HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kieran@cmatter.physics.indiana.edu (kieran)
Subject: Re: Scientific writing (was Re: scientists who write literature)
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:25:56 GMT

In article <Dec.11.15.24.48.1992.2096@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite) writes:
>
>>In article <pi*r^2> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>>Right.  And this whole thing started with a report of some English 
>>prof claiming that scientists are not good at literature.  
>
>To be fair the report was of an English prof who asked "are there any
>scientists who write literature"  (maybe it was "novels") which is
>not at all the same thing.

     I'm coming into this discussion a bit late, and don't have the
prior postings available.  But in my own experience, physicist have
a better understanding of literature than people in the humanities 
understand science.  I recently was at a dinner with someone who had 
written a book on Zeno's paradox.  I had to explain to everyone that
an infinite series *can* have a finite answer - to people who were
discussing what infinite meant to different cultures.

     As for scientists who write literature - sure there are scads!

     Loren Eisely:  One of the best writers in English IMO.  Read his
           autobiography, "All the Strange Hours."

     Jacob Bronowski"  "Ascent of Man", some philosophy and a play or
           two I think.

     Timothy Zahn:  Went to write science fiction, so maybe not "real"
           literature.

     Erwin Schroedinger:  Wrote about Life, etc.

     There are a few more SF writers....

               Kieran Mullen



Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: Where is background energy going?
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:20:41 GMT

baylissb@topaz.ucq.edu.au writes:
: 
: Forgetting about GM (as I have not looked into it yet), but with my background
: in optics, I would guess that the refractive index of the university is
: changing.
yes, it's becoming more dull and opaque every day.: 
: If this is the case, then energy would not be lost, but explains the change in
: frequency of the wavelenght being considered (sorry if i misinterrupted your
: question).
: I think a lot of questions on this group need to be misinterrupted.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones)
Subject: Re: (A1) EXPLAINS THE PHYSICS from particle to Galaxies
Address: Christ's College, Cambridge CB2 3BU, ENGLAND.
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:55:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.200831.20413@cid.aes.doe.CA> ynecgan@cid.aes.doe.CA (Greg Neill) writes:
>In article <abian.724093986@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>    In accordance with (A1) and as (A1) predicts and explains
>>
>>     THE SPACE ITSELF  AS ANY PARTICLE  TENDS TO MAINTAIN  ITS
>>     NEUTRALITY and reacts by trying to annihilate the concentration
>>     of particles at any place -  With weak and small particles
>>     it succeeds by decaying them explicitly under our eyes; with big 
>>     masses the decaying process  takes  TIME.  The  resulting
>>     energy is irretrievably dissipated to move TIME forward.
>
>
>Is this your description for the mechanism of radioactivity?

It probably is. However, there is the small snag that the radioactive
decay of matter yeilds energy in proportion to the loss of mass, and
we *know* where this energy goes - we can measure the heat/light
emitted by the sun, for example. If we can trace the destination of
this energy, then it can't be being taken away somewhere to move time
forward.

--Clive.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.philosophy
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:43:13 GMT

In article <1961@spam.ua.oz> jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
[all grades of stuff deleted because I am not really interested in
  continuing to debate Religion 101 in this forum]

>no new experiment done. Why then do you reject much of what your Church stood
>for? (like imprisoning homosexuals or banning abortion or banning divorce etc)

     "Which church would that be?", he asks in a rather amused voice.

                                  dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Richard P. Feynman
Date: 13 Dec 92 23:15:04 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     ...   How about when a 
>     toilet seat goes for over a hundred grand?

Is that art, or defense contracting?

Sorry Dale, couldn't resist.  To stay close to drifting from the subject,
I was wondering why physicists often feel compelled to put down engineers,
and I thought of a few reasons:

1.  Almost all physicists suffer from "theory envy," where that which is
most mathematical and abstruse gets the most respect.  Engineers come
in even below experimental physicists on this particular (and highly
outdated) totem pole.

2.  Physics grad students hate TA'ing the "physics for engineers" course.

3.  Physicists are neurotic about engineering because they figure they
might need it as a safety net if they can't get physics jobs.

4.  [Academic] physicists associate engineering with giant techno-
corporations, some of which do have a tendency to encourage conformity
and facelessness among their slaves, I mean employees.  (P.S. I worked
briefly, and my father works, at an R & D center of such a technocorp, 
so I am not just making this up.)

5.  Physicists think that non-technical people don't know the
difference between a physicist and an engineer so they try to exaggerate
it.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari)
Subject: Re: The fundamental questions?
Originator: sehari@class1.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:43:56 GMT

In <11DEC199213274806@csa1.lbl.gov> drucker@csa1.lbl.gov (BOB DRUCKER, BERKELEY/LBL) writes:

>>Does Anti-mater exists?

>I take it you mean "do anti-ATOMS exist?".  I don't think that any have
>ever been observed.  There was an article in Scientific American last
>month about cooling anti-protons; soon we may be able to attach
>positrons to them and make anti-hydrogen.

I guess, that should make fusion easy as well. Just put anti-hydrogen
and hydrogen near each other and let nature do it's job. -:)

                         With highest regards,
                              Babak   Sehari.
-- 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA .   EXPLAIN GRAVITATION !!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:35:24 GMT

In article <abian.724050612@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> 
>
>TO THE READERS OF TIME HAS INERTIA
>
>I have at least twice explained the reason for  GRAVITATION  and challenged 
>you physicists to give me your explanation without the annoying double
>talk and subterfuge.
>
>        m m' / r^2    DOES NOT EXPLAIN GRAVITATION IT  ONLY QUANTIFIES
>                      WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHY TWO MASSES ATTRACT
>
>I very recently gave my explanation .  WHY don't you explain without
>evasion ?!!

     It is because both bodies are sparring for the Camembert as per
     my principle C1.  Geez, Abian buddy, get with the latest 'principle'.
     Yours is vacuous and passe', whereas mine is quite tasty.

                             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: craigen@axe.acadiau.ca (DOUGLAS CRAIGEN)
Subject: Re: Passive Magnetic Levitation (was: Science Fair Project)
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:15:28 GMT

>   This sort of design solves the stability problem, but some wheels to 
>prevent the magnets from sticking to the bottom of the track.
 
  Sorry about the grammar here.  I guess my brain skips a bit early in the 
morning.  It should have said something to the effect "..but some wheels may 
be necessary to..".  As I said, I don't actually know anything about it, 
except that for some reason this is how I had thought that 
non-superconducting magnetic levitation worked.


===================================================================
  Doug Craigen, Department of Physics, Acadia University,
  Wolfville, N.S., B0P 1X0, (902) 542 - 2201 x150

  "Just because you've reached mature womanhood doesn't mean you
   have to throw yourself at a dork!"
       - Corky to Murphy Brown concerning a physicist
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: kpearce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (BULLDAWG)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:29:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.145512.6878@tellab5.tellabs.com> jcj@tellabs.com (jcj) writes:
>In article <13DEC199211444059@utahep.uta.edu> sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes:
>>The current flood of Abianology ...
>>... can anyone suggest a way in VNEWS to tailor a kill file
>>to filter the TIME HAS INERTIA postings ...
>
>Put this line in your KILL file:
>
>/abian/h:j
>
>and any article with abian anywhere in the header will be junked.
>Works for me.

hallajoujah!!! Yeee Haaaa!!!

Can you tell that I'm happy???
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Metals in liquid Nitrogen !!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:48:22 GMT

In article <Bz4470.4ps@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polowin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.200321.6333@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> kpearce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (BULLDAWG) writes:
>
>>Go back to fundimental chemistry.  Phase changes are generally exothermic.
>
>Um.  Exactly half of them are exothermic.  The other half are endothermic.
>:-)

     Really?  Do you rule out phase changes in the early universe that
     may have no reverse counterpart in this universe?

     Always on the lookout for exceptions...

                               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: hl5a@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Winston Lin)
Subject: DMP
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:57:48 GMT

Hello there,
	In a problem (EMF class) with wedge shaped capacitor 
(instead of parallel), one is required to find the dominant mode of 
propagation.  Fringing effect is neglected, and the plates are assumed
to have perfect conductivity.

	Can anyone explain what 'dominant mode of propagtion' refers
to in the context?

	Any explanation is much appreciated...

		thanx

  (***-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-***)
 ((***   ___       ____                                                   ***))
   *       ___ __ ___      O    nnnn      ssss    t      oooo    nnnn       *
    *       -- -- --       I    n  n    sss      tttt    o  o    n  n      * 
     *      --    --       I   nn  n  sssss       tt     oooo   nn  n     * 
      * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -*  
     *       Hung-wen Lin	         2100 JPA APT.#7                *
    *       (804) 295-1094                Charlottesville, VA 22903        *
   *       e-mail: hl5a@virginia.edu                                        *
((***_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_***))
 (***                                                                    ***)
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Another antigravity device
Date: 19 Dec 1992 00:35 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes...
>Imagine an extremely (although not infinitely) rigid crystal.  It takes
>a huge amount of energy to deform the crystal lattice ever so slightly.
>Thus if this crystal is placed in the earth's gravitational field at sea
>level, the curvature of space due to the gravity prevents the
>lattice from being perfectly regular, at the cost of a large amount of
>energy.  The crystal would have much less energy if it were far away
>from the earth where the curvature of space is less.  If we make the
>crystal rigid enough it will actually be energetically favorable for the
>crystal to float upwards - since the decrease in its internal energy
>will more than compensate for the increase in gravitational potential
>energy.

This is similar to the rotating disk problem. I finally picked up
Einstein's "Relativity" which addresses the latter, but I haven't had a
chance to read it yet. I posted a guess on that one which for this problem
would go something like: The stresses in the crystal act as gravitational
sources, which tend to cancel the curvature, so that the rigid crystal can
retain its shape.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.research moderated
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:18:40 GMT

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
: 
:     I'm inclined to think that inclusion of philosophically-oriented
:     posts should not be encouraged without obvious technical/physical
:     content.  Though I sometimes enjoy them, all of those discussions seem 
:     to degenerate into 'I'm right, you're wrong. No I'm not. etc' since 
:     there is often little objective content in such areas.  Most of the
:     posts that people to exclude are in this general area.    
: 
:                          dale bass
: 
I'm not so sure about this. Physicists working on fundamental questions do
philosophy all the time, whether they like it or not. As for discussions
degenerating into "I'm right, you're wrong." : is there any other kind of
discussion here?							   
   									  
 ps: yes, the word "fundamental" is intentionally provocative. See?       
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21288 sci.math:17024
From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Credit (was: Chaitin's Omega and QM)
Date: 16 Dec 92 09:41:36
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
	<SRCTRAN.92Dec14122532@world.std.com>
	<COLUMBUS.92Dec14142145@strident.think.com>
	<1992Dec14.223229.22348@galois.mit.edu>
	<COLUMBUS.92Dec15102022@strident.think.com>
	<VICTOR.92Dec15180424@terse.watson.ibm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com
In-reply-to: victor@watson.ibm.com's message of Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:04:24 GMT

In article <VICTOR.92Dec15180424@terse.watson.ibm.com>
victor@watson.ibm.com (Victor Miller) has the sig:

		   "Great artists steal; lesser artists borrow" Igor Stravinsky

Ironically, I'd always heard that quote credited to T.S. Eliot.  But who
knows.

A conversation attributed (in Bartlett's) to James Whistler and Oscar Wilde:

    JW: [witticism]
    OW: I wish I'd said that!
    JW: You will, Oscar, you will.
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Exam suggestions :-)
Keywords: (Could be funny)
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:27:36 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

Good start, but you do not have the ones about the nickleon induced 
reactions on the cokemachine nucleus (boy does that date the question) 
or the one about relativity where you show that things were invented 
first in the soviet union. 

(Now where did I put those things...)

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: rivero <rivero@cc.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: Spin-2 ===> Attractive Force ??
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A7553D4628019319@m14725.unizar.es>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 16 Dec 92 20:08:38 GMT
Organization: fisica teorica UZ
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:11:07 GMT

In article <92350.133819CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu> , CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>Why are spin-2 "exchange particles" supposed to imply attractive---rather
>than EITHER attractive or repulsive, as with electromagnetism---forces? In
>other words, why can't spin-2 "exchange particles" represent repulsive
>forces?
>Thanks!
>Carey
>ccb104@psuvm.psu.edu
>ccb104@psuvm.BITNET

I think the standard "proof" made in general relativity books
works only in the opposite direction:
 gravity-loke force =====> spin 2
but Im telling this without verify it!

By the way, If someone is going to illuminate this, I would like also to hear
of a related topic: Why spin 2 is the maximum
spin you would admit in 3+1? I have heard there was a proof 
from weinberg around seventees, but I dont know where.

-Alejandro Rivero
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.research moderated
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:11:45 GMT
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: firth@sei.cmu.edu's message of Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:43:46 EST

In article <1992Dec18.084346.23698@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:

> What's fringe and what isn't?  For example, on the QM stuff I think Mr
> Budnik is as wrong as Mr Abian, and he probably thinks the same about
> me.  But it does us good to have our views seriously challenged from
> time to time, from no matter what perspective.  In my view, there's
> already too much smug orthodoxy in this group; if dissent - even crank
> dissent - is stifled, it will just get more smug and very boring.

In case I haven't made this clear, I am *not* proposing that
sci.physics be replaced with sci.physics.research.  I am proposing
that sci.physics.research be created and that it and sci.physics
coexist.

Those who prefer an unmoderated newsgroup can simply continue to read
sci.physics.

--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl (Toon Moene)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Can space-time intersect itself?
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:18:44 GMT
Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

In article <1992Dec2.232639.13222@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu  
(John C. Baez) writes:
> In article <1992Dec2.014924.8076@netcom.com> raicu@netcom.com (Eugen  
Raicu) writes:
> >In principle, can there be any mass distribution that would result in a
> >space-time which intersects itself? 
> 
> Not as far as I can tell, if I understand the question.  The point is
> that spacetime is not embedded in some higher-dimensional space so it
> can't "bump into itself".  This is precisely why it's nice to have an
> intrinsic definition of manifolds, by the way!

Now that's interesting - I'm sure I remember from my Differential Geometry  
course that ANY manifold can be embedded in Rn. A five minutes worth of  
flapping through the pages of my DG book* tells me that I have to modify  
this to: ANY manifold that has a COUNTABLE base (so-called seperable  
manifold).
> 
> Of course there are mathematically possible spacetime geometries with
> "wormholes," that is, "handles."  This might be the closest thing to
> what you are wondering about.  

Yep, but do they represent physical space-time structures ?

* Differential Geometry: Manifolds, Curves, and Surfaces; M. Berger,
  B. Gostiaux, Springer Verlag, 1988, page 105.

--
Toon Moene (toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl)
Kantershof 269, 1104 GN  Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel.: + 31 20 6982029; Fax: + 31 20 6003411
No Disclaimers; a NeXT at home protects against this occupational hazard.
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion vs science: two questions, concluded
Keywords: anthropics, faith, humor
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:22:03 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <Bz4n8I.CAp@world.std.com> jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman) writes:

>Whether the universe had an intelligent creator is just as much a
>scientific question as whether a plate of cookies had an intelligent
>creator. 

It might be, if you explain what a creator is. In fact with many
definitions of creation, these questions have the _same_ answer. The
point is that many people take the view that the baker is not creating
the cookies any more than the potter creates the plate, but that both
of these people are _transforming_ matter which previously exists.

Adler's book _Aristotle for everybody_ goes over this in detail.

> The difference, aside from scale, is that the answer is
>probably no. 

Umm, what is the basis for this probability?

> Is there a newsgroup on anthropics, tho?

sci.philosophy.meta

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Crackpot update
Date: 14 Dec 1992 22:33:36 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <1992Dec14.190618.20263@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>By the way, someone writes me that the Globe & Mail, a major Canadian
>newspaper, had a little filler article saying something like: `scientists are
>developing a crackpot index, notes a recent article in New Scientist'.
>It appears in the Dec. 12 edition science pages.  I'll try to track it
>down, but if anyone would be so kind to send me a copy I'd be delighted.

I won't believe a word until I can look it up
in the SCI under crackpot/index.

				--Blair
				  "1985:  neural/network:  100 entries.
				   1992:  neural/network:  countably infinite."
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21129 sci.math:16876