HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA      attention: Mr. KIM
Keywords: TIME, INERTIA, MATTER
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:05:42 GMT

In <1992Nov11.102739.10500@ugle.unit.no> kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus) writes:

>Warning to new readers of Abians postings concerning his principle.

>If you post something about his principle, no matter how polite you
>formulate it, the usual thing for Abian is to either answer rudely and with
>no real content, or ignore you.

>It has been proved that his principle is informationless, unusable, and not
>science, but he still lingers on in this newsgroup.

>Abian feeds on replies. Please don't feed him.

>Kim0

     Dear Mr. Kim,                                         11-12-92

     I never insult people without being insulted first.
     You are telling people don't feed him, but you are feeding me
yourself. 
     My principle (A1) is the best scientific principle.  It describes
behavior of particles and people and everything in between.  In case you
have forgotten, it states:

(A1)   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVOCA-
       TION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO.

    (A1)  is scientifically verifiable  your actions, my actions, the
actions of Uranium, plutonium, etc., are all governed by (A1).

   Likewise, my (A2) is extremely  informative, revolutionary and will
change the aspect of Modern Physics and will be the central theme of
the 21-st century Physics.  In case you have forgotten, it states:

(A2)  TIME HAS INERTIA and some energy is irretrievably dissipated for
                 moving TIME forward.  Thus the Principle of Conser-
                 vation of Energy must be rejected.

With best wishes and regards,                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,sci.physics.fusion
From: m14494@mwvm.mitre.org (Mike White)
Subject: Re: Munich A-bomb kit (was Re: The H-Bomb secret is out)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:44:31 GMT

In article <5NOV199209325115@csa3.lbl.gov> jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad 
absurdum per aspera) writes:
> Opinions [about smuggled nuclear materials] vary;...

Swiss Radio International reported that *weapons grade* uranium
*and* a complete soviet warhead were seized.  The report went on
to say that the smuggler said he was planning to sell the warhead for
$500,000.

************************
* These are my opinions only.*
************************
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Nervous while doing path-integrals?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 03:58:24 GMT

In article <MATT.92Nov8111138@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:

>Um, not to get offensive about this, but...
>
>Even ordinary path integrals make me a bit nervous sometimes; I
>occasionally have trouble keeping myself under control so that I don't
>jump up, screaming "What's the measure?"  I can usually manage to do
>this by telling myself comforting lies about how the path integral is
>really the limit of a well-defined integral on a lattice as the
>lattice spacing is taken to zero, and by ignoring the fact that the
>measure diverges in this limit.

It's nice to hear a real physicist admit to worries along these
lines.  It's even nicer to find out how they calm themselves down: "This
seemingly meaningless expression is simply the limit of a well-defined
quantity as the lattice spacing goes to zero.  Does the limit exist?
That's not a physics question, that's MATHEMATICS."  :-)


I don't see any good reason why integrating over spaces of metrics is
more or less intimidating than integrating over spaces of other sorts of
fields.  The integral one claims to be doing in Yang-Mills theory is
an integral over a nasty infinite-dimensional stratified space
just like the space of metrics modulo diffeomorphisms.  Perturbative
renormalizability does not necessarily have much to do with whether
these integrals make sense, though it does let you pretend to calculate them.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: GR with no Einstein? (Was: Re: No big crunch?)
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:55:07 GMT

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
: 
:      Riemann's attempts were widely considered to be failures.  It
:      is my contention that Einstein was fairly lucky to have been able
:      to study Riemann before 1900.  A priori there is no reason to believe
:      that riemannian geometry will be useful in that context at all.

Once you understand that SR is about the geometry of Minkowski space,
then, if you are as smart as Minkowski or Hilbert, you should be well on
your way to GR. Don't forget that hilbert discovered the Einstein
equation [using a variational principle] by himself. Of course it is
true that the idea of abolishing gravitation and replacing it with
curvature was due to Einstein, but this was due to Einstein's excellent
taste rather than to "physical insight". [Actually, "physical insight"
had not yet been invented at that time: renormalisation and suchlike
debauches lay,happily, in the future.]
Actually it is rather a pity that Hilbert did not beat Einstein to it.
Had he done so, we might have been spared all that confusion about "the
principle of covariance", "equivalence" etc.

:      I don't think I'm alone in this.  Maybe we should ask John Wheeler
:      to speculate?

He doesn't need to be asked.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: abian on astrology    CORRECTION
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:08:35 GMT

In <1992Nov11.024819.21008@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:

>He probably invented it.

     Not probably, but definitely  He invented it along with Mathematics
Physics, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Chemistry, and many others ... 
-- 
   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,sci.math
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: What's a manifold?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 03:07:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.023524.6664@galois.mit.edu> tycchow@phragmen.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.213739.4045@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu
>(John C. Baez) writes:
>
>>For example: "a group is a subset of the set of permutations of a set
>>that is closed under taking inverses and products".  Yuck!
>>These things should be theorems, not definitions.  
>
>This is true, but only with hindsight, I think.  As Gerald Edgar has noted,
>some think that we should proceed from the abstract to the specific, but
>this approach often suffers from the problem of motivation.  Objects such as
>groups and manifolds were not defined intrinsically at first, because they
>arose in some specific context.  Only afterwards did it become clear what
>properties to abstract and how this would help.  Frequently the original,
>clumsier definition is closer to intuition and easier to motivate.

Well, I think it should go like this.  First various examples.  Then the
definition as a distillation of the common features of the examples.
Then perhaps some theorems saying "every group is isomorphic to a
permutation group" or "every finite group is isomorphic to a matrix
group" to show that, in a certain sense, the examples they know are all
there really is.  In other words, I don't think one should give
watered-down definitions, but one *certainly* shouldn't throw
definitions at someone who is not prepared to enjoy them.  (If you know
a bunch of examples it's positively fun to see the definition that
distills their essence.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: NEWS: Galileo Cleared of Heresy Charges by Vatican
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 8 Nov 92 16:35:25 EST
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Nov8.044014.26633@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>     This has always seemed a bit mysterious to me, but why not ask the
>     obvious question "Why restrict the class"?  Who does the restriction?
>     God?  'Without singularities' seems to be an odd a priori restriction
>     coming from Hawking.  It also seems to be odd in that you mention
>     the 'coordinate singularity at t=0' earlier.

It's not such an odd restriction if you consider that one of the
motivations for quantum gravity is supposed to be the replacement of
the singularities proven to exist in the classical theory with something
better-behaved.  As for coordinate singularities, they're not necessarily
singularities in the usual sense of the curvature blowing up; the North
Pole is a coordinate singularity in ordinary spherical coordinates.  I
assume that the kind of singularity excluded is a curvature singularity.

>     See the trouble one gets into?  There will always be an assumption
>     in such any theory that cannot be explained, and must be defined.
>     You cannot get rid of God so easily; you can *never* show that
>     a God does not exist.

I agree with you here-- what any of it has to do with God is beyond me.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: flower@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Graham Flower)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:29:51 GMT
Subject: Re: What's a manifold?
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: sci.physics

/ hpcc01:sci.physics / jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) /  4:48 pm  Nov  4, 1992 /
In article <1992Nov3.204551.29715@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>Speaking of manifolds.....
>
>My mathematical education stopped well short of covering such topics.  Is
>the 'definition of a manifold' something that is feasible to 'pick up', or is
>it too involved?  If its possible to 'pick up', what would be a good, basic
>simple-as-possible source?


 How about Michael Spivak's "Calculus on Manifolds". There are also several 
 Dovers that are relatively short (but less accessible). 


Graham Flower ms 90-TT               |  Better to have convictions and act on 
Hewlett-Packard  350 W Trimble Rd    |  them, even if they are wrong, than to  
Microwave Semiconductor Division     |  waffle in indecision.
San Jose, California, 95131          |
 graham_flower@sj.hp.com             |
From: lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 3 Nov 92 18:35:20 GMT
Organization: Society for the Appreciation of Janni Lee Simner

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> 
>       Why do certain people have such difficulty with the proposition
>       that there are domains which 'science' and 'logic' can never reach?

Yeah.  Surely Goedel is good for *something* ...

	Larry "True but unprovable" Hammer
--

LNH@physics.arizona.edu   \   One like a wombat prowled obtuse
GEnie: L.HAMMER2           \  and furry  -- Christina Rossetti
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jarleb@diana.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann)
Subject: Re: Compelling Mysteries (II)
Reply-To: jarleb@diana.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann)
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:00:07 GMT


In article <1992Nov11.052908.22313@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
|>
|>In article <1992Nov10.203037.13332@sfu.ca> palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:
|>
|>>What are the gamma ray bursters? One of the arguments advanced by
|>proponents of orthodoxy on the first conundrum was that annihilation
|>radiation was not seen from intergalactic space. Could be we've started
|>to see some? Could be we've just started to look for it.
|>
|>Hmm.  Weird that it only occurs for short bursts, then.
|>
|>I listen to "Earth and Sky," a public radio show that airs in the middle
|>of "Morning Edition" here in Riverside.  Yesterday they said that
|>someone is trying to use gamma ray bursters to investigate dark matter.
|>I guess the idea is that if dark matter is fairly big hunks of stuff
|>(comet-sized??) it should cause some distinctive dispersion in the gamma
|>rays.  Does anyone know anything about this idea?  It's not clear to me
|>how much info one can get without understanding the bursters at all.
|>
|>
|>
This will not be a very informative article :-)

The small things I've heard, is that one tries to see whether the gamma-ray
bursts are uniformly distributed over the sky, and recent results seem to 
indicate that. 

If this is right, that will clearly indicate that these bursts are extra-
galactic in origin (I will _not_ say prove, because one could think of
the possibility that the bursts could come from the spherical halo of our
galaxy). If this is so, I guess we could be in for a treat, since we then
have to come up with the sources.... Lot's of fun for theorists :-).

				Jarle.

      ---------------------------------------
       Internet: jarleb@medusa.uio.no         
       or        Jarle.Brinchmann@astro.uio.no
      ---------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Re: Baez to Ramsay
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:58:28 GMT


John Baez you are abdicating your responsibility for intellectual honesty.
Yes,I am persistent the way Bohr was persistent. I have answered every
objection that Ramsay made. I thibnk our major point of disagreement is
over whether |a,e,+> is orthogonal or parallel to |a,o,->. Ramsay saus
orthogonal and I say parallel. I say paralle for physical reasons - they
represent same state of polarization. Ramsay says orthogonal because he
thinks falsely that unitarity requires it.

No there is room for honest debate here. It is smug , arrogant, and foolish
of you to think that the foundations of quantum mechanics, especially the
informal language of how to properly connect abstract formalism to physical
operations, is so pat and well understood. All the great masters warn us
not to fall into the hubris that you so blatantly display - also some of
the others.

In any case I hope the inquisitors - the orthodox priests of the Grand
Illusion that there even is "an orthodox" or "standard" quantum mechanics
will not succeed in supressing freedom on thought. And I hope the others
out there keep an independent frame of mind and not fall into line with
the rest of the sheep of academe. Remember "What do you care what other
people think?"
From: lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 3 Nov 92 15:32:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Society for the Appreciation of Janni Lee Simner

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> 
>      Debate 'Sportsmanship vs. Geology' anyone?

It's unsporting to attack defenceless rocks with picks and remove the
poor things from their natural habitat.

	Larry "Geologist should eb ashamed of themselves" Hammer
--

                         \   Absence diminishes small loves and increases
LNH@physics.arizona.edu   \  great ones, as the wind blows out the candle 
sometimes a Wombat         \ and blows up the bonfire. -- La Rochefoucauld
From: mihai@sep.Stanford.EDU (Alexander Mihai Popovici)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 9 Nov 1992 19:11:36 GMT
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oas.stanford.edu

In article <1317@kepler1.rentec.com>, andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:
|> In article <1d9lk2INN73@agate.berkeley.edu> emarkp@soda.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) writes:
|> >In article <1d9fa5INNoc6@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
|> >}The existence of physics belies the existence of the gods.
|> >
|> >Wait a second.  Do you think you can elaborate on that conclusion?
|> 
|> Not only that, but can it get into Phys. Rev. Letters?

Einstein said once that he believes God is a mathematician of
a higher order.

Cheers
Mihai
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: What's a manifold?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 21:37:39 GMT

Vaughan Pratt writes:

>The only arbitrariness in my definition is the choice of neighborhood
>of the manifold and its retraction onto the manifold.  No chopping, no
>charts.
>
>Furthermore my definition is a *lot* simpler, I'd say, even without
>going into the notion of smooth coordination required to define an
>atlas.
>
>There has to be some other reason why the complicated notion of atlas
>is essential.

Well, yes, and I just explained a couple.  I should note that usually
one takes a maximal atlas, which eliminates any arbitrariness in the
atlas.  But to be general about it: it's just bad taste to define a
certain kind of mathematical object as being "a subobject of X with
properties..." when it frequently, indeed typically, arises in contexts
where it is NOT given as a subobject of X.  

For example: "a group is a subset of the set of permutations of a set
that is closed under taking inverses and products".  Yuck!

These things should be theorems, not definitions.
From: mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Scientists Plan to Blow Up the World!
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:35:19 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, West London, UK

In article <BxAwxo.3KC@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> Jack Campin writes:
>On the other hand, *this*, about the possibility of breaking the symmetry of
>the EM force...
*this*, aka Del Cotter, aka *me*, on life without radio or television.
>...if it can be provoked by human intervention, is about the strongest
>argument for continuing fundamental-particle research I have ever seen.  At
>last, a decay path for the terrywogon.  Let me know where I can send my $10
>to the SSC...
>
>Is it actually the case that the maximum wavelength of real photons must
>coincide with the range of interaction of a force mediated by virtual
>photons?
>
The range of a force mediated by massive virtual particles is limited by the
speed of light and the time which uncertainty allows the particles to exist.
The wavelength of the real particle, OTOH, is limited by the rest energy.

                       s = ct = ch/E         by    Et = h
		       l = c/f = ch/E        by    E  = hf

where s = greatest possible range
      c = highest possible speed = speed of light
      t = longest possible lifetime
      E = lowest possible energy = rest energy = mc^2
      h = Planck's constant
      l = longest possible wavelength
      f = highest possible frequency

Also, the speed of light will depend on its frequency by

       (v/c)^2 = 1 - (f/f')^2

where f' = some arbitrary frequency (f'>f) 

I'm only an umble materials scientist, so don't be shocked if details are wrong.

PS Jack, who you calling *this*?  I normally have to *go* to Glasgow to get
insulted by Glaswegians!  Thanks to Usenet, I can now be mortally offended at
the comfort of my own terminal :-)
-- 
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk      |    ', ,','  
     ','      |                                                  |      ','    
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ditolla@itnsg1.cineca.it (Francesco Di Tolla)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA attention: Mr. KIM
Keywords: TIME, INERTIA, MATTER
Organization: Laboratorio di Fisica Computazionale, INFM. Trento Italia
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:36:33 GMT

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

>In <1992Nov11.102739.10500@ugle.unit.no> kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus) writes:

>>Warning to new readers of Abians postings concerning his principle.

>>If you post something about his principle, no matter how polite you
>>formulate it, the usual thing for Abian is to either answer rudely and with
>>no real content, or ignore you.

>>It has been proved that his principle is informationless, unusable, and not
>>science, but he still lingers on in this newsgroup.

>>Abian feeds on replies. Please don't feed him.

>>Kim0

>     Dear Mr. Kim,                                         11-12-92

>     I never insult people without being insulted first.
>     You are telling people don't feed him, but you are feeding me
>yourself. 
>     My principle (A1) is the best scientific principle.  It describes
>behavior of particles and people and everything in between.  In case you
>have forgotten, it states:

>(A1)   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVOCA-
>       TION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO.

Is there anything new? You have just rewritten the so called Le Chateliet
Principle... (sorry but I'm not sur about he spelling).

>    (A1)  is scientifically verifiable  your actions, my actions, the
>actions of Uranium, plutonium, etc., are all governed by (A1).

I don't think so, have you ever met Liapunov instability?


>   Likewise, my (A2) is extremely  informative, revolutionary and will
>change the aspect of Modern Physics and will be the central theme of
>the 21-st century Physics.  In case you have forgotten, it states:

Let say this to people of next centuries...

>(A2)  TIME HAS INERTIA and some energy is irretrievably dissipated for
>                 moving TIME forward.  Thus the Principle of Conser-
>                 vation of Energy must be rejected.

May be the timescale of the energy loss is so big we are not able to
discover it, but I need some experimental evidence to belive in (A2) or
some good theoretical explanation...


>With best wishes and regards,                Alexander ABIAN

Bye
Franz

>-- 
>   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)
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Francesco  D. Di Tolla            |                                     |
|  Dip. di Fisica Univ. di Trento    | SISSA/ISAS via Beirut, 2-4          |
|  I-38050 Povo (TN)                 | I-34013 Trieste                     |