof" like this to me, they would 
get no credit. It appears to me that you love flame wars, and are posting more
flame bait to feed upon. If this is your goal then your "proof" has met its
objective.
   
 If you are serious about this stuff, you should recognise that since these
are "revolutionary" ideas, people will be quite skeptical unless you take
more care in defining what (A3) has to do with justifying your analogy.

 Since I suspect that you are not serious and just want an excuse to flame
people, I will now don my abstestos shorts.

-Regards

Galen F. Gawboy



Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: hl5a@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Winston Lin)
Subject: DMP
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:17:52 GMT

Hello there,

	In a problem (EMF class) with wedge shaped capacitor 
(instead of parallel), one is required to find the dominant mode of 
propagation.  Fringing effect is neglected, and the plates are assumed
to have perfect conductivity.

	Can anyone explain what 'dominant mode of propagtion' refers
to in the context?

	Any help is much appreciated...

		thanx

  (***-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-***)
 ((***   ___       ____                                                   ***))
   *       ___ __ ___      O    nnnn      ssss    t      oooo    nnnn       *
    *       -- -- --       I    n  n    sss      tttt    o  o    n  n      * 
     *      --    --       I   nn  n  sssss       tt     oooo   nn  n     * 
      * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -*  
     *       Hung-wen Lin	         2100 JPA APT.#7                *
    *       (804) 295-1094                Charlottesville, VA 22903        *
   *       e-mail: hl5a@virginia.edu                                        *
((***_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_***))
 (***                                                                    ***)
From: xm9@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (richard g. adair)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cappucino Noise
Date: 19 Dec 92 16:17:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Dec19.071907.14957@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> acampane@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella) writes:
>
For those of us that remember steam heat, explain the clanging of pipes when 
hot steam is first introduced that day.
>

Could it be the collapsing of steam bubbles and the resultant water
hammer?
From: vignat@lnp01.jinr.dubna.su
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - TIME WAVES
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 12:55:20 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: unknown
Reply-To: vignat@lnp01.jinr.dubna.su

Dear Prof. Abian!

I greatly appreciate your discovery that TIME HAS INERTIA,

and I have no doubts that your formula

E = m(0) exp(-At)

is correct. But I would like to add some (not corrections! no!) remarks.

If I correctly understand your affirmation "Reaction to provocation" -
every (may be not every?) provocation leads to reaction. But from your
theorem about "maintaining again a status-quo" it follows (am I right?)
that action also leads to provocation.

So there is an infinite chain: provocation then reaction then again
provocation and so on. And from this chain it follows, as
it seems to me, that you formula can be slightly generalized (am I right?):

E = m(0) Re [exp(-At)],

where Re [*] means real part of *, i.e. the factor A can be (can?) a complex
number. It shows that we can observe not only the inescapable degradation of
energy, but oscillations and even more - the

                          TIME WAVES.

Don't consider please my little remark as an intention to share your
Nobel Prize. I am absolutely sure, that it is you, who should get it.

Sincerely yours
                    Vladimir Ignatovich.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Ignatovich                      Tel. (09621)6-33-17
Laboratory of Neutron Physics                 (09621)4-70-65
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research     Fax 7(095)-975-23-81



Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dave Nash)
Subject: Re: Metals in liquid Nitrogen !!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:06:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.002236.5784@sfu.ca> Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:

>
>Not in Canada, where the question was asked. Are U.S. pennies really
>mostly zinc? I knew they were in 1943, but those looked like zinc. U.S.

Don't judge a coin by its cover ;-]

I'm pretty sure it's zinc coated with a very thin layer of copper.  Just to
make sure, I grabbed a penny off my desk and gouged it with an X-Acto knife
to expose the inner metal.  It's a silvery-colored metal.  Can't tell from 
looks alone whether it's zinc or not, but it certainly isn't copper.  (Zinc
sounds right, from memory)

>
>Leigh




-- 
David Nash                  | Gradual Student, Chemistry
                            | University of Illinois (Urbana)
(dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)    | This .sig is made of 100% recycled electrons.
(nash@aries.scs.uiuc.edu)   | No binary trees were killed to make it.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: (A1) EXPLAINS THE PHYSICS from particle to Galaxies
Keywords: (A1) 
                                         12-11-92
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:13:06 GMT

To the Readers of TIME HAS INERTIA

Att:  RIEMERS and Indra SINHA

        (A1) EXPLAINS PHYSICS from particle to Galaxies

 
What Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein and Schroedinger
failed to notice, deduce and conclude is that

    In accordance with (A1) and as (A1) predicts and explains

     THE SPACE ITSELF  AS ANY PARTICLE  TENDS TO MAINTAIN  ITS
     NEUTRALITY and reacts by trying to annihilate the concentration
     of particles at any place -  With weak and small particles
     it succeeds by decaying them explicitly under our eyes; with big 
     masses the decaying process  takes  TIME.  The  resulting
     energy is irretrievably dissipated to move TIME forward.

     This Tendency of maintaining the status quo is mutually provocative
     and reaction to these provocations is what gives rise to
     the dynamics of the Cosmos. The annihilated masses provide
     the energy to move TIME forward.


    The theories and equations of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Schroedinger  
    do not explain the dynamics of the Cosmos the way  (A1) explains in  
    the above. The  Newton, Maxwell, Einstein and Co equations are but  
    NURSERY RHYMES compared with my (A1).
    
     THE PERENNIAL STRUGGLE IS BETWEEN THE TENDENCY OF THE SPACE TO
     MAINTAIN ITS NEUTRALITY BY ANNIHILATING OR AT LEAST BY DILUTING
     THE CONCENTRATION OF PARTICLES on the one hand AND THE TENDENCY OF THE 
     PARTICLES FOR MAINTAINING THEIR STATUS QUO on the other hand.


     With love                           Alexander Abian

-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Another antigravity device
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:18:43
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu's message of Tue, 15 Dec 92 01:36:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.013620.24161@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

> Now, I *know* that this material would have to be insanely rigid for
> this effect to be noticeable at all -- far more rigid than any actual
> stuff.  However, we're talking questions of principle here.  Is there
> any reason *in principle* why a sufficiently rigid material wouldn't
> levitate to get out of the earth's gravitational field - that's what I'm
> asking.  

Probably.  I'll bet you could prove that any material which really was
so rigid would also wind up being so dense that it couldn't levitate.
--
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!