HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smay@boi.hp.com (Scott Smay)
Subject: Re: A "Paradox"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:26:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Benjamin J. Tilly (Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: Here is an interesting problem which I thought of. It is well known
: that a charged particle moving through a magnetic field does not gain
: or lose kinetic energy. However it is also well-known that a magnet
: moving through a magnetic field can gain kinetic energy. But a magnet
: is a collection of charged particles each of which does not gain
: kinetic energy so how can this be? I believe that I know the answer but
: I will just leave this to see if other people come to the same
: conclusion that I have.
:
There are forces holding the magnet together, so the individual moving
charges are not free to move in the direction specified by the Lorentz
force. Instead, the whole assembly moves in the direction of the net
force.          

scott
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: natelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Douglas Natelson)
Subject: thermo. model of air
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:18:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.190945.23798@sfu.ca> palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:
>In article <HAGERMAN.92Nov19204019@rx7.ece.cmu.edu> hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John
>Hagerman) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov19.202817.29139@sfu.ca> palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
>writes:
>>>
>>> Wow. Thanks for the information, John. I hope someone will be able
>>> to drop the other shoe and tell us where to learn more about this
>>> twenty-year-old technology.
>>
>>Your ability to communicate sarcasm without a smiley is nice to see.
>>But I fear that your comments may mask one important point of my post,
>>which was to demonstrate that many of the questions asked here can be
>>sufficiently answered by a tiny bit of research.  Need I explain why
>>actually doing such research is useful?
>
>I've failed again, I'm afraid. I wasn't being sarcastic; I have no idea
>how this is done, and since I teach physics, I think that is a lacuna
>in my knowledge which needs to be filled. I asked some specific 
>questions about generation and distribution, and I'd really like to
>know the answers to those questions.
>
>I've only recently adopted the "smiley" (my version has a double chin)
>because I was being misunderstood. I am quite vain about my command of
>the language, and I had never seen a smiley in Mark Twain, so I didn't
>use them, either. Now I see that it can work the other way as well. 
>
>Leigh

Hi.

I'm interested in a thermodynamic model of air over the following 
range:

	Pressure: 2e-4 atm to ~10000 atm
	Temperature:  100 K to 2500 K

outside the vapor dome.  I've already got William Reynolds' 1979
model from his book _Thermodynamic_Properties_in_SI_, and I'm
looking for others.

Specifically, I'd like h(rho,T), P(rho,T), s(rho,T) if possible.

Any help would be appreciated, especially FORTRAN code, if 
available.

			Thanks.

			Douglas Natelson
			natelson@phoenix.princeton.edu
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Continuos vs. discrete models Was: The size of electrons, ...
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:00:06 GMT

In article <16NOV199210360062@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.065208.28725@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>>>
>>>As one simple example consider the difference between a model based on
>>>finite difference equations and one based on partial differential
>>>equations. 
>> 
>>    Name a physical system in which the FDE is considered more fundamental
>>    than the PDE?  For most of us, we take the 'true' PDE and muck it
>>    up, introducing loads of spurious conservation laws and higher
>>    order terms, by deriving a finite difference formulation of it. 
>>    I'd be interested in a system in which we did the reverse.
>
>How about your favorite and mine - the flexible string.  Since the string
>is really atomic at the smallest scale, the "most" appropriate equation
>is the FDE.  It is only in the approximation that the discrete nature of the
>string is irrelevant (a damn good approximation, I admit) that the PDE
>becomes a useful description.  

and ...

>where it is really the finite number atomic positions which are fundamental,
>the field being a useful characterization but not one that is intrinsic
>to the system, which is properly a discrete system.

     Is the string the atoms or the interactions between the atoms?
     I'm not sure that at a basic level the description of the string
     is a proper finite difference formulation.

                                 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: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Baez to Ramsay
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 23:03:24 GMT

In article <BxoqxH.66r@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>John Baez you are abdicating your responsibility for intellectual honesty.
>Yes,I am persistent the way Bohr was persistent.

Yes, in *persistence* you may well be Bohr's equal.  I suppose you might
argue that I should not ever comment about your posts unless I am
prepared to dive into the morass of an endless sequence of refutations
and counter-refutations.  But precisely to avoid this chore I named Ramsay
as my official substitute.  I feel confident that he is doing a fine
job.  Since he asked for public comments on whether to continue
discussing matters with you, I offered my opinion: that he will never
succeed in reaching agreement with you, and will thus have to call it
quits at some point, agreeing to disagree.  

>No there is room for honest debate here. It is smug, arrogant, and foolish
>of you to think that the foundations of quantum mechanics, especially the
>informal language of how to properly connect abstract formalism to physical
>operations, is so pat and well understood.

Clearly it's not so well understood by *everyone*.  But people
experienced in quantum optics rarely, I believe, find it very hard to
sort out such issues as you are discussing with Ramsay.  (Perhaps a real
quantum optician could comment.)
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:12:21 EST
From: <CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Rel. & Phys. Don't Mix; Einstein Quote
 <1992Nov17.002157.9642@reks.uia.ac.be>

By the way . . .
An interesting (?) quote by Einstein on the subject of religion comes
to mind:
"Religious thought is an attempt to find an out where there are no doors."
---A. Einstein (1938?)
From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: No Spin in 2 Dimensions?
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:41:08
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: world
	<FRANL.92Nov16233347@draco.centerline.com>
	<17NOV199211293098@csa3.lbl.gov>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics16.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov's message of 17 Nov 1992 11:29 PST

In article <17NOV199211293098@csa3.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

> So, it seems to me that it comes down to whether or not you are 
> happy with accepting the interpretation of QM in terms of wave-fuction 
> collapse.  If you are, then everything is OK.  If not, then with or without
> SR you will not be happy with QM.  

And I might add: I'm not at all sure that I really want to call
wave-function collapse part of the mathematical structure of quantum
mechanics; it might be better to say that it is one way of
interpreting what the mathematics tells you.

Note that there are other interpretations (e.g., the "many worlds"
interpretation) which are equivalent mathematically, and which make
the same experimental predictions, but which do not involve wave
function collapse.

If you're not happy with the collapse interpretation, shop around!
Maybe you'll find an interpretation you like better.  (Me, my attitude
is that it doesn't make much difference.  Anyone is welcome to try to
persuade me otherwise, though.)
--
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: pmorvill@jade.tufts.edu (Paul Morville)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Patriot Missile
Date: 23 Nov 92 06:37:28 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA

I apologize if this is the wrong group, but I have a question.

When was the Patriot first invented?  When was it first implemented?  I was
under the impression that it came into existence shortly before the the
Persian Gulf War.  Is this correct?  Thanks.
From: rhatcher@fnala.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: HV lines and cancer (again), was Re: History of AC vs DC Power >>THE TRUTH!<< *=*
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:30:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: fnala.1992Nov16.103041.1
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnala.fnal.gov

In article <FRANL.92Nov14153854@draco.centerline.com>, franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:
|> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
|> 
|>|> steve@pepe.aero.org (Steve Sedlacek) writes:
|>|> 
|>|> |> A new Swedish study apparently confirms a moderate
|>|> |> correlation between living near high-power transmission lines and cancers.
|> 
|>|> 	It is also a known fact that there is a high rate of 
|>|> cancer among uneducated and poor people.
|> 
|> Fine so far...
|> 
|>|> The reason being, they 
|>|> simply do not have proper hygiene, sanitation, or eating habits.  
|> 
|> Whoa!!!  Strike hygiene from that list.  Unless by "do not have proper
|> hygiene" you mean "fail to wash hazardous/radioactive waste off they
|> hands after contact", dirt on your skin won't give you cancer.

|> franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio, CenterLine Software R&D

Dirt might not, but defoliants mixed in with the dirt might.  Why would
there be defoliants you ask?  Utility companies need to keep the vegitation
growth under control around those power lines.  You've no doubt seen swaths
of "clear cut" through forests and fields where power lines are strung.
And how do you think they keep the vegitation down?  Thus one reasonable
explaination I've seen it that high-power transmission lines ARE associated
with hazardous waste, it just doesn't happen to be E&M radiation, but high
concentrations of weed inhibitors.  This is probably not the sole cause,
but mixed with those other negative factors associated with being poor
it seems reasonable to assume one would see a statistical increase in poor
health (including cancers).

I'm intruiged by you're inclusion of radioactive wastes as a possibility.
Surely you're not claiming that high-tension lines cause radioactivity?
Or were you hinting that poor neighborhoods and power tension lines are
generally located in areas with higher than average radioactive
backgrounds?

-robert

 Robert W. Hatcher        | 256D Physics-Astronomy    | hatcher@msupa   (Bitnet)
 Software Tzar, Hunchback | Michigan State University | msuhep::hatcher (HEPnet)
 (517) 353-3008,-5180     | East Lansing, MI 48824    | hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: djpegg@utkvx2.utk.edu (PEGG, DAVID J)
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:51:00 GMT

In article <kkretsch.721932625@unix1.tcd.ie>, kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie (kevin patrick kretsch) writes...
>         Apparrently, the most closely guarded secret
>in the U.S. government regards how the UFOs were 
>powered. This, I believe, involves harnessing the
>potential energy of the earth's magnetic field.
>The theory of this seems to explain the motion of
>observed UFOs including the incredible acceleration
>in any direction and very high manouverability.
>         Does anyone know if this is possible?
>         Is this a big hoax?
>         Or,
>         Should we be starting research into what
>could be the greatest advance in propulsion that
>mankind has ever known, more exciting than cold fusion
>(if it worked ) and potentially more useful?
> 
>Any comments would be read with great interest.
> 
>Kev.

The obvious question is:
	If they're powered by the earth's magnetic field, how
did they get to earth in the first place?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ditolla@itnsg1.cineca.it (Francesco Di Tolla)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN replies to SIMPKINSON
Keywords: TIME HAS INERTIA,  i.e., TIME IS MATTER,  YES!!!!  
Organization: Laboratorio di Fisica Computazionale, INFM. Trento Italia
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:18:56 GMT

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

>     REASON, EXPLAIN, CREATE  and if needed QUANTIFY !  (I seldom need
>quantification !).

Let me quntify: you are filling the news with a lot of bullshit!
Let say bullshit in capitals!!
:0
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Francesco  D. Di Tolla            | Intern. School for Advanced Studies |
|  Dip. di Fisica Univ. di Trento    | SISSA/ISAS via Beirut, 2-4          |
|  I-38050 Povo (TN)                 | I-34013 Trieste                     |
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: hubble and black hole
Date: 21 Nov 92 14:12:14
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.116
In-reply-to: llew@bigwpi.WPI.EDU's message of 21 Nov 1992 18:30:13 GMT

llew@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Lok C. Lew Yan Voon) writes:

> anyway, nbc news had a short piece 2 days ago that the
> space telescope had resolved the nucleus of a galaxy
> to a much better resolution than b/f, i think it's
> supposed to be a 100 times smaller than previously
> believed. from the picture they showed, one can easily
> discern the boundary plus a jet-like structure emanating
> from one of the poles.
> 
> apparently, it's highly unlikely to be anything but a black hole.

I want to know why it can't be a really massive neutron star.  Don't
they have accretion disks and spew jets of hot gas out from their
magnetic poles?  What data is available other than the image from
Hubble?
--
franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio, CenterLine Software R&D
617-498-3255           || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
"So what we've decided to do is set you up in Cicely, situated
 in an area that we Alaskans refer to as The Alaskan Riviera."
From: lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Time has inertia -- ? -- a challenge
Keywords: put up or shut up
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:29:38 GMT
Reply-To: lnh@physics.arizona.edu
Organization: Society for the Appreciation of Janni Lee Simner


Mr. (Dr.?) Abian, a challenge to you.

You have repeatedly claimed in wording I can't remember that general
relativity is wrong in concept, and our belief in it prevents our
accepting your A1 and A2.  So -- show me why GR is wrong.  Do so 
WITHOUT using A1 or A2.  If you do, you will have used circular
logic -- and I'm sure that as a mathematician you understand why
circular logic is a fallacy.  Attacks ad hominum will immediately
disqualify you.

If you do not accept this challenge, then -- to put it in your terms --
you will not have given me enough provocation to change my status quo 
belief.  And if you do not provoke enough physicists into believing
your theories, you will not receive the Nobel prize you think you
deserve.

I await your reply.

	Larry "Put up or shut up" Hammer
--

LNH@physics.arizona.edu   \   Hidden harmony is better than manifest.
GEnie: L.HAMMER2           \      -- Heraclitus, #47
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN replies to SIMPKINSON and PING
Keywords: TIME HAS INERTIA,  i.e., TIME IS MATTER  
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:04:16 GMT

Dear Messrs SIMPKINSON and PING                           11-20-92

  Thank you very much for your postings.


I  wrote:


>> My reply is:
>>
>>    I cannot quantify  anything with my Theory because I do not know
>>
>>            what  A  is in my    E = M(0) exp(-At)

  You answered:

>Then leave your answer in terms of A, and experiment will find A.

  
  In terms of  A  my answer is precisely

                 E= M(0) exp(-A)

and I hope that some brilliant experimentalists will find (as you sug-
gested)  A  and perhaps also  M(0).

     By the way, I find myself no match to your knowledge and overall
erudition. Although (time permitting)  I will try to read your postings 
in TIME HAS INERTIA, but do not expect replies from me.  You people
know much, much more than me.

    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)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: gswst@cislabs.pitt.edu (Gary S. Wachs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: pressure questions
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:45:52 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh, Electrical Engineering



This past week I took SCUBA lessons (Openwater, PDIC) and talked about 
the effects of pressure quite a bit.    As we descend into the water,
the ambient pressure increases, compressing us.  The degree to which
something is compressed depends on whether is is a solid, liquid or gas.

Therefore, if we took an extremely thick-walled metallic box with a 
hollow center filled with a cubic foot of air at sea-level pressure  of
1 atmosphere, I believe that the metal would be so resistent to 
compression that the hollow air pocket inside would not see a change in
pressure.  Yes it is changing altitude, but it is isolated from the 
crushing forces of pressure outside the box, it won't be effected. 

Now then, am I way off or is that correct?

Thanks in advance...
From: antennae@gn.apc.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Ghostbusters
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:04:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:gn:1541700010:gn:1541700011:000:42
Nf-From: gn.UUCP!antennae    Nov 22 22:04:00 1992



:-) thanks, you've answered my question.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Flying fast enough and becoming a black hole
From: harper@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (John Harper)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 01:48:14 GMT
Distribution: sci.physics
Organization: Victoria University of Wellington
Cc: harper

Can we please say "black holeyness" when referring to black holes? 
"Black holiness" sounds too religious to me. (Consider a black holy saint 
wearing black holey socks) 

John Harper Mathematics Dept. Victoria University Wellington New Zealand
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA
Keywords: CORRECTION        FUNDAMENTAL THM. OF ALGEBRA
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:02:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.190744.6915@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>I note that Abian has not reposted the analysis taht originally caught
>my attention, where the fallacy is equally egregious but much more obvious.
>
>As I recall, he obtained an expression (1 + z + z^2) and "proved" it equal
>to zero by synthetic division yielding two "different" results. The obvious
>problem with this approach is that it results in 1 + z + z^2 = 0 FOR ALL Z.
>The flaw is similar to the one you point out, i.e., one of the series is
>divergent.

You're misremembering some details of the proof, I've attached it below.

Your objection about divergent series does not hold water.  To prove
that 1+z+z^2 has a zero Abian assumes it does not and argues that under
this hypothesis one is permitted to exand 1/(1+z+z^2) out in a Laurent
series as

	1/(z^2) - 1/(z^3) + 1/(z^5) - 1/(z^6) + ...

from which he obtains a contradiction.  Your argument seems to be that
1/(1+z+z^2) can't be so expanded.  Whether or not it can be, you are
forgetting that any reductio ad absurdum *must* contain some absurdity
in order to succeed.  Pointing out a falsehood during a reductio ad
absurdum does not demonstrate a flaw in the proof.  If his expansion is
valid for a complex function with a derivative defined everywhere you
cannot complain about such a valid use, regardless of how absurd it may
seem to you.

When I first saw the proof my reaction was that the bug must be that a
sum of singularities such as 1/(z^2) - 1/(z^3) + 1/(z^5) - 1/(z^6) + ...
need not itself be a singularity.  Then I somehow talked myself out of
this in a weak moment.  Now that I look again I don't see how it
follows that this sum of singularities need be a singularity.  Unless
Abian can demonstrate this, I would say *that* was a real flaw in
his argument.  Mr. Abian?

I haven't checked whether the division itself is valid, but this
becomes a moot point if my objection is sustained.

For the record here's Abian's proof (that 1+z+z^2 has a zero) again.

>  PROOF.  Assume on the contrary, and without loss of generality, let
>     1 + z + z^2  have no root, i.e.,  1 + z + z^2  never vanishes.
>Long divide  1  by  1+z+z^2  in two ways - in descending and ascending 
>powers of z,  i.e., 
> 
>    1/ (1+z+z^2)  =   1 - z + z^3 - z^4 + z^6 - ...
> 
>    1/ (z^2+z+1)  =   1/(z^2) - 1/(z^3) + 1/(z^5) - 1/(z^6) + ... 
>   
>The two expressions on the right side of =  must be identical. But 
>they are not.  Contradiction.  Hence our assumption is false and the 
>Theorem is proved.
-- 
Vaughan Pratt	  		A fallacy is worth a thousand steps.
Xref: sparky sci.physics:18987 sci.astro:12064