HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re:  Quantum Kitty Cats
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:04:48 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I'm surprised that no one has pointed out the natural link between
the Quantum Kitty Cat thread and the "Is my cat dangerous after
radioactive iodine treatment?" thread.  Clearly by placing a
radioactive kitty in a Schrodinger-style box in which some
nefarious device is trigged by radioactive decay, one could create
a measuring apparatus which is its own subject ... the details are
left to the reader.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Just a thought
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:38:57 GMT

z_arthurjk@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

>Take a crack at this everybody:


>What is the acceleration due to gravity where you are at in m/s?

That's m/s^2.
 
-- 
Matt McIrvin, posting nonsense again
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Understand...!!!!
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:55:28 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <92Sep24.232130.15043@acs.ucalgary.ca> shteinbo@acs.ucalgary.ca (Boris Shteinbock) writes:
>I would like to start a discussion related to an understanding of the
>Universe
>
>Strange thing. We talk about physics using all this different words
>and phrases like mass, energy, time, particle, wave ,field, etc.
>but this words don't make any sense if you'll look more carefully

No word makes sense if you look at it carefully.  That is what makes 
philosophy so much fun.  In physics the problem is that we usually 
(there are some exceptions) take words that have "common" meanings 
and give them technical meanings as well.  In a physics discussion, 
one must forget -- as much as is possible -- everything about the 
common meaning and the images it might create in your mind. 

A big part of the evolution of certain theories in physics is a 
change, sometimes quite significant, in the definition of a word. 
That those definitions should conflict with the common one, and 
sometimes lead to great problems of (mis)understanding and some 
of the more significant difficulties teaching certain concepts, 
should not be surprising.  We are not the only field to change 
the meaning of word when used in a technical sense.  For example, 
I just learned that architects use "axonometric" to refer to a 
particular perspective-like view, a very different meaning from 
the technical usage in math/geometry. 

>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mathematics knows everything about an imaginary world
>Physics knows nothing about real one
>------------------------------------------------------------------- 

A bit extreme.  Godel's theorem says mathematics cannot know everything. 
Physics enables us to aim a rocket so the payload will orbit Mars, so 
it must know *something* about the real world. 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech
From: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Re: Hannu, the Wood-Duck (was: STRUCTURE OF TIME)
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 06:43:28 GMT


In article <1OCT199212142079@csa3.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
(SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.095203.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>,
hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes...
>>In article <30SEP199210455043@csa1.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov writes:
>>> In article <1992Sep29.232349.3991@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
>>>>ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards) writes...
>>>>
>>>>small language hint:
>>>>"Mads so," "Mads," and "Wises" are not english words or phrases.
>>>
>>> If he ever wises up, he'll be a better man for it.
>>
>> You mr. Scott seem to be a hopeless case at my point of view.
>>
>>        Hannu.
>
> Get a life.  I was giving an example of an accepted use of the word "wises."
> It was intended to be cute and mindless.
>
>> "Thrown to ignorance Scott gives himself to work and employment and
>>  keeping himself sensible and learned he stagger without goal like blind
>>  lead by blinds."
>
> I have never taken any of the very easy pot shots at you, which you so
> clearly invite by your behavior.  In fact, I have been a quiet but insistent
> advocate of your right to be here as much as anyone else.  Not everyone
> feels that way.  I therefore recommend that you refrain from stupid personal
> attacks against other people.  As you yourself have pointed out, this
> is unbusinesslike.  How embarassing it must be for you to have to sink
> so low as the people you think are so foolish.
>
> I have never called you an idiot, or said that you are sick in the head,
> like other people have.  I have not called you a Wood-Duck.  I have not
> suggested that you are a danger to your children.  I have never called you
> a crazy religious fanatic.  I have not endlessly harassed you about
> space potatoes, which I can now spell correctly.
>
> And I will not start doing so now.  But please just leave me alone.
>
> -Scott
> --------------------
> Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
> SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
> 				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
> 				had been definitely settled, I think I would
> 				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

 I'am sorry Scott, I lost my temper, I was heart those words too many times.

 ---Hannu.


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jmorzins@grumpy.helios.nd.edu (jacob morzinski)
Subject: Mattel protest
Reply-To: jmorzins@grumpy.helios.nd.edu (jacob morzinski)
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 08:29:35 GMT


A friend mailed me this message today.  I wasn't sure if it had been seen
in this group yet, so I decided to post it just in case.


----------------------------Original message----------------------------

From reed@owlnet.rice.edu Sun Oct  4 17:21:34 1992
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 16:28:33 CDT
From: Kevin Niles Reed <reed@owlnet.rice.edu>


I promise.  I called.  They really are making such a doll.
PLEASE call and bring these people back to the real world.
----------------------------Original message----------------------------

Regarding the message below, I called the number given, and they con-
firmed that a doll REALLY is being made which says "math class is tough"
PLEASE, call and register your complaint.  They really do count.
Ashley Reiter
----------------------------Original message----------------------------


This is an outrage.  I just received it over the net this morning.
We all know better than most how hard it is for women in math and
scinece as it is.  Act upon this if you so desire.


Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 11:41:15 -0400

Dear Courant Community and Friends:

        Mattel has just released a new product. A Barbie doll that says
"Math is tough".

        This thoughtless attack on mathematics education in general and
women in particular should not be allowed to happen without a significant
protest from the mathematics and scientific community.

        Do not assume that corporate actions like these are final and
that your voice means nothing. Every complaint made over the telephone
lines is recorded and every complaint received by mail is collected
by the Consumer Affairs Division. I was informed that many people
have already voiced their upset.  Let's continue letting Mattel know
that their thoughtlessness treatment of our young people and science
will not be tolerated.

        Please call and write lodging your dissatisfaction with Mattel's action.
Joe Juliano
Associate Director for Administration

Here is the information for your protest for Mattel.

Call 1-800-421-2887

Write
        Mattel
        Consumer Affairs Division
        333 Continental Boulevard
        El Segundo, California 90245

Thanks
Joe Juliano




Kevin




		-Jacob Morzinski
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Expansion
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:54:08 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

ynecgan@cid.aes.doe.CA writes:
>Now, if space itself is indeed expanding, and if it is happening at all
>scales, ...

It's not.  You should read the other responses to your previous 
question.  Briefly, the Hubble-Law expanding-space solution assumes
a homogeneous universe, so it's only valid in a region which is
approximately homogeneous, and the [solar system/galaxy/hydrogen
atom/etc] is locally denser; space is not homogeneous on these scales.

I think a usual rule of thumb is that if a system is [in the Newtonian
gravitational approximation] gravitationally bound, it's not
correct to apply the simple expansion-of-space rule to it.
From: b5249-23@mathcs.sjsu.edu (Kurt Stocklmeir)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Spin
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:35:56 GMT
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.

John Baez
 his article

You must be doing a lot of homework at MIT.  By the time you get
out, you will be worn down and not ever be able to do any good research.

Gravitational Action        Constant
Gravitation                 Misner Thorne Wheller P. 177 and other parts
Look at any books about computer programs of finding paths of planets
in a solar system.  All componets of gravity have an infinite velocity.
From: John.C..Baez@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Where exactly _is_ a photon?
Date: 25 Sep 92 07:03:51 GMT

Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

In article <1992Sep24.175256.638@prim> prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave Griffiths) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.032014.24374@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep23.033349.2391@prim> prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave Griffiths) writes:
>>
>>>In a way, I find the viewpoint of SR a cop-out. It limits itself to only
>>>talking about what is observable with rods and clocks. But someone,
>>>somewhere must know where the photon _really_ is?
>>
>>Sure, we all know where it really is, we just use different coordinate
>>systems to describe where it is.  It's not really all that much worse
>>than the fact that I may think something is to the left, while you
>>think it is to the right (if we're facing each other).  The thing has
>>a definite position, it's just that you are using a coordinate system
>>that is rotated with respect to mine.  In special relativity these
>>rotations are called Lorentz transformations.

>I guess I'm not making my problem clear. 

True, alas.

>In your example, it's easy to create an absolute model and then make
>transformations to the viewpoint of each observer. I'd just like to know
>if the same is possible for relativity.

I have no idea what you mean by "creating an absolute model" in my 
example (of the positions and orientations of two people), but if you
think you can, you can do something analogous in special relativity.
Mathematically they are practically the same sort of problem.

To describe the positions of dots on the plane - let's make it simple -
one can pick a coordinate system and write down their coordinates.
Is this philosophically acceptable to you? - I hope so!  One
gets a list of pairs (x,y).  Note that this list depends on an 
*arbitrary choice* of coordinate system.  But once one has this list
one can transform it to any other coordinate system.  

The same is the case in special relativity.

>If we were to write the simulation
>program of a group of particles, which particle would we choose to make
>it all relative to, and why choose any particular one? 

One can simulate the particles equally well in any inertial frame of
reference.  Contrary to what you seem to think, this needn't be
the frame of reference in which any given particle is stationary.

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: TIME TRAVEL 4
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 06:39:25 GMT



THE TIME TRAVELLER'S HANDBOOK 4

14.	"If time travel is possible, it will certainly mean
abandoning some cherished beliefs about the nature of
reality - but it won't be the first time physicists have
had to do that in the past hundred years." p.185

15.	"Causality is a hypothetical law that says that causes
always precede their effects. ... there is actually nothing
in the laws of physics that requires causality to be
true."p.186

16.	"The most worrying aspect of this resolution of the granny
paradox is the extent to which it seems to remove our
capacity for free will and truly independent action." p.187

17.	Sarfatti Commentary: It is the apparent loss of free will,
inherent in the teleological conjecture of the creation of
history from the future by the nonlocal top-down quantum
forces of destiny, that so enrages critics of the boswell
set.

18.	Precognitive remote viewing in the military operations of
the First Crusade : "he was called ... R. Salomon ha-
Zarfati (the Frenchman) by Jews outside of France ... p.33
RASHI by Maurice Liber translated by Adele Szold for Jewish
Publication Society 1906 "I see," Godfrey said to him,
"that thy wisdom is great. I should like to know whether I
shall return from my expedition victorious, or whether I
shall succumb. Speak without fear." "Thou wilt take the
Holy City, " Rashi replied, 'and thou wilt reign over
Jerusalem three days, but on the fourth day the Moslem will
put thee to flight, and when thou returnest only three
horses will be left to thee." "It may be," replied Godfrey,
irritated and disillusioned in seeing his future pictured
in colors so sombre. "But if I return with only one more
horse than thou sayest, I shall wreak frightful vengeance
upon thee. I shall throw thy body to the dogs, and I shall
put to death all the Jews of France!" Well what do you
think happened? Tune in to the next episode of THE TIME
TRAVELLER'S HANDBOOK at this computer terminal soon!





Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Subject: Re: Transactional interpretation of QM
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:05:07 GMT

In article <mcirvin.717525788@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
>prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave Griffiths) writes:
>
>>I've only skimmed through it, but it sounds like a fun idea. Basically an
>>emitter sends out an "offer wave" in both time directions, [...]
>
> I suspect that it's logically equivalent to a Copenhagen-
>style view, though.

Cramer himself has said (both in publication and in email) that his
interpretation is currently equivalent, since there is no testable
prediction made by either interpretation which could select one or the
other (which of course is why they are are still "interpretations" rather
than a direct part of a QM theory).

However, since the interpretation of QM is what excites the greatest amount
of philosophical speculation and excitement and unease, I think
that offering a completely different interpretation like this is of
considerable value, and as a matter of esthetics, I personally prefer
it to Copenhagen.

Also I admit to harboring hopes that a prediction might eventually be
squeezed out of his interpretation.

>When you measure some observable, you select out
>a final state that can be traced backward to some portion of the initial
>state; that seems to me to be no different from the "confirmation wave" and
>its forward-in-time transactional consequences.

But consider EPR and Bell's Inequality. Some clever person might yet
find a subtle difference.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt	Preferred: doug@netcom.com   (or: doug@eris.berkeley.edu)
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Re: STRUCTURE OF TIME
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:51:01 GMT


In article <1992Sep28.124538.28823@ugle.unit.no>, kim@Lise.Unit.NO
(Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.091054.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>,
hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>  >
>  > In article <1992Sep24.102014.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>,
>  > hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>
>  >      "I think that atheistic scientists are fully reponsible for ordinary
>  >    peoples sufferings in all over the world, when they have instructed them
>  >    to reject God's good doctirine given in The Holy Bible. This doctrine
>  >    teaches ordinary people to respect good. Now this kind of respection
>  >    does not exist and good peoples who respect good are considered to be mads.
>  >    You all "wise scientists" should know that this means only one thing,
>  >    namely that all kind of evil will be in full power in all around the world."
>
> So the scientists are responsible for the suffering of all the people who
> got vaccinated against rabies and other deaseases, the suffering of the
> people not starving because of better crops and fertilizers, the suffering
> of the people successfuly operated or medicated, the suffering av women
> who don't have to do grueling house-work because of machines, the suffering
> of people warm by electricity and fuel, the suffering of learning how the
> universe work, and so on.
>

  You don't seem to realize forest from trees. I meant ordinary peoples
  mental suffering, which is caused by these undeveloped peoples.


> And as for the 'good' doctrine of God: Have you forgotten that people like
> you used to BURN people like me, just for telling truth? The doctrine of
> the Bible is being used to kill and exploit indians, oppress women,
> overpopulate the world, condemn homosexuals, making disablement of people
> just punishment, and learning children lies, for example,
> all in the name of God.
>

  What truth, history of undeveloped peoples. ?

> No, it's not us atheistic scientists who are evil. We just try to find truth.
> You, however, who think you are good, but actually hurt people, are the
> evil ones. I have met enough people of your kind to be very certain you
> are bad. It's sad how you'r selfish meme fool nice people into doing bad
> while thinking good.
>
> And you want us to be in the eternal flame.
>
> Kim0
>
> Post Scriptum: I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, but it felt nice to be
>                totally honest for once.


  "Mads so. peoples without self-disipline, become entangled only in
   pleasant's trap when they only choose pleasant instead of good, and they
   get lost so. they do not ever reach the goal to become happy."

          (little modified from Indian wisdom's Kat'ha upanisad)

      Hannu.

 "Don't you like your 'neutrino cage' for your 'neutrino soul'. ?
  If you don't, then simply ask God to release you."



Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jake@skatter.usask.ca
Subject: Bifurcation theory and whatnot.
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:05:36 GMT

Good afternoon.

Or whatever time of day it is.

I have run across a differential equation which seems to exhibit some sort
of bifurcation in its solution as a parameter is increased from zero.

The solution is important, since it will eventually wind up a propagator,
and the precise nature of this bifurcation is of great interest.

I am looking for a reference to a relatively "nuts and bolts" method of
determining exactly what is going on as this parameter is varied. 

I would greatly appreciate anything you can suggest.

Thank you very much in advance.

jake
 
--
Jason C. Breckenridge 				jake@skatter.usask.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Dirty Math Joke
From: <MIWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 2 Oct 1992 19:29:14 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

 Illicit Differentiation:

   (X^4)'/4  =  XXX
From: naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Time travel in sci.physics
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:33:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: uctvax.1992Sep30.153343.202935
Organization: University of Cape Town

Time travel is certainly possible, I am convinced of it. Followups to items
have been appearing in sci.physics several days before the original item is
posted!!!!!!!!!!

(On the other hand, it could be that the UCTVAX updates the Usenet news in 
a rather strange way. Has anyone else experienced similar problems?)

*****************************************************************************
* Baby Doc Naturman                                                         *
* USS Enterprise                           "It's life Jim,                  *
* Final Frontier                                  but not as we know it."   *
* naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za                                                 *
*                                                       Spock of Vulcan     *
*****************************************************************************
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Re: Spin
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 04:43:39 GMT

b5249-23@mathcs.sjsu.edu (Kurt Stocklmeir) writes:
: From Baez
:  his articles
: 
: You do not get it, and I do not think you are going to.  Only fools
: talk when they do not know what they are talking about.  You are
: 1 of them.
: 
: That is what I like about sci.physics.  A person can ask 1 simple question on
: sci.physics, and get 400 different answers,  all wrong.  As each
: fool is giving their wrong answer they are doing everything they
: can to insult another person.  Most articles on sci.physics are
: written by the same small group of people.  Most people in the
: world who read sci.physics, will not put an article on it, because
: they know sci.physics is a joke.  But they read it if they have
: nothing else do to see fools give the wrong answers and insult
: each other.  
: 
: Putting an article on sci.physics makes me a fool also.  Gravity observed					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I don't know about moving faster than light. But you can move faster
than I can.


Newsgroups: sci.physics