HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: New University - Call for Faculty and Students
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:28:00 GMT


Please post to other conferences.
Interested parties, faculty and students, forward CV. Degrees will be
granted.

to : Press Release
For More Information, Call:
{Glossary "ContactInfo"|
(415) 885 5194}
For Release {CreateDate \@ "h:mm AM/PM"|5:11 PM}{Glossary "Zone"| ES}
{CreateDate \@ "MMMM dd, yyyy"|January 26, 1993}

VISIONARY PHYSICIST, DR. JACK SARFATTI, APPOINTED TO SCIENCE BOARD OF WORLD
UNIVERSITY
Start of Press release
ACADEMIE  UNIVERSITAIRE  LIBRE  MONDIALE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WORLD  UNIVERSITY

The European Community Parliament is looking for an ideology of cultural
unity for the twelve countries separated by languages and many other
differences.

A Scientific Board of top quality scholars coming from both the "Exact
Sciences" and "Human and Social Sciences" is now being established by Dr.
Paul A. Gerome of Geneva, Switzerland. Dr. Jerome received his Ph.D. under
Levi-Straus.

He is now in San Francisco speaking to scientists who are potential faculty
enroute to Los Angeles, Hawaii and Japan. He will return to San Francisco
on Feb 20, 1993.

The first official act will be an International Conference using multimedia
and telepresence. The recording of the Conference will be broadcast by
satellite. The Scientific Board members will define the new hybrid sciences
and give them names.

The second act will be the creation of  a detailed script on multi-media CD
ROM of the available knowledge on these cross-border disciplines and a
computer programme for students. In addition, a document will be produced
to define the further researches to be realised under the direction of each
hybrid scientist who will be receiving grants.

These grants will be used to create more television programs and
interactive computer programs and to broadcast the information on these
hybrid sciences worldwide through satellite channels.

More information will be forwarded through E-Mail, Internet and Fax to
whomever contacts us and applies.

We are a private non-profit organisation settled in Paris. The operational
company is settled in Luxembourg. The video-audio-book publishing company
is settled in Geneva. The Headquarters are in London.
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Origin of Limerick?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 09:25 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <C18MoM.I64@world.std.com>, jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman) writes...
> 
>This has been around for a long time, and I doubt if its author is
>known.  At any rate, it appears, as "Anon.", in _A Little Treasury of
>Modern Poetry_ (Oscar Williams, Ed., rev. ed., Scribner's, 1952) in
>the form
> 
>	There was a young lady named Bright, [etc...]

I have seen it attributed to Reginald Buller.  The FAQ article on Tachyons
contains several references, one of which contains this limerick with 
the Buller attribution.  I don't know if it also contains publication 
data.

-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: myrberger@e.kth.se
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Airplanes fly upside-down, how?
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:43:32 GMT
Reply-To: myrberger@e.kth.se ()
Organization: School of EE, Royal Institute of Technolgy

Hi,

my question is simple this: How can an airplane fly upside-down?

The normal explanation for how airplanes fly is (simplified perhaps):

The wing is formed so the air have a longer way to go on the top, 
therefore the air moves faster and an upward force is a fact.

But when an airplane flies upside-down, a downward force should appear? Right?

Johan
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Truth vs beauty in physical theories
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:15:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc.mcirvin.727989335

bob@1776.COM (Robert Coe) writes:

>For at least the last 300 years, the really major advances in our under-
>standing of the universe have come not from the discovery of increased com-
>plexity (important as such discoveries have been), but from the eventual 
>realization that the complexity could be best understood in the context of
>a more global, but ultimately simpler, synthesis.

Maybe.  And I hope this continues.  But it is a little disquieting to
me to observe the state of affairs with the electroweak theory. 
This is a theory with great predictive and explanatory power, 
that simplifies things in the sense that it identifies weak interactions
as a gauge phenomenon.  However, it has some seemingly kludgey aspects, and
calling it a "unification" theory is a bit of a stretch since it has
a non-simple gauge group with two coupling constants, not to mention
the Higgs, and a weird structure with regard to the quarks and leptons. 

Compare this with QCD.  QCD is simplicity itself by comparison.  The
gauge group remains unbroken down to low energies and the couplings
are all vector couplings.  There's no fundamental scalar necessary, or
groupings by chirality into gauge singlets and doublets.  The downside is
that nobody can do really good calculations since the coupling is so strong.

Now, I fervently hope that this picture, which seems to be groping
toward extreme elegance, turns out to emerge from something simpler and
more beautiful.  But I worry that the reason the electroweak part
of the standard model seems so much more complicated than the QCD part
might be that it's better verified!  Might QCD turn out to require nasty
tweaking once we get better ways to check theory against experiment?

Of course, the picture is remarkably unified compared to what existed
some decades ago; we're fairly certain that quantum field theory is at
the root of it all, at least down to very small scales, and gauge
interactions seem to be responsible for everything except (possibly)
the Higgs. 
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: bob@1776.COM (Robert Coe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 14:51:12 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: 1776 Enterprises, Sudbury MA

mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu (Robert E. McElwaine) declaims:
>     Although the following article is on the subject of religious studies,
> it illustrates some important facts about the Universe:
>
>     (1) The physical universe is ONLY the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN major
> levels of existence.
>
>     (2) Certain phenomena which seem to have no physical origin result from
> INTERACTIONS between the physical universe and HIGHER LEVELS.
>
>     (3) It is possible for INDIVIDUALS to PERSONALLY explore the Universe,
> including our Solar System, using forms of "SOUL TRAVEL".  ...
> [etc., etc., etc.]          

This guy's a shill for the moderated newsgroup; right?

   ___            _                                           -  Bob
   /__) _   /    / ) _   _
(_/__) (_)_(_)  (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ bob@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson)
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:53:36 GMT

In article <C1H02x.K38@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> relipper@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Lippert) writes:
[snip]

>Seriously now, I really do not understand psychic advocates.  The real world is a wondrously interesting place!  Weirdnesses like black holes, einstein-rosen wormholes, quasars, quantum wells, point particles, superconductors, etc, etc, etc are bizarre and interesting, and best of all, demonstrable!
>
I don't understand psychic advocates either, and by all means agree that the
real world is interesting.  But I do wonder at your apparent conviction that
the above list is "demonstrable!"

Superconductors, yes, but the rest of the list?  In what way would you
propose to demonstrate a black hole, or an "einstein-rosen wormhole" (a
paradox worthy of podolsky), for example?  Demonstrations of the PK you
deny are more likely.

Roger
From: fxt@helios.ucsc.edu (Sync)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: moderators are qualified
Date: 21 Jan 1993 08:45:54 GMT
Organization: UCO/Lick Observatory
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.ucsc.edu

> From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
> I'm for a moderated physics gorup. But looking at the posted CV only
> John Baez is really qualified by formal trainin. Johnson is next best
> but he is an experimentalist and most of stuff is theory. It would be
> good to have a separate experimental conference. Dale Bass dos not even
> have a Ph.D. and his field is not physics but engineering. And the other
> fellow is more a chemist than a physicist.

i disagree. i think all the moderators are qualified. i find the above
comments offensive and very condesending.

1) "but he is an experimentalist". experimentalists, or in my field observers, 
    are very, very important. they are the ones who provide the hard core 
    data against which theory is either validated or not. note that most 
    nobels go to the folks in the lab. 
    physics is not physics without experimentalists.

2) "more a chemist than a physicist". a nuclear chemist if you have been
    keeping in touch. nuclear means physics.

3) "dos not even have a Ph.D." so? i have seen lots of gibberish physics from 
   folks who have a phd in physics. if anything, being a grad student puts
   one in the position of having to know what is going in the field.

4) "and his field is not physics but engineering." is fluid dynamics devoid
   of physics? (this basically is what the moderator in question does.)
   one would be hard pressed to argue that.


bottom line: the field of physics is huge, and very interdisciplinary.
             i think it is good to have a wide breadth of interests
             and expertise represented in the moderators. i certainly
             would not want 4 blue sky wavelet theorists as moderators. 
             (no slam intended on wavelet theorists, i just picked one at 
             random. you get the point.)   
fxt
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Magnetic monopoles?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 05:57:42 GMT

In article <MERRITT.93Jan25150507@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>The precipitating factor for the new searches was more due to the fact
>that theorist found that monopoles "appeared" in GUT's. I think it
>was in 1974, (for example see G. t'Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B, 79, 276 (1974)) 
>that the subject heated up again.

You're right.  

>I still think that the fact that they would add symmetry to Maxwell's
>equations is a valid reason for the searches.

Hmm, I don't.  First, while naive monopoles change dF = 0, *d*F = J to the
nicer-looking dF = K, *d*F = J (where F is the field strength, J the
electric current, and K is the magnetic current), this destroys the 
gauge symmetry of the equations!  Why trade a hefty infinite-dimensional
symmetry group for a measly U(1)?  (Of course, one could argue that the
infinite-dimensional group, being "gauge" symmetries, is nonphysical and
worth less than the puniest group of "physical" symmetries.  But gauge
theories have considerable charms.)  Second, and more importantly, in
the context of GUTs one is not actually toying with Maxwell's equations
by putting in magnetic currents as above: one is going to a wholly more
complicated theory in which the Higgs field determines which gauge field
counts as the "electromagnetic" one by means of spontaneous symmetry
breaking, and monopoles are due to regions of space that can't make up
their minds (so to speak).  
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder)
Subject: Re: magnet help
Organization: Physics Department, Carnegie Mellon University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:16:01 GMT

In article <23JAN199316393172@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <21679@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, lim@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Lloyd Lim) writes...
>>I'm building something and have some magnetism related questions.  Sorry
>>if this is the wrong place, but I couldn't think of anything better.
>
>This is *exactly* the right place.
>> 
>>Are some metals better at attracting magnets than others?  

I believe that what you want is something that is easily magnetized
(has a high permeability).  In that case, there are several choices,
depending on how large these sheets have to be, and how much $$$
you want to spend.  The cheapest solutions are to use soft iron
sheets, or the sheets from which transformer cores are laminated
(silicon steel, I believe).  Perhaps you could even cannabalize
a transformer of some kind (but watch out for any that would have
toxic chemicals in them -- one that has the core open to the air
would be safe, I think).  If you want to spend some money, you could
use mu-metal (which must be annealed and carefully handled), or
melt-spun amorphous materials (which are probably the transformer-core
materials of the future, at least for some applications).  You might
be able to buy these from Allied Chemical.  They would be in the form
of long thin ribbons.

>>What kinds of magnets are stronger than others?  Where would I get them?

If you want cheap ones, I would try Alnico or ferrite.  I believe
that SmCo5 (might just be called SmCo or samarium-cobalt commercially) 
has a higher energy product, and that they are also commercially available.  
I had a little piece of SmCo around the lab to play with, and they are 
really amazingly strong.  However, they are also brittle, so if you drop 
it or let it smack into something, it can break.  There are even higher 
energy-product magnets in research, but I don't know if they are commercially
available yet.  These would be Sm2Co17 or NdFeB (neodymium-iron-boron,
I don't remember the formulation).  The latter can either be made by
powder metallurgy (like SmCo), or melt-spun and laminated.  I believe
NdFeB and its variants are the current highest-energy-product magnets.
There was much excitement at the Conference on Magnetism and Magnetic
Materials in Pittsburgh in 1983 when they were first announced.

>
>YES! Some metals, like aluminum, would not work at all.  You don't sound
>like you want the associated physics lesson, so I won't give it to you.
>Suffice it to say that you undoubtedly want to use iron sheets for
>your project if you put a premium on (inexpensive) attraction to magnets.
>You can get better if you have the bucks, but it's not likely to be worth it.
>
>-Scott

John
snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu



Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: blanton@mksol.dseg.ti.com (John F Blanton)
Subject: Re: satellite orbits
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:01:01 GMT

Forgive me for responding to this one without reading all of the
perfectly good responses that are sure to follow, but this is one
of my favorite topics.

The question should not be, "What keeps a satellite in orbit?" but
rather, "What could possible make a satellite hit the earth?"

Remember, a satellite is started out in a straight line, not headed
toward the earth (hopefully).  It should just keep on going, and 
never strike the surface of the earth.  Bad news:  gravity warps
the path of the satellite, causing the path to bend, possibly,
around the earth.  If the satellite is going fast enough, gravity
(the attraction between the satellite and the earth) will not be
sufficient to bend the path back tight enough, and the "satellite"
will not be a satellite at all, but will head on out, getting forever 
further from the earth.  If the initial speed of the satellite is
not fast enough, then its path will loop around the earth's center
and close on itself, forming an ellipse in space.  If the ellipse
just happens to intersect the earth's surface (satellite was not
going fast enough initially, or the initial direction was not
favorable or both), then the satellite will strike the earth's 
surface, and it will be said to have "fallen to earth" (what
usually happens in these cases is atmospheric heating eats satellites
alive before they have a chance to strike the solid surface of the
earth).

For my own use, "centrifugal force" is an impractical concept (except
in describing explosions and electric repulsion and such).  For the
case of a satellite, draw a free body diagram.  Gravity acts on the
satellite in a direction toward the center of the earth.  If there
were a "centrifugal force" holding the satellite up it would cancel
out gravity, and the satellite would show no net acceleration toward
the center of the earth.  It would go in a straight line and would
not orbit the earth.

So strongly did I feel about that concept that in 1963 I transferred
out of the Aerospace Engineering department at UT Austin when I
encountered an instructor (a straight A graduate student) espousing
the idea that centrifugal forces keep satellites up.

blanton@lobby.ti.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: From: Fkel@stcst1.mrl.uiuc.edu (David Frenkel)
Subject: Re: sci.sci.s.research: Are there i>|References: <MATTTTTn10000025@25@22.berk> <1541700025@gn.apc.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:10:06 GMT

In article <15415410025@5@5apc.org> antennae@gn@gn@
>
>You don't need moderators.  You've alreadugs aunded Hannu off the nea ho.
> ...
>It worries me to hear you discussing how 'tough' you should be op ts
>though this newsgroupts, hsplace to shure
f cleverness rather than
>a point o, LOmmunication for everyone on the net interested in physics
>and pand paics-related issues.

  Strong stuff, but a couple of points are due.

(1)  There is a large number of moderated newsgroups out there.
     How did they come aboutcruis   Let us not forget re
rne of the roles the moderators would play
     ianization
 of the Out the more vicious replies. If this is coupled with
     a sufficiently broad-minded approach to what questions can
     be ak)
N, the end result may be quite positive. ive. is give it
     some time to see if it works.ks.k2)  We live in an inyou can n age, where all of us are overloaded.
     If you think of it, FAQ's are a way to deter people from posting;
     regularExE do not wish to see the same elementary stuff
     rehashed over aner aner.
     Sur're gDf it has not escaped anyone that the majority of
     current postings deal with foundational issues of d with
6:35 and there is precious little that is res res to what the
     majority of physical scientists (either practitioners
     or interested observers) would care about on a regregrbasis.
     Why is it so un?

Noble to somewhat limitt thettuff
     on one  group, so those of us who do not think of these
se
stters on  on  lar lar l have enough breathing space to
     talk about other things?


-- 
David Frenkel                        | e-mail:   ive. iels gi     b     s, the enhat qdu 
Department of PhSur's,               | 
apterapedinois at            |
Urbana-Champaignthat the mthat the mt, IL, USA    |
#! rnews
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: integrity and competence of moderators
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 03:31:53 GMT

In article <C1807M.DGq@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:

>I doubt that men of the stature of Yakir Aharonov, Steven Weinberg etc.
>would allow themsevles to be moderated by the present slate of moderators.
>If the whole point is to get men of that staure to contribute, then
>you must have a prestigious set of moderators. 

Aharonov, Weinberg et al are too smart to volunteer to moderate a Usenet
newsgroup.  The point is to find the best moderators among the set of
people dumb enough to volunteer.


Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: requests for old posts of wavelets, Feynman & Star Trek
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:23:44 GMT


I get a steady stream of requests for old posts. Everything I do is archived
on the well. Contact gail@well.sf.ca.us, or danl@well.sf.ca.us who hosts
science conference - I think the relevant topics in science are 293 and 304.
I will be too busy in next 3 weeks wrting the White Paper for financiers of
World University to add to wavelets, Feynman and Star Trek.

Any one knowing of info on biophysics, mri, medical applications of squids,
laser surgery, ultra-sound, nanotechnology etc. available on internet-
please let me know ASAP. Thanks.
From: allenk@ugcs.caltech.edu (Allen Knutson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Super-Strings
Date: 25 Jan 1993 18:31:24 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: torment.ugcs.caltech.edu

brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm) writes:

>Furthermore, 2D is better than 1D (the world lines of point particles)
>because 1D interactions (e.g. one particle splits into two) occur at a
>single spacetime point, which can lead to singularities and infinities.
>String interactions, on the other hand, are not localized to a point.

There's another, even more compelling, reason to like higher-dimensional
objects. In a Feynman diagram showing two particles merging (say, an 
electron absorbing a photon), there's a great difference between the 
parts of the diagram where the individual particles are propagating, and
the nasty Lorentz-invariant vertex where they meet. But if the objects
are strings, the interaction looks like a pair of pants, a nice smooth
2-manifold all over, no unpleasant separation into "propagation" and
"interaction".

(By the way, this "pair of pants" terminology is now very standard -
people speak of "pants decompositions" of higher-genus surfaces, and so on.)

Which makes me wonder, what could one accomplish with a theory whose
elementary constituents were inseparable _pairs_ of points? It keeps the
nice features described above, for starters - (a,a') interacts with (b,b')
to produce the new particle (a,b').				Allen K.