HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fujimoto@carson.u.washington.edu (Bryant Fujimoto)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Patriot Missile
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:03:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov23.140321.21016
Organization: University of Washington

fujimoto@carson.u.washington.edu (Bryant Fujimoto) writes:

>pmorvill@jade.tufts.edu (Paul Morville) writes:

>>I apologize if this is the wrong group, but I have a question.

>>When was the Patriot first invented?  When was it first implemented?  I was
>>under the impression that it came into existence shortly before the the
>>Persian Gulf War.  Is this correct?  Thanks.

>The Patriot missle system is ~20 years old.  It was originally designed
>to shoot down airplanes, not missles.  I believe that the 20 year figure
>does not include the time it took to develop the missle, so from the time
>the missle was first proposed to the present is more than 20 years, but
>I am not sure how much more.

>Bryant Fujimoto
>The usual disclaimers apply.

I found some more complete information (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
April 1991).  The first contracts for the development of the Patriot
were awarded to Raytheon in 1967.  They were first deployed in Europe
in 1985 and were designed to shoot down aircraft. The conversion to
anti-missile defence is more recent. Therefore, my estimate of ~20 years 
is not quite right.  Its either 25 years (from the start of development)
or 7 years (from the time the first batteries were deployed).

Bryant Fujimoto
The usual disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.   Att:  PRATT  FUND. THM. OF ALGEBRA 
Keywords: CORRECTION        FUNDAMENTAL THM. OF ALGEBRA
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 19:07:44 GMT

Paulo da Costa writes:
>No. He got his "contradiction" by making an invalid expansion. If you
>really try to do the "long division" the way he did you'll see that the
>remainder after each step contains steadily growing NEGATIVE powers of
>z, so the expansion is not valid in the vicinity of z=0, where he
>proceeded to use it (the expansion converges for z *outside* a radius
>of convergence that includes all zeros of his polynomial -- to prove
>that it converges _anywhere_, he first has to arrive at his
>contradiction...).

I note that Abian has not reposted the analysis taht originally caught
my attention, where the fallacy is equally egregious but much more obvious.

As I recall, he obtained an expression (1 + z + z^2) and "proved" it equal
to zero by synthetic division yielding two "different" results. The obvious
problem with this approach is that it results in 1 + z + z^2 = 0 FOR ALL Z.
The flaw is similar to the one you point out, i.e., one of the series is
divergent. But the result is so ludicrous as to be obviously false at an
extremely elementary level.

mt
From: ch436@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric W. Wallin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Me too!!!(Undergrad Physics Research/Internship)
Date: 21 Nov 1992 05:00:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Yes, and if at all possible, could I be added to the list    of people
recieveing a list of Physics internships?  Thanks a bunch...

Eric Wallin
galileo@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
From: metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Higgs Spotted?
Date: 15 Nov 1992 18:35:41 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Department of Physics
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu

In a daze, without thinking about what I was typing, I wrote . . .
|> 
|> Sam Ting spoke on these results at the DPF meeting this week.  (For those
|> who have been on Mars, Ting runs the LEP group)  Afterwards, he spoke on
|> them again here at Michigan (his homecoming).  The data he showed were not
|> only from LEP, but from ALEPH and DELPHI as well . . .

. . .and in so typing, demonstrated that (at least at that moment), I was on
Mars as well, or at least paying too little attention to what I was saying.
The detector group that Ting runs is L3; LEP is the name of the accelerator
involved.

Teach me to chew gum and post news at the same time.
From: blom@husc15.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Irregular wave motion results
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:51:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc15.1992Nov18.105130.17567
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

I wrote a simple computer program to simulate waves in a cable fixed at both
ends as if that cable were a number of springs joined together (320 springs, to
be exact).  I expected to see motion like that predicted by classical wave
mechanics, obeying the wave equation

d2y    2 d2y
--- = v  ---
dt2      dx2

from which we find that the shape of a travelling wave pulse does not change
over time.  It occurs to me, though, that this should only work for analytic
functions.  What happens to places on a pulse where the wave comes to a point? 
(i.e. where the function has no definable derivative)  In my simulation, it
seemed that the point smoothed out and left a small disturbance behind the
pulse, in the form of a low-amplitude, high-frequency standing wave.  The pulse
I was using was part of the sine curve, which therefore came to points at its
endpoints.

The pulse also deformed with time.  Could this be the result of dispersion?  My
model didn't have any special constants or terms in it which would code
specifically for that effect.  Was this just cumulative rounding error?  I was
using 10-byte, 19-digit precision IEEE floating point.

I also did a Fourier analysis of the function looking like /\/\/\/\/\... which,
over time, had it's points flatten out, and that was the only effect.  How
would a person do a Fourier analysis of, say, a single cosine pulse /~\ over
time as it breaks into two discrete pulses travelling in opposite directions? 
What happens at the ends of the pulse?  Do they flatten out or round off?

Thanks in advance.
--Eric Blom
--Harvard University
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Lowneheim-Skolem theorem (was: Continuos vs. discrete models)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:40:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.124233.24312@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com 
(Daryl McCullough) writes:


   >LS shows that there can
   >never be a demonstration that space-time must be continuous, because
   >there is no property of an uncountable set that doesn't also hold of
   >some countable set.

  Here is a counterexample to your assertion: an uncountable set has
the property of being uncountable, whereas no countable set has this
property.
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: High-Pressure Gas Tanks--How Many PSI?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 21:19:12 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <141424@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> doug@wente.llnl.gov (Douglas S. Miller) writes:
>we're talking a 40*40*(20 lbs) = 3200 lb tank.  This sucker will also be big; 

You mean 32000 lbs.

				--Blair
				  "Y'move six-teen tons and whaddaya get?
				   Another day older and deeper in debt."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: Lowneheim-Skolem theorem (was: Continuos vs. discrete models)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:28:03 GMT

In article <366@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>No doubt replacing a model that one knows and loves with one that is new
>and foreign will be a nightmare for many physicists. It will only happen
>from necessity. I think the key to doing this will be tests of Bell's
>inequality. I have posted arguments and my paper is now under review that
>shows that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. QM does not predict
>the delays to be expected in tests of Bell's inequality. If these arguments
>hold, this will provide the incentive to do the experiments to measure these
>delays. QM needs to be extended to predict these delays and the only way
>to do this is through experiment. My expectation is that these experiments
>will provide the first measures of the structure of quantum collapse. I
>think it will be impossible to account for this structure with a continuous
>model. 

Sounds like an untestable hypothesis.  What experiment could possibly
decide whether only countably many reals occur in nature?
-- 
Vaughan Pratt	  		A fallacy is worth a thousand steps.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA -  LOWENHEIM-SKOLEM PARADOX UNDRESSED
Summary: Mr. Weiss, please study my MODEL carefully!!! 
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:41:36 GMT


 ABIAN replies to WEISS                   11-19-92

Mr. Weiss  

  You wrote :


>For the record, the Loewenheim-Skolem paradox is considered a paradox
>because it says there is a model *of ZFC* which is countable.  And ZFC
>contains the theorem "the power set of omega is uncountable".  These two
>statements are apparently contradictory, hence the paradox.
>
>And for any readers who haven't seen this before: the contradiction is only
>apparent, and is resolved by noting that the bijection between omega and
>its power-set-within-the-countable-model is not in the model.
 
Abian answers:                               

Mr. Weiss:


 But, you failed to read carefully my Model and see that I am  giving a
very good example of THE FALSELY ATTRIBUTING PARADOXICAL NATURE TO THE
SO CALLED "LOWENHEIM SKOLEM PARADOX"

 I am giving the following  COUNTABLE MODEL (countable from outside).
 HERE IS A MODEL WITH  FIVE  SETS  (is it a countable enogh model for 
you!- of course  FIVE  counted from OUTSIDE, in the metalanguage !!!)


THE MODEL   U  is a COUNTABLE MODEL, has only the following five sets:

    { } empty set denoted by 0,    {0} denoted by  1
    
    {1} ,    {0, 1}  denoted by  2,    {1,2}     
    

 BUT THIS COUNTABLE MODEL  HAS AN UNCOUNTABLE SET, namely  {1, 2}
 SINCE NONE OF THESE  FIVE SETS IS A BIJECTION (with ordered pairs
 as defined in my  article to which you refer) FROM  2 onto {1,2}.
 In fact,  this COUNTABLE MODEL OF FIVE SETS  has  FOUR UNCOUNTABLE 
 SETS (the  0  being the only countable set). 
  
    So, I have exhibited  countable  (from outside)  MODEL  WITH FIVE
SETS WHICH HAS  FOUR  UNCOUNABLE  (in the MODEL) SETS .  
 
    And, there is nothing paradoxical about the above and should not 
be called (LOW-SKOL. type paradox - it only intuitively SOUNDS
paradoxical)

    For my purposes I could have given you  A MODEL WITH TWO SETS
WHICH HAS AN UNCOUNTABLE SET., i.e,

    The set-theoretical model whose sets are   { }   and   {{ }}.
In this (countable model - it has TWO sets)   the set  {{ }}  is
uncountable.

  With best wishes and regards,
                                     Alexander ABIAN

  P.S. I hope that there are no typos, I typed in a hurry!



-- 
   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)
From: emarkp@soda.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA. ABIAN replies to PING
Date: 18 Nov 1992 00:13:13 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Principles (A1)  and (A2).  Repelling Forces explained

In article <abian.721973751@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
}
}Dear Mr. Ping,                        11-16-92                     
}
}
}
}>} THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES ARE CREATED BY COSMOS PRECISELY TO REPEL
}>} THE LIKE ELECTRIC CHARGES TO COOPERATE WITH THE SPACE IN SPACE'S
}>} TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO OF ITS ELECTRICAL NEUTRALITY !!!
}>}  (brilliant explanation - don't you agree !)
}>}  
}
}>  Why do you assume Mr. Abian that space's status quo is to be electrically
}>neutral?
}
}    My answer is:
}  Because I see that the space fights for it, it tries to prevent added
}concentration of electrical charges and by (A1) the initial action is
}the tendency of maintaining the status quo.

  So.  The space fights to preserve its status quo (of electrical neutrality)
by introducing what we call "electromagnetism" to push like charges apart.

  But we can tell that the status quo of space is electrical neutrality
because space fights to push like charges apart to preserve its electrical
neutrality.

  Hmm.  This sounds extremely circular to me.  I barely even had to type the
second sentence (just cut and paste).  Sounds like you're not answering
anything.

------------
E. Mark Ping
emarkp@soda.Berkeley.EDU

  "Stand aside, I take large steps."  --Michael Dorn
  "Say, that's a nice bike."          --Cyberdyne Systems T-1000
  "Pituita es."                       --Unknown Latin Scholar
From: antennae@gn.apc.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Rel. & Phys. Don't Mix; Einstein Qu
Date: 21 Nov 92 22:53:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:92322.211221CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu:1647874501:gn:1541700009:000:351
Nf-From: gn.UUCP!antennae    Nov 21 22:53:00 1992



None the less valuable for that.  I could counter-quote you an
Einsteinism that would seem to indicate that physics and religion
*do* mix.  Einstein himself found an out where there were no doors.
This little posting would have looked better if its first three
sentences had been numbered and separated, since they are three
quite distinct thoughts.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Continuos vs. discrete models Was: The size of electrons, ...
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 14:45:56 GMT

In article <350@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.194334.20447@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>,
gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>> >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.

>> It isn't clear to me that any such distinction can be made.

>As one simple example consider the difference between a model based on
>finite difference equations and one based on partial differential
>equations. 

Which is the one you claim is simpler in which department, and why?

>> >There is good reason to suspect that no completed infinite totalities
>> >exist.

>> I know of none.  Name some.

>There are no known physical effects that require completed infinite
>totalities. It is not even clear what such physical effects could be.

So what?  We don't know if the universe is closed or open.  We can't
prove that we really need infinites to do field theory.  None of this
amounts to even a bad reason to suspect infinite totalities don't
exist.

>Mathematicians are as entitled to have speculative philosophical ideas about
>mathematics just as physicists are entitled to have such ideas about physics.
>These ideas are not mathematics they are the philosophy of mathematics.

No doubt.  But the continuum isn't one of them.

>This well known result is called the Lowneheim and Skolem theorem. 

No it isn't.  That is the theorem which tells us that a first order
theory has a countable model.  If you hadn't deleted it, you could
have referred to the bit in my last posting which mentioned it.

Thus, for example, if we write down a first order theory which defines
groups, there must be a countable model for this theory.  This is not
a proof that all groups are countable!  If we write down a first order
theory intended to capture some of the properties of the real numbers,
there will be a countable model for this theory also.  To think that
this shows the real numbers are countable is a mistake so fundamental
it makes me wonder if you have any idea what you are talking about.
Can you explain what it is you are actually trying to say?




-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA   ABIAN replies to PING, PING, PING, PING,...
Keywords: (A1) EXPLAINS    TIME
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:43:20 GMT
Organization: Society for the Appreciation of Janni Lee Simner


Abian's explanation of the status quo of time reveals that he has only one
status quo in mind -- that of being still.  Thus his explanations of "a
new staus quo" for other things are disingenuous.

He is being ever more massively inconsistant with each post.

	Larry "Watching the tangle web he weaves" Hammer
--

LNH@physics.arizona.edu   \   One like a wombat prowled obtuse
GEnie: L.HAMMER2           \  and furry  -- Christina Rossetti
From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: HV lines and cancer (again), was Re: History of AC vs DC Power >
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 00:54:34 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

rhatcher@fnala.fnal.gov writes:

> Dirt might not, but defoliants mixed in with the dirt might.  Why would
> there be defoliants you ask?  Utility companies need to keep the vegitation
> growth under control around those power lines.  You've no doubt seen swaths
> of "clear cut" through forests and fields where power lines are strung.
> And how do you think they keep the vegitation down?  Thus one reasonable
> explaination I've seen it that high-power transmission lines ARE associated
> with hazardous waste, it just doesn't happen to be E&M radiation, but high
> concentrations of weed inhibitors.  This is probably not the sole cause,
> but mixed with those other negative factors associated with being poor
> it seems reasonable to assume one would see a statistical increase in poor
> health (including cancers).
> 
> I'm intruiged by you're inclusion of radioactive wastes as a possibility.
> Surely you're not claiming that high-tension lines cause radioactivity?
> Or were you hinting that poor neighborhoods and power tension lines are
> generally located in areas with higher than average radioactive
> backgrounds?

        I am glad you mentioned that.  Defoliants were something 
that I had overlooked, but I know they are used.  These are the 
methods of controlling tree growth under the lines.  Airplanes 
spray over the power lines about 4 times a year- this is also done 
on large gas pipelines as well..............sq

(I for one do not consider radioactive, e.g. ionizing radiation to 
be any more or less prevalant in power line areas than for the 
rest of the country.  I am not sure what (fran I believe) was 
talking about...)

Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: MONDO 2000 Photo Interview of Jack Sarfatti on Time Travel
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 08:58:10 GMT


The current issue of MONDO 2000 has a four page interview of me with Nick
Herbert, author of Quantum Reality and Faster Than Light with color photos.
The rest of the magazine is interesting as well - very slick techno-punk
read by media people and hackers. MONDO can be reached at the WELL if you
can't find magazine at your nearest chic newsstand.
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN replies to SIMPKINSON and PING
Keywords: TIME HAS INERTIA,  i.e., TIME IS MATTER
Date: 23 Nov 92 01:32:25 GMT
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

In article <abian.722307856@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>  
>  In terms of  A  my answer is precisely
>
>                 E= M(0) exp(-A)
>
>and I hope that some brilliant experimentalists will find (as you sug-
>gested)  A  and perhaps also  M(0).

At last!  Abian has gotten rid of that annoying time-dependence.  We
don't need an experimentalist to determine A now - a brillian theorist
such as myself will suffice.  Since E = mc^2, we have 

		 A = - 2 ln c  			[BAEZ'S EQUATION]
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.   Att:  PRATT  FUND. THM. OF ALGEBRA 
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:43:12 GMT

Abian writes:
>(3)   1/(kz^n + ...+ bz + a)  =  (1/k) z^(-n) + ........
> 
>But (3) shows that  0  is an essential isolated singularity of 
>                    1/(kz^n + ...+ bz + a)
>contradicting (2).  Hence our assumption is false and the Theorem is
>proved.

Vaughan Pratt writes:

>The gist of Abian's proof is that expansion (3) indicates a singularity
>where, as both you and Abian point out, there can't be one.
>
>I was hoping someone would pronounce on the validity of (3), and if it
>is valid, whether proving it requires essentially the full force of the
>FTA.  If (3) is not valid then Abian owes $500 to anyone taking him up
>on his bet.  If (3) is valid but proving it is as much work as proving
>the FTA, then Abian would technically win his bet, but his proof would
>be about as sound as proving the FTA by assuming it (so a bush lawyer
>might try to collect anyway :-).

The validity of (3) is trivial to prove: multiply top and bottom of
1/(kz^n + ...+ bz + a) by (1/z)^n to get:

(1/z)^n/(k + ... + b (1/z)^{n-1} + a (1/z)^n)

Changing variables to let w = 1/z gives

w^n/(k + ... + b w^{n-1} + a w^n)

which is an analytic function of w, provided that the denominator is not
zero, which it never is (by assumption). An analytic function can always
be expanded into a power series that converges inside a radius r, where
r is the largest number such that there is no singularity of the function
inside r. Since the function above is total, the radius of convergence
is infinite, so the above function is expandable into a power series in
w which converges everywhere.

   k w^n + ...

Going back to z = 1/w gives us (3) above.

What I think is the tricky part of Abian's proof is the assumption
that just because a function has an essential singularity at z = 0,
then it can't be well-defined in the limit z -> 0. Just because the
expansion of 1/(kz^n + ...+ bz + a) has an infinite number of negative
powers of z, why does it follow that the limit of the function as
z -> 0 cannot be 1/a?

It actually is true that if a function f(z) has an expansion with an
infinite number of negative powers of z that is valid near z = 0, then
the limit of f(z) as z -> 0 is undefined (it doesn't have a value
which is independent of the way the limit is taken). However, the
proof of this fact may very well require something as powerful as the
Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. Professor Abian, could you tell us a
simple proof that a power series with an infinite number of negative
powers of z cannot have a limit as z -> 0?

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY