HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Higgs Spotted?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 19:57:17 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: astro
Originator: richard@astro.West.Sun.COM

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>> "Mars is somewhat the same distance from the sun, which is
>>> very important.  We have seen pictures where there are
>>> canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water, there
>>> is oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
>>> 				     Dan Quayle, August 11, 1989

>     It sounds pretty funny when presented the appropriate way, but
>     nothing that is said above appears to actually be wildly incorrect.

Not as I read it.

>     1) compared to Uranus, Mars is roughly at the same distance from the
>     Sun as the Earth.

If you call 52% farther "somewhat the same," then I will grant this.
A more complete quote from Quayle shows he preceded the above comments
with "Mars is essentially in the same orbit [as Earth]."  P/Swift-Tuttle
and the Perseids are essentially in the same orbit.  Earth and Mars are
not.

>     2) there are large numbers of surface features that 
>     seem to have been shaped by water, and while it is true that we
>     may not be able to see the water ....

While there are canyons and channels, there most definitely are not canals
(unless you use a silly definition of "canal" being any markings on Mars;
such a definition is irrelevant in a context discussing evidence of water).
Second, Quayle used the present tense in saying that pictures show there
*are* canals and water.  There most definitely is no photographic evidence
of water on Mars *now*.

>     3) where there is water, there is oxygen,
>     and 4) any number of proposals have been made in my community to use
>     indigenous materials, including subsurface water, to breathe.

In Quayle's statement, we can either take "oxygen" to mean atomic oxygen
or molecular oxygen.  If the former, then Quayle's first statement is true
and the second is false -- you need atomic oxygen plus a whole lot more.
If we take "oxygen" to mean molecular oxygen, then the first statement
is false and the second is true (with the qualification that you must
have enough oxygen).  Either way, Quayle loses (but he took care of that
2 weeks ago anyway).

     Richard M. Mathews			D efend
					 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		  I ndependence
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why is "Physics Today" so expensive? (Are there student discounts?)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 15:37:59 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: alumni.caltech.edu

In article <41095@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington)
 writes:

>PS. Also, are there other general physics periodicals which net.people
>recommend?  Nothing too technical -- just the facts, ma'am.

Science News is very good.  It doesn't concentrate of physics though.
But the biology articles are readable by a non-biologist etc.

-- 
		David Palmer		 palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.optics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: moderated sci.physics
Date: 16 Nov 1992 22:42:18 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <Bxpx3C.BDB@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>What does moderated actually mean? Is it not a euphemism for censorship?

Si, senhor.

>I agree that this whatever you call it is filled with noise but that is

No, a newsgroup is filled with signal; noise is
what one makes of it.

A moderated newsgroup is filled with noise; that is,
signal with filtering creating a different signal and
thereby a difference signal which is the noise itself.

I'd rather wade through a dozen utter wackos than lose
one Galileo.

This is a non-issue.

				--Blair
				  "At least we don't have to fast-
				   forward through the commercials."
From: hoconnel@iti.org (Heath O'Connell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: No Spin in 2 Dimensions?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 02:58:20 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide
NNTP-Posting-Host: adelphi.itd.adelaide.edu.au

zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:


>It doesn't point at all: only one of the three components of (the 3-D) RxV
>is ever nonzero (in 2-D), so it's best to think of it as a scalar...
>(though in 2-D relativity it probably isn't _really_ a scalar quantity;
>but then QM doesn't work too well with SR anyway...)

	QM and SR work quite well together. GR is another story, though.

--
		hoconnel@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au
Xref: sparky sci.physics:19510 sci.optics:1196 sci.chem:4793 sci.research.careers:1550 sci.materials:925
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Lowneheim-Skolem theorem (was: Continuos vs. discrete models)
Date: 23 Nov 92 01:44:17 GMT
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

In article <TORKEL.92Nov21091802@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.220424.22979@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu
> (John C. Baez) writes:
>
>   >I object.  Lowenheim-Skolem says there are countable models of the
>   >reals; you can go ahead and use these if you like, and I will not
>   >object, since this does not affect what *theorems* you can prove about
>   >the real numbers.
>
>  I'm pleased to find that the physics of the real numbers is recognized
>as proper physics these days.

What do you mean by the "physics of the real numbers".

>But what do you mean by a "model of the
>reals"?

I mean a model of some set of axioms for the reals.  

>This doesn't mean anything in standard terminology. Also, what do you mean
>by "using" a countable model (of whatever unspecified theory you have in
>mind)?

I didn't mean anything in particular by "using".  
My whole point was that you can go do whatever the heck you please with
models of an axiom system but that it will not affect what theorems can
be proved in the axiom system.  
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:11:21 GMT

In article <1ebicaINNt5t@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.225822.28430@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>      Simplicity truly *is* in the eye of the beholder.
>
>Actually, it's in your one-cylinder, two-stroke brain.
>
>				--Blair
>				  "Have fun in the 17th century."

    Where *do* you come up with that scathing logic. I bet dates
    *are* impressed.

                    dale "40 cc" bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: energy, mass, and all that
Date: 20 Nov 92 02:12:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.722225568
 <Nov.16.14.05.56.1992.18657@ruhets.rutgers.edu> 
 <1992Nov17.144029.29898@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> <1992Nov19.145532.34225@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> <19NOV199211063691@csa1.lbl.gov>

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>I am more convinced than I was before that this argument is more than a 
>matter of different definitions of mass.  No matter which definition you
>adhere to, you can't get the right physics by assuming that matter and 
>energy are not interconvertible in the way that Bondi seems to suggest.

It looks to me like Bondi is just overreacting badly to the notion of
relativistic mass.  By saying that mass and energy are not interconvertible
he just means that the mass of an object is not equal to the energy times
c^2.  He overstates the point, though, since there's nothing wrong with
treating the mass as part of the energy.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 17 Nov 1992 19:59:42 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <1992Nov17.032437.2544@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     Madness is also in the eye of the beholder.

A disingenuous and logically bereft statement, at best.

>One civilization spent
>     at least 40 years piling huge blocks atop one another in the largest
>     manmade rockpile on the planet simply to produce a place to bury a 
>     king.

20 years, 2 million blocks, and it was a public-works
project that provided a damping of economic variation
during the periodic lulls in the continuous rotation of
the dozens of crops grown in the Nile floodplains.

Imhotep invented workfare.

And Manhattan is a larger manmade rockpile; it
continues to expand upward.

>A group of tribes spent untold millenia guarding a small box of
>     religious artifacts, often at the expense of large numbers of their
>     people, their homes and their lives.  This is sheer madness, but
>     these efforts provided cohesion in their societies.  Also, if they 
>     hadn't done such stuff, how much would we know of them?

How much do we care?  They sound insane, and probably
were.  I expect we'd infer a great deal more than the
truths behind the contents of their little box of relics.

This isn't much different from the mainstream religions,
which continue to batter at freedom in order to preserve
their little boxes of social artifacts.

>     It is inappropriate to judge theology by the rules of science.

Only to a twit.

				--Blair
				  "To wit."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: Continuos vs. discrete models Was: The size of electrons, ...
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:20:07 GMT

firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:

>>This well known result is called the Lowneheim and Skolem theorem. The
>>idea of the proof is that a formal system is a computer program for
>>enumerating theorems. The names of all real numbers created by such a
>>program are obviously countable.
>
>Well, yes, the names of any set of things created by an "enumeration"
>program must be countable, by definition.  But that's not what you
>originally claimed.  You said:
>
>>For example the real numbers definable in any consistent formal system
>>are countable.
>
>By what sleight of hand did "definable" change into "enumerable"?  Isn't
>that the old constructivist premise (or fallacy, as most of us think).

No slight of hand involved: there are only countably many definitions,
so there are only countably many definable objects.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
From: lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: G Coverup
Keywords: Moon Neutral Point calculation
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:31:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Society for the Appreciation of Janni Lee Simner

u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (T. Little) writes:
> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> > (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) writes...
> > > 
> > > G can be calculated from basic Reciprocal System principles to
> > > the minimum accuracy of the three numbers used as a starting point:
> > > c, Avogadro's number, and the Rydberg frequency.
> 
> > Well, now here's something testable.
> 
> > c = 299,792,458 m/s   N = 6.0221367x10^23 /mol   R = 13.6056981 eV
> > Would you please demonstrate a derivation of G from this data?
> 
> I suspect that a few other people would also be interested in such a
> derivation.  All the quantities above are known to higher accuracy than G
> itself (to my knowledge).

G is known to about 4 or 5 places.  And, actually, c is not so much
"known" as defined, and to a number with (I think) two more places.

> Also, if you give any strange numbers, include their derivation also.
> Especially the one relating the mass of a C^12 atom (which is essentially
> what 'N' is) to something fundamental.

Somehow, I'd expect such a derivation to include alpha and the coupling
constants of the strong and weak forces as well.  And the mass of the
top quark should pop out as well, if you manage to derive C^12 from
fundamental principles.

How's Rydberg fitting into this?

	Larry "Puzzled" Hammer
--

                         \   The work is rather too light, and bright,
LNH@physics.arizona.edu   \  and sparkling; it wants ... a long chapter
sometimes a Wombat         \ of solemn specious nonsense. -- Jane Austen
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA. ABIAN's $500 wager to TOBIS OR ANYONE ELSE
Keywords: THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:23:49 GMT

In <abian.722054781@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
 

                                   11-17-92

WAGER IS RAISED TO $500      -      VALID  UNTIL  11-30-92        
                                                  
Dear Mr. TOBIS  or  ANYONE ELSE  (in toto only ONE and the first person)


   In your 1-17-92 posting  sci.physics Subject: Detecting crackpots
you found my proof of the FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA (FTA) posted by me
              
           <abian.721303213@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> 

         on 11-11-92  TIME HAS INERTIA -  The gist of  FTA      

to be incorrect.
  
Now, I am making the following  $500 wager with you 

 (1)  If my proof is incorrect I will pay you $500 

 (2)  if my proof is correct you will pay me  $500.

  I will accept the judgment of any Professor who specializes in THE
THEORY OF ANALYTIC FUNCTIONS at your or other University. For instance:
Professors  SHEA, or W.RUDIN, or NAGEL of the Department of Mathematics
of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin.

PS.  Please show them the entire text (without any omissions)of my above-
mentioned posting and if necessary the more detailed version of it, posted
in <abian.721303213@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>.

PPS.I gave above the ID number that you requested (now you have both ID's)
    
   With best wishes and regards, awaiting for your reply,
 
                                              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)
-- 
   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: wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne)
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:04:23 GMT

In article <kkretsch.721999974@unix1.tcd.ie> kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie (kevin patrick kretsch) writes:
>In <16NOV199212515920@utkvx2.utk.edu> djpegg@utkvx2.utk.edu (PEGG, DAVID J) writes:
>
>>In article <kkretsch.721932625@unix1.tcd.ie>, kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie (kevin patrick kretsch) writes...
>>>Apparrently, the most closely guarded secret in the U.S. government regards
>>>how the UFOs were powered.  This, I believe, involves harnessing the
>>>potential energy of the earth's magnetic field.
>
>>The obvious question is:
>>If they're powered by the earth's magnetic field, how did they get to
>>earth in the first place
>
>All right David, perhaps I should have generalised the statement.
>Let's say the following:
>              .....Powered by harnessing the potential energy of
>the magnetic field of an arbitrary planet.
>
>How's that?

Not all planets have magnetic fields.  In fact, geological evidence points to
Earth's magnetic field disappearing completely several times in the past.
Why would anyone base interplanetary travel on such an unreliable power
source?

---Bill VanHorne

--------------------------------------------------
Please try to use the word paradigm in every post.
Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN replies to Di TOLLA
Keywords: TIME HAS INERTIA,  i.e., TIME IS MATTER,  YES!!!!  
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:10:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.111856.5871@itnsg1.cineca.it> ditolla@itnsg1.cineca.it (Francesco Di Tolla) writes:
>abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
>>     REASON, EXPLAIN, CREATE  and if needed QUANTIFY !  (I seldom need
>>quantification !).
>
>Let me quntify: you are filling the news with a lot of bullshit!
>Let say bullshit in capitals!!
  
                                         11-19-92

   ABIAN replies to Francesco Di TOLLA:       

  Mr. Di TOLLA,

       You are full of beta-sigma.

               Sincerely,
                                       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)
Xref: sparky sci.physics:19295 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2364
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:11:07 EST
From: <MRG3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: "Elementary, my dear Ramsay!"

nnget
In article <By01uA.Mtv@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
says:
>
>Ramsay writes:
>
>>What the principle of superposition means is that we can vary our
>>choice of superposition, e.g. z1 |a,e,+> + z2 |a,o,+>, *without* also
>>varying the experimental design,
>
>[I don't think that is true. Why is that true?]

So we see that Sarfatti STILL cannot distinguish between or understand the
independence of
-dynamics(hamiltonian, scattering operators)
-intial conditions (initial state |psi>)

I (and others) have tried to show that local unitary evolution is
not compatible with his purported physical description.  (Actually, we have
shown).  In order for FTL communications to be possible, something
other than standard QM is required.  Sarfatti does not quite seem to
grasp the full implications of unitarity, which Ramsay has recently and
repeatedly tried to have Sarfatti adress.

On the other hand, perhaps Sarfatti could point out some specific
references where (his version?) of the Feynmann sum over paths
gave different results than our "inadequate" operator formalism, and
where these differences have been experimentally verified?
If no such references are available, perhaps he should reexamine
the mounting evidence that he is NOT using standard QM.
-mike gallis

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Ghostbusters
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 07:43:30 GMT

In article <1541700010@gn.apc.org> antennae@gn.apc.org writes:
>
>
>My 7 year old son won't go upstairs on his own because he is afraid
>of ghosts.  I told him I'd give him a 'charm' to scare them off and
>found a tiny, beautifully carved and painted, soapstone tiger which
>seems to have done the trick.

     I give mine a 'top', they're heavier.  Don't tell this to the boys
     at Fermilab, they'll be very disappointed they didn't get there first
     (and then there's this business of confinement ...).
   
>Can you physicists do as well? 

     I didn't realize that putting children to bed was a physics problem.
     Seems to me that if it were, I'd find it much easier.

>1)  For the purposes of the exercise, assume that ghosts exist and
>manifest themselves in the ways so often described - shimmering figures
>that vanish through solid materials and into thin air - apparitions
>dressed in long-outmoded fashions - sensations of coldness -  noises -
>objects moved apparently by themselves.
>
>2)  Can anyone suggest an explanation for any/all of these phenomena
>that arises out of physics rather than metaphysics?

     What phenomena?  You've assumed that they exist, irrespective 
     of their existence.  What purpose would it serve to come up with
     an invented 'explanation' of nothing?

>The purpose of this?  Not to prove that ghosts exist - I don't care
>whether they do or not - but to see how inventive physicists can be.

     As inventive as anyone else.  Some more, others less.  
 
     Keep in mind that finding an explanation for something is very very 
     easy.   The hard part is finding a 'correct' and useful explanation.

                            dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: Ramsay's questions to Sarfatti
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:07:52 GMT

In article <1ebug0INNh8e@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
>I wrote:
>>If you squint your
>>eyes, the two states arriving in the detector look a lot alike. But
>>they are distinguishable by their momenta-- so they couldn't possibly
>>be parallel or differ only by a phase.
>
>In article <1992Nov16.205308.27242@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca 
>(Brent Buckner) writes:
>>Why wouldn't this argument be valid contra the classic double-slit
>>experiment exhibiting singlet interference?
>
     [Snappy answer to stupid question deleted - thanks!]
>
>I hope that this answers the question. I don't know, because I can't
>see what the would-be argument is supposed to be. Why does what I have
>said not serve as an argument against the result of the double-slit
>experiment? To me the idea appears simply as a non-sequitor, a gap in
>logic. Hence I've taken a guess as to what is missing.
>

A bit of cognitive interference with respect to state,
measurement, and distinguishability.  

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: History of AC vs DC Power >>THE TRUTH!<<  *=*
Date: 16 Nov 1992 22:12:15 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <FRANL.92Nov14153854@draco.centerline.com> franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:
>Whoa!!!  Strike hygiene from that list.  Unless by "do not have proper
>hygiene" you mean "fail to wash hazardous/radioactive waste off they
>hands after contact", dirt on your skin won't give you cancer.

Depends on the dirt.  Benzene, for instance, is still a
fairly common chemical in the garages of the
mechanically-inclined.

				--Blair
				  "Not to mention the lungs of
				   the tobacconally inclined."