HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Date: 20 Nov 92 04:56:24 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: coyoacan.sw.stratus.com

In article <BxzEqs.LHA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
> [magic is as valid as science]
me>I am not alone in disagreeing with this statement. Several centuries of
me>research stand behind me.
>[...]
>All magickal phenomena have a scientific basis. Many are still quite
>impressive. The best scientist is a curious one; if you are curious enough
>to consider for yourself wheither the evidence presented in the above
>texts is valid, then by all means do so.

My apologies. I flamed without making any useful commentary. I was insulted
by your stated equivalence of science and magic.

Perhaps we have a terminology difficulty here? What is Magick? I assumed you
meant Magic, or similar practices involving the supernatural, none of which
will reproduce under the glare of klieg lights.

Can you provide us with an example of a phenomena that you regard as Magick?
The libraries to which I have easy access do not own copies of the books
you mention.
	Tarl
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: Graviton beams?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:18:50 GMT

In <1992Nov15.171451.17472@husc3.harvard.edu> mcirvin@scws1.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:

>In article <xeno.721775265@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>>
>>If time is symmetric, and gravity is time-symmetric, either the event horizon
>>of a black hole cannot contain matter OR objects will never reach the event
>>horizon whether falling/accelerating towards, or whatever.
>>
>>Simply shown:  When reversing directions in time, your final velocity becomes
>>your initial velocity in the opposite direction.  If you fall towards a black
>>hole, you will gain velocity.  If you then pass through the event horizon,
>>you will be traveling very fast.  If suddenly we reversed time (remember our
>>argument is based on the symmetry of gravity with respect to time), then we
>>would have a very very high initial velocity which would somehow be enough to
>>propel us through the event horizon and back out into space...

>Yes.  And this presents no problems, since in the time-reversed situation
>the black hole is no longer a black hole, but a white hole.

>-- 
>Matt McIrvin

The point I was trying to get across was that if you reverse time, the
gravitational field around a black hole is unchanged.  (All acceleration
is in the same direction, and the same magnitude).  So if you start with
a 'black' hole, and reverse time, you still have the gravitational field
of a 'black' hole...  except that matter is now being spewed out of it at
incredible velocities (which then decelerates as a result of the hole's
attraction).

Let me try a case example, and someone can tell me where the flaw is:

Let's say at time = 0, I notice that there is a ball stationary with
respect to a black hole, which then begins to fall towards the black hole,
accelerating to an incredible velocity, it passes through the event horizon
at time = 10.

Now, I reverse time, so I can observe the 'white' hole effect.  At time = 10,
I see a ball thrown out of the hole's event horizon at an incredible
velocity.  The ball flies away from the hole, decelerating and finally coming
to momentary rest at time = 0.  Ok so far...  I'm sure everyone will agree
that this is the effect I would see.

Now, as time keeps running backwards, I will see the ball fall once again
towards the hole, eventually reaching the event horizon and 'vanishing'
once again at time = -10.

From this example, it seems to me that there are no truly 'black' holes, nor
truly 'white' holes, but only 'grey' holes, capable of pulling things in
and letting things get out, just like any other gravitational field.

Is there another higher order effect that is not indepenent of temporal
direction that I am overlooking?


---Xeno
(Gary Snethen)
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Perpetual motion (was Re: anti-gravity device)
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:07:19 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: coyoacan.sw.stratus.com

In article <xeno.721861763@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu>, xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
> >"Perpetual motion" is a phrase in the English language.  It's meaning
> >is defined more by convention and common usage than by the dictionary
> >definitions of the individual words, "perpetual" and "motion".  This
> >effect is even more pronounced when you string together more than two
> >words at a time.
> 
> When popular usage contradicts definition in a potentially confusing manner,
> such phrases are often referred to as 'misnomers.'

Webster's New World Dictionary or the American Language, 1976:

Perpetual Motion - the motion of a hypothetical device which, once set in
motion, would operate indefinitely by creating its own energy in excess of
that dissipated.                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That definition of the phrase has been in existance for well over a century,
so it certainly predates you.

If you are confused by the phrase "perpetual motion", it's a personal problem,
not a language problem. Are you also confused by "astronomy" being the study
of stars rather than just the naming of them? Or "high-temp superconductors"
referring to superconductors that operate at liquid nitrogen temperatures?

Cut out the sophistry.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft)
Subject: GETTING AROUND/GRAVITY BEAM/PERPETUAL MOTION
Originator: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:20:39 GMT

Isn't it possible for photon or pair of photons of sufficient energy
under certain conditions to form an electron-positron pair? 

GRAVITY DRIVE:
Photons of various energies can be produced and directed at will with
proper equipment. Now the electron-positron pair produces a gravitational
field. So perhaps one day we will build a gravity drive where high energy
photons are produced in front of a spacecraft and are teased into a mater-antimater
pair producing a gravitational field that the craft `falls' forward into. The
matter will also fall towards the craft. Before the matter-antimatter pair hits 
the front of the craft they may rejoin to form a photon pair. The photons may 
then be recovered and the useful energy be used to produce another pair of gamma 
rays. 

-David
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:03:50 GMT

I think that there is something important we may be missing here.

Divination is one means by which we Westerners with our crippled intuitions
come in contact with the subconscious. Astrology is certainly an important
part of this. The problem is not wheither magick is better than
science or science is better than magick. Both are quite valid. Anyone
who has dealt with magick can tell you that it works. Anyone who has dealt
with science can tell you that it works. Many people, especially physicists,
have had experience with both. Being a student of both physics and magick,
I am constantly amazed by how much both disciplines work despite Western
commonsense thought.

The problem is that many people in this newsgroup do not realize this.

To the astrologers: my main objection to the school of astrology is that
the time and place where one is born, while it may be a good indication
of one's future for many many reasons, IS NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE FOR ALL
EVENTS TO COME IN ONE'S LIFE. For this to be so would imply that physics
is invalid within the womb. The fact that we can apply sonics, chemestry
and biology in the womb eliminates that possibility.

Even given this, there is really no such thing as predestination. Even in
supposedly nice-and-rational science, the only way we know how to measure
the position of an electron is by describing THE MOST PROBABLE PLACE IT
COULD BE.

As for those who would seek a perfectly rational system, I would
assert that there is no perfectly rational system, and furthermore the
search for one often ends up using intuition anyway. ALbert Einstein's
ThOfR was based not on experimental data or mathematical parlor tricks
but intuitive insight. The same goes for Richard Feynman's theories.
Physics is leading Western society to the things that man intuits and feels
naturally. It is ironic that the primitive thinking of Eastern religion
and Western magick leads to the same conclusion as the Physics that is 
the crowning point of Western rationalism and philosophy.

But I have said too much.

Lost Boy
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Perpetual motion (was Re: anti-gravity device)
Date: 16 Nov 1992 14:05 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <xeno.721943407@du248-06.cc.iastate.edu>, xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes...
> 
>>Perpetual Motion - the motion of a hypothetical device which, once set in
>>motion, would operate indefinitely by creating its own energy in excess of
>>that dissipated.                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>Ok...  I guess Mr. Webster knows more about physics than any of us.
> 
>It seems strange how little my definition differs:
> 
>Perpetual Motion - the motion of a hypothetical device which, once set in
>motion, would operate indefinitely by dissipating no more energy than it
>created.
> 
>But I guess that difference is enough for you to feel the following:

The difference may seem small to you, Xeno, but it is enough of a change
to be the difference between the possible and the impossible.  In principle,
constructing a machine which is arbitrarily close to perfectly efficient is 
possible, using superconducting devices, etc.  That would fit *your*
definition of perpetual motion.  But creating a machine that does even 
infinitesmally more than that - producing more energy than it uses - 
is theoretically impossible.  

You should continue to support any new ideas that you think deserve
support.  But you need to be willing to think critically when you assess
a new idea.  For starters, when something seems "strange" to you (see above)
you can take the time to consider whether you have something to learn,
rather than dismissing it outright.  You will be in a better position
to judge new ideas if you have a firmer grasp of the well-established 
base of physics.  You need to understand *why* people believe the things
that they do before you can effectively persuade them that a new idea
is better.  That means, in this case, learning some more physics.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Travelling Time
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:18:08 GMT

corey@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney) writes:

>In article <1992Nov16.090742.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
>writes:
>>As everyone knows, gravity is the bending of space-time.  As the force of
>>gravity takes hold on you, you accelerate, and time is dialated according to
>>your velocity.  The amount of time dialation is always a positive quantity
>>(assuming you cannot travel the speed of light or faster).   Associated with
>>gravity are gravity waves and gravitons.  The graviton has an antimatter
>>counterpart called the antigraviton.  Associated with this is the antigravity
>>wave.  Here we must differentiate between antigravity waves and negative
>>gravity waves.  A negative gravity wave causes two masses to repel each other.
[...]

>>p.s.: I made all this up, so it might be wrong.  Besides this, I neglected the
>>fact that space-time has six coordinates, not four.

Six coordinates?  What are the other two?

>I would like to point out a small flaw here.  You won't be able to get this
>working becuase you wont get a anti-graviton generator working.  Gravitons have
>never been proven to exist (and never will.  but that's a differn't topic)  so
>if you can't prove them how do you plan to generate thier anti-particles?

An even more grave difficulty is that, at least according to all the
attempts so far to quantize gravity, gravitons are their *own* antiparticles.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: Perpetual motion (was Re: anti-gravity device)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:33:48 GMT

In <16NOV199214055439@csa3.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>The difference may seem small to you, Xeno, but it is enough of a change
>to be the difference between the possible and the impossible.  In principle,
>constructing a machine which is arbitrarily close to perfectly efficient is 
>possible, using superconducting devices, etc.  That would fit *your*
>definition of perpetual motion.  But creating a machine that does even 
>infinitesmally more than that - producing more energy than it uses - 
>is theoretically impossible.  

This difference is the most likely the cause of any disagreement.  I view
moving a 300 lbs. dumbell twenty miles and then twenty miles back something
that could theoretically be done with no energy loss whatsoever.  So
perhaps it is that I am trying to argue this case on the wrong level...
I suggest that it may not be necessary to expend energy to accomplish certain
types of work, and therefore machines performing these types of work would
be 'perpetual' in operation.

Although I would mention that it is not theoretically impossible to regain
energy, but only theoretically so highly improbable as to make it well
outside the reach of possible practical use.

>You should continue to support any new ideas that you think deserve
>support.  But you need to be willing to think critically when you assess
>a new idea.  For starters, when something seems "strange" to you (see above)
>you can take the time to consider whether you have something to learn,
>rather than dismissing it outright.  You will be in a better position
>to judge new ideas if you have a firmer grasp of the well-established 
>base of physics.  You need to understand *why* people believe the things
>that they do before you can effectively persuade them that a new idea
>is better.  That means, in this case, learning some more physics.

Scott, I do address new ideas with a critical eye...  I started this
whole discussion because one man was criticizing people for their ideas
in a situation where I did not feel the ideas were so far-fetched.  I do
not desire to be drug into the quagmire of proving the possibility of
perpetual motion machines to anyone.  There is no proof that space-time is
continuous and symmetric at every point and in every direction, and therefore
there is no proof that conservation of momentum and conversation of energy
hold on a universal scale.

I am not trying to claim that all these devices (perpetual motion, anti-
gravity, etc...) ARE possible, only that the possibility MAY or MAY NOT
exist... 

My point is simply that we do not know enough of the laws of physics to brand
all these devices as completely and utterly impossible...

>-Scott


---Xeno
(Gary Snethen)
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Date: 20 Nov 1992 07:50 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <BxzEqs.LHA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes...
> 
>Research which backs my claim on the  validity of magick is published
>in the following books:
> 
>	Tao of Physics                      author forgotten, sorry
> 
>I stand by all my previous statements. 

The author of this (basically nonsense, outdated) book is Fritjof Capra.
Have you actually read it?  There is nothing in it about magic of any 
kind.  I defy you, since you stand by all your statements so definitively,
to read this book and produce any evidence that the author has the 
slightest interest or knowledge of magic, or, better yet, that the
book contains any claims about the validity of magic.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Black holes again (was Re: Graviton beams?)
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:34:01
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
	<1992Nov12.133031@cozy.Prime.COM>
	<xeno.721598960@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu>
	<1dun2vINN3g1@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
	<xeno.721704518@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu> <mcirvin.721764783@husc8>
	<1992Nov18.203459.5589@impmh.uucp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.117
In-reply-to: dsg@impmh.uucp's message of Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:34:59 GMT

dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon) writes:

> But what about the case of *two* massive singularities, in orbit round
> one another, each within the event horizon of the other ... would we
> be able to detect them separately, or only calculate their centre of
> mass?

By definition, objects cannot orbit the singularity once within the
event horizon.  All paths (not just all geodesics, but _all_paths_) in
spacetime lead to the singularity.  This can be explained in two
(ultimately equivalent) ways:

1. Spacetime is so strongly curved within the event horizon that you
   just cannot move in any direction that does not lead to the
   singularity.

2. The closest orbit around a black hole is in fact the event horizon
   (where photons orbit) -- any closer orbit would require an orbital
   speed greater than that of light.  Not even photons can orbit the
   singularity within the event horizon.
--
franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio, CenterLine Software R&D
617-498-3255           || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
"So what we've decided to do is set you up in Cicely, situated
 in an area that we Alaskans refer to as The Alaskan Riviera."
From: mcirvin@scws1.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: anti-gravity device
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:20:04 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <xeno.721776591@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>
>As for perpetual motion, no law in the universe denies it's possibility...
>Thermodynamics you say?  No...  that says entropy must decrease or remain
>the same.  No entropy need be increased by motion alone.
>
Wellll, literally this is true-- perpetual motion exists everywhere
naturally.  When people say "perpetual motion machine," though, they
usually mean a device that produces unlimited amounts of energy from
nowhere-- something that would keep going even in the presence of friction
or a generator to drive.  Whether this can happen or not depends on 
whether you think conservation of energy holds under the conditions.
 
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: anti-gravity device
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 20:19:35 GMT

In <FRANL.92Nov15130555@draco.centerline.com> franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:

> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
> > franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:
> >
> > > xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
> >
> > > > As for perpetual motion, no law in the universe denies it's possibility
> > > > No entropy need be increased by motion alone.
> > >
> > > That's like saying that the motion of a body coasting along a
> > > spacetime geodesic (i.e., not being acted on by external forces) is
> > > perpetual motion.  Well, sure unless something pushes on it, it will
> > > move along that geodesic perpetually.
> > 
> > Exactly...

>Get real.  That is NOT what is commonly meant by "perpetual motion".

That's why I called perpetual motion a misnomer...

---Xeno

>franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio, CenterLine Software R&D
>617-498-3255           || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
>"It's not the thing you fling, it's the fling itself."  -- Chris Stevens
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:03:54 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <By12GK.K7q@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
> ... 
> Okay, here we go.
> Science is basically organized knowledge. We all know that. Science is also
> very reliable because we can back our claims up with real-world experiments
> and reams of data.
> Magick is not science. Very simply, magick is comminication between the 
> subconscious and the conscious. ...
> 
> If I had to put it simply, magick is the  art of reaching your subconscious.
> It has some things to do  with physics and biology and so on,  but is 
> mostly taking greater control  of your  own mind and body.

The process of reaching the subconscious is not science. Understanding
this process is within the domain of science. I consider Jung's collected
works to be, in large measure, a scientific investigation of this process.
It does not have the rigor of physics and thus is more speculative
and the results obtained are more provisional. They were nonetheless
developed from the standpoint of science and are as scientifically
rigorous as was practical given the difficulty and complexity of the
material Jung was working with. 

Paul Budnik