HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chungy2@aix.rpi.edu (Yau Felix Chung)
Subject: Physics Books for Sale
Followup-To: chungy2@rpi.edu
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:34:55 GMT

Hello.  I would like to sell the following books:


Through The Telescope by Michael R. Porcellino (hard cover)........$14.00              
Surface Physics by M. Prutton (soft cover).........................$13.00

The Boundary Value Problems in Mathematical Physics by 
	O. A. Ladyzhenskaya (hard cover)...........................$52.00           
The Physics of Structurally Disordered Matter: An Introduction
	by N. E. Cusack (soft cover)...............................$60.00           
Subatomic Physics by H. Frauenfelder & E. M. Henley (hard cover)...$57.00           
Applications of Group Theory in Physics and Mathematical Physics
	by M. Flato, P. Sally & Gregg Zuckerman (hard cover).......$70.00             
A First General Relativity by Bernard F. Schutz (hard cover).......$20.00                 
Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics by S.R. de Groot 
	and P. Mazur (soft cover)..................................$9.00             
Advances in Atomic and Molecular Physics.  Volume 1.  Edited by
	D.R. Bates and Immanuel Esterman (1965)(hard cover)........$30.00
	Lists for $121.00 new.

Advances in Atomic and Molecular Physics.  Volume 3.  Edited by
	D.R. Bates and Immanuel Esterman (1967)(hard cover)........$30.00
	Lists for $121.00 new.

Molecular Beams by Norman F. Ramsey (1969)(hard cover).............$15.00

Molecular Beams and Reaction Kinetics.  Edited by 
	Ch. Schlier (1970)(hard cover).............................$20.00


	* Buyer pays for shipping
	* All prices are negocialble

	if interested send e-mail to chungy2@aix.rpi.edu
From: ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:07:19 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>In article <Nov.16.14.05.56.1992.18657@ruhets.rutgers.edu>, bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes...
>> 
>>Etc.  Scott, don't you imagine this whole tempest-in-a-teapot is the old
>>confusion over "relativistic mass" versus "rest mass"?  Bondi probably
>>said that mass is conserved, meaning relativistic mass, which is just a
>>statement of conservation of energy less a factor of c squared.  Rest
>>mass isn't conserved.

>No, I think it's more than that.

It's no more than that really, but it doesn't seem as if you even understand
*that* much. Why don't you go and look up the other references, if you can't
find the original - you might learn something.

>  I can't remember the details (which
>is why I tried to find the reference that the original poster quoted),
>but we've been through this Bondi thing sometime in the past.  It may even
>have been the same poster.

No, it wasn't.

>  The bottom line, if I remember correctly, was 
>that Bondi didn't know his arse from his elbow, and had a complete 
>misunderstanding of SR, and mass-energy equivalence in particular.  

Well at least now you've admitted that you haven't the foggiest who Bondi is,
which is something. Sir Hermann Bondi FRS is probably one of the world's 
foremost experts on cosmology and GR, to say nothing of SR. The fact that
you think he doesn't "know his arse from his elbow" must have had many people
laughing their socks off, or would have had if there were more serious 
scientists who read this column.

>There
>are no peer-reviewed papers on his work so far as I can tell.  I think
>that he is the European equivalent of these guys who "publish" abstracts in
>the APS bulletins and then reference themselves from year to year.  He has
>found himself an advocate, a la McElwaine and Larson, in this guy, who,
>so far as I can tell, understands neither conventional physics nor 
>even what Bondi has to say about it.  You will notice that he has
>so far refused to do more than tell us all to look it up.  He is incapable
>of explaining it himself.

I'm incapable of explaining it half as well as Bondi, which is partly why I've
refrained for the time being. I think I understand reasonably well what Bondi
says in the article I originally referenced, though I wouldn't claim to be
infallible, so I've referenced further reading that Bondi recommends which
covers virtually the same ground. But, in any case, I'm not going to waste
my time typing in a lengthy article for a squirt who's more interested in
having a slanging match than learning anything.

You give me *one* instance of a process where mass is not conserved, or
energy is not conserved, or energy is converted into mass or vice versa and
I'll duly oblige and try and explain what I think Bondi would have to say.

Cheers,
Martin Watts.
From: norm@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Norman P. Paterson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: PLEASE HELP!
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 18:16:41 CST
Organization: The Inquiring Mind BBS  1 204 488-1607

sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

> In article <q1TiuB3w165w@inqmind.bison.mb.ca>, norm@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Norm
> 
> >- Take a aluminium ball with a voulume of 100 cu/meters.  Say that this 
> >ball is indestructible.  The ball is filled with helium gas on the ground 
> >(the gas is 99.9% pure).  Now, take this ball to an alititude of 100,000 
> >feet.  What would the internal pressure be of the ball (or helium)?
> 
> Since you have chosen an aluminum ball rather than a bag, the total volume
> of the helium will remain unchanged.  So the equation of state, PV = NRT
> will give you Pfinal/Pinitial = Tfinal/Tinitial, i.e., the only thing
> you have to worry about is that it is cold up there and the pressure of the
> gas will decrease proportionately.
> 
> If you had used an expandable bag instead, then the volume would change.
> The cold will naturally make the gas volume constract at constant pressure,
> but the atmospheric pressure is not constant.  In fact, it decreases so
> much at 20 miles up that the volume of the gas in the bag will shoot way
> up in spite of the temperature decrease.
> 
> -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

Thanks Scott - this is indeed good news for me!
Norm.

norm@inqmind.bison.mb.ca
The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: halogen lamps for heating
Date: 16 Nov 1992 10:45 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 <Bxt5y3.nw@brunel.ac.uk>, dt89csc@brunel.ac.uk (C S Codrington) writes...
> 
>Does anyone out there know anything about the use of Halogen lamps for heating food. I want to use a Halogen lamp in a kettle instead heating element. 
Yes.
>Is this feasible?
Yes.
>Is it cheaper?

No.  There are some very expensive European models of electric stove which 
I have seen, which have halogen heating elements underneath a flat pane of
glass.  They are very sleek, and easy to clean since the entire cooking
surface is just a sheet of glass on which you place your pots and pans.
Halogen is better than your normal solid resistive heating elements because
you can control the temperature more quickly, giving you the feel which 
good cooks associate with gas stoves. 

I do not know if the cost is intrinsic to the design, or if it is merely
a "luxury tax."  

-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
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Where should beginner begin?
Date: 21 Nov 92 13:34:27
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.116
In-reply-to: gross@maxwell.ucsc.edu's message of 21 Nov 1992 17:53:37 GMT

antennae@gn.apc.org writes:

> Could anyone please recommend some good books for a complete novice
> who would like to learn something about physics - particularly
> relativity and quantum theory?

Try "QED, the Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman
It's in paperback and is easily found in popular bookstores.  It gives
you a fairly accurate description of the quantum theory of
electromagnetism as Feynman and his collaborators developed it
(without a lot of math).

> Is it necessary to have a good
> grounding in mathematics before you can understand anything?

It helps (a lot) when it comes to General Relativity, but it's amazing
how many of the concepts of Special Relativity can be understood using
ordinary algebra and geometry.  The biggest problem you will have with
SR is not grasping the math but abandoning your preconceptions about
the nature of space, time, light, and measurement -- don't be
discouraged when your readings attempt to redefine these things in
ways that are alien to your personal experience.

Also, if it's not clear already, focus on SR before GR.
--
franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio, CenterLine Software R&D
617-498-3255           || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
"So what we've decided to do is set you up in Cicely, situated
 in an area that we Alaskans refer to as The Alaskan Riviera."
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: ufo evidence VS. CARL SAGAN
Date: 19 Nov 1992 15:51:54 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: alumni.caltech.edu

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

>That's why we built the INTERSTATE Highway System - so that MILITARY
>SECURITY could QUCKLY speed to the sites of UFO CRASHES.  EISENHOWER
>was a SPACE ALIEN.

He was not a SPACE ALIEN, he was a SIMULANT ANDROID built by SPACE
ALIENS.  But he slipped up and used the EXACT SAME SIGNATURE on
two different documents with such mechanical precision that
TOP SCIENTISTS say that the signature on the MJ-12 (MAJESTIC 12)
DOCUMENT looks like A PHOTOCOPY of the other signature.

THAT is why MJ-12 was COVERED UP.

-- 
		David Palmer		 palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: down with inertial frames
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:28:13 GMT

lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat) writes:
: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:
: > 
: > It is easy to imagine how one could teach a course in SR without ever
: > mentioning inertial frames. 
: 
: ???
: 
: 	Larry "What???" Hammer

I assume you don't agree? Would you think it controversial to assert
that Euclidean geometry can be taught without Cartesian coordinates?

What I have in mind is this. In SR one can formulate Newton's first law
by saying that the worldlines of free particles are straight lines in
spacetime. [Note: no mention of inertial frames.] It would be pleasant
to have such a nice formulation in Newtonian mechanics. But what is the
definition of "straight line " in Newtonian spacetime?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: djpegg@utkvx2.utk.edu (PEGG, DAVID J)
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:48:00 GMT

In article <kkretsch.721999974@unix1.tcd.ie>, kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie (kevin patrick kretsch) writes...
>In <16NOV199212515920@utkvx2.utk.edu> djpegg@utkvx2.utk.edu (PEGG, DAVID J) writes:
> 
>>In article <kkretsch.721932625@unix1.tcd.ie>, kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie (kevin patrick kretsch) writes...
>>>         Apparrently, the most closely guarded secret
>>>in the U.S. government regards how the UFOs were 
>>>powered. This, I believe, involves harnessing the
>>>potential energy of the earth's magnetic field.
> 
>>The obvious question is:
>>	If they're powered by the earth's magnetic field, how
>>did they get to earth in the first place
> 
>All right David, perhaps I should have generalised the statement.
>Let's say the following:
>              .....Powered by harnessing the potential energy of
>the magnetic field of an arbitrary planet.
> 
>How's that?
>Any comments? (I could ask if your just being 'picky' but
>that kind of idiocy belongs in some other newsgroup. Do we
>agree??)
> 
>KEV.

I don't think that's being 'picky'. If a UFO gets its power from
planetary fields it won't work too well on interstellar voyages.
Space is mostly, well, space.
From: gustin@evs2.uia.ac.be (Emmanuel Gustin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:21:57 GMT
Organization: U.I.A.

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

: >More important: Science can't accept religion as a part of its structure -
: >nor superstition of prejudice.  But religion has to accept logic and
: >science, and many religious people have no trouble with that - what the
: >pope tried to show when he apologized for the Galilei trial. Theology is
: >based on faith but is not a purely mystical affair. As G.K. Chesterton
: >made father Brown say when caught fake priest: attacking Logic is bad
: >theology. People can't (at least not forever) believe in something that is
: >clearly not true. Thus mixing religion into science is *impossible*, but
: >mixing science into religion is an *inevitability*. 
: 
:      Religion has to accept nothing.  Do you honestly think that the 
:      Jains base their belief in reincarnation on *logic*?  There is no
:      logic that explains basic facts of existence that must be
:      assumed.

You miss the point. The 'basic facts of existence' are an essential part
of religion, indeed. Science cannot prove or contradict them, and should
not in any way adapt itself to religion. But science has consequences for
the world we live in, arises new moral problems, creates new points of
view, and destroys old certainties. And religion has to adapt itself to
that. Religious people may believe things where science has no part in,
but they are living on this world. 

:      Also, 'clearly not true' is in the eye of the beholder.

But that is what science is about: gathering knowledge the truth whereof
is NOT in the eye of the beholder, but accepted by everybody. 

: 
: >Yes, I know there are lots of people who refuse to mix some science in
: >their religion - creationists and others. But don't blame religion for
: >this; it's bad science AND bad theology. It is true that religion is
: 
:      It is perfectly consistent theology.  It is *not* science.

Depends on your definition of theology. If you define it as a kind of
madness, you're right.  

Emmanuel Gustin
University of Antwerp
gustin@nats.uia.ac.be
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: msunde01@mik.uky.edu (Mark  Underwood)
Subject: Hitchhiker's Ultimate Question Answered, again . . ..
Reply-To: msunde01@mik.uky.edu
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:32:19 GMT

I know you are all probably sick to death of hearing about the number 42,  
the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and the answer to the ultimate  
question, but it's 3 in the morning after an EXTREMELY long week here in  
the educational trenches here at UK (the school, not the nation), and I  
just solved (well, reworked an example - blame the text's author) an  
optics problem:

The question was to find the minimum deviation angle of a light ray  
incident upon a water droplet (like in a rainbow) 

The geometry looks something like this (poor ascii drawing follows:)

Well, nevermind the drawing. The ray comes in from the left at some height  
above the centerline of the drop (spherical approx) and is refracted down  
a little as it crosses the boundary.  It experiences total internal  
reflection at the "back" of the drop, and is refracted again as it passes  
out, some (symmetric - nice, huh?) height below the centerline.  The angle  
of deviation was defined to be the angle (the wide one) between the  
apparent direction of the exiting ray and the original direction of the  
original ray.  Clear as mud?  Anyway, the answer means that the angle  
between the original ray and the final ray (vectors) is . . .

42 degrees!

Of course, the problem was simplified to the max, ignoring all sorts of  
abberation problems, especially the dispersion of the light ray . . .

But the actual values range from about 39 to 43, i think . . .

Anyway, I just thought I'd try in my own sleepy way to provide a little  
(actual) basic second-semester physics humor to lighten up all the flaming  
and harping over various religion/time-inertia/school/etc. garbage on this  
section.

Discuss this if you want, ignore it if you want.  I don't care - I'm going  
to bed.


Mark Underwood
EE Student, University of Kentucky
Lab Assistant, UK Library Microlabs
E-Mail address:  msunde01@mik.uky.edu

"To hell with Murphy - if it can go wrong, fix it!" - Peter
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - THE ENVIOUS-DESPONDENT REACTION OF CHASE
Date: 17 Nov 1992 11:19 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
Keywords: TIME HAS INERTIA,  i.e., TIME IS MATTER
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <abian.721952333@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>, abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes...
> 
>    Scott CHASE  you are a blithering fool yourself and your knowledge of
>    Physics is unadulterated beta-sigma and you are an international
>    beta-sigma-er!

Well, OK.  So we each think the other if full of sigma.  I am content to
leave it there and allow the community of our peers to decide for themselves
who have earned credibility and who has not.

> I have to tell you that General Relativity is beta-sigma.  It is a
>unsubstantiated beta-sigma. A group of hallucinating, self-adoring,
>self-massaging,  pseudo-scientists in a total stage of  beta-sigma
>delirium have decided (for the  satisfaction of their own sense of
>warped depravity) that The Cosmos is a semi-differentiable 4 dimensional 
>Riemannian manifold. 

I can think of many GR experts who are not pseudo-scientists. Well, at least 
one or two. :-)

>   I do deserve a Nobel Prize for (A2).

Mazel Tov. 

BTW:  I don't read your threads in general.  I got caught up in it because
of Indra's post.  Usually, I just ignore the fanatics and other misguided
souls that hover around the scientific community.  Sometimes, however,
my passion gets the best of me (I bet no one ever noticed that I can get
carried away sometimes), and I get fed up.  Too much silence begins
to lend credibility.  I just felt like I should do my share to air the
majority opinion, lest unknowing parties begin to get the wrong idea.

-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: sci.physics
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Lowneheim-Skolem theorem (was: Continuos vs. discrete models)
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:58:18 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1992Nov18.133219.6664@sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.124233.24312@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
> 
> Necessary, but not, I fear, sufficient.  If you are to replace the
> continuum with a *single* discrete manifold, then you must show that,
> for any uncountable set with certain properties, there exists a
> *single* countable set with all the same properties.

I do not see how these two are related. A fully discrete model
will either be consistent with experimental results or not. Its validity
has nothing to do with questions about countability. A discrete model
will be completely finite, unless our universe is potentially infinite.
Even if it is potentially infinite, any part of the universe we know 
at a given time will be finite.

> I freely grant that we still have trouble defining a single continuous
> manifold that accommodates all our favourite theories (like GR and QM),
> but I can't see how dropping the assumption of continuity will make
> this problem any easier to solve.

In a fully discrete model there are no true singularities. What appears
to be moving toward a singularity when viewed at a macroscopic level
always resolves itself in some other way. Since most scientist suspect
this is what happens physically, this is an argument for thinking
that such models might make sense physically.

I think it will be difficult to build a discrete theory that
encompasses GR and QM. The issue is not how difficult the theory is, but
what approach gives the simplest model that accounts for experimental
results. Arguments about countable sets have little relevance to this
question. They do allow one to avoid making certain errors such as
thinking that the continuum is a necessary mathematical element in
any physical theory.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: smlg1015@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Stuart M Lichtenthal)
Subject: Physics Books Forsale
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:50:51 GMT


I would like to sell the following books:

Quantum Field Theory by Mandle and Shaw $20

Green's Functions for Solid State Physicists by Doniach & Sondheimer $20

Greiner and Muller's Quantum Mechanics/ Symmetries, Volume 2 of their
Theoretical Physics series $25

Selected Papers on the Transfer of Radiation (edited by Donald Menzel)
This is a Dover book with six papers by  Schuster, Schwarzchild, Eddington,   
Rosseland, and Milne.  $5

Differential Geometry , Volume 1, Michael Spivak. $10

Electronic Properties of Crystalline Solids by Richard Bube (hardcover) $25

Statistical Mechanics by Kerson Huang (hardcover) $25


The first five books are softcover.  All are in excellent condition.

Thanks,

Stuart Lichtenthal smlg1015@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
.
From: cbettis@unlinfo.unl.edu (clifford bettis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: _Voltage_ ratings of fuses
Date: 19 Nov 1992 19:24:30 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu


The other day the fuse blew in our microwave oven and in the process 
of replacing it, I noticed it had a voltage as well as a current 
stamped on it. I'd been aware of this before but never really thought 
about it. Why is there a voltage rating for a fuse; is it a matter of 
how much resistance the fuse has, or possibly some sort of breakdown 
by arcing limitation? If it is a matter of resistance, why not always 
use the fuse with a lower voltage rating? 
Cliff Bettis
From: raicu@netcom.com (Eugen Raicu)
Subject: Re: Flying fast enough and becoming a black hole
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:38:53 GMT

Steven Timm (st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: The idea of increasing mass with increasing velocity is one of the more 
: common fallacies.  Consider the following:  There are some quasars in the
: universe whose redshifts indicate they are moving away from us at .99c
: due to the expansion of the universe.  It follows that earth, and the solar
: system, and the local galaxy, are going .99c in their rest frame.
: 
: Since our mass must be the same in our reference frame or theirs, and we've
: not turned into a black hole in either case, it follows that we are not 
: in danger of turning into a black hole through excess velocity.
: 
: The actual process of making a black hole involves general relativity
: with which I am not too familiar, but I think it's clear that speed alone
: will not do it.
: 
: Steve Timm
: 
I assume that when you say "mass" above, you mean "rest mass."
p/v is not the same in all frames.
-- 
Eugen Raicu
raicu@netcom.com
1912 Addison Street Apt. 15, Berkeley, CA 94704-1128
(510) 644 3204