HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Field Effects on Living Systems
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:16:23 GMT

In article <BzA9z4.6x@news.iastate.edu> tomes@iastate.edu () writes:
>In article <hank.724388450@well.sf.ca.us> hank@well.sf.ca.us (Hank Roberts) writes:
>>
>>Please keep posting; now that I've read in the local papers that
>>3-1/2 minutes per day with an old AC-powered electric razor
>>correlates with a higher frequency of leukemia, I am finding myself
>>a little dubious every time the hard drive in my lap-top Mac winds up.....
>
>A little more troublesome would be the effects of all of that 60hz power
>wiring EVERYWHERE in the world.  I seriously doubt that a computer that passes
>FCC regulation would produce a field noticeably stronger than the background
>of the field generated by the 60hz all over the place.

I beileve the FCC regulations are for radio noise, not electric/magnetic
fields in the 50-60 hz range suspected of affecting biological functions.
 
>CP Tomes
>Electricity? I don need no steenkin 'lectricity!!
>All of my stuff runs on GAS.  Pass the beans.
>

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: carlip@landau.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Time Travel is impossible Theoretically.
Date: 7 Dec 92 18:24:40 GMT
Organization: Physics, UC Davis

>In article <1992Nov27.121758.1090@nbivax.nbi.dk> halvorsen@nbivax.nbi.dk writes:
>>
>>   I recently heard that S.Hawking came up with a Proof(?) that states that
>>nature somehow prevents time travel to be allowed. 
>>
>>Anyony know about this? If so Followup or Email would be apreciated.
>
OK, as promised, here is a short summary of Hawking's paper, "The
Chronology Protection Conjecture" (Physical Review D46 (1992) 603).
Hawking asks whether a time machine can be built in a local region
of spacetime, that is, without singularities or pathological 
behavior at infinity.  

This question can be asked most clearly within the framework of 
classical (nonquantum) general relativity, and that's where the
paper starts.  Hawking shows that any time machine created in a
finite region of spacetime necessarily violates the "weak energy
condition."  This condition is the requirement that the energy 
density as measured by any observer be nonnegative, so Hawking's
result implies that the creation of a time machine requires negative 
energy, which does not exist in classical physics.  Conversely, if 
the weak energy condition is satisfied, the creation of a time 
machine requires the appearance of singularities or strange behavior 
infinitely far away in space.

When quantum mechanics is added, the situation becomes trickier,
because the weak energy condition _can_ be violated by quantum
effects.  In the Casimir effect, for instance, the energy density
of the vacuum between two parallel plates is negative, causing a
net attraction.  Hawking suggests that time machines are still
ruled out --- he argues, essentially, that quantum fluctuations 
in energy become so large near a time machine that they disrupt 
the spacetime geometry enough to prevent time travel.  

This last point is still hotly debated, however.  There is general 
agreement that these quantum fluctuations in the energy density of
matter will occur.  But there is continuing disagreement as to how 
large they will be before effects of quantum _gravity_ have to be 
taken into account.  This is important, because we don't know how
quantum gravity works --- it could provide a loophole in the no-time-
machine results.  Hawking believes that the energy fluctuations will
be large long before quantum gravity is relevant, but others like
Kip Thorne are not convinced.  This is currently a topic of research
in a number of places; more answers will probably be known in a year
or two, although I wouldn't expect a completely conclusive result
until we know much more about quantum gravity.

Steve Carlip
carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Field Effects on Living Systems
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:28:55 GMT

In article <BzF0CJ.Hv0@news.iastate.edu> tomes@iastate.edu () writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.053518.23716@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>Opps, just re-read what you said. There is a bit of a discontinuity here.
>>Sallright, you did not address my original point either. Life goes on.
>
>
>Everyone's right, everyone's wrong.  Life goes on mutating to the tune of
>laptops everywhere!!!
>
>Finals suck!!

Tell me about it. <sigh>
 
>CP "Chuck the Merciless" Tomes
>Red lectroids from planet 10 have taken over the financial aid office at ISU
>and cancelled all of my aid and no one cares!!


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: tomes@iastate.edu ()
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Field Effects on Living Systems
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:33:03 GMT

In article <hank.724388450@well.sf.ca.us> hank@well.sf.ca.us (Hank Roberts) writes:
>
>Please keep posting; now that I've read in the local papers that
>3-1/2 minutes per day with an old AC-powered electric razor
>correlates with a higher frequency of leukemia, I am finding myself
>a little dubious every time the hard drive in my lap-top Mac winds up.....

A little more troublesome would be the effects of all of that 60hz power
wiring EVERYWHERE in the world.  I seriously doubt that a computer that passes
FCC regulation would produce a field noticeably stronger than the background
of the field generated by the 60hz all over the place.

CP Tomes
Electricity? I don need no steenkin 'lectricity!!
All of my stuff runs on GAS.  Pass the beans.

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Ramsay's "Sorry Sarfatti".
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:41:42 GMT

In article 8qG@world.std.com, kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) writes:
>In article <BzBwsx.8zz@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>>          _____________________
>>        /     1+                \
>>------/ I                      II \___________
>>      \                           /
>>        \_____2-_____|_|________/
>>                 spin flip
>
>This is the worst ASCII Australia map I've ever seen in a .signature.
>
>								-- K.

That's because you're looking at it upside-down.  South is at the top.

gak

---
Richard Stueven       AHA# 22584 |----------|
Internet:            gak@wrs.com |----GO----| Did ye spill wor pint?!?
ATTMAIL: ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak |---SHARX--|
Cow Palace:            107/H/3-4 |----------|
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: With your support "TIME WILL HAVE ENERGY"!
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:12:13 GMT


   According to Alexander Abian's (A2) time has momentum.
   However, I note the following laws have been physically
   confirmed:

   standard physics states (lossly interpreted):

       Delta(t)*Delta(E) >= .5*planks constant
       Delta(x)*Delta(p) >= .5*planks constant
       i*t is the time component of an object's postion
       i*m*c is the time component of an object's momentum

   So if you maintain that "TIME HAS MOMENTUM", you should also
   maintain that "SPACE HAS ENERGY"!

   Clearly if the time was right for the law "TIME HAS MOMENTUM"
   we are now ready for "SPACE HAS ENERGY"!  No it isn't law yet,
   but if everyone writes thier senator and congressman we can
   make it one!  It has been done for time, we can do it for
   space!

   If you would like to learn more about the move for "SPACE
   WILL HAVE ENERGY" send cash contributions to: 

                          "ME"

   Thankyou for your support,

                                Bill

.---

   SPACE WILL HAVE ENERGY with your suppport.  Don't forget to
   ask about our $100 a sandwich lunch* with Dan Quale.

   *apple included free!   




Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: raicu@netcom.com (Eugen Raicu)
Subject: Re: The Theories are Full of Holes
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 19:03:07 GMT

Eric H. Taylor (et@teal.csn.org) wrote:
:                     THE THEORIES ARE FULL OF HOLES
:                                 or
:             ARE HOLES VIRTUAL PARTICLES, OR ARE THEY REAL?
: 
: In reviewing Dirac's theory, I have realized several fundamental questions.
: Basically, I always thought that there was matter and there was anti-matter.
: The question of what "electron holes" are is something that I am now asking.
: 
: According to Dirac, there are four states of entity:
: 
: 1. Occupied   state of positive energy (eg, electron,      charge -)
: 2. Unoccupied state of positive energy (eg, electron hole, charge +)

When you remove an electron, the charge changes by 1, not by 2. Therefore
the charge of the electron hole is 0. The positive charge of holes in solids
is only a bookkeeping trick. Dirac's positrons are fundamental particles.
The holes in solid-state physics are quasiparticles.

: 3. Occupied   state of negative energy (eg, positron,      charge +)
                                              ^^^^^^^^NOT!

The occupied state of negative energy is the default. Since only CHANGES
in energy are physically relevant, a filled state of negative energy can
be assigned zero energy as long as the unoccupied state of negative energy
is assigned a corresponding positive energy. The positron is the
UNOCCUPIED state of negative energy and has a positive energy.

: 4. Unoccupied state of negative energy (eg, positron hole, charge -)
                                                       ^^^^NOT! this is the
positron!

The occupied states of positive energy are the electrons. The unoccupied
states of negative energy are the positrons. They both have positive
energy. When the electron makes a transition to the formerly empty negative
energy state, positive energy is released equal to the sum of the
energies of the electron and positron which are both positive.

The unoccupied state of positive energy and the occupied state of negative
energy have zero energy relative to a vacuum since a vacuum consists of
just the above occupations.

-- 
Eugen Raicu
raicu@netcom.com
1912 Addison Street Apt. 15, Berkeley, CA 94704-1128
(510) 644 3204
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Field Effects on Living Systems
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:35:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.001852.14376@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <BzBIrq.4x8@news.iastate.edu> tomes@iastate.edu () writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.141623.16670@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>In article <BzA9z4.6x@news.iastate.edu> tomes@iastate.edu () writes:
>>>>FCC regulation would produce a field noticeably stronger than the background
>>>>of the field generated by the 60hz all over the place.
>>>
>>>I beileve the FCC regulations are for radio noise, not electric/magnetic
>>>fields in the 50-60 hz range suspected of affecting biological functions.
>>But the 50-60hz fields are primarily generated by power systems, and a laptop 
>>is normally run (on the lap, anyway) by DC batteries, and the disk drives are
>>run by DC permanent-magnet motors.  The only thing that would be oscillating in
>>the 50-60 hz range would be the screen drivers (interleaved 30 frames/sec=60hz)
>>if they follow convention.  I believe the current is too low for the lcd to 
>>produce an appreciable field, and the backlight is covered by other FCC regs.
>
>You forget the crystal master clock. This is what is referred to when
>you see an ad for a 33MHZ 486. The CPU can emit quite a bit of radio noise,
>from both the master clock, and harmonics. Another thing which can cause
>a lot of noise is an unshielded or poorly grounded serial cable.

Opps, just re-read what you said. There is a bit of a discontinuity here.
Sallright, you did not address my original point either. Life goes on.
  
>>CP Tomes
>>Henrys? I don' need no steenkin Henrys!!
>
>Rich
>payner@netcom.com

Rich again, talking to myself <sigh>


Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: rlaltsta@eos.ncsu.edu (RICHARD L ALTSTATT)
Subject: Re: An answer to Xeno's question...
Originator: rlaltsta@c00315-2114bl.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: rlaltsta@eos.ncsu.edu (RICHARD L ALTSTATT)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:47:47 GMT


In article <mcirvin.724108488@husc8>, mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin) writes:
> Path: taco!rock!stanford.edu!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc8!mcirvin
> From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
> Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
> Subject: Re: An answer to Xeno's question...
> Message-ID: <mcirvin.724108488@husc8>
> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 16:14:48 EST
> References: <Yf9jqJa00iUzM_spU9@andrew.cmu.edu> <1992Dec10.121643.1@woods.ulowell.edu>
> Lines: 29
> Nntp-Posting-Host: husc8.harvard.edu
> 
> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
> 
> >In article <Yf9jqJa00iUzM_spU9@andrew.cmu.edu>, Samuel John Kass <sk4i+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> > 
> >> I have a related, but completely different question:  can photons
> >> tunnel?  I guess I'll go ask Dr. Kisslinger again if he's got the time.
> >> 
> >I think I can answer that (or maybe not).  A photon can tunnel, but it's very
> >rare.  There a probabalistc equation for tunnelling but I'd go insane trying to
> >type it into a computer.
> >--Ray Cote 
> 
> It happens, and is not so rare.  An example I've seen described (in
> Sakurai?  Winter?  I forget) is light passing through a gap of low
> index of refraction in a material of higher index (say, an air gap
> between two glass plates).  At angles beyond a critical one, there
> is total internal reflection within the glass; photons aren't transmitted
> out into the air if they hit the surface at a glancing angle.  But if
> there's a very thin gap between two chunks of glass, the photons can
> get through at angles where there's normally total internal reflection.
> The reason can be seen using classical electromagnetism:  there's an
> oscillating field that extends beyond the surface of the glass, but is
> damped (exponentially, I think) with distance; if the other glass
> plate's surface is close enough to overlap this region to an appreciable
> extent, a traveling wave will be set up in the other glass plate.
> Seen in a quantum context, taking the light beam as consisting of
> photons, this is photon tunneling. 
> -- 
> Matt McIrvin
> 
	Good description, there is a tunnelling microscope now.  Not just for 
electrons anymore.  The process uses an excited surface (usually ) and a 
thin hair of fiber optic.  The very tip recieved the tunnelled signal which 
is extremely small.  The result is an effective distance which can be mapped 
a surface.  Pretty much exactly what a tunnelling electron microscope does 
just for a slightly different potential.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: raicu@netcom.com (Eugen Raicu)
Subject: Re: The Theories are Full of Holes
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 19:20:41 GMT

Eric H. Taylor (et@teal.csn.org) wrote:
:                     THE THEORIES ARE FULL OF HOLES
:                                 or
:                   IS RESISTIVE HEATING A GAS EFFECT?
: 
: It is common knowledge that an electric current thru a resistor causes heating.
: But why?
: Consider: most currents are cause by increased pressure. Normally, we cause
: a current by "pushing" the electrons thru a conductor. Since electrons are
: a gas, like with any gas, as pressure is increased, so does temperature
: increase. The usual explanation of resistive heating is that collisions
: of electrons with nuclei increases the temperature due to friction. I claim
: instead that the temperature rise is due to increasing the pressure of the
: electron gas, and the conductor is heated via a thermal heat transfer.

Pressure is the effect of collisions. Electric currents are moved by the
action at a distance of an electric field, not by collisions. The only
exception is the motion of minority carriers injected into semiconductors
where diffusion is important.

When a gas is COMPRESSED ADIABATICALLY, both its temperature and pressure
increase. In agreement with the law of conservation of energy, the additional
heat comes from the work of compressing the gas against its pressure
regardless of whether the pressure increases, decreases or stays constant.
The pressure happens to increase but this is an additional effect, not a cause.

-- 
Eugen Raicu
raicu@netcom.com
1912 Addison Street Apt. 15, Berkeley, CA 94704-1128
(510) 644 3204
From: corey@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: quarks
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:46:08 CST
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

Would someone like to tell me thier interpetation of spin, charm, flavor, etc?

on spin i was told by someone that it's the "magnetic field" created by the
particle spinning about it's own axis.  therefore if i have a particle that has
a spin of -1/2 all i have to do is flip it upside down & it then has a spin of
+1/2.  would someone like to correct this?

Thanks
Corey

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Sweeney
corey@amiganet.chi.il.us
I do not own a amiga!
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: An answer to Xeno's question...
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:14:48 GMT

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

>In article <Yf9jqJa00iUzM_spU9@andrew.cmu.edu>, Samuel John Kass <sk4i+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
>> I have a related, but completely different question:  can photons
>> tunnel?  I guess I'll go ask Dr. Kisslinger again if he's got the time.
>> 
>I think I can answer that (or maybe not).  A photon can tunnel, but it's very
>rare.  There a probabalistc equation for tunnelling but I'd go insane trying to
>type it into a computer.
>--Ray Cote 

It happens, and is not so rare.  An example I've seen described (in
Sakurai?  Winter?  I forget) is light passing through a gap of low
index of refraction in a material of higher index (say, an air gap
between two glass plates).  At angles beyond a critical one, there
is total internal reflection within the glass; photons aren't transmitted
out into the air if they hit the surface at a glancing angle.  But if
there's a very thin gap between two chunks of glass, the photons can
get through at angles where there's normally total internal reflection.
The reason can be seen using classical electromagnetism:  there's an
oscillating field that extends beyond the surface of the glass, but is
damped (exponentially, I think) with distance; if the other glass
plate's surface is close enough to overlap this region to an appreciable
extent, a traveling wave will be set up in the other glass plate.
Seen in a quantum context, taking the light beam as consisting of
photons, this is photon tunneling. 
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Organization: Central Michigan University
Date: Sunday, 20 Dec 1992 04:37:53 EST
From: AMR E MALIK <32JMX3X@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: MAGNETIC DEFLECTION OF LASERS

Hi,
   I have a question which I think some of you experts can answer. Can
a laser beam (small wavelength -- infra red) be deflected by a magnetic
field through a range of 5-175 degrees? I'd be extremely grateful if some
one could answer this for me

thankX
amr malik
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:26:31 GMT

Warning to new readers of Abians postings concerning his principle.

If you post something about his principle, no matter how polite you
formulate it, the usual thing for Abian is to either answer rudely and with
no real content, or ignore you.

It has been proved that his principle is informationless, unusable, and not
science, but he still lingers on in the newsgroup sci.physics.

Abian feeds on replies. Please don't feed him.

Kim0

PS: In case he arives here.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: tomes@iastate.edu ()
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Field Effects on Living Systems
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:40:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.141623.16670@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <BzA9z4.6x@news.iastate.edu> tomes@iastate.edu () writes:
>>FCC regulation would produce a field noticeably stronger than the background
>>of the field generated by the 60hz all over the place.
>
>I beileve the FCC regulations are for radio noise, not electric/magnetic
>fields in the 50-60 hz range suspected of affecting biological functions.
But the 50-60hz fields are primarily generated by power systems, and a laptop 
is normally run (on the lap, anyway) by DC batteries, and the disk drives are
run by DC permanent-magnet motors.  The only thing that would be oscillating in
the 50-60 hz range would be the screen drivers (interleaved 30 frames/sec=60hz)
if they follow convention.  I believe the current is too low for the lcd to 
produce an appreciable field, and the backlight is covered by other FCC regs.

CP Tomes
Henrys? I don' need no steenkin Henrys!!
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2580 sci.physics:21508
From: st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
Subject: Re: TEXAS ASTROPHYSICS MEETING at UCB
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:09:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.ofBHJTW00YUoI4vo94
Organization: Doctoral student, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Mr. Sarfatti suggested that the result was presented at the TEXAS meeting
(in Berkeley, CA) that the universe would not expand indefinitely.

By this I assume he claims that results were presented that indicate
that Omega (density/critical density) is greater than or equal to 1.

Perhaps results of this type may have been presented, since I didn't attend
all sessions of the meeting.  But they certainly didn't tell Stephen Hawking
about such results, because in the public talk he gave on Wednesday night
he suggested that the evidence is still inconclusive and omega is not yet
well-enough measured.

Steve Timm
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics
From: acampane@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella)
Subject: Re: sound level meter
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa,canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:38:47 GMT



  By ALL means, get a Radio Shack Sound Level Meter,
Catalog Item  No. 33-2050.

I have many meters I use in my consulting practive, including B&K and
Larson-Davis.  I bought the RS 33-2050 for $35 and was astounded that it 
calibrated to 1/2 dB right out of the box! (Both A-Scale and C-Scale, one 
frequency only, 250 Hz via B&K PistonPhone.)

Only drawback is that it won't measure less than 60 dB SPL.

It is intended as a speaker sound and loud noise measuring device.

But above that range it works well.

Also, it does not have a nerf ball windscreen, needed when outdoors
on breezy days and around HVAC discharges...

Luck!

Ang.