HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dmccart@gomez.intel.com (D. J. McCarthy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA. SURRENDER TO (A1),(A2),(A3),(A4) NO OTHER WAY
Date: 12 Dec 92 04:37:29 GMT
Followup-To: talk.bizarre
Organization: Intel ASTG, Santa Clara, CA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Alexander Abian (abian@iastate.edu) wrote:

+ To the readers of  TIME HAS INERTIA:   Accept (A3)  -no other way !!   

+    Your desperate attempts to cling to your decadent principles of what
+ Physics, science, particles, galaxies and Cosmos are, your inexorable
+ tendencies to maintain your mental status quos  reveal and confirm and
+ prove my principle (A3): 
+      
+         that the GAINING OF A FEELING OF SECURITY IS THE
+ MOST BASIC, THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL AND THE MOST OVERWHELMING FORCE BEHIND
+ ANY PHENOMENON ANY OCCURRENCE, ANY MANIFESTATION AND ANY ACTION be at at the
+ particle level or at the galactic level. 

+   I am offering you the correct way to interpret  Physics, I am offering you 
+ intelligence, insight - I am doing this because it makes me feel secure to 
+ straighten you out to put your research on firm basis for more rapid advances 
+ of Physics, science and  technology for my benefit and the benefit of the
+ rest of humanity. 
+     
+    You resistance to accept  (A3) as the primary cause of whatever hap-
+ pens in your laboratories, your hysterical rejection of my ideas is
+ as neanderthalish as those 18-th century  scientific physicians  who with
+ foam in their mouths rejected Freud - and now consider him one of the 
+ greatest contributors to the human knowledge, science and civilization.  

+   You have to surrender to (A3), you have to introduce (A3) as the prime
+ principle of Physics as the CORNERSTONE of modern PHYSICS .  You have no
+ other choice!  No matter how you twist and twirl around to bend the inter-
+ pretation of your decaying Physics laws to explain the action of particles 
+ and galaxies - you will be banging your heads onto the wall of ignorance.  
+ I am offering you the Light of knowledge .  Accept  (A3) and you will see that
+ all your fundamental questions will be answered in a convincing way and 
+ Physics will grow on firm, solid Rock of the truth that (A3)  or even (A1) 
+ offers.

+    I have explained how electrons are created. How positive and negative
+ charges are created.  They are created to stop provocation of status 
+ quos.  You rub a piece of fur positive and negative charges are created 
+ to stop your rubbing provocation (I know all about the decadent theories that
+ when you rub molecules start to move in such a such a way ....).

+   I am exhausted . I can continue, but I am exhausted.


	You're weird.




--
D. J. McCarthy (dmccart@gomez.intel.com)
The moving walkway is now ending;
please look down.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA  -     Libelous Statements by  Gunnar and Hall
Keywords: LIBEL IS PUNISHABLE BY LAW
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:24:42 GMT

                             12-19-92

Mr. Gunnar and Mr. Hall

  There were many extremely personal libelous and defamatory postings
  posted by  Bass, Gunnar and Hall.  I said that I will comment on 
  these postings.  Your unfounded extremely defamatory personal remarks 
  are libelous and I am warning you of that.
  
 
  I advise you to follow Mr. Bass  who e-mailed me  on 12-18-92 the
  following:

  Mr. Abian,
   
  "Please disregard any statement I may have made.  All postings of
  mine on this subject have been cancelled, and no one will be able 
  to read them. 
  
  I will have no further comment on this subject of any nature.
  
  Have a good day.    
                         dale bass "

                                                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: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Where is background energy going?
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:34:01 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

baylissb@topaz.ucq.edu.au writes:

>In article <klunk>, rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>> An interesting question came up on an unlikely mailing list.  We observe
>> that the wavelength of the background radiation has decreased as the 
>> universe has expanded.  This implies loss of energy does it not?
>> Where is that energy going and what is the vehicle of interchange.
>> Photons don't emit photons and energy transfer must be quantized
>> according to QM.  (John Baez, I would particularly appreciate a
>> response from you)

>Forgetting about GM (as I have not looked into it yet), but with my background
                  ^^ General Motors?  Well, they could manage to lose 
                     anything, including energy.
>in optics, I would guess that the refractive index of the university is
>changing.                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
        Ah yes, mine is almost totally opaque to any form of communication ...

>If this is the case, then energy would not be lost, but explains the change in
>frequency of the wavelenght being considered (sorry if i misinterrupted your
>question).

This, I don't understand.  Ordinary refractive materials don't significantly
change the wavelength of an incident beam, just its direction (speed,
equivalently).  When the refractive index has an imaginary part then
incident light is absorbed, but still undergoes no change in wavelength.
In any case, the universe is mostly vacuum and there is nothing to do
the refracting.  Energy _is_ lost in the expanding universe, not through
photon interaction with matter or other photons, but because standards
of length change in an expanding universe.  It goes, and goes, and goes,
and goes ... I believe this is in the FAQ.
From: gunter@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David O Gunter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Tapping a pop can
Date: 20 Dec 1992 21:28:37 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: gunter@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: gunter@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <BzKMK1.G7p@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, by mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike):
> Hello.  A friend and I were recently discussing the often-performed practice
> of tapping the lid of a pop/beer can after it has been dropped, which 
> thereby relieves the pressure within and your beverage doesn't explode.
> 
> Anyhow, I was pondering this and with my *limited* knowledge of physics this
> made no sense to me.  Does anyone know if this really works, and if so, 
> can give a physics explanation for it?
> 
> 					-- Mike 

Well, this is just a guess, but I would think that by tapping the can you
are causing the CO2 gas molecules dissolved within the liquid to shake free
and settle to the top of the can.  The pressure doesn't actually decrease.
(If you think about it, why should pressure decrease when you are agitating
the system, thus increasing it's energy.)  Rather, when you open the can,
the gas is closer to the opening and is released without the accompanying
spray of liquid, since it is now separated.
-- 
                        | It takes a big man to cry.  But it takes a 
david gunter            | bigger man to laugh at that man.
gunter@csd4.csd.uwm.edu |				-J. Handy 
gunter@mcs.anl.gov      |
From: kiran@gacvx2.gac.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Magnetic question (again!)
Date: 19 Dec 92 19:12:33 -0600
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota

In article <1992Dec17.183821.13124@topaz.ucq.edu.au>, freeman_l@topaz.ucq.edu.au writes:
> 
> Here's another dumb question about electrodynamics......
> 
> How does a charged particle "know" how fast it is moving through
> a uniform magnetic field, if the field is completely uniform and
> featureless?  
> It's a bit like this.... If you wipe your hand over a perfectly smooth
> tabletop, then it feels the same whether you move slowly or quickly.
> 
> Similarly,  if there is no structure in a magnetic fild that the particle
> can reference and say "ah, yes! i have passed so many of these field
> lines in such and such a time, i must be travelling THIS fast...so i
> should be experiencing such and such a force...."
> 
> I realize this is a sloppy way of saying it, but I still can't make a
> logical link between an electron's motion relative to a magnetic field,
> and the amount of force exerted on the electron.
> 
> The reason for this is the realization that while an electron may be
> blithely oblivious to it's own velocity in a straight line, (that depends
> on the observer), an acceleration , on the other hand is a very real,
> measurable thing to the particle.
> 
> That leads me to the following conclusions-:
> 
> A magnetic field must somehow provide a frame of reference for a charged
> particle.
> Not only that, but the field/particle system must also be aware" of time,
> because it can distinguish between fast motion and slow motion.
> 
> A magnetic field can move around in space. This seems at first thought to be
> a pretty obvious statement, but.... WHAT is actaually moving? Has a magnetic
> field got some fine internal structure, like the Classical lines of Force,
> so that you can say: THIS bit of the magnetic field is now over HERE!
> 
> It's hard to put these concepts into words, but I hope
> that you'll get the gist of what I'm saying.
> 
> PS I'm a programmer, not a physicist. (Face-saving admission).
> 
> Leo Freeman
> Physics Dept.
> Uviversity of Central Queensland,
> Rockhampton, QLD, Australia.
> 
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.research moderated
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:42:41 GMT

In article <ZOWIE.92Dec17164439@daedalus.stanford.edu> zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:
>In article <foo> fxt@helios.ucsc.edu (oxide owner) writes:
>   > From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
>   > This is a request for discussion about creating a new moderated group
>   > for discussion of physics.
>
>   a yes vote from me. i agree with the fellow (sorry cant seem to find the
>   article) who made the suggestion that all submissions be posted in either
>   sci.physics.moderated, sci.physics, or alt.physics.new-theories.
>
>Yes.  I like the idea of a tripartite group, mainly to sort out the different
>kinds of stuff without having to swim through it all.  Sci.physics used to
 [...]
>
>Here's how I envision a tripartite split:
>
>sci.physics.moderated [sci.physics.d?] [sci.physics.erudite :-]
 [...]
>	
>sci.physics 
 [...]
>
>sci.physics.new-theories [sci.physics.alternative?]
 [...]
>
>So how's it sound? 

Very good.

John Lewis
Physics
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF
Canada


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: Passive Magnetic Levitation (was: Science Fair Project)
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
	<BCR.92Dec11013519@hfl3sn02.cern.ch>
	<1992Dec11.170337.22897@asl.dl.nec.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:01:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.170337.22897@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>   Sure -- in the absence of gravity, my 3-pronger will eventually flip over.
>
>   However, when I said that there "isn't enough stored energy in the system to
>   make it flip," I was referring to the energy needed to raise it out of the
>   metastable state, not the net energy gain:
>
>               Metastable   Energy Needed to     Stable
>               Levitation    Rotate 3-Prong       Final
>              Energy State  Around horiz axis     State
>
>                                   --                     
>                                 -    -                   
>                                -      -                  
>                               -        -                 
>                              -          -                
>                             -             -              
>                           -                -            
>                  -------                     -           
>                                                -         
>                                                  ------  
>
>        Peak_energy(theta) = f(arm_length) = ~ constant x arm_length
>
>   Would you agree that this diagram and the ballpark equation under it describe
>   the energetics of flipping my three-pronged device in gravity?

NO!

I would maintain that you had something like this before the arms:

  Initail      Trans.     Finial Stable 
  unstable     State         State
  state               

   ------------
               --
                 -
                  -
                   --------------  
           
            
Adding the arms changed this to:


  Initial      Transitional state     Finial Stable
  unstable                               State
  state

  --------------  
                ---------
                         -------
                                ------
                                      -------------

The arms do not add in any energy barriers.  The object rotates about its
center of mass, so energy is conserved.  The arms do increase the moment of
inertia, slowing down the flipping process.  If you slow this down enough,
maybe you can then use small air currents or something to stablize things. 

>  Any experiments yet?  It might make a nice paper if it actually works...

That is really the best way to prove or disprove if your setup is stable.
Afterall, your initial post wasn't really too clear, so I could have
mis-interpreted what you have in mind.


                                      Bill
From: m14494@mwvm.mitre.org (Mike White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why is the sky blue?
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:15:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

Jim Carr writes:
> Because those of us who speak English associate the word blue with 
> the stimulus produced by those cones in our retina... 

> ...sensitive to photons at the upper end of the "visible" spectrum...
>... photons produced by thermonuclear fusion...
> ...geologic and biological history of this planet...

> Is that better?  Hmmmm?

No, not at all. This is all just more "how", which l already understood pretty well, thank you.  My point was that none of this explains "why" these particular mechanisms exist, instead of others the do something else.  Part of the answer is the state of affairs that allows us to exist to ask the question in the first place. 

> It cannot, of course, explain why the Weinberg angle and the neutron-proton > mass difference is just right for things to turn out the way they did.

My point, exactly.  A universe where these things turned out differently
would lack people to ask the question.  So, the question is "Why did things turn out this way?", not "How did things turn out?". I haven't the first clue, and you don't seem to either.

************************
* These are my opinions only.*
************************
From: emarkp@soda.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Date: 13 Dec 1992 22:36:16 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec13.185434.22583@cs.wayne.edu> atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems) writes:
}In article <13DEC199211444059@utahep.uta.edu> sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes:
}>    Short of this, can anyone suggest a way in VNEWS to tailor a kill file
}>to filter the TIME HAS INERTIA postings ? Could a script be written that
}>automatically redirects these to alt.physics.new-theories (or whatever that 
}>group is called) ?
}
}I am not sure that this would be an ethical thing to do, even if it is
}possible. If I understand what you are suggesting, this would cause an
}article to jump newsgroups as it is relayed from machine to machine,
}thus interfering with its reaching its intended audience. Doesn't this
}amount to tampering with the free flow of information on usenet?
}

  No.  The network is an open system.  As soon as people start abusing their
freedom, the net loses as a whole.  We don't own the net, but we are allowed
to use it.  Abian (read: inconsiderate lunatic) is posting in the *wrong*
newsgroup.  He is violating the charter of the original newsgroup, I
believe.  He should be posting in alt.sci.physics.new-theories, since this
*is* a new theory.  Just because he thinks his opinion is universally right
does not suddenly make it part of accepted physics.

  In fact, he isn't even following the scientific process.  His wild theory
has absolutely no way to be experimentally proven, nor is it able to
quantify it with any strict prediction whatsoever.  His A1, etc. are simply
statements which *anyone* can use to find an explanation for just about
anything.

------------
E. Mark Ping
emarkp@soda.Berkeley.EDU

  "Stand aside, I take large steps."  --Michael Dorn
  (I _know_ he didn't say it first, he just said it well!!!!)
  "Say, that's a nice bike."          --Cyberdyne Systems T-1000
  "Pituita es."                       --Unknown Latin Scholar
From: elh2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (EDWARD LAURENCE HORN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: FAQ?
Date: 13 Dec 92 01:24:59 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

Hi,
    I would like to obtain the FAQ list, but I don't know where to get it.
    Could someone post it or send it to me or tell me where to find it?
       Thank you,
-Ed Horn
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
From: cavallo@riemann.gsfc.nasa.gov (John Cavallo)
Subject: Re: Another antigravity device
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt MD
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:50:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.013620.24161@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>Since you all liked the last one so much, here's another idea for
>building an antigravity device.  Since I am becoming associated with the
>crackpot index, I had better firmly point out that I don't really
>believe in antigravity devices, and I don't even spend time dreaming up
>antigravity devices.  This one is the invention of my friend Bruce K.
>Smith, who I hasten to add doesn't really take it seriously.  So
>- see if you can spot the flaw in the idea!
>
>Imagine an extremely (although not infinitely) rigid crystal.  It takes
>a huge amount of energy to deform the crystal lattice ever so slightly.
>Thus if this crystal is placed in the earth's gravitational field at sea
>level, the curvature of space due to the gravity prevents the
>lattice from being perfectly regular, at the cost of a large amount of
>energy.  The crystal would have much less energy if it were far away
>from the earth where the curvature of space is less.  If we make the
>crystal rigid enough it will actually be energetically favorable for the
>crystal to float upwards - since the decrease in its internal energy
>will more than compensate for the increase in gravitational potential
>energy.
>
>Now, I *know* that this material would have to be insanely rigid for
>this effect to be noticeable at all -- far more rigid than any actual
>stuff.  However, we're talking questions of principle here.  Is there
>any reason *in principle* why a sufficiently rigid material wouldn't
>levitate to get out of the earth's gravitational field - that's what I'm
>asking.  

Although I don't think this is the answer you are looking for (see
below for a guess at that), but I think there is a problem with the
concept of increasing the stiffness of the material to increase it's
elastic potential energy. You should note that the force (stress) on
the material is the given at a certain point in a gravitational field.
The elastic energy is (conceptually) stress times strain, and the
strain is stress over stiffness, so the elastic potential energy goes
down with stiffness. In a simpler context, a 'soft' spring supporting
a weight will contain more energy than a stiff one (i.e. E = F^2/(2k). 
Hence you want a very pliant (is that the opposite of stiff) object. 
(Is this why my helium balloon rises and my helium cylinder doesn't? :-)

I'm guessing that the general principle that you were looking for has
something to do with the trace of stress being less than the energy
density, but I'm not prepared to think that out right now. You should
note that the same effect would be seen even in a Newtonian
gravitational field, so I don't think the answer should involve special
relativity, much less GR.

-- 
John M. Cavallo                               cavallo@okeeffe.gsfc.nasa.gov
                Scientific Visualization Studio
Hughes STX Corporation                   NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mgarcia@halcon.dpi.udec.cl (Maria Garcia Robles)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - NewScientist Article
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 15:57:13 GMT
Organization: Universidad de Concepcion, Concepcion - Chile
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]

Please take this out of this pannel
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Date: 14 Dec 1992 05:01:54 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <13DEC199211444059@utahep.uta.edu> sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes:
>    Short of this, can anyone suggest a way in VNEWS to tailor a kill file
>to filter the TIME HAS INERTIA postings ? Could a script be written that
>automatically redirects these to alt.physics.new-theories (or whatever that 
>group is called) ?

Just kill-file it in your newsreader.  All the articles
have "TIME HAS INERTIA" in the header.  It's one of the
most consistently killable threads there's ever been.

Mucking with the mechanics of the group is not a temporary
proposition.

				--Blair
				  "Three words:  Reversible breast implants..."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: kpearce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (BULLDAWG)
Subject: Re: Metals in liquid Nitrogen !!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:16:03 GMT

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

I don't think I ment that the reactions in the reverse direction are
distinct.

};)

But I caught the joke  }:)
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Date: 12 Dec 92 15:56:35 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1992Dec11.230140.25299@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:
] [...] I think it's just as likely that the
] mathematical operation of *multiplication* is inapplicable to the
] QM context as it is that locality is violated.
] [...]                                         It is clear to me that
] |> the first thing to question is the assumption that the wave function
] |> changes instantaneously.  [...]
] 
] This doesn't trouble me at all - since I believe the wavefunction to
] be an abstraction it changes whenever the abstract situation does.
] Abstractions can change as quickly as they like.

My point was not that this should trouble you. My point is that there
is no justification for this *arbitrary* assumption. This is in stark
contrast to the mathematics on which Bell's result is based and other
fundamental laws of logic such as the rules for multiplication. A little
judgement is called for.

Paul Budnik