HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:30:30 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <6163@tuegate.tue.nl> johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers) writes:

>Why should there be such area's? 3000 years ago people explained
>lightning with Donar, the god of lightning. Now we know it's
>electricity. Give me one (1) goog reason why this shouldn't happen
>with anything.

Are you so sure that in 3000 years our present understanding of electricity
will not more resemble Donar than what will be current? But does the fact
that you must use what is sure to become a pitifully limited understanding
like Maxwell's equations mean that you don't have a clue about what's going
on?

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
From: johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 5 Nov 1992 23:22:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdlg10.sdd.hp.com

In article <1dc3noINN7oh@chnews.intel.com>, bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:

BH> Science is truth, and truth is science. They are one and the same. 

JO> If the truth is always changing then what is it after it changes ?
 
BH> Is it? 

JO> If the scientific process always produces the truth then each fact  
    should be unfalsifiable. Are you saying that I can use any science 
    text from the last 300 years and always find the 'truth' ?

  John Ongtooguk (johno@sdd.hp.com)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: A question about gas discharge tubes
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:40:23 GMT

In article <9NOV199215335294@reg.triumf.ca> solu@reg.triumf.ca (SOLUK, RICHARD)
writes:

>  The apparatus was a standard discharge tube, i.e. simply a glass tube with
>high voltage electrodes at either end.  The tube was initially evacuated and
>was allowed to slowly fill with gas.  As the pressure increased the expected
>fluorescence occurred, but rather then involve the entire gas volume it was
>confined to a band which formed at one electrode and then began to propagate
>down the length of the tube (as a function of pressure).  Additional bands
>appeared and followed the first keeping an equal spacing between bands.
>Finally five distinct bands were present which eventually stopped moving, 
>intensified and merged into a uniform discharge.  Note that the gas pressure
>was allowed to increase continuously throughout this process.
>
>  The question I have is what effect would account for physical structure in
>the discharge?  Why would a distinct band form rather then a discharge through
>the entire tube, or perhaps a number of equally spaced bands appearing
>simultaneously down the length of the tube?

Both phenomena occur. I don't know (in detail) why.

The phenomena of gas discharge tubes have been extensively studied and
described, and so far as I can recall there is much that is not understood
about them. They are quite beautiful to look at, but are currently (sorry) not
very fashionable to study. Therefore professional scientists (called
"researchers" by the media these days) devote little attention to them now.

One of my old teachers, the late Leonard B. Loeb, made them his life's work,
and you should consult your library for his book on the subject. Mostly you
will find descriptive information such as the common names for the phenomena,
like "Crookes' dark space".

Leigh
From: mcirvin@husc10.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: resident loudmouths on astrology
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:30:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov11.203051.17360
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <Nov.11.11.27.15.1992.7364@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>
>Ben Weiner on astrology:
>He is trying to get the noise out of his data; as a result, he is
>uncertain of its value by a factor of 2.

Ooh, can I play?

Matt McIrvin on astrology:
He reads his horoscope every day and is immensely relieved when it
turns out to be wrong.

-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: e92_anh@vaxkab.lne.kth.se
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Do Balloons fly?
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:03:16 GMT
Reply-To: e92_anh@vaxkab.lne.kth.se ()
Organization: School of EE, Royal Institute of Technolgy

This will probably sound like a silly question to a lot of you, but WHY
does a helium-filled balloon rise upward? Is it because of the
difference in air-pressure at the balloon's top and bottom, causing the
resulting force to press it upward?

Thus, consider this: If the air surrounding the balloon had exactly the
same density on all sides, then the balloon would not move (I think).

So, is my airpressure-theory correct? I'd very much like to know!

			-Andre' Heinonen, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Gravitation & massless particles (was Re: Some physics questions)
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:14:40 GMT

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

> In principle, one could measure the change in gravity when a particle 
> and anti-particle annihilate, but in practice ....

Such statements, though oK, should be taken with some care ..

Since the equation of continuity for the energy-momentum tensor also holds
for the annihilation process (it is a Noether identity, guaranteed if the
underlying theory is based on a Lagrangian), there is a continuous well-
defined behaviour of the gravitational force of the system. Of course you
then could still observe (in principle) the process of annihilation by 
watching gravity, and viewing that some particles move the way they do ..
--
 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA  ----   THE CRUX OF WHAT IS A MANIFOLD
Summary: THE GIST OF WHAT IS A MANIFOLD
 
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:46:07 GMT

I have defined and given examples of DIFFERENTIABLE MANIFOLDS.
But, if you really want to know the GIST , the naked truth without 
cosmetic paraphernalia and if for once you want to get to the soul of
Manifold, then read the following:


 DEFINITION (Abian)
 
 A manifold is a set of  n-tuples  (x, y, ..., t) satisfying n-equations 
 x = ...,  y = ..., ... ,  t = ..., in  m parameters p, q, ..., v.
   
 PERIOD.
    p, q, ..., v  can range over  Reals, Complexes, Quaternions, 
    or  Matrices, or any abstract Ring, Field, etc, etc

   The corresponding functions depending on the cases can be Real valued,
Complex valued, Quaternion valued, Matrix valued, etc, etc.

 EXAMPLE.
         x = 3p+5q+6v     (say over Reals)  is a Manifold
    
 EXAMPLE.
         x = sinp + e^q
         y = 5 log p - cos 3v^2      (say over ...)    is a Manifold
 
 EXAMPLE.
         
         x = 3u
         y = 6v                 (say over ...)  is a manifold
         z = 7v

 EXAMPLE
 
         x = F(p,q,..., v)
         y = G(p,q,..., v)           I don't care how many  n
                                     equations and how many m
          ...............            parameters.  All I care
                                     is that  n > 0 and  m > 0          
          ...............

         t = H(p,q,..., v)               

  NOW, if you impose conditions on the equations then you will have 
      "RESPECTABLE", NOBLE", "SMOOTH",  "NICE", "GORGEOUS",..  manifolds.

      IF equations are polynomials  THE MANIFOLD IS CALLED ALGEBRAIC.
      IF EQUATIONS ARE  (PARTIALLY) DIFFERENTIABLE (you can have nuances  
      up to some order) OF ANY ORDER, AND THE  RANK OF THE  JACOBIAN 
      n by m  Matrix  is  min {n,m}  THEN YOU HAVE  A DIFFERENTIABLE 
      MANIFOLD. 
   
      So, depending on the conditions that you impose on the equations
      you will have various manifolds and their corresponding Theories.
     
      You can create over night hundreds of (sometimes quite interest-
      ing) Manifolds and call them after your NAME.

      You can  be very abstract - your equations can be MAPPINGS  and
      Defined by English sentences with or without math. formulas.
      Your equations may have integrals in them and ANYTHING YOU LIKE.
    
      SO,  A MANIFOLD  (Algebraic, Differentiable, or .....)  is
      the set of  n tuples  (x,y,z, ..., t) described by
      n equations  x = ..., y =...,  z = ..., ..., t = ...  in
      m  parameters  p, q, ..., v.
                  
        With best wishes and regards,
                                               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)
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: NEWS: Galileo Cleared of Heresy Charges by Vatican
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:41:56 GMT

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

>I think that the Vatican statement is more general than you imply. The 
>point is not that the Church now accepts that the world is Galilean. Rather,
>it conceeds that physics is the right tool for understanding the physical
>world, and that the Church should not get involved in deciding whether or 
>not a particular cosmology is right or wrong.  

So they won't resist against the inflation model were the big bang was
created from an instable false vacuum, where no gods are needed any more
for the creation of the universe?

>The statement accurately explains that Christians should not confuse
>Faith with the belief in any particular out-dated cosmology.  

When you are a kind of person which beleives in an out-dated concept of
gods, I think you can also more easily believe in an out-dated cosmology.

>I think that this is a very positive attitude, and hope that the 
>Pat Buchannans and Pat Robertsons of the world take it to heart.

Who are that? Some of your ``famous'' TV-prayers?
-- 
********************************************************** 
* J.C.A. Wevers                *   The only nature of    * 
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *   reality is physics.   * 
**********************************************************
From: barmore@helios.phy.ohiou.edu (Bryan E. Barmore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Acoustical Refridgeration
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:56:49 GMT
Organization: Ohio University ASCGL, Athens

Does anyone out here know about Acoustical refridgeration?  I'm scheduled to
give a small presentation on it for our local Society of Physics Students 
on it and the only material I have is a recent Sci Am article.  Any help as
far as details of the process, probable comerical release etc. would be greatly
appreciated.

Please e-mail me:  barmore@helios.phy.ohiou.edu

Thanks in advance,
   Bryan.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: abian on astrology
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:48:19 GMT

He probably invented it.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA        ABIAN REPLIES TO M.S.T.  WATTS
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:21:14 GMT

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
:     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)

I am sorry, there seems to be an error here.
   E = m(0) exp(-At)  (Abian) must be replaced by
		E = m(0) exp(-Mtt) (McInnes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject: Re: What's a manifold?
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 00:27:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.185338.29742@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>asimov@nas.nasa.gov (Dan Asimov) writes:
>>Yet a third notion is a manifold which happens to be a metric space which
>>arose through embedding the manifold in Euclidean space, by measuring the
>>distance across the Euclidean space.  Interestingly enough, this is not
>>very often considered in math research.
>
>>But as *such*, with the extrinsic metric (the one obtained from the
>>distance across R^3), your helix will, of course, *not* embed
>>"isometrically" in R^2, which I believe is your point.
>
	[...]
>The thing I really misunderstood seems to have been the theorem. In my
>sense of embedding, is there a known minimum N for which *any* 1-D
>manifold will extrinsically embed in R^N?
>
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is

To answer this question, we need to be very careful about *what type
of manifold* we are talking about.  Since you use the word extrinsic,
I am going to guess that you mean any 1-manifold that has been smoothly
embedded in some Euclidean space R^n, and which has then been supplied
with the metric which comes from oridnary distance across R^n.

THE ANSWER:
In that case, then there is no maximum N such that every such 
1-manifold- metric-space embeds "extrinsically."

Proof:  The finite metric space consisting of any n+1 points in general
	position in R^n (i.e., they lie on no (n-1)-dimensional plane) cannot be
	isometrically embedded in R^N for any N < n.  For example, the origin
	(0,...,0) and the n points (1,0,...,0),(0,1,...,0),...,(0,...,0,1) in R^n.

	Now simply find a smooth embedding of the line R^1 into R^n which passes
	through all n+1 of these points.  (This is not hard, but I leave the 
	details as an exercise for those interested.) If that could be "extrinsically" 
	embedded in any lower dimension, that would violate the impossibility of 
	embedding the finite metric space isometrically.


Dan Asimov
Mail Stop T045-1
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000

asimov@nas.nasa.gov
(415) 604-4799

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Followup-To: sci.physics
Summary: G
Keywords: Moon Neutral Point calculation
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:19:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.001719.20068@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>This is a nitpick, but there actually is embarassing uncertainty in
>the masses of the earth, sun, etc.  We can measure distances, periods
>and accelerations in the solar system to high accuracy (and therefore
>compute orbits to high accuracy) but to get masses we need to
>calculate -- and our (relatively) poor knowledge of the value of "G"
>makes the calculation imprecise.

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.

-- 
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@          | International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |isus.tnet.com -| Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |ncar!enuucp!   | System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice_602_996_1717 telesys!isus!hoyt The Universe in two postulates__________|
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:37:41 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <1992Nov5.153142.17712@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat) writes:
>Those who claim that 'truth' and 'reality' are synonyms are ignoring
>the existance of emotional truths, which have no objective existance
>(are not part of "reality") outside of the people who experience them.

Do you mean to say that the inside of the people who experience
them is no venue for reality?

				--Blair
				  "Gotta buy some stock
				   in whatever drug company
				   it is that sells Lithium..."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - improved version
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 05:03:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.082114.28659@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:
>abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>:     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)
>
>I am sorry, there seems to be an error here.
>   E = m(0) exp(-At)  (Abian) must be replaced by
>		E = m(0) exp(-Mtt) (McInnes)

You're both right.  I went out and experimentally determined the
constant A.  I will call this 

		BAEZ'S LAW :  A = 0   

Combining this with Abian's principle we derive the fundamental equation

			E = m(0)

and identifying m with m(0) and applying Einstein's equation we realize
Scott Chase' dream - a theory that calculates the speed of light:

			 c = 1

Whew, I think I can go home now and feel like I've accomplished something.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: graphical humping terminology
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:05:54 GMT

In article <ETHANB.92Nov9155340@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu>
ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford) writes:
>The simple explaination of why yellow monochromatic light looks the
>same as equal combinations of green and red light is that the color
>receptor systems in the eye (the cones) have sensitivity curves which
>trail off (I remember them as being roughly gaussian).  A signal
>halfway between the two peaks excites the two receptors equally, as do
>two signals right on each peak.

This article piqued my old annoyance with the free use of the term "gaussian"
which is so common among us. In the case mentioned above it is the case that
none of the three visual response functions looks gaussian to me. I have even
heard Lorentzian curves described as gaussian by colleagues in an unthinking
moment.

I believe it is time that we had another term for curves which have humps. It
is appealing to call them "bactrian" curves, but confusion with the "dromedary"
curves which often characterize class grade distributions would ensue. People
would never be able to keep them straight!

In the spirit of comfortable zoomorphism which commends these to us, I would
like to suggest that we henceforth refer to all single-hump curves as "elkian".
In this suggestion I do not wish to imply that the elk has a hump. The term is,
rather, eponymous. It honors the famous theoretical paleoherpetologist Anne
Elk, who is best remembered for her work on the brontosaurus.

Instead of the "dromedary" I would suggest the "parton", and curves with even
more humping could be called "newlyweds".

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: No big crunch?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:20:50 GMT

In article <5NOV199211132101@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.010054.24588@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>> 
>>     Internal consistency does not constitute a 'test'.  It is a
>>     necessary condition.
>
>Only in a strictly logical sense.  But experience has taught us that 
>consistency is, in practice, a very powerful guide in high-energy 
>physics.  Chris Lewellyn-Smith (I apologize for the spelling - I never
>can get the name right), the new director of CERN, is famous for,
>among other things, demonstrating that you can "derive" the Standard
>Model from nothing more than trying to build the simplest consistent
>theory that includes all the particles we know about - all the wonderful
>details of how they interact fall out of the model-building process
>as you try to avoid unphysical results (non-unitarity) and inconsistency.

     My guess is that there are far more assumptions in this than you
     are letting on, many hidden.

     However, getting back on track it is silly to say that a theory that in 
     some sense avoids internal inconsistency has passed some sort of 
     valid scientific 'test'.  It's like patting oneself on the back
     for not having assumed ii equals 3 and ii equals 5 at the same
     time.  

                                  dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Great Superluminal Debate: Sarfatti vs. McIrvin
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 06:11:41 GMT


From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Subject: Re: Standard QM rules out FTL correlation signals, simplest proof.
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:34:54 GMT

bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:

>In article <1d1tk9INNsk8@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt
Kennel) writes:>>svetlich@math.rutgers.edu (George Svetlichny) writes:
>>: Thus standard QM does not allow for correlation signals between
commuting observables. Space-like separated observables commute, so there
are no correlation signals between them *at all*, be they superluminal,
luminal,or subluminal.
>>
>>How are conservation laws enforced?

>Spottily.

Sarfatti replies: "The only reason it is falsely believed that commuting
observables forbid signals is that it is falsely thought that no Heisenberg
incompatibility exists for commuting observables.  However, Heisenberg
incompatibility can exist between commuting observables in presence of
entanglement! Then the skeptics claim that it is impossible to manipulate
this entanglement incompatibility of commuting observables- except I show
that you can manipulate it with a specific counter example.

In short any claim that commuting observables forbid communication is dead
wrong - a false criterion for communication.

It is then said that local unitary time evolutions forbid the shifting of
probabilities at a dsitance. This too is wrong in presence of non-unitary
measurement plus entanglement plus coherence - all these factors combine
together to permit connection communication. Let experiment decide!"
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Feynman 26 "Is it unitary?"
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:53:37 GMT


Feynman 26 "Is it unitary?"
p.258 from James Gleick's GENIUS: ( March 30, 1948 Poconos Meeting)
""Feynman explained his path integrals, an alien idea, and his positrons
moving backward in time, even more disturbing.  Teller caught the apparent
infringement of the exclusion principle and refused to accept Feynman's
inrigorous justification.  It struck Feynman that everyone had a favorite
principle or theorem and he was violating them all.  When Dirac asked, 'Is
it unitary?' Feynman did not even know what he meant. Dirac explained: the
matrix that carries on from the past to the future had to maintain an exact
bookkeeping of total probability.  But Feynman had no such matrix.  The
essence of his approach was a view of past and future together, with the
freedom to go forward and backward in in time at will. .... Feynman knew he
had failed.  At the time he was in anguish.  Later he  said simply: 'I had
too much stuff.  My machines came from too far away.'"
- indeed, from the future!

PS "A Half-Assedly Thought-Out Pictorial Semi-Vision Thing" p.p. 241-251 is
a superb piece of pop writing on quantum mechanics.