HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons
Subject: Visions '92: R U Going?
From: john.ewin@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us (John Ewin) 
Date: 23 Nov 92 06:26:00 GMT
Reply-To: john.ewin@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us (John Ewin) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The Batchelor Pad PCBoard ~ Long Beach, CA ~ +1 310 494 8084

The following is for anyone going to Visions '92 in Chicago over
Thanksgiving weekend...

1>  If you're going, leave me a note with the hotel (Ramada O'Hare), and
we can meet for a soda or something!

2>  If you're a non-smoking male looking to share the cost of a room,
PLEASE leave a note at the Ramada for me, and leave me a way to contact
you.  I should have accomodations for at least 2 more folks.  (The rate
($65/night + 12% tax) would be split equally, at least 3 ways if I get
you too!)

U'NI-net Fantasy & SF Conference Host
---
 . SM 1.06 *0020 . Where there's a will...  there's a lawyer!
                                       
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons
From: ahrvid@stacken.kth.se (Ahrvid Engholm)
Subject: Conscience 93, Stockholm
Organization: Stacken Computer Club, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:48:55 GMT

__________________________________________________________________________
* Computers & sf * Baltic relations * Films * Panels * Shows * Bar * Etc *
                                    __(  )___     ____   w w    _____(
                                   (___       ___(    )__ w    (__
                                             (___         l           GoH:
  __  Stockholm, Sweden, August 13-15, 1993               ll         Jerry
 l  '  _  ._   _   _  .  _  ._   _   _     _  _          l ll    Pournelle
 l    l l l l (_' l ' l l_) l l l ' l_)   l_l _)  _______l ll_
 l__. l_l l l ._) l_. l l_  l l l_. l_     _l _) /_______l ll_l
_________________________________________________l       l ll l___________

In August, Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, is at its best. Stroll in the
ancient alleys of the  Old Town, in the shadow of the  Royal Castle. Visit
the  Royal Garden island with the world famous outdoor museum  Skansen and
the 17th century warship Wasa.
  Below the City Hall with its three crowns on top  (se above), famous for
hosting the Nobel banquets, you can see Stockholmers sailing on surfboards
or fishing for  salmon,  in the cleanest  downtown waters  of any European
capital.  This is  also  the time for the  international  Stockholm  Water
Festival,  with concerts,  shows,  theatre,  exhibitions,  shopping areas,
fireworks in the evenings, and lots of other things.
  This is  also when we arrange  Conscience 93.  You get Stockholm at  its
best  -  and we hope to give you a convention at its best. Planning is yet
in early stages, but here are some details:
  * Foreign Guest of Honour  will be Jerry Pournell,  famous sf author and
long time columnist in Byte Magazine (Computing in Chaos Manor-column).
  * Because of  the GoH  many program items will  deal with  computers and
science fiction: cyberspace, virtual reality, new electronic media, etc.
  * Conscience 93  will also host a  constituting meeting for a  Baltic SF
Convention Society,  which will arrange yearly  "Balticons", and we expect
many foreign visitors from countries around the Baltic Sea.
  * The program will be in English to a  considerable degree (e g no films
are dubbed) and Swedes do speak reasonably good English.
  * The program  will of course  have all the usual:  panels, exhibitions,
films, bar, shows, bookroom - you name it!
  * Fees are not decided, but will be around 50 dollars. (Eastern European
fans get free memberships - you should contact us in advance, since we can
make other special arrangements, e g free housing and subsidized tickets.)
  Address:
  
  Conscience 93
  c/o Segerdahl
  Prastgardsgatan 19B
  S-752 30 Uppsala
  Sweden

Email: cons93@bugend.edvina.se or ahrvid@sfbbs.edvina.se
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons,alt.fandom.misc,rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.fandom,rec.arts.sf.announce,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.tv
From: cn577@cleveland.freenet.edu (Cyberspace Vanguard Magazine)
Subject: Patrick Stewart on Broadway -- discount tickets
Keywords: show
Reply-To: cn577@cleveland.freenet.edu (Cyberspace Vanguard Magazine)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:59:51 GMT

[NOTE to those on other systems:  Feel free to post this wherever
you feel it will be seen.  If you do, we would appreciate it if you let us
know where. -- Thanks.]

As most of you probably know, every year Patrick Stewart does his
own rendition of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol."  This year
it will be at the Broadhurst Theater December 15 through January 3.
This is one week longer than last year, when the play broke box
office records for a one-man show.

For those of you in the New York area (or those who will want to
be) the theater is offering a SPECIAL STAR TREK ADVANCE DISCOUNT
of $5 if you order your tickets by December 1.  To get the discount
coupon, write to this account.  We have scanned the coupon (with
permission) and it is available in PICT, TIFF, and PostScript
formats.  Please let us know which you prefer.

These tickets will be for the first week of performances, which
INCLUDES OPENING NIGHT.

Tickets are also available by calling Tele-charge at 212-239-6200.
They are $45 regularly, or $40 with the discount.

For more information on the show, see the upcoming issue of Cyberspace
Vanguard Magazine, due on the net approx. December 1, 1992.

(We are not associated with either Mr. Stewart or the Broadhurst
Theater, but we thought it would be a shame for people to miss out
on this offer.)

-- 
                     CYBERSPACE VANGUARD MAGAZINE
           News and Views from the Science Fiction Universe
TJ Goldstein, Editor      |   Send submissions, questions, comments to
  tlg4@po.cwru.edu        |         cn577@cleveland.freenet.edu

Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Sailing and Faster-Than-Light Travel
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:43:25 GMT

davev@bnr.ca (David Villeneuve) writes:

[Solar sail stuff deleted, since many have answered]

>b)  Why is or why is not faster than light travel possible?  I
>    know that as an object approaches the speed of light it's
>    mass approaches infinity, and that besides needing infinite
>    propellent, you need to eject it just as fast, using conventional
>    means.  I'd be interested in the non-conventional.

Your mass argument is only one. There's a deeper General Relativistic 
argument that a world line that is once time- or space- or light-like
keeps this property unless some discontinuity appears, i.e. infinite
acceleration. On the other hand, just this property defines 
slower-than-light, faster-than-light, and light velocity.

There are some theoretical ways to circumnavigate this restriction, e.g. by 
nontrivial topology (worm holes), in GR. If however these worm holes can be
contained, or even constructed or utilized, in the real world, is an open 
question (K.S. Thorne has done some research on that in the last few years).

Another aspect is that in principle there may be matter that always moves
FTL. Particles with this prop are called tachyons (due to G. Feinberg).
See e.g. the sci.physics FAQ list for discussion. However it is improbable
that "normal" (v<c) matter has any possibility to exchange information with
tachyons, provided they exist, so that FTL *travel* is probably not possible
by using them.

BTW: what has FTL-Travel to do with this group (alt.sci.PLANETARY, which
  IMHO means Solar System planets, which are just those that can be reached 
  with v<c in reasonable time) ?
--
 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Sailing and Faster-Than-Light Travel
Date: 18 Nov 1992 01:08:28 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <Bxvt8L.4s0@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The most fundamental problem is that it appears to make hash out of
>causality:  given any form of FTL communication (including FTL travel),
>you can set up situations where a suitably-chosen observer would see
>the cause-and-effect relationship reversed, with effect preceding cause.
>This does Bad Things to physics.

Not necesarily.  Consider, for example, "transactional" interpretations of QM.
As long as all allowed solutions are self-consistent, what Bad Things would it
do to physics?


>FTL travel conflicts so badly with modern physics that nobody is going
>to take the possibility very seriously unless/until it is demonstrated.
>The biggest objection to FTL travel is simply that we have no idea how
>it could be done.  At the moment, FTL is fantasy, not serious speculation.

If I recall correctly Kip Thorne has done theoretical work indicating that FTL
travel via wormholes might be possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sailing and Faster-Than-Light Travel
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:31:32 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov17.023854.5180@bnr.ca> davev@bnr.ca writes:
>a)  What are people's opinions on unmanned planetary exploration
>    through the use of solar sails...

For some applications it would make sense.  A solar sail was one of the
final design concepts for the proposed US Halley-rendezvous mission,
which never got funded.  Comet rendezvous is one of the applications
where advanced-propulsion concepts really shine, because so many comets
are in such awful orbits.

It's almost unbelievable that Western space programs have stagnated to
the point where people design propulsion-critical missions using 1950s
propulsion technology, when far superior systems worked quite well in
1960s lab tests.  (The problem is that they never got flown, and hence
people planning once-in-a-lifetime missions often don't feel brave enough
to risk being the first real user.)

>b)  Why is or why is not faster than light travel possible?  ...

The most fundamental problem is that it appears to make hash out of
causality:  given any form of FTL communication (including FTL travel),
you can set up situations where a suitably-chosen observer would see
the cause-and-effect relationship reversed, with effect preceding cause.
This does Bad Things to physics.  It's sufficiently troublesome to be
a strong reason for believing FTL impossible.

Other problems, like the need for infinite amounts of energy, are
secondary.

>    ...I'd be interested in the non-conventional [means].

FTL travel conflicts so badly with modern physics that nobody is going
to take the possibility very seriously unless/until it is demonstrated.
The biggest objection to FTL travel is simply that we have no idea how
it could be done.  At the moment, FTL is fantasy, not serious speculation.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: davev@bnr.ca (David Villeneuve)
Subject: Sailing and Faster-Than-Light Travel
Reply-To: davev@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:38:54 GMT

I've read that it would be possible to send a "probe" to the
nearest star at near relativistic speeds by making use of a large
solar sail and a small lightweight probe.  This sounds cheap,
but extremely difficult.

However, one watches Star Wars and Star Trek, etc, and dreams
of faster than light travel and sending probes and people to the
far reaches of space.  

a)  What are people's opinions on unmanned planetary exploration
    through the use of solar sails, and

b)  Why is or why is not faster than light travel possible?  I
    know that as an object approaches the speed of light it's
    mass approaches infinity, and that besides needing infinite
    propellent, you need to eject it just as fast, using conventional
    means.  I'd be interested in the non-conventional.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Villeneuve, davev@bnr.ca   | Mail daemon wa canada ni arimasu. 
NTJI/BNR Japan                  | Demo, boku wa nippon ni imasu yo.
My opinions are my own, though please don't quote me on that.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Sailing and Faster-Than-Light Travel
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:39:24 GMT

A fairly obvious (I thought it was, maybe everyone isn't aware of it) is
that if you could actually go beyond the speed of light you would travel
back in time.  Ergo you would arrive at your destination before you
departed.  Not very good for keeping the universe in one neat orderly time
line.  This is of course all very hypothetical.

As to the solar sails I had heard a science program a few years back
talking how the technical world states (U.S., Japan, ESA) were going to
send solar sailers to Mars as a test.  I haven't heard anything else about
it since then, although I would hazard a guess it's still being developed.


Will Christie
-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Sailing and Faster-Than-Light Travel
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:35:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.023854.5180@bnr.ca> davev@bnr.ca writes:
>I've read that it would be possible to send a "probe" to the
>nearest star at near relativistic speeds by making use of a large
>solar sail and a small lightweight probe.  This sounds cheap,
>but extremely difficult.

I would say 'expensive' and extremely difficult, since the technology would
have to literally be developed from the ground up. NASA has a history of
ignoring common modern technology in favor of tried and true (and previously
implemented) technology.  Tape drives on space probes and core memory in
the space shuttle are two examples.


>However, one watches Star Wars and Star Trek, etc, and dreams
>of faster than light travel and sending probes and people to the
>far reaches of space.  
>
>a)  What are people's opinions on unmanned planetary exploration
>    through the use of solar sails, and

Since we have technology and proven capability to send probes to planets
on reasonable time scales *already*, I think that the idea of developing
a whole new technology for thrust energy will be frowned on.

>b)  Why is or why is not faster than light travel possible? 


Depends on if what you want to accelerate beyond 'c' has mass or not. If it
has any mass, the mass of the object approaches infinity as you approach
the speed of light.  ONe thing many people ignore is that you can work to
go *much* faster than we are currently capable of going.

>    know that as an object approaches the speed of light it's
>    mass approaches infinity, and that besides needing infinite
>    propellent, you need to eject it just as fast, using conventional
>    means.  I'd be interested in the non-conventional.


Oops, there you go. This kind of discussion happens *all the time* in 
sci.'physics'  In general,correct me if I'm wrong, Planetary Scientists,
but the reason that Planetary Scientists are able to get so much done  as they
do is because they aren't spending their time on conjecture as much as reality.




-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
From: info@ccsvax.sfasu.edu (SFASU Anonymous account)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.astro.aips
Subject: hello
Date: 22 Nov 92 12:00:23 CST
Reply-To: z_woodsjl@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

Hello, just seeing how this works
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This posting from Stephen F. Austin State University's ANONYMOUS account.

Please report abuses to newsmgr@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon)
Subject: Complex chemistry? (was Re: GETTING AROUND)
Organization: Integrated Micro Products Ltd
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:02:40 GMT

In <BxvKCp.88t@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
>
>Seriously, I'd like to see antiatoms around. Maybe this will lead to other
>antiatoms, like antiHe or antiBi, and we'll have a new dicsipline called
>Antichemistry...
>Or an even more complicated discipline like Complex Chemistry with matter
>and antimatter mixed in compounds...
>
>And I thought Freshman Chem was a pain!

It would be kinda neat - how about C~O2, one regular carbon plus
two anti-oxygen.

But seriously, I don't think it could work; remember the bonds between
atoms are electron-pairs; in a complex compound that'd be one electron
plus one positron - not exactly stable.  Plus there'd be attraction
rather than repulsion between the nuclei.

On the other hand, I seem to remember hearing somewhere about a stable
configuration of 1 proton + 1 antiproton in orbit round each other; a
sort of (+H~H-) configuration.  Anyone else remember this?

-- 

===============================================================================
Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | "C^i tio ne estas .subskribo"
===============================================================================
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: anti-gravity device
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:19:45 GMT
	<xeno.721776591@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu>
	<1992Nov15.013238.9221@netcom.com>
	<xeno.721800966@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu>
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.116
In-reply-to: xeno@iastate.edu's message of Sun, 15 Nov 1992 04:16:06 GMT

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

> 'Perpetual motion' is a misnomer...  Perpetual motion exists everywhere...
> If it didn't, then this whole 'entropy' thing would need to be redefined.

"Perpetual motion" is a phrase in the English language.  It's meaning
is defined more by convention and common usage than by the dictionary
definitions of the individual words, "perpetual" and "motion".  This
effect is even more pronounced when you string together more than two
words at a time.

> A single atom exhibits perpetual motion...

Not by your definition of PM (which is basically the Newtonian
description of inertial motion [don't deny this -- in another posting
you answered "Exactly" when I confronted you with this comparison]).
What happens in an atom is best described by Quantum Mechanics.  It is
not inertia that keeps the bound electrons perpetually bound -- it is
the discreteness of their quantum states (and if protons really do
decay, then even atoms are not truly perpetual).

> two objects in stable orbits about
> a pivot exhibit perpetual motion.

Sorry, but even by your definition of PM, this may not be true.  It is
postulated that co-oribiting bodies lose energy by radiating gravity
waves, and the bodies will ultimately lose orbital momentum and fall
into each other.

> Perpetual motion is everywhere...

Thanks for reminding me (with two lousy examples) of what Sir Isaac
Newton codified hundreds of years ago.
--
franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio, CenterLine Software R&D
617-498-3255           || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
"It's not the thing you fling, it's the fling itself."  -- Chris Stevens
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen)
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:06:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.202727.2277@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>          
>
>                 RUSSIA'S OPERATIONAL STAR WARS DEFENSE SYSTEM
>          
>               In February 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin 
>          proposed to the United States and the United Nations a global 
>          defense shield (with "Star Wars"-type weapons) BASED ON 
>          RUSSIAN TECHNOLOGY. 
>          
>               Some people might wonder what the "backward" Russians 
>          could possibly have that would be of value for the S.D.I. 
>          research and development program. 
>          
>               The little-known TRUTH is that the Russians started 
>          deploying an OPERATIONAL "Star Wars" defense system in 
>          September 1977, and it has greatly grown and improved since 
>          that time.  It is a SPACE TRIAD built around CHARGED-PARTICLE 
>          BEAM and NEUTRON PARTICLE BEAM WEAPONS. 
>

Wheeeeee....

2 questions:

1) What *hard* evidence can you produce to substantiate _any_ of these
claims?

2) Do you *really* put any credence in the late Peter Beter?

I'm surprised you haven't posted anything about the JASON SOCIETY's
role in Time travel experiements :-)          

Don


-- 
<*> Don Allen <*>             1:363/81.1 - Fidonet #1 - Homebody BBS
dona@bilver.uucp - Internet   1:363/29.8 - Fidonet #2 - Gourmet Delight
88:4205/1.1  - MUFON Network  1:3607/20.2  -- Odyssey - Alabama UFO Net
NSA grep food: Aviary, Ed Dames, Los Alamos - Majestic - Jason - RIIA - UN
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: Perpetual motion (was Re: anti-gravity device)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:50:07 GMT

In <1e6onnINNntk@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

>> When popular usage contradicts definition in a potentially confusing manner,
>> such phrases are often referred to as 'misnomers.'

>Webster's New World Dictionary or the American Language, 1976:

>Perpetual Motion - the motion of a hypothetical device which, once set in
>motion, would operate indefinitely by creating its own energy in excess of
>that dissipated.                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ok...  I guess Mr. Webster knows more about physics than any of us.

It seems strange how little my definition differs:

Perpetual Motion - the motion of a hypothetical device which, once set in
motion, would operate indefinitely by dissipating no more energy than it
created.

But I guess that difference is enough for you to feel the following:

>If you are confused by the phrase "perpetual motion", it's a personal problem,
>not a language problem. Are you also confused by "astronomy" being the study
>of stars rather than just the naming of them? Or "high-temp superconductors"
>referring to superconductors that operate at liquid nitrogen temperatures?

>Cut out the sophistry.

Gads, sometimes I think science is becoming the new intolerant religion...
All I'm trying to do is defend people's unique theories and ideas...  That
IS what this group is about isn't it?  NEW IDEAS?

>-- 
>         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
>         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
>Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

---Xeno