HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: time travell ??
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:53:04 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) states
>In article <1992Nov10.014223.156121@zeus.calpoly.edu>, mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:
>>> No one knows whether antiprotons fall up or down.
>>
>> 	My memory is not to good on this but I'm prety sure I read about
>> somebody doing an experament whereby they put positrons into a storage
>> ring. Measured the time it took for them to complete a revolution.
>> Then took it to the top of a mountain and did it again.
>
>Someone took a positron storage ring to the top of a mountain? That must
>have been some engineering feat!

iPoor choice of words on my part (realy must try typing when i'm awake.
I though the exparament had been done at CERN and posibly corraborated
by Fermilab.
>
>In any case, that is unlikely to answer the question. The positron charge
>to mass ratio is three orders of magnitude higher than an anti-proton's
>charge-to-mass ratio, so it would be that much harder to isolate gravitational
>effects from charge and magnetic effects.
>
>The difference between gravitational attraction at sea level and at a
>mountaintop differs by only a tiny amount (less than 0.1%, as I recall).
>Besides, how is measuring the time of revolution affected by whether they
>fall up or down?
>
>> If im just blowing smoke please say so.
>
>That's O.K. - I didn't inhale.
>
Time compresses in a Gravitational field yes? Would not this imply that
if said particles were of negative mass they would be afected in a
reverse relationship? I'm not shure.


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.
The meek can _have_ the Earth, the rest of us are going to the stars.(Heinlein)
		*** H. Ross Perot in '96 ***

-- 
>         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
>         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
>Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Graviton beams?
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:57:54 GMT

In article <1dun2vINN3g1@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, gross@maxwell.ucsc.edu (Mike Gross) writes:
 
> Here's a stumper: what happens (classically) to the event horizon as a
> pair of black holes merges?

I'm not an expert on black holes so I'm not sure of the terminology.  Is the
event horizon the distance from the balck hole where light will revovle around
the black hole?  For purposes of my discussion I will assume that's what it is. 
Classically, space is Euclidean.  Since light travels in straight lines it is
not deformed by gravity.  Therefore there is no event horizon.  Your question
then has no meaning (not a flame).
--Ray Cote

p.s.: Does IMHO mean , In My Humble Opinion?
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: woodbe@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Brian E. Wood)
Subject: Anti-Gravity... a question
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:11:12 GMT


Hi

I've been reading some of the articles about the anti-gravity device here
in the past few weeks, but being new to reading this newsgroup, I have some
questions.  From everything I have read, and I have read all that has been
posted lately, though not necessarily in-depth, I gather that the proposed
device has little, if any, scientific merit.  Could some one please help me
on this account?  Like, what does ot run on, all I seem to remember is 
something about it being based upon a bad theory.  I'm a junior physics
major in college, and I'm interested in ways of neutralizing and creating
gravity (creating it without centrifugal force, that is).

What I'm really wondering is if anyone remembers a description about a null-
gravity device that worked on the principles of ultra-sound in a closed
box.  What I remember about the article, in Scientific American maybe?, was
that the sound waves created places where objects could be suspended.  It
seems that the waves' interference pattern produced nodes where in the 
article a steel ball was suspended.

Could anyone please help me with any information about this experiment,
whether it is true, where I could find information about it, or any other
details????


Thank you

I just want help

	Brian E. Wood		woodbe@craft.camp.clarkson.edu

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft)
Subject: GETTING AROUND
Originator: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:49:39 GMT

Is anyone willing to speculate regarding a design of a photon drive?
How might one work? Does anyone have any ideas on an improved propulsion
system for a spacecraft? For example a spacecraft traveling to Mars might
be propelled by intercepting small iron balls shot from earth. It may come back 
by shooting these same balls out of the solar system. Power for the return trip
may be provided from earth or earth orbit via a microwave beam.
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: Graviton beams?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:44:22 GMT

In <1992Nov10.204746.22583@mprgate.mpr.ca> spani@mprgate.mpr.ca (Leonard Spani) writes:

>[this is my 3rd attempt to post this - sorry if the others 
>actually got through]


>I have read that gravitons, if they exist, would be similar to
>photons in many respects (same spin etc...)

>Would it be theoretically possible, based on the current theories
>about gravitons, to build the graviton equivilent of a laser?
>(i.e. coherent graviton beams), and if so what would be the
>properties of such a beam? How would someone go about building
>such a device? 

>Just curious.


>Leonard.

Oooh... lots of neat things...

Lessee...

Tractor beams...

Rapid travel by locking a beam onto a distant massive object...

Weapons, of course, a well defined beam could produce gravitational
differentials that could rip matter apart...

You could collect quarters that have fallen through gratings...

It would make an elegant alternative to The Clapper (tm) for turning
off your light from bed.

---Xeno

>-- 
>***********************************************************************
>| Leonard E. Spani      |       //!?\\         | (disclaimer-p)       |
>| spani@mprgate.mpr.ca  |       \\?!//         | t                    |
>*****************-<( "everybody thinks I'm paranoid" )>-***************
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Time Travel
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:20:59 GMT

If a time traveller travels into the past then he violates conservation of mass
because suddenly an amount of mass has been added to the universe.  The only
way around this is to displace this extra mass into his original time.  How
would this be accomplished, and which mass would be displaced? Any comments?
--Ray Cote
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:07:00 GMT

franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:

>The curvature of spacetime has always confused me.  When a one
>dimensional line curves, it curves into a second spatial dimension.
>When a two dimensional surface (like the surface of the infamous
>balloon) curves, it curves into a third spatial dimension.

>Does that mean when four-dimensional spacetime (3-space + 1-time)
>curves, it curves into a fifth dimension?

The nice thing about curvature is that you don't have to express
it this way.  The curvature of a two-dimensional surface can
be described completely without referring to the way it is
embedded in three dimensions; locally you can use such things
as the relation between a circle's circumference and its area
to get all the requisite information.

Likewise, when general relativity speaks of curved spacetime, there's
no need to postulate anything for it to curve into.  The curvature
may be described completely by referring to "intrinsic" properties
of spacetime, those expressible without referring to anything outside
spacetime in higher dimensions.  By the principle of not including
anything unnecessary in a physical theory, we need not assume that
a higher-dimensional space has any physical reality.  (Some currently
popular theories give spacetime itself extra dimensions, but that's
another issue.)

I'm actually saying this backwards, to some extent, because
in differential geometry curvature is *defined* to be the kind
which has intrinsic effects.  The curvature of a line in a
two-dimensional plane isn't called curvature, since it doesn't
do anything to the intrinsic geometry of the line; distances
between points, measured *along the line*, don't change.  Likewise,
a sheet of paper rolled into a cylinder isn't considered curved
because its intrinsic geometry is still that of a flat page,
at least locally.  A sphere, however, is curved, since the local
geometry of its surface is no longer that of a flat page.  This
kind of curvature is the kind that is responsible for gravity in GR.

To put it another way:  What the words "spacetime curvature" really 
mean is that there's non-Euclidean geometry going on, and there's
nothing about Euclidean geometry that makes it so special that
everything has to be embedded in a higher-dimensional Euclidean
space.  In the case of spacetime, the "flat" geometry in the
absence of gravity isn't even Euclidean to begin with; it's
Minkowskian (the Pythagorean Theorem gets a minus sign for a
triangle leg in the time direction), and I don't think it's even
possible to embed *that* in a higher-dimensional Euclidean space.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity Device-verified
Date: 4 Nov 92 18:58:10
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.116
In-reply-to: chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu's message of 2 Nov 92 23:26:34 GMT

chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:

> I have absolute irrefutable proof of an antigravity device, which, when
> operated within certain parameters locally neutralizes motion due to gravity.

I too have a "device which ... locally [neutralizes] motion due to
gravity" -- it's called a chair.  It really works: right at this
very moment, I'm not moving due to gravity!
--
franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio, CenterLine Software R&D
617-498-3255           || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
"It's not the thing you fling, it's the fling itself."  -- Chris Stevens
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Time Travel
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:25:21 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Nov10.122059.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>If a time traveller travels into the past then he violates conservation of mass
>because suddenly an amount of mass has been added to the universe.  The only
>way around this is to displace this extra mass into his original time.  How
>would this be accomplished, and which mass would be displaced? Any comments?
>--Ray Cote

There are actually several possibilities:

1.  When the traveler goes back in time an equal portion of mass
is returned to his original time, probably from the same space that
the time traveler "now" occupies.

2.  When the traveler goes back in time, _energy_ is drained
from the "past" universe and sent to the "future" universe.
The law of conservation of mass is actually a law of
conservation of mass/energy.  This was used (unintentionally,
I think) in Back to the Future.  The car was really cold when
it arrived (it was draining heat from the area around it)
and left those really high-budget special effect lightning
bolts when it disappeared (the heat energy from the past
replacing the mass energy of the DeLorean).

3.  Nothing of the sort happens.  Mass has not been added
or subtracted from the universe because the mass/energy is
summed over a period of time and the total mass/energy contained
in the space-time continuum bounded by the "beginning" and
"ending" parts of the time traveler's journey is unchanged.

4.  When the traveler goes back in time the entropy of the
universe slows just enough to make up for the added mass.
This also makes sense because time travel essentially reverses
entropy (the future is more disordered, but the time traveler's
molecules are now in a state of higher order, therefore entropy
is reversed.)

Any of these could work.
	Thank you for your time,
	Jason
	Ono-Sendai R&D
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: SEXY PSYCHIC PLANTS
Date: 4 Nov 92 23:58:56 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire


          

                               SEXY PSYCHIC PLANTS

          A humorous quote from "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS", [See 
          Footnote.], by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, 1973, 
          page 38: 
          
          ....."As Sauvin's main problem remained that of getting his 
          plants to be sharply attuned to his person rather than to 
          their immediate environment, when he was away for several 
          days, he had to devise some means of attracting his plants' 
          attention even more effectively than addressing them over the 
          long-distance phone.  As his plants reacted most strongly to 
          any damage done to himself or to any part of his own energy 
          field, he experimented with remotely killing a few cells of 
          his body in the presence of the plants.  The system worked 
          admirably.  The problem was to obtain cells that would remain 
          alive for protracted periods.  Blood worked well enough, hair 
          was difficult to kill, but sperm worked best of all, because, 
          as Sauvin explained, it was easier to obtain than bleeding, 
          and much less painful. 

               "These experiments led Sauvin to wonder if plants might 
          not react just as well to emotions of pleasure and joy as to 
          pain and shock.  Not only was he tired of shocking himself, 
          he was afraid that repeated shocks to his plants, even 
          indirect ones, might be UNPLEASANTLY LOADING HIS KARMA.  
          
          [DITTO for vivisections, animal experiments, etc..]
          
          Sauvin soon found that his plants did react to joy and 
          pleasure, but with wave patterns that were not sharp enough 
          to trigger a switch reliably.  Undaunted, Sauvin decided on a 
          more daring experiment.  DURING A HOLIDAY WITH A GIRL FRIEND 
          AT HIS LAKESIDE COTTAGE HE ESTABLISHED THAT HIS PLANTS, 
          EIGHTY MILES AWAY, WOULD REACT WITH VERY HIGH PEAKS ON THE 
          TONE OSCILLATOR TO THE ACUTE PLEASURE OF [his] SEXUAL CLIMAX, 
          GOING RIGHT OFF THE TOP AT THE MOMENT OF ORGASM.  All of 
          which was very interesting and could be turned into a 
          COMMERCIALLY MARKETABLE DEVICE FOR JEALOUS WIVES TO MONITOR 
          THEIR PHILANDERING HUSBANDS, BY MEANS OF A POTTED 
          BEGONIA.".... 
          
          (EMPHASIS, and comment, added.)
          
          
          Footnote: Chapter 17 is about BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS.
                    Chapters 19 and 20 are about RADIONICS/PSIONICS.
                    Entire book is FASCINATING!



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          INTERESTING Quote, WITH my comments, is ENCOURAGED.


                                    Robert E. McElwaine     
                                    B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
From: evan@gauss.math.brown.edu (Evan M. Simpson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: time travell ??
Date: 8 Nov 1992 08:16:55 GMT
Organization: Brown University Math Department
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gauss.math.brown.edu

In article <xeno.721200434@aviator.cc.iastate.edu>, xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
[...]
|> You do not need negative mass for "antigravity."  Gravity can act on massless
|> particles (photons), so what's to stop it from acting in an identical way on
|> these theoretical negative mass particles?
   Actually, hypothetical negative mass particles work quite nicely, if in a very
strange fashion. Their gravitational field would repel all other masses, just as
the fields of positive masses attract all others. This has curious consequences
if you place one mass of each sort side by side. The pair immediately begins to
accelerate away, negative chasing positive. Despite the fact that the system
attains arbitrarily high speeds, energy conservation is preserved since the
negative mass has a huge negative kinetic energy which cancels that of the positive
mass. Bring a positive and a negative mass particle together, and they simply
*poof* out of existence, since their energies cancel.

   All of which is quite meaningless unless somebody can assign a practical
meaning to negative energy values.

-- 
Evan Simpson               My .sig got stale, so I had to throw it out.  
Brown U. Math Dept.
evan@gauss.math.brown.edu  
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: rjenkins@cory.Berkeley.EDU (JENKINS)
Subject: Re: Anti-gravity/antimatter related?
Summary: thought experiments
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:02:20 GMT

Well there are two ways to think of gravity.  One is as a force that pulls
things towards the center of the earth (Newton?).  The other is as inertia
(Einstein?), and a tendency for matter to suck up space.  That is, things
stay still, but the space they occupy is accelerated towards mass.

If falling towards earth is really standing still, and an antigravity device
is supposed to fall up, how would the device know which way to accelerate?
IT thinks it is standing still; any direction would do equally well as "up".
If it made some arbitrary choice, well, that would be really wierd.

Here's another version of antigravity: a device that spits out space instead
of sucking it up.  It would repel objects in proportion to its mass.  If it
were small, it would still fall to earth because the earth sucks up space
faster than the device spits space out.

Make a barbell with two ends of equal mass, by F=ma, but where only one end
has gravity (only one end sucks up space).  The other end will be pulled
towards it because it wants to stay still, but the end with gravity won't feel
a pull.  So the whole barbell will pick up speed (pick up energy) in the 
direction of the end with mass.  If the no-gravity end were replaced by an 
anti-gravity end, the acceleration would be twice as fast.  So you can't 
have antigravity without violating the conservation of energy.

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: time travell ??
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:35:57 GMT

>In <1992Nov7.161752.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
>>So-called anti-matter has been shown to have "positive" mass.

"So-called"? That is what it has been named. You seem to have a problem
with this. There are more pressing problems with labels than this, for
example, phonetic ain't. 
 
Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: Anti-gravity/antimatter related?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:45:56 GMT

In <1992Nov9.180551.60551@cc.usu.edu> ronb@cc.usu.edu writes:

>	Since everyone's been complaining about the idea of anti-gravity
>recently, I've got another idea (probably even worse than the one you just
>read - also my crazy idea.)  What are the odds that antimatter would be
>anti-gravitational?  Or, since gravity is a relatively weak force, that
>anti-matter would have a repulsive effect on 'normal' matter that would be
>enough to overcome the force of gravity?
>	Someone's going to have to blast me for this one, too.

Well, only to say that the discussion has already started...  Maybe you
are picking it up subliminally?

---Xeno

>"... where the 'stuff of life' is raining out of the skies..."
>				-Carl Sagan
>	        	 sniggerfardimungus
>	        	in%"ronb@cc.usu.edu"
>        	 The usual disclaimers apply anywhere 
>                     you can find a sticky spot.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: BREAKING THE LAW
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 14 Nov 92 00:42:22 GMT

dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft) writes:

>This may be a heretical question, but does anybody know of a case where
>the second law can be said to be violated? What about matter-antimatter
>interactions, force fields, black holes, white holes, ect. BTW, what is 
>a white hole anyway?

Nobody's found one, so far as I know.  In many of these situations
the experiments haven't been done, but theory seems to have entropy
nondecreasing in the normal way.

A white hole is pretty much entirely theoretical.  There was some
discussion back in the 1960's and 1970's that quasars might be white
holes, but I don't think it was very serious since such a statement
has little predictive power; current explanations of quasars tend
to be much more prosaic.  Basically, since the evolution of
spacetime according to the Einstein equation is time-symmetric, if
it's possible to have a black hole it's also possible to have a
"time-reversed" black hole that spits things out.  There doesn't
seem to be any way to *make* one of these things, though; it'd
have to be somehow created along with the rest of the universe.

The Schwarzschild solution, which is the mathematical idealization
of an uncharged, nonrotating black hole, also includes a white hole
that exists in the past; it eventually turns into the black hole.
If black holes really exist, though, they're probably produced by
the collapse of material objects like stars instead, so that part of
the Schwarzschild solution doesn't correspond to anything physical.

The troublesome thing about a white hole is that whereas the 
singularity in a black hole is hidden behind the event horizon,
so it can't do anything to the rest of the universe, the singularity
in a white hole is plainly visible.  And anything that falls into a
black hole could fall *out* of a white hole's singularity-- so such
a visible singularity means that the ability of the theory to make
predictions breaks down completely.  Once you've got a singularity
with no event horizon, anything can happen.  This (and the possibility
of more physical "naked singularities") led to the proposal of
a "cosmic censorship conjecture" which states that such things don't
happen in the real world.  Unfortunately this doesn't seem to follow
very effectively from existing physical theory.  One hope of
people working on quantum gravity is that in such a theory,
singularities might be replaced by something more tractable with
predictable consequences.
-- 
Matt McIrvin