HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Einstein and Judaism
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:45:50 GMT

In <96657@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>In article <emc.721089476@noonian>, emc@doe (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>>I often wonder what the reaction to Einstein would have been if he
>>had posted his comments concerning Judaism and science on this
>>newsgroup instead of presenting them in lectures etc.

>That's nothing.  Would he have survived sci.physics???

Einstein fought against Quantum Theory until his last days because he
felt that it completely contradicted God as he understood God to be.
(The instrinsic order of the universe).  It seems a lost cause now.
What do you think would have changed his mind?  Could he have seen
God with a deeper understanding of QT?

>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

--
Eli Chiprout                  " 'Al ta'am vereach, ein lehitvakeah!"
Dept. of Electronics, 
Carleton University, Canada
emc@doe.carleton.ca                                     
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: Re: The size of electrons, and misc
Followup-To: sci.physics
Summary: electron definition in the Reciprocal System
Keywords: Reciprocal System, Dewey B. Larson, Electron Size
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:10:27 GMT

In article <1NOV199211204351@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>
>....Shape is an intrinsic property.  The
>wavefunction determines the probability distribution for the position of the
>object.  Where an object is (or might be) does not determine it's shape.
>And, as I said, the size of an object is best defined in terms of the
>limiting cross-section as the wavelength goes to zero.  At very high energy,
>a proton is still about 1 fermi across, while an electron is (to the best
>of our knowledge) immeasurably small.
>
According to Ronald W. Satz in his paper "Theory of Electrons and Currents",
Reciprocity, Vol. XIII, No. 1, Autumn 1983,

"...The Reciprocal System is much more specific on the details of electron
attributes that conventional theory... The electron is a spherical particle
resulting from the rotation of a single photon.  The frequency of the photon
is 2R = 6.576115E15 cycles/second.  The rotational speeds in revolutions per
second around the three axes are r/pi , 2R/pi , 4R/pi or
1.0466212E15 rev/sec. , 2.0932424E15 rev/sec , 4.1864848E15 rev/sec.

The electron may be charged or uncharged. If charged, the electron has an
added rotational vibratory motion of R/2pi = 5.233106E14 cycles/sec.

The diameter d of the electron is one natural space unit, reduced by the
appropriate inter-regional ratio (142.22 here).  Thus,

d = 4.55884E-8 /142.22 = 3.2054 A.

-- 
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@          | International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |isus.tnet.com -| Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |ncar!enuucp!   | System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice_602_996_1717 telesys!isus!hoyt The Universe in two postulates__________|
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:22:57 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

>>>In article <1d9tejINNq6p@chnews.intel.com>, bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>>>>Science is truth, and truth is science. They are one and the same. 

Anything else is fraud, or engineering :-).

In article <1dchkqINNt4k@hpsdlss3.sdd.hp.com> johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk) writes:
>In article <1992Nov06.003459.120859@zeus.calpoly.edu>, mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:
>>You have to treat science as an approximation.
>>When it changes it more closely approximates the truth.
>
>I'll agree with that. Science is more of a falsifier than deliverer of 
>truth and after enough "is, is not" the truth may become evident, or at
>least accepted as such. 

Balderdash.

Science may rationally improve its methods in order to more
accurately determine the efficacy of its models.  This does
not imply in any way that the presenters of the previous models
were making false claims, unless in the course of presenting
the models they lied.

In article <1992Nov6.020049.6292@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Ba
ez) writes:
>>  If the truth is always changing then what is it after it changes ?
>
>"Error."

Precisely.

Or not, as the case must always be.

Science, when presented properly, admits its faults to examination
and discovery; it makes claims only about the logical deductions
calculated and the experiments conducted, and those claims are
only that the results are as they appear.

Scientific numbers come with error-bars and descriptions of
the method by which they were collected, in order to
document the methodology for further study and refinement.

Theories come with descriptions of the paradigms in which
they were deduced, allowing examination of the gaps and
false bridges in the knowledge they convey.

In contrast, religion strives to hide its fundamental faults
behind paradoxical aphorisms about faith and sin.

				--Blair
				  "Trust, but verify."
				  -Old Russian Saying
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan)
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 03:12:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.204055.2280@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>          
>          
>                           UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
>
>               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. 

I showed your posting to some friends of mine.  Jim Morrison liked the
one about the Secret Soviet Anti-Gravity Balls better.  Much more
imaginative.   JFK's assassin (no, I won't tell you who he or she is)
preferred this one.  Elvis wouldn't comment -- but I suspect he's
working for the government anyway.

--John
-- 
John Flanagan                          ||"Pretty boys
johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu           || with the sunshine faces
U. of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astro.|| <mumble mumble>..."
2505 Correa Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822    ||   -- My Bloody Valentine
From: hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Recoiless Rifle is NOT a Rocket
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:07:06 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In a previous article hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite) wrote:
> No, actually a recoiless rifle is just a rocket launcher.  It is
> nothing more than a rifled tube, open on both ends and equipped with 
> a device to ignite the rocket.  (And you *don't* want to stand behind
> one when it is fired!)  The recoil is in the exhaust just like in
> any other rocket and is not transfered to the rifle.  (See, I did
> learn something in the infantry.)

 Maybe you're thinking of a bazooka or something but the 106mm
 recoiless rifle is not a rocket launcher.

 It does not differ from any other artillery piece in operation 
 except that the shell casing of each round has holes in the sides
 and the rear of the breech has holes also.  The breech is opened
 the round put in, and the breech closed, just like any other 
 artillery piece.  When fired, the holes in the shell case and 
 breech allow the propellant gases to escape rearward, thus 
 counteracting the recoil of the gun.  The warhead that goes down 
 range is no different that any other artillery warhead - i.e. it
 is not propelled by a rocket motor.  After firing, the breech is
 opened and the now-empty shell casing is removed, just like an
 other artillery piece.

 I took this question to the sci.military newsgroup and they 
 support what I've said.  Here is a direct quote from the 106's
 manual, supplied by Eugene Heiss (heiss@brl.mil):

 --- Start of Quote ---

 reference FM 23-82 106mm Rifle M40A1 page 7

 3. Principle of Recoilless Operation
    The recoilless ammunition cartridge case is perforated to permit   
 expanding gasses of ignited propellant powder to escape evenly into
 the enlarged reaction chamber.  These gases exert equal pressure in 
 all directions within the chamber.  Pressure to the front against 
 the sloping wall of the chamber equals the force to the rear against
 closed portion of the breech.  Remainder of the force exerted by the
 gases causes a conventional weapon to recoil.  In a recoilless rifle,
 remaining gases are permitted to escape to the rear through openings
 in the breech; therefore, the rifle remains motionless when fired.

 --- End of Quote ---

 It may look like a rocket is being fired but it's a gun - one that
 spits fire forwards and backwards.

 BTW, thanks for the reply to my original question, it helped.

 TRAVIS
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Compelling Mysteries (II)
Keywords: compelling, mysteries, partridges and pear trees
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:43:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: zeus.1992Nov11.144347.122868
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) states
>Well, thudding in company with Mr Bass, here are a few of my 'mysteries'
>
>(a) We had atoms, then subatomic particles, then quarks.  Is there an
>ultimate structure of matter, or will we find more and more fine structure
>for ever?

What ever happened to string theory?
>
>
>(c) Are there magnetic monopoles?  More importantly, is there a way to
>decide this other than by hunting for monopoles - some simpler experiment
>that will disprove one model or the other?
>
Hope so, they'd be neat. Dirac's equations show they can exist, but i
can't think of any way short of finding one to prove it. Maybe Caltech
will get lucky with that mountain they holowed out in Italy.


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.
The meek can _have_ the Earth, the rest of us are going to the stars.(Heinlein)
		*** H. Ross Perot in '96 ***
From: ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:48:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Sulphuric acid: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN replies to JOKINEN
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: sci.physics


I'm still waiting for the reaction to my provocation!

You explained how ink diffused into water. I asked why
the same situation does not happen with oil and vinegar.


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Some physics questions
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:54:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov8.165412.17230
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Nov8.174608.24504@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
>With regard to bar length, assume you were carrying a variety of meter
>bars of different stable materials (I have no idea what materials are
>sufficiently stable for billions of years).  With regard to clock
>frequency, assume you were carrying a variety of atomic clocks based on
>hyperfine transitions of various elements.  And assume that the
>observed change was the same to within 10% of the change for all
>combinations of bars and clocks.
>
>Given these circumstances, which parameter would you prefer to say had
>changed, light speed, bar length, or clock frequency?  Or would you
>prefer to say that there was no basis for choosing among these?
>-- 
>Vaughan Pratt

I would call for further experiments to measure the speed of light in
terms of purely *nuclear* quantities (some strong interactions have already
crept in because the hyperfine transition involves the nuclear magnetic
moment).  My first hunch would be to say that the bar lengths and 
the clock frequencies all changed because of a change in the electromagnetic
coupling constant.  It's a matter of economy, really; if the speed of light
seems to have changed in exactly the same way with regard to all physical
processes, it seems absurd to say that all of the other physical constants
got twiddled in such a way as to produce this effect.  But if the speed of
light only seems different when you measure it with bulk matter dependent
on electromagnetic couplings, I would tend to implicate the coupling of
electromagnetic fields to matter, and I would start writing down theories
in which the charge on the electron is determined by a field...
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: msunde01@mik.uky.edu (Mark  Underwood)
Subject: Re: Is Math Hard?
Reply-To: msunde01@mik.uky.edu
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:28:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.180244.27364@athena.mit.edu> jamess@athena.mit.edu  
(John A Mess) writes:


(Lots of thoughtful and interesting stuff - it's long, so I won't repeat  
it for a general comment)

He's right.  There are a few bad egg teachers, but the vast majority are  
good, really do care, and are just as frustrated (or even more so) than  
the rest of us.  It's the SYSTEM that's broken.
     I feel we need to have a school system where the teachers are far  
higher in the decision-making hierarchy than they are now.  The  
administration should be in more of a "support staff" role, to coordinate  
the work of the teachers and help provide the materials and resources  
(including a decent, I-can-survive-on-this salary) they need to help  
students learn.  Unfortunately, I don't see this happening any time soon  
unless the parents and other involved citizens raise enough of a fuss with  
the right people in the right way.
--
			By your leave,
			
				Mark S. Underwood
				Electrical Engineering Student
				University of Kentucky, Lexington KY
				msunde01@mik.uky.edu
				
(My opinions are mine alone, of course!)

"Cogito Ergo Sum" - Descartes
"Non Cogito - (poof!)" - Anonymous
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: No big crunch?
Organization: Organization?!?  You eediot!!
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:53:23 GMT

Benjamin Weiner writes:

>...
>Somebody just quoted Jerry Ostriker to me: "In astronomy, the only
>real mass determination is a dynamical determination."  Just 'cause
>we can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
>
>... An alternative which does kick around is Mordechai Milgrom's 
>"Modified Newtonian Dynamics," which rolls over at small accelerations 
>as opposed to large R.  Look his papers up for details.

Didn't Milgrom build on somebody else's earlier work, or is my memory
going?
-- 
		        jcj@tellabs.com
		      Carpe salsa et chips
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Continuos vs. discrete models Was: The size of electrons, ...
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:35:15 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1992Nov10.173302.27756@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> In article <1992Nov8.154955.15938@prim> dave@prim.demon.co.uk (Dave
> Griffiths) writes:
> 
> >Our current theories say that spacetime is infinitely subdivisable. ...
> ... Occams razor
> >might suggest that there are _no_ continuums out there. We can get by OK
> >without 'em.
> 
> We can also get by with 'em.  If the simplest idea is the best, it
> follows that if continuums are simplest, they are best.
> 
This is the question. Continuous models are the simplest to work with
mathematically, but are the simplest possibility as models of physical
reality? I do not think so. The information content of any finite volume
of space-time with a finite energy appears to be finite. Using continuous
models to build finite structures is extreme overkill of the kind nature
does not seem to use.

There is good reason to suspect that no completed infinite totalities
exist. The continuum that appears in formal mathematical systems is different
then what mathematicians mean by `the continuum'. The latter is a speculative
philosophical idea that cannot be formalized mathematically. For example
the real numbers definable in any consistent formal system are countable.
They are just not countable *within* that system. Some mathematicians
will claim they can formalize the `true continuum' by saying what they mean
by real numbers is *all real numbers* not just those definable in a
particular formal system. Whether *all real numbers* exists or this phrase
has any mathematical meaning is itself a speculative philosophical question.

Paul Budnik
From: ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Some physics questions
Date: 8 Nov 1992 21:49:47 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov8.174608.24504@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
[Scenario deleted.]
>Given these circumstances, which parameter would you prefer to say had
>changed, light speed, bar length, or clock frequency?  Or would you
>prefer to say that there was no basis for choosing among these?

I once went to a talk by someone who had worked on especially accurate
measures of time, and he remarked that it was conceivable that we
could end up at some point in the future with more than one measure of
"time", if there were two ways of measuring it which were both
reasonably consistent with ordinary timepieces, and both
self-consistent to a greater precision than previously available, but
not consistent with each other. I would agree that it is conceivable
that one would have two measures of time, neither one with a greater
claim to being "time", although it seems unlikely.

Keith Ramsay
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Splitting physics conference&multiple listings.
Date: 11 Nov 1992 18:36:00 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <BxIM4v.26L@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>I suggest that sci.physics be split into three sub-conferences:

First of all, they're newsgroups, not conferences, no
matter what your vendor-copyrighted software wants to
believe;

second, except for those times we disagree on issues of
no import, the volume isn't large enough to mandate a
split;

third, if your suggested groups were any more silly they'd
be in the new Disney movie or an Erich von Danneken book.

>I volunteer to edit 2.

BWAAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAA.

>I notice lots of multiple postings between sci. math and sci.physics - yet
>when I put some optics related stuff in sci.optics I was immediately jumped
>upon for wasting bit space with multiple listings - what gives?
>I was told that the objection had nothing to do with
>content or value of the posting.

What gives is that they're even more clueless than you are.
Crosspostings don't take up significantly more space than
unitary postings, except on pathological news-storage systems,
wherein the implementor has brought his inefficiencies wholly
upon himself.

>PS the review of Gleick's book etc. would be in 3 - I
>volunteer to edit 3 as well.

Create them as alt.* groups and see how they run before you
try to alter the fabric of the net.universe.

				--Blair
				  "IMHO"
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dave@prim.demon.co.uk (Dave Griffiths)
Subject: Re: Some physics questions
Organization: Primitive Software Ltd.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 12:24:54 GMT

In article <6NOV199212364099@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>
>The speed of light is what it is for *some* reason, or it would have a
>different value!  (I know I'll get flamed for this one.)  I expect that
>this reason will ultimately be accessible to us.
>

Is it possible to make a clock whose speed of running is independent of the
speed of light? I mean, if the speed of light was doubled, would all our clocks
run twice as fast so we wouldn't actually notice? (In the equation E = mcc,
which would be conserved, energy or mass?).

But then as we all know, the speed of light is related to the clock speed
of the universal computer. :-)

Dave Griffiths
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: GR with no Einstein? (Was: Re: No big crunch?)
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:53:23 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)

In article <1992Nov9.182446.13635@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     It is wonderful what we can do once we know the 'answer', no?

Yes.  It makes it easy to say absolutely anything regarding what might
have been.

>     Though many people were working on gravitation, and always had
>     been working on gravitation (and there are still people working
>     on alternatives), it wasn't like there was any vastly compelling
>     reason to overthrow Newton.

Huh?  How about the incompatibility of SR with gravitation?

>>  (3)   One does have to decide what "GR would have been developed" means.
>>    	Would it count to have a theory equivalent to GR, not generally
>>    	accepted but merely one of a welter of competing theories?

>     Absolutely, if we had had to wait until renormalizability
>     became a criterion for physical law, I suspect that *no* such
>     theory would have become accepted.

I have to agree that Einstein's absolute imprimatur and the mystique of
the immense difficulty of GR and the post-WW1 Eddington eclipse measurement
carried GR permanantly into the #1 position over its then non-existent
competition.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:43:47 GMT

In article <6174@tuegate.tue.nl> johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers) writes:

>No, there isn't a way to mutate science in such a way AND keep
>consistent with the scepticism. Equality and respect seem to be
>concepts which you consider as desirable, but you can't say a priori
>that they are.
>
>The only way to use science for this is to recognize that evolution
>results in a relative favour of better functioning societies. Because
>each species is aimed on survival of the species (if a specie wasn't,
>it would die out automatically).

     Ohno.  Not evolution again.  Karl Popper would be turning over in
     his grave (that is, if he were dead).

>Maybe equality and respect are things which give a civillisation a
>favour about others. Some care of the environment certainly does.
>But research has to be done to find this out.

     Don't you find this type of experimentation unethical?  Or at least
     very inconvenient?  Yo, over there,  Ghengis, you'll have this
     civilization for a thousand years.  We'll see how she 'flourishes'.

     Science does not seem very appropriate for use in some areas.

                                dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926