HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Spin
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:05:45 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: astro
Originator: richard@astro.West.Sun.COM

metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:

>     If gravitation propagated at the speed of light or anything comparable,
>it too would be subject to aberration.

I disagree with this.  It is possible for gravity to propagate at finite
speed and yet produce no aberration.  If the force is non-central by exactly
the amount corresponding to the propagation delay, then the force will
still point towards the instantaneous position.  Given that the direction
of the gravitational force is not Lorentz invariant, and given that the
force points towards the instantaneous position regardless of which frame
is used to determine the direction of the force and the instantaneous
position, and given that the direction of the force is not even a well
defined concept except when space-time is almost flat globally, I would
prefer to think of gravitation as propagating at finite speed but with
a non-Lorentz-invariant non-central component.  Even better, I like the
statement made earlier in this thread that static fields by definition
don't propagate and the non-static component of gravity does propagate
at the speed of light.

>     Although I'm trying out the following wording for the first time, I
>believe it to be accurate.  Consider two large masses in close orbit; for
>example, a binary pulsar.  Each body responds gravitationally to the true,
>instantaneous position of the other (not its position retarded by lighttime,
>nor its extrapolated retarded position; but its exact, true position, as
>required by observations).  A distant point in the system would feel slight
>variations in the strength of the gravitational force because the system has
>a small dipole component, since the two stars are separate bodies instead of
>concentrated at their center of mass.  But the dipole variations are felt
>without detectable delay.

This is good, but I would make just a few minor amendments.  Most
important, you need the requirement that each source follows a geodesic
from its retarded position until it reaches its instantaneous position.
Also, since the direction of the force is not well defined except when
motions can be compared with a flat background space-time, I would add
the restriction that space-time must be approximately flat (small M/R
for all sources).  Finally, since gravitational radiation is predicted
to carry angular momentum, and since conservation of angular momentum
then implies an aberration in the direction of the force (if you can
define the direction of the force), I might want to require that we
only apply your statement to cases where gravitational radiation is
insignificant (is that implied by the previous condition?).

     Richard M. Mathews			Lietuva laisva = Free Lithuania
					Brivu Latviju  = Free Latvia
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		Eesti vabaks   = Free Estonia
					        WE  DID  IT!!!
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech
From: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Re: STRUCTURE OF TIME
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 10:23:33 GMT


In article <1992Oct3.011338.4175@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.230052.25196@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>
billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring yhus) writes:
>>:  >
>>:  >   You don't seem to realize forest from trees. I meant ordinary peoples
>>:  >   mental suffering, which is caused by these undeveloped peoples.
>>:
>>: Those people I described look quite ordinary to me. By undeveloped peoples
>>: I suppose you mean your 'atheistic scientists'. And I have observed and
>>: experienced MUCH more suffering from religion than science. I have also
>>: observed and experience much more pleasure and happiness from science than
>>: from religion.
>>
>>Not surprising, when much of the Bible teaches fear of God. How can you be
>>truly happy when you are in constant fear of an omnipotent being who may,
>>out of whim, strike you dead without warning and send you to a place of
>>perpetual suffering called Hell?
>>
>>Bill
>
>     I think you'll find that if you do not use this forum to
>     misinterpret and criticise religion, then it will be easier to keep
>     religion out of this forum.  Physics has nothing to say about
>     morality or religion and vice versa.
>
>                               dale bass
>

 You should say that you has nothing to say about morality.? Then why
 you then make these stupid comments. ?


>
> --
> C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
> Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926

    ---Hannu.


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Re: Understand...!!!!
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 04:49:51 GMT

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
: In article <1992Sep30.073018.13232@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
: )
: )I am holding in my hand a baloney sandwich. I hereby declare that this
: )is an instance of a clock. Now I note that as the baloney sandwich
: )decreases, so does my hunger. Since time is what a clock measures, I
: )deduce that: Time is hunger.
: )
: )In short, this definition of time is a load of baloney. Time is NOT what
: )you measure with a clock. Time is the length of timelike worldlines. Its
: )definition has nothing to do with the way you happen to measure it, whic
: )h is a mere technological bagatelle.
: 
: I don't agree.  Once you've defined a clock (and baloney isn't a clock -
: saying baloney is a clock is a bunch of baloney!) you've also defined time.
: The difference is clocks are (more) concrete than an abstract concept such
: as time, and generally much easier to talk about, at least with serious
: people of reasonably good will.

I am a serious person with a vast store of good will. But you know that
baloney is not a clock because you know that it doesn't measure time.
That's because you know that time exists independently of devices used
to measure it. It's about time [so to speak] to drive a stake [or is
that steak?] through the heart of operationalism. .
From: davids@spira.bri.hp.com (david sixsmith (contractor))
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:34:38 GMT
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, England
Newsgroups: sci.physics
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.1 PL6]

How about the following law ?

	'THE validity OF a scientific theorem is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to
	 the USEAGE OF CAPITAL letters.'

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dave Sixsmith                     |  Disclaim, disclaim, disclaim, etc.    |
| Bristol, England                  |                                        |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Static Gravity vs. Gravitational Radiation (was Spin)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:02:33 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Sep29131347@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <MATT.92Sep29114552@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>
>   I contend that in a static situation (i.e., one where there is no
>   gravitational radiation), it is meaningless to talk about the speed of
>   propagation of gravity, since nothing is propagating.  I contend,
>   then, that detecting a finite speed of gravitation is equivalent to
>   detecting the effects of gravitational radiation.
>
>I agree absolutely, there is however a point that - as Tom van
>Flandern is happy to note - is often glossed over, namely that
>if you do the calculation in a retarded potential formalism
>the first two (1/2) order terms in (r - v/c) cancel - there is
>no aberration, and hence the L-W formalism is not very useful.
>You can look at it as either a very neat and not unexpected
>feature of GR or as a Profound Mystery indicating something very
>basic ;-)

Hmm, this is peculiar.  My feeble Quayle's-eye view of gravity led me
to the thought that finite propagation of gravity was only detectable
in accelerating situations (such as two stars rotating about each
other).  I am now hearing an equivalent statement, but expressed in
terms of a distinction between gravitation and gravitational
radiation.  So I'm guessing that the above first-order cancellation
must be making precise the obvious intuition here.

But in that case, is "static gravitation without radiation" a real
distinction, or just (a corollary of) one of the above views (L-W? What
is the lineup?).  (Scott: maybe you could update your FAQ on
gravitational radiation to address "static gravity" as well, and mention
L-W if appropriate...)

Granted that it would be convenient if gravitational radiation turned
out to be quantized, what about "static gravitation"?  Can the GR view
of gravity as space warp be reconciled with a force field view of
gravity?  (For this not to be possible would make gravity truly
mysterious to me.)  And if so, then would it be any less convenient for
this "static" field not to turn out to be quantized?  And if you made
it through that double negative, are the gravitons of "static gravity"
at all different from the gravitons of gravitational radiation?

Sounds like I should retire to read MTW and friends before I spout too
much more of this nonsense.  Where are these questions addressed?

-- 
=================================================== In short, I am floundering
Vaughan Pratt   pratt@cs.Stanford.EDU  415-494-2545 around and don't take what
=================================================== I say seriously.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech
From: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Re: STRUCTURE OF TIME (at numerous requests)
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 07:59:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.125058.717@cc.tut.fi>, jk87377@cc.tut.fi
(Juhana Kouhia) writes:
>
> In article <1992Sep28.091054.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>
> hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>>
>>     And because this inhuman and hostile environment of science to amateurs
>>   I have some doubts that will Hanna-Maria ever become scientist when
>>   she grows up. This kind of hostile and unhuman environment could injure
>>   her seriously.
>

   ...deleted stuff...
>
> By the way, is your Structure of Time physically correct?
> I have not followed replies by professional physicsists.
>
>
> Juhana Kouhia

    I would expect that these professionals could take little trouble and try
  to make a list of questions arised about the article "Structure of Time"
  and about two photogaphs taken from Hanna-Maria and her drawings.
  (Hanna-Maria have already answered here in these newsgroups to numerous
  questions made by John Russo, but I think that some questions could still
  be considered. Maybe there have remained some important questions which
  have not been yet asked.?)

    All of "Structure of Time"'s knowledge belongs only to Hanna-Maria.
  I have tried to be only as accurate clerk as possible in this matter.

    This article and these two photographs are now also available in anonymous
  FTP called:
    NIC.FUNET.FI
  in directory:
    pub/pics/gif/pics/people/famous.
   Article is named to:
    README.Hanna-Maria
   Colour copies of these two photographs are named to:
    Hanna-Maria-1.gif
    Hanna-Maria-2.gif

    (To those readers not familiar in using of anonymous FTP computers:

     *FTP    (program which makes connection)
     *NIC.FUNET.FI  (to desired computer)
     *LOGIN         (going in to the computer)
     *anonymous (this is given when username is asked)
     *username@computer (E-mail address is given here as a password)
     *cd pub/pics/gif/pics/people/famous (getting to the correct directory)
     *dir (list of files in this directory)
     *GET README.Hanna-Maria (give file name here also to which this is to be
                              copied, for example TO: STRUCTURE_OF_TIME.TXT)
     *GET Hanna-Maria-1.gif (  " , picture's size about 170000 bytes)
     *GET Hanna-Maria-2.gif (  " , picture's size about 200000 bytes) )



    ---Hannu.

Xref: sparky sci.physics:15912 sci.astro:10408 sci.math:12700 sci.philosophy.tech:3551
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: Relativity and Objective Probability
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:26:47 GMT

In article <19vrk7INN880@smaug.West.Sun.COM>,
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews) writes:

>>But what is not relativistically invariant is the change from the wave
>>function before detection to the wave function after detection.
>
>Only if you believe that the wave function is something that physically
>exists...

That was the whole point of this thread---that the wave function
*can't* be physical, and be consistent with relativity. If you already
agree with this conclusion, then great.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
From: br0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bruno W. Repetto)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA, ALTERING THE ORBIT OF VENUS AND THE TILT OF EARTH
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:42:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.UeoVNka00WB5IGDH8m
Organization: Doctoral student, Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics: 6-Oct-92 TIME HAS INERTIA, ALTERING
.. by Alexander Abian@iastate. 
> From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
> Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA, ALTERING THE ORBIT OF VENUS AND THE TILT OF EARTH
> Date: 6 Oct 92 17:36:10 GMT
>  
>    I received many anonymous telephone calls in strong and fervid support 
                     ^^^^^^^^^  Do I really care?
> of my proposals: (i) TIME HAS INERTIA and the rejection of the Principles of
> Conservation of Energy and Constancy of the Speed of Light,  (ii) PUTTING 
> VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH, (iii) ALTERING THE 
> TILT OF THE EARTH to avert meteorological disasters and pernicious epidemics.

Some of these ideas have a strong stench of the influence of Velikovski's.

>    The callers feel that the current explanations of the nature of TIME 
> (various variations on the Space-Time Riemannian Manifold-themes) are total-
> ly  unconvincing and unsound.  They feel that my proposals are sound, con-
> vincing, cogent and realistic.
>  
>    The anonymity of the callers is understandable.  Association with 
> radically bold and dauntless ideas is very often treated as an act of
> recusancy (recall that Copernicus, Galileo and many others were silenced
> and subject to a great deal of hardship for their bold and intrepid ideas).

Big brother *IS NOT* watching you (or your friends...)

>   I do not expect from anyone any heroic action on my behalf, however, 
> I would like to encourage those  who find my proposals to their liking
> to express their feelings and rely on the openmindedness of the others.
>  
>                                                  Alexander ABIAN

Imagine that...  Public-opinion polls to do science.  Let me then go one step
further and propose media-directed science!  (NOT!!!)  :-)

I absolutely don't care how many people THINK whether you're right or wrong
(named or anonymous), or how the public FEELS about your "radically bold"
ideas.  If you can back up your ideas, then and only then do you have sound,
CONVINCING, cogent and realistic proposals.  That is why there are
specialized-field refereed periodicals.  If you can convince the referees,
your proposals have a future; otherwise, your ideas fall in the category of
perpetual motion engines.  Live with it.

Bruno.  br0w+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA, ALTERING THE ORBIT OF VENUS AND THE TILT OF EARTH
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:36:10 GMT


   I received many anonymous telephone calls in strong and fervid support 

of my proposals: (i) TIME HAS INERTIA and the rejection of the Principles of

Conservation of Energy and Constancy of the Speed of Light,  (ii) PUTTING 

VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH, (iii) ALTERING THE 

TILT OF THE EARTH to avert meteorological disasters and pernicious epidemics.
  
   The callers feel that the current explanations of the nature of TIME 

(various variations on the Space-Time Riemannian Manifold-themes) are total-

ly  unconvincing and unsound.  They feel that my proposals are sound, con-

vincing, cogent and realistic.

   The anonymity of the callers is understandable.  Association with 

radically bold and dauntless ideas is very often treated as an act of

recusancy (recall that Copernicus, Galileo and many others were silenced

and subject to a great deal of hardship for their bold and intrepid ideas).

  I do not expect from anyone any heroic action on my behalf, however, 

I would like to encourage those  who find my proposals to their liking

to express their feelings and rely on the openmindedness of the others.

                                                 Alexander ABIAN
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards)
Subject: Re:  Simple observation about Quantum Kitty Cats
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 08:58:46 GMT

In article <1OCT199211415927@csa3.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep30.191811.19619@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes...
|> > 
|> >3)  Gravity doesn't seem to affect interference fringes of particles - why
|> >should it affect the interference fringes of bullets?  It seems that someone
|> >suitably vessed in the arcane art of QM could figure out whether gravity was
|> >theoretically 'enough' of a disturbance or not.
|> 
|> Why would you say that?  Neutron interferometry experiments have been done 
|> which in fact show that gravity does affect interference of a split neutron
|> beam which is recombined after the beams travel through a gravitational
|> potential difference.

I'm going to digress a bit from the main thread, but I was wondering if
the gravitational effect of the atoms at the edge of the slit have a
measurable influence on the photons or neutrons passing through, i.e.
if it were possible to make the slit in some hypothetical massless yet
opaque material would the fringe pattern you see be measurably different
from the one you get with a slit in real matter.

Larry Edwards
From: Steinn.Sigurdsson@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Do black holes destroy information?
Date: 25 Sep 92 07:07:59 GMT

Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO

In article <1992Sep19.204127.22113@ichips.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:


   In article <1992Sep18.055441.9968@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
   >Throwing an encyclopedia in the sun and trying to recover the
   >information from the sunlight.
   >Throwing an encyclopedia in a black hole and trying to recover the
   >information from the Hawking radiation.
   [...]

   Heh.

   How about throwing an encyclopedia in a roomful of
   "college students" and trying to recover the information
   from the final exams.

   I'll bet my house, car, and professional-quality copies of
   my Loni Sanders tape collection that you can't do it.

What odds? 
I'm afraid you lose, John Preskill has frequently carried out this
experiment in Ph205 and I hope he'd agree that it resulted at least
on occasion on no net information loss ;-)

You can send the stuff c/o UC, keep the car I probably can't afford
the insurance anyway :-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
* steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		       "standard disclaimer"  	  *
* But, oh, love is strange 					  *
* and you have to learn to take the crunchy with the smooth,      *
* I suppose 				              - B.B. 1983 *

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: STRUCTURE OF TIME
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:55:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.030919.20533@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
>	Err...mind telling us which law of physics you used to arrive at
>this conclusion, Dale?

     Er..., could you give me a hint?  What conclusion?

                         dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Glass vs Plastic
Date: 4 Oct 1992 09:23:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


   I am doing a report for a biology class on the different
 types of commercial glass panes and also types of
 "clear" plastic in terms of how much and what part of
 the solar spectrum is allowed through.

 Any info or source references on this subject would
 be appreciated.
 Thanks.   Mike Romano    U Cal  Berkeley


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: How do you draw a straight line?
Date: 5 Oct 1992 11:46 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 <BvMKq8.MoG@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, harper@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (John Harper) writes...
>In article <1992Oct2.224220.24242@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.) writes:
>>How do you know that the line you draw is really straight? 
>Machine tool makers faced this at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
>around 200 years ago. The practical test used was: take 3 bars of iron, work 
>on all 3 with a hand file until any two fit together either way round with 
>no gaps visible anywhere. Now you can think about making your first lathe...

Nowadays, I would consider using a laser.  Laser beams are VERY straight,
though not perfectly so, of course.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger)
Subject: Re: Can you figure this joke out?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Organization: Joint Center for Radiation Therapy
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:52:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.140806.1@stsci.edu>, gawne@stsci.edu writes...
>	[Integral sign] e   dx      is        F (u,n)

	All I can remember from college is the following cheer:

	e to the x, dy, dx
	e to the x, dx
	secant, tangent, cosine, sine
	3.14159
	pi, I, cube root of 3
	fight-em, fight=-em, IIT

   Frank R. Borger - Physicist    __       Internet:  Frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Michael Reese - Univ. of Chicago |___      Phone : 312-791-8075 fax : 567-7455
  Center for Radiation Therapy   | |_) _   We've got them. - George Armstrong
                                   | \|_)  Custer, Upon being attacked by the
    "Birthplace of Softball"          |_)  Sioux Indians at the little Big Horn