HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:16:55 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

          
          
                           UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan

               I watched all of Dr. Carl Sagan's updated "Cosmos" 
          programs on PBS during summer 1991.  In one of them, he STILL 
          maintains that there is no physical evidence for UFO 
          Spacecraft, "just stories". 
    
               I should think that by now he would have heard about the 
          Roswell Incident in which UFO WRECKAGE and ALIEN BODIES were 
          found on a ranch (in New Mexico, I think), gathered up by the 
          U.S. military, and hidden away in an Air Force hanger 
          somewhere.  The wreckage included materials NOT KNOWN on 
          Earth, and some of it even had ALIEN SYMBOLS written on it.  
          All of this was witnessed by many People, both civilian and 
          military.  A couple of years ago, the TV program "Unsolved 
          Mysteries" showed an excellent segment about the incident. 
    
               The Roswell Incident illustrates a serious problem here.  
          Whenever there IS physical evidence of a UFO Spacecraft, the 
          military always confiscates it, using "national security" as 
          an excuse, and then ACTS LIKE THE MAFIA toward the finders 
          and other witnesses by THREATENING them if they don't keep 
          silent!  (They did it to the rancher in the Roswell 
          Incident.) 
    
               I wonder if Carl Sagan has been pressured by the 
          government into continuing to make negative public statements 
          about UFO's.  It's too bad that so many people accept his 
          pronouncements without question.  He may very well be another 
          case of THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND. 
       
               This is supposed to be a FREE country.  FREEDOM OF 
          SPEECH is guaranteed by the highest law of the land.  The 
          government (and its military) is supposed to be of, by, and 
          for The People, NOT the other way around.  People need to 
          know THE TRUTH about EVERYTHING in order to intelligently 
          participate in the democratic process.  It is an ORGANIZED 
          CRIME for the government to withhold or suppress information 
          and physical evidence of UFO's from us. 
    

               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
From: butler@offa.cs.odu.edu (Prince F. Butler)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: gravity-neutralizing
Date: 22 Nov 92 01:47:59 GMT
	<1drdgvINNcfp@transfer.stratus.com>
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

My father is a patent attorney and I asked him about the idea of impossible
devices getting patented.  Accordin to him there are many patents in the 
patent office for machines that cannot work.  If they are found out, there
supposedly is a process to revoke their patents but it is more trouble than
it is worth.  The patent office has not required models of patents since the
1800's.  Supposedly there is a storage warehouse where they still have all the
old models.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: kezhao@sdphu1.ucsd.edu (Kezhao Zhang)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: new results about Maxwell's demon
Date: 19 Nov 1992 06:10:47 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, UCSD
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sdphu1.ucsd.edu


Although there have been some "proofs" of why Maxwell's demon 
cannot work (e.g. Brillouin's arguments), explicit models of Maxwell's 
demon *do* exist even in the realm of classical mechanics.
As shown in a paper in the current issue of the Physical Review A 
(October 15, vol.46, no.8, p.4598), a purely mechanical model of Maxwell's 
demon can be constructed explicitly under the laws of classical mechanics.
(The performance of the demon, of course, violates the second law of 
thermodynamics.)  It is crucial to realize that the effects of Maxwell's
demon on the motion of the gas particles are equivalent to a force which
is velocity-dependent.  To construct the mechanical demon, there is 
no need to consider how information about the movement of the particles 
is collected, processed, and used to control a trap-door of some kind.  
Instead, one can consider what kind of velocity-dependent force fields
(Lorentz force doesn't work) can implement the overall effects of the demon.
The model is simple and straightforward.  Interested readers are referred 
to the above-mentioned article and the references therein.  
If you would like to get a PostScript version of text 
(or LaTex version, if you prefer) and the PostScript figures,  please send 
your request to kezhao@sdphu1.ucsd.edu.  We'll send you a copy via e-mail.

Kezhao Zhang 
kezhao@sdphu1.ucsd.edu
Department of Physics
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Graviton beams?
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:58:20 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: coyoacan.sw.stratus.com

In article <xeno.721941530@du248-06.cc.iastate.edu>, xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
> [black vs white hole]
> Now, I reverse time, so I can observe the 'white' hole effect.  At time = 10,
> I see a ball thrown out of the hole's event horizon at an incredible
> velocity.  The ball flies away from the hole, decelerating and finally coming
> to momentary rest at time = 0.  Ok so far...  I'm sure everyone will agree
> that this is the effect I would see.
> [...]
> Is there another higher order effect that is not indepenent of temporal
> direction that I am overlooking?

You're neglecting that time can't run backwards. Most sub-atomic quantum 
effects are time-invariant, but you can't ignore time for non-quantum cases.
We know how to create a black hole, we know of nothing that will create a
white hole - and the 2nd law of thermodynamics implies they can't exist.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Superconductors in space? (was Re: anti-gravity device)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:26:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.112906.9396@impmh.uucp> dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon) writes:
>In <1992Nov15.013238.9221@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>>[Xeno's comments on perpetual (constant-entropy) motion deleted]
>> 
>>But you would a need frictionless/lossless mechanical system. As far as I
>>know, no materials at normal temperatures are frictionless. The only
>                       ^^^^^^
>Normal for whom?  Remarkably little of the universe seems to be at 
>'normal' temperatures - its generally either much hotter (stars)
>or much colder (open space).

Perhaps I should have said 'room temperature'. Or better yet how about
STP. It would be hard to demonstrate a PPM that did not work at STP.
Most do not have easy access to launch vehicles (or any access for that
matter). Which would also put a crimp in the R&D phase if such conditions
were theoretically required.
 
>>perfect things that come too mind are superconductors, and I believe that
>>liquid helium II is a perfect heat conductor. I doubt that any machine
>>requiring supercold could be described as perpetual. Unless it was operated
>           ^^^^^^^^^
>Some superconductors work at liquid-nitrogen temperatures (alright,
>that's still cold ... but not *that* cold).

True, but last I heard, they were still not usable. Production difficulties
(making ceramic wires has not proved easy), low maximum currents, and other
factors have prevented them from replacing the metallic semiconductors.

No doubt, this will change. And these factors may not be relevant, but who
can say. 
 
>>in a mine on Pluto, or somewhere where the it was perpetually shielded
>>from all sources of heat. I guess that would rule out Pluto, I recall
>>that while very cold, it is not cold enough to liquify helium.
>
>Pluto is easily cold enough to liquefy nitrogen, and therefore for
>superconductors to exist there.

Granted.
 
>Presumably most of "open space" has a temperature of 3K (due to
>the microwave background), so liquid helium could occur naturally
>there (if there were enough pressure?).  Does anyone know the
>triple point of helium?  I seem to remember the boiling point
>as 4K, but I don't know at what pressure that applies.

I do not recall, but I do recall that helium cannot be solidified
except under pressure.

>===============================================================================
>Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | "C^i tio ne estas .subskribo"
>===============================================================================


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Travelling Time
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:07:42 GMT

As everyone knows, gravity is the bending of space-time.  As the force of
gravity takes hold on you, you accelerate, and time is dialated according to
your velocity.  The amount of time dialation is always a positive quantity
(assuming you cannot travel the speed of light or faster).   Associated with
gravity are gravity waves and gravitons.  The graviton has an antimatter
counterpart called the antigraviton.  Associated with this is the antigravity
wave.  Here we must differentiate between antigravity waves and negative
gravity waves.  A negative gravity wave causes two masses to repel each other. 
An antigravity wave, on the other hand, is a wave that is perpendicular to a
gravity wave at all points in space-time.  Anyway, if we are caught in an
antigravity wave, we accelerate, but the time dialation becomes negative.  In
this way we can travel backwards in time.  

Now, how do we create antigravity waves?  Simple, generate antigravitons.  So
here's how you build a time machine.  Build a spaceship and put an antigraviton
generator in front of it.  This causes the spaceship to slam into antigravitons
and therefore antigravity waves.  The problem however is to reach relativistic
speeds.  Even at 99% of the speed of light, it takes a year to travel back
eight.  At 99.9% of the speed of light, it takes a year to travel back 22
years.  

Any comments?
--Ray Cote

p.s.: I made all this up, so it might be wrong.  Besides this, I neglected the
fact that space-time has six coordinates, not four.

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:47:14 GMT

In article <20NOV199207505285@csa3.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <BxzEqs.LHA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes...
>> 
>>Research which backs my claim on the  validity of magick is published
>>in the following books:
>> 
>>	Tao of Physics                      author forgotten, sorry
>> 
>>I stand by all my previous statements. 
>
>The author of this (basically nonsense, outdated) book is Fritjof Capra.
>Have you actually read it?  There is nothing in it about magic of any 
>kind.  I defy you, since you stand by all your statements so definitively,
>to read this book and produce any evidence that the author has the 
>slightest interest or knowledge of magic, or, better yet, that the
>book contains any claims about the validity of magic.
>

1) You do not understand the nature of magick. Please refer to  my other
response to  a more reasonable challenge.

2) Yes I have read it. The point is not that magick can allow one
to do the physically impossible. The point is that one can unlock the
subconscious using what is refered to as magick. I am sure that having  
read the book, you know that the author gives many examples of how
this is done. 

3) I am a physics student who is currently studying Modern Physics. This
book is recommended reading, recommended by the prof. This prof,
I might add, is a rather conservative man, who nonetheless considers this
a good source of supplementary material. Furthermore, there are many
(compitent) physicists who regard this work as outdated but still 
sensible. 

>-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

Mike Smith

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: Perpetual motion (was Re: anti-gravity device)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:05:34 GMT

In <18NOV199211462562@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>You have hit upon my pet peeve.  You really can't assume that all the 
>physics you picked up in high school is correct.  According
>to our best understanding of cosmology, i.e., if you accept General Relativity
>as a correct description of physics at the largest distance scales, then
>enery is certainly NOT conserved on a Universal scale.  Here is a simple
>example:  The photons in the cosmic ray background are well-known to be
>the very red-shifted remnants of the hot early Universe at the moment of
>matter-radiation decoupling.  The number of such photons has been fixed
>from that time.  Yet each one has lost energy as the Universe has expanding
>over the last 15 billion years or so.  Where did the energy go?  It
>just vanished from the Universe.  GR tells you that the Universe is not
>time-symmetric, and energy cannot be globally conserved.  Similarly, in 
>a contracting Universe, every photon slowly increases in energy with time.

>More details can be found in the sci.physics FAQ.

>People who insist that energy is *always* conserved are being foolishly
>consistent.  They think they understand more physics than they really do,
>and then defend their half-understanding to the death.

>-Scott


I appreciate your post, Scott...

The attitude you mention is precisely what set me off on the whole topic.
It is unfortunate that even the best physicists place all their trust in
'laws' which may or may not hold in the light of new theory (and new
experimental evidence).

---Xeno
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Black holes again (was Re: Graviton beams?)
Date: 20 Nov 1992 07:48 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <FRANL.92Nov19163401@medusa.centerline.com>, franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes...
>dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon) writes:
> 
>> But what about the case of *two* massive singularities, in orbit round
>> one another, each within the event horizon of the other ... would we
>> be able to detect them separately, or only calculate their centre of
>> mass?
> 
>By definition, objects cannot orbit the singularity once within the
>event horizon.  All paths (not just all geodesics, but _all_paths_) in
>spacetime lead to the singularity.  This can be explained in two
>(ultimately equivalent) ways:

When two orbiting black holes spiral inward until they engulf one another
within their event horizons, you end up with a single new black hole, 
with mass roughly the sum of the original masses (minus binding energy),
but with finite angular momentum arising from the original orbital angular
momentum of the pair.

-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: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Black holes again (was Re: Graviton beams?)
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:07:59 GMT
 <11NOV199212414486@csa1.lbl.gov><1992Nov12.133031@cozy.Prime.COM><xeno.7215989
   60@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu><1dun2vINN3g1@darkstar.UCSC.EDU><xeno.72170451
 8@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu> <mcirvin.721764783@hu

franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:

>By definition, objects cannot orbit the singularity once within the
>event horizon.  All paths (not just all geodesics, but _all_paths_) in
>spacetime lead to the singularity.

This is not quite true; it's just all *timelike* paths (which, of
course, are the only ones you can follow).  This is just in a
Schwarzschild hole, too.  You can avoid hitting the singularity
in ideal Kerr or Reissner-Nordstrom holes, though in a real
situation instabilities would probably seal off these routes.

>2. The closest orbit around a black hole is in fact the event horizon
>   (where photons orbit) -- any closer orbit would require an orbital
>   speed greater than that of light.  Not even photons can orbit the
>   singularity within the event horizon.

The circular photon orbit is *outside* the event horizon, at an
r coordinate of 1.5 times the Schwarzschild radius for a Schwarzschild
hole (unless my memory of GR class has failed me yet again).  
Orbits are quite distorted from the Keplerian ellipse in
such a situation; if you tried to send a photon into an elliptical
orbit by aiming it from the circular-orbit radius at a lower angle,
it would just spiral into the hole. 
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: corey@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Travelling Time
Date: 21 Nov 92 02:22:03 GMT
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

In article <1992Nov16.090742.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
writes:
>As everyone knows, gravity is the bending of space-time.  As the force of
>gravity takes hold on you, you accelerate, and time is dialated according to
>your velocity.  The amount of time dialation is always a positive quantity
>(assuming you cannot travel the speed of light or faster).   Associated with
>gravity are gravity waves and gravitons.  The graviton has an antimatter
>counterpart called the antigraviton.  Associated with this is the antigravity
>wave.  Here we must differentiate between antigravity waves and negative
>gravity waves.  A negative gravity wave causes two masses to repel each other.

>An antigravity wave, on the other hand, is a wave that is perpendicular to a
>gravity wave at all points in space-time.  Anyway, if we are caught in an
>antigravity wave, we accelerate, but the time dialation becomes negative.  In
>this way we can travel backwards in time.  
>
>Now, how do we create antigravity waves?  Simple, generate antigravitons.  So
>here's how you build a time machine.  Build a spaceship and put an
antigraviton
>generator in front of it.  This causes the spaceship to slam into
antigravitons
>and therefore antigravity waves.  The problem however is to reach relativistic
>speeds.  Even at 99% of the speed of light, it takes a year to travel back
>eight.  At 99.9% of the speed of light, it takes a year to travel back 22
>years.  
>
>Any comments?
>--Ray Cote
>
>p.s.: I made all this up, so it might be wrong.  Besides this, I neglected the
>fact that space-time has six coordinates, not four.


I would like to point out a small flaw here.  You won't be able to get this
working becuase you wont get a anti-graviton generator working.  Gravitons have
never been proven to exist (and never will.  but that's a differn't topic)  so
if you can't prove them how do you plan to generate thier anti-particles?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Sweeney
corey@amiganet.chi.il.us
I do not own a amiga!
From: snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder)
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Organization: Physics Department, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:40:03 GMT

In article <3eRDuB8w165w@Blue.Kludge.COM> alizard@Blue.Kludge.COM (A.Lizard) writes:
>xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>
>> In <BxGIJ0.G5F@news.iastate.edu> tomes@iastate.edu () writes:
>> 
>> 
>> >Of course, someone mentioned that a rail gun (mass driver?) had already
>> >succeeded in throwing a small object to low earth orbit from somewhere in
>> >New Mexico....
>> 
>> >chuck the merciless.
>> 
>> Excuse me?  Who mentioned this?  This can work on the moon because of the
>> lack of atmosphere, but the drag imparted by ours would make this EXTREMELY
>> difficult.
>> 
>> ---Xeno
>
>
>Wrong. One simply imparts extra energy to the launch vehicle with the
>rail gun to compensate for atmospheric friction. The rail gun is
>one of two believable alternatives to rockets for low cost space
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>launches.
 ^^^^^^^^
>A.Lizard

What's the other?  Electromagnetic launchers?

Enquiring minds want to know...

John
snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu


Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: Graviton beams?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:48:33 GMT

In <FRANL.92Nov16180529@draco.centerline.com> franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:

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

>> Let's say at time = 0, I notice that there is a ball stationary with
>> respect to a black hole, which then begins to fall towards the black
>> hole, accelerating to an incredible velocity, it passes through the
>> event horizon at time = 10.

>We assume that the ball is made of an infinite tensile strengh
>material so that tidal forces don't rip it apart.  You never see the
>ball pass through the event horizon, not at time = 10, not at time =
>10000000.  The ball approaches it in the limit as time goes to
>positive infinity (falling ever more slowly as time passes).  The ball
>grows redder (its photons lose more and more energy as the ball gets
>closer to the event horizon), and after you account for the visual
>effects of the time-of-travel of the photons, time appears to be
>passing every more slowly for the ball (say it has a clock on it).

Agreed that this would solve the problem I mentioned...  But it creates
two more potential conflicts:

1)  We would still perceive the ball as moving very near the speed of
    light (after accounting for light delays)...  true?  We would see
    a 'clock' on the ball slow down, but we (as 'stationary' observers)
    would not see the ball slow down, by any means.

    If the former is true, then in order for it to take infinite time for
    the ball to reach the event horizon (from an observer's watch), it
    would need to pass through infinite space.

2)  If (1) is wrong, and we accept the idea that nothing will ever pass
    through the event horizon from the perspective of an outside observer,
    then it would take an infinite amount of time for a black hole to form
    in the first place, and so we should never expect to find one.



---Xeno