HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler )
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Date: 15 Dec 1992 22:41:29 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>I don't think that changing sci.physics from an unmoderated to a
>moderated newsgroup would be a good idea; I do, however, think that we
>could use a new newsgroup, sci.physics.moderated.  (Please note that I
>am not talking about the elimination of sci.physics, simply the
>creation of a new newsgroup in addition to it.  Please also note that
>the name sci.physics.moderated is not set in stone; it is the first
>name that popped into my head.)

   Great idea.  It would be nice to have a newsgroup where serious discussion 
of physics between physicists could take place, leaving this group for more
general discussions.

				     ---Steven Leffler
					leffler@physics.ubc.ca

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jimc@megatek.com (Jim Campbell)
Subject: Science Fair Project
Reply-To: jimc@megatek.com
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:13:51 GMT

First of all, thanks to everyone who has responded to my earlier post, both in
this newsgroup and by e-mail! All inputs have been greatly appreciated!
Jimmy, (the friends' son that I'm helping) is happy to see so many people 
interested in providing information on his project. 

OK, so it looks like levitating something in the air using only permanent
magnets is out...
or....
(This is a variation of something John Whitmore (whit@u.carson.u.washington.edu
proposed earlier)).

	What about mounting strips of magnets on a rotating disk underneath
a non-magnetic conductor? If the magnets go by the conductor fast enough, the
conductor might think that it's being subjected to an AC magnetic field.

	I'm hoping that this would induce a current in the conductor, setting
up a magnetic field that repels against (sp?) the moving magnets' field...

	But, does this merely put me back in the 6-DOF problem arena? I was
hoping that if the disk was spinning fast enough, that the copper disk (the
conductor) might not have enough time to flip over for 2 of the axis. I have
no idea what the rpm would have to be. I hope to keep the speed of the disk
edge somewhere under Mach 1!

	The set-up I envision would be a disk about 1 foot in diameter with
radial strips of cheap disk magnets. I was thinking 6 strips pointing to the
even-numbered hours of a clock. (2, 4, 6...) Get the disk spinning horizontally
under a piece of cardboard. Above the cardboard is a copper disk smaller in
diameter than the spinning disk.
	Since everything is flat, I suppose I'm asking for instabilty. But if
I 'elevate' the edges of the spinning disk, would that help? Maybe stronger
magnets at the edge than away from the edge?
	Also, should I use a disk of copper for the stationary disk, or should
I use some sort of strip arrangement for it as well as the spinning disk? 
(Should I be concerned about eddy currents in the disk interfering with the
repelling magnetic fields?)

	Anyways, the reason I'm posting this is 2-fold.

	1) thanks again for the help so far...

	2) I'd like to make sure I'm not going to wind up with the 6-DOF 
	   problems that plague the (stationary) permanent magnet problem.

	I'll see Jimmy again on Monday, the 14th, and if it looks like this
approach has a chance I'll buy the materials to start things off. I've already
taught him some basic stuff about electromagnetism, so it'll be interesting to
see if I can get him to think of the above buy asking him the right questions
in the right sequence (remember, I'm only assisting him with this). 

	Thanks in advance for any helpful information!

regards,


-- 
Jim Campbell			|	"Remember to tweet!"
jimc@megatek.com		|	Is it my imagination, or am
WB6ZPB				|	I just imaginning things?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polowin)
Subject: Re: Metals in liquid Nitrogen !!
Organization: Dept. of Chemistry, Queen's University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:42:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.200321.6333@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> kpearce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (BULLDAWG) writes:

>Go back to fundimental chemistry.  Phase changes are generally exothermic.

Um.  Exactly half of them are exothermic.  The other half are endothermic.
:-)

Joel Polowin
polowin@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, polowin@chem.queensu.ca,
polowinj@qucdn.queensu.ca

Xref: sparky sci.physics:21081 rec.arts.startrek.tech:6946
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: How does Scotty beam up? (WAS Re: Superman... (WAS Re: Batman...))
Date: 14 Dec 1992 05:04:32 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <1992Dec11.065616.10785@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>Now that we have explained how that Batman light works and that Superman
>propels himself with neutrinos, can somebody kindly explain how Scotty's
>transporter works?

NNTP.

				--Blair
				  "I shit you not."
From: eric@npri6.npri.com (Eric Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA     (A1) EXPLAINS GRAVITATION
Summary: $ = mt^2
Keywords: ABIAN's PRINCIPLE (A1)
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:58:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA

In article <abian.723855395@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>, abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes at great length:

[deleted]

>     I have to tell you that  TIME HAS INERTIA (TIME IS MATTER) HAS 
					         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     IGNITED THE IMAGINATION OF MANY SCIENTISTS IN MANY COUNTRIES.

Actually, I think you'd have more success proving TIME IS MONEY. We
could start with an examination of the articles posted to this newsgroup.

Please observe the followup-to line. Sorry, I still consider myself
young and will limit my attack to a single smart-alecky remark.

-------- eric@npri.com ---------- or ---------- ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!eric -----
                        "Damn your lemon curd tartlet!"                         
Eric C. Williams/ NPRI/ Alexandria, VA/ USA/ (703) 683-9090/ Usual disclaimers.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN Replies to Remy
Keywords: ATTENTION  Mr.  Benjamin WEINER
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:57:57 GMT

In <BzD4v8.J31@news.cso.uiuc.edu> met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Talbot) writes:

                                 12-16-92

  Desar Mr. Remy        (att:  Mr. Benjamin  WEINER !)


I have answered to your above comments in my replies to Talbot and Beatty.

I have corrected the spelling of  FEYNMAN  


>>the genius of (A3).  Feynman integral paths are another example of 
>> different paths  BOTH CAUSED AND MOTIVATED by the same  

>> 
>>(A3)   GAINING A FEELING OF SECURITY

>>   I HAVE NO TIME TODAY TO REPEATING  HOW  (A3)  ALSO IMPLIES
>>(A1), (A2) and (A4).  Please consult my previous postings. 
>>Unfortunately (and really I regret that) I do not have TIME  for endless
>>repetitions.  

>Really?  You've been repeating yourself for a good 2 months here...



   So, I don't have to repeat  again.  HAVE NO TIME !

 
>Told by whom?  What research group?  What university?  Are you sure someone's
>not just sending you fake Email?  Or are you just making this up?  Come on,
>answer this one....
   

   I don't have to justify myself to you or to prove to you or give you
any evidence.  

   I am not sure, are you  making up yourself about  fake Email ? 


   Feynman's various integral paths was an idea in the right direction.
However, he did not have the guts to bring the  GAINING OF A FEELING OF
SECURITY MOTIVATION   BEHIND THE ACTIONS OF PARTICLES .
   
    Feynman did not have the guts to overthrow the old  scientific
approaches and pliocenic methos and mentality.
  
THE SAME THING HAPPENS WITH  WEINER's QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LOST
ENERGY.  Insead of accepting
THAT SOME ENERGY IS IRRETRIEVABLY LOST FOR MOVING TIME FORWARD

approach, i.e., my (A2),  they are still resorting to the precambrian
mental massaging methods.  Clinging to  prehistoric Pliocenic
mentality of the CONSERVATION OF ENERGY and having difficulty
in finding  the convincing answerts.  USE MY  (A2).

   IN fact, readers from SWEDEN should bring to the attention fo NOBEL
committe the FUNDAMENTAKL BREAKTHROUGH

                        TIME HAS INERTIA

    It is too late - midnight.  I am exhausted and I will either
stop  ansering  the sci.physics group  or   have  one-line answerts.

     With love             
                                                                                                                               Alexander Abian




-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: The solar neutrino problem - more confusing than *ever* before!
Keywords: Neutrinos, New Physics, Fusion
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:46:50 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Hoyt, Hoyt, Hoyt; if only your energies could be harnessed for
some useful purpose. Free your mind of Larsonian nonsense.
From: vignat@lnp01.jinr.dubna.su
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: QM Bell inequality question
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 92 23:53:59 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: unknown
Reply-To: vignat@lnp01.jinr.dubna.su

About Bell inequality I would like to ask.

You have a singlet state particle that decayes into two spin 1/2 particles.

You count them with two detectors with analysers of polarisation aligned
parallel to each other.

Can somebody point out an experiment of such a kind, which definetly
shows the absence of coinsidences?
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Ignatovich                      Tel. (09621)6-33-17
Laboratory of Neutron Physics                 (09621)4-70-65
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research     Fax 7(095)-975-23-81



Xref: sparky sci.physics:21509 talk.bizarre:42610
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.philosophy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Religion vs science: two questions, with answers
Date: 21 Dec 92 05:00:46 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
:  
: It was one of the famous Gilbert problems to present Physics as a set 
: of axioms & theorems derived from those axioms. So far, no one did 
: that (& I doubt it'd have much sence). This particular discussion is a 
: good example to the general statement, that people claiming that
: religion is discredited by science usually are not very proficient both in
: religion & in science.
								          
 Not "Gilbert". I think you mean "Dilbert".
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: kellys@orac.holonet.net (Kelly Schwarzhoff)
Subject: Where's a description of Fision?
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:57:01 GMT

Does anyone know if there is (via telnet or FTP or something) a description
of the basic principlessomewhere between 10-50 pages) describing fision
and it's practical uses as an energy source?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Schwarzhoff
Internet: kellys@holonet.net	Fidonet: 1:161/445
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ST202194@brownvm.brown.edu ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:21:04 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

Hello, I was just reading sci.physics while doing research for a paper on
cosmic strings and I came across the following statement which might be of
interest to people posting about science and religion.. .

"It is customary nowadays to attempt to develop the theory of evolution from
10^-43 seconds, onward, and it is the early epochs which have attracted the
particle physicists so much.  Everything is expected to evolve as a function of
time except the laws of physics.  These are considered immutable.  It they were
not, then it would not be possible to carry out work in this field.  But, there
is no evidence that they remain constant or that they have not changed with
time.  Thus we have two immutables, the act of creation itself and the laws of
physics which came fully fashioned and complete in the act of creation.  What
physicists are really saying, I believe, is that the laws of physics equate to
God."  - G. Burbridge, in paper called Modern Cosmology: the Harmonious and the
Discordant Facts.

Back to my paper. . . -Z.
From: ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Sorry, Sarfatti
Date: 15 Dec 1992 05:53:45 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: gauss.math.ubc.ca

Sarfatti writes:
>No Ramsay your comment is dead wrong in what follows as I show below.

OK, Sarfatti, a fair cop. I was in error. Post in haste, repent at
leisure. I usually spend a much longer time writing posts, and check
them more carefully. I thought that this time I could save time by
cutting straight to the point, and I slipped up.

I would feel a bit more contrite about this if I thought you generally
used equal care in producing your postings and replies. You agreed
before that your previous "FTL in standard QM" derivations had been in
error. They were in fact-- ALL of them. But it took *weeks* for us to
get you to admit to the possibility. In the meantime, you often
concluded, based on your errors, that criticisms were obviously
incorrect. This was arrogant and emotionally biased, the thing which
you criticize me for.

In article <Bz7Mn7.Exw@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us 
(Jack Sarfatti) writes: 
>OK the real reason why the interference terms must vanish when summed over
>all places where transmitter photon can be absorbed is conservation of
>energy.

I did tell you this before, pointing out the analogy with classical
electromagnetism (although I don't know if I would call it "the" real
reason, but rather "a" real reason). I am relieved you see it now.

Keith Ramsay
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca
From: wolf@doppel.first.gmd.de (Wolfgang Koehler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Another antigravity device
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:48:30 GMT
Reply-To: wolf@first.gmd.de
Organization: GMD-FIRST, Berlin
In-reply-to: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu's message of 15 Dec 92 01:36:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.013620.24161@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:


   Imagine an extremely (although not infinitely) rigid crystal.  It takes
   a huge amount of energy to deform the crystal lattice ever so slightly.
   Thus if this crystal is placed in the earth's gravitational field at sea
   level, the curvature of space due to the gravity prevents the
   lattice from being perfectly regular, at the cost of a large amount of
   energy.  The crystal would have much less energy if it were far away
   from the earth where the curvature of space is less.  If we make the
   crystal rigid enough it will actually be energetically favorable for the
   crystal to float upwards - since the decrease in its internal energy
   will more than compensate for the increase in gravitational potential
   energy.

   Now, I *know* that this material would have to be insanely rigid for
   this effect to be noticeable at all -- far more rigid than any actual
   stuff.  However, we're talking questions of principle here.  Is there
   any reason *in principle* why a sufficiently rigid material wouldn't
   levitate to get out of the earth's gravitational field - that's what I'm
   asking.  

Here's my idea from scratch:

The model mixes general relativity and electromagnetic forces in an 
wrong manner. It's true that the gravitational field of the earth
causes a curvature of space.
However, this curvature is not 'felt' by the em forces (which are responsible
for rigidity) since they act not relative to an 'undisturbed' metric.
 
wolf

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ... always look on the bright side of life ... (Monty Python)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Koehler                               wolf@first.gmd.de
GMD-FIRST an der TU Berlin              German National Research Centre 
Tel. (Berlin 030/049) 6704-2650              for Computer Science



Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:24:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.141001.21374@sophia.smith.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.edu
(Joseph O'Rourke) writes:

>	This is a tangent, and will lower the technical level of the
>discussion, but:  What causes the worlds to split in Everett's
>interpretation? A measurement?  And if so, is this taken as an
>unexplained postulate, or is there some explanation of why a
>measurement should initiate world splitting?

There is no real "splitting of worlds" in Everett's interpretation,
there is only the smooth evolution of the universal wave function.
However, if one looks not at the total wave function, but at only the
part of the wave function describing the macroscopic world, then it
*appears* to split following a measurement: For example, if we prepare
an electron in a superposition of spin-up and spin-down, and then
measure the spin, then we can describe the situation as follows:

   Before the measurement, the electron is in a superposition of
   spin-up and spin-down. The detector is in a definite
   state (whatever its initial state is).

   After the measurement, the system is in a superposition of
   the state in which the electron is spin-up and the detector
   has recorded spin-up, and the state in which the electron is
   spin-down, and the detector has recorded spin-down.

If we look at just the macroscopic part of the state (the detector)
the act of measurement seems to have "split" the macroscopic world.
However, this interpretation of things is a little fishy, because
there is no rigorous way of distinguishing between macroscopic and
microscopic parts of the world. If we don't make such a distinction,
then the notion of a "split" occurring is pretty meaningless, since
the total wave function is always in a pure state.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Special relativity is SOOO irritating!
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:43:37 GMT

In article <mcirvin.724724687@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin) writes:
>wolf@doppel.first.gmd.de (Wolfgang Koehler) writes:
>
>>In article <D91ANDIV.92Dec15234743@astmatix.IDA.LiU.SE> d91andiv@IDA.LiU.SE (Anders Ivner) writes:
>
>>   Consider a staff, one meter long. Now, given the speed v it 'shrinks'
>>   to half a meter. We then have a wall, and an easily controllable
>>   hatch placed .75 meters from the wall. The staff passes through the 
>>   hatch, and we close the hatch behind it (BEFORE it hits the wall!)
>>   The staff hits the wall, without being deformed (somewhat unrealistic!),
>>   and since its speed now changes to 0 it is now fully 1 meters long.
>>   What the **** happens????
>
>>Hello Anders,
>>you should read the sci.physics FAQ. It contains a similiar "paradox"
>>of SR, called "the barne and the pole". (And of course it's solution)
>>If you missed the FAQ, send me an email, I'll send it to you.
>
>Even better, read Taylor and Wheeler's _Spacetime Physics_.  Extensive
>discussion of such things (including the dangers of assuming rigidity
>in an SR context) is contained therein, and worked out in a lucid manner.
>The barn and the pole, and many variations thereof, are resolved.

     Better than that, "Spacetime Physics" is now in a second
     edition (W.H. Freeman 1992, $19.95).  It is a physically
     much larger book, which suits my fingers better.

                          dale bass






-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: roh@spot.Colorado.EDU (ROH JOHN J)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Richard P. Feynman
Date: 14 Dec 92 07:37:20 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Dec14.001133.12716@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>In article <Dec.13.18.15.03.1992.6526@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>
>>Sorry Dale, couldn't resist.  To stay close to drifting from the
>subject,
>
>Ah yes, staying close to drifting, that's usenet at it's best...
>
>>I was wondering why physicists often feel compelled to put down engineers,
>>and I thought of a few reasons:
>
>[various reasons deleted]
>
>Here's my theory.  Physicists are sick of being teased about being
>nerds, so they (subconsciously) want to deflect the barbs, thinking,
>it's not ME who's a boring grind, I am tremendously creative and love to
>ponder the inner mysteries of the universe - it's HIM, that guy over
>there, who fits the stereotype!
>
>
 I think it's because physicists think that engineering is for intellectually
inferior people who can't handle the rigors of physics.  I think their
feeling toward the engineering is more like a contempt. They treat 
engineers like low class citizens.  They don't want to be associated with
the engineers as equals.

 I think those phsicists who put down engineers are just insecure about
themselves.
Well, this is just my opinion.

-John
From: drucker@csa1.lbl.gov (BOB DRUCKER, BERKELEY/LBL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The fundamental questions?
Date: 11 Dec 1992 13:27 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <sehari.724010247@class1.iastate.edu>, sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari) writes...
>---
Well, here's my two-cents worth on a few of them:

>What is charge, why is it that we have Positive & negative charges?

There is no answer to this question...yet.  It's just a property of the
universe that some particles are charged (and there are lots of kinds
of charges: electro-weak, color, graviational).

>why the smallest unit of positive charge is equal to smallest unit of
>negative charge?

Because every particle has an anti-particle.  If you want to know why
the charge of the leptons is a multiple of the quark charges...no one
knows.  Some theories hint at this but no one knows.

>Why negative charge attaches to smaller mass than positive charge?

It doesn't.  Every particle has an anti-particle.  Negative protons
(anti-protons) are just as good as positive ones (just a bit more rare :).

>Does Anti-mater exists?

I take it you mean "do anti-ATOMS exist?".  I don't think that any have
ever been observed.  There was an article in Scientific American last
month about cooling anti-protons; soon we may be able to attach
positrons to them and make anti-hydrogen.

>What is causing the magnetic force, that is why spin of a charge in one
>direction influences other charge spins?  Why does not natural mass spin
>generate similar effects?

Natural mass (I assume that you mean macroscopic mass) spin _would_ cause
this effect if you were spinning something that was charged (most
matter has negative and positive charges that cancel out this effect).
Newsgroups: sci.physics