HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Twins Paradox Resolved
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:09:48 GMT

In article <BrrztE.J4u@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)  
writes:
> 
> {reiteration deleted}
>     For those unfamiliar with SR, SR implies that events synchronized in one
>frame will not be synchronized (= simultaneous) in a relatively moving frame.

Not true.

>      Now here is the resolution:
> 
>      There are four events:
>      T1 meets E1: both are age zero.
>      T1 meets E2: T1 age 7 months, E2 age 4 years.
>      T2 meets E1: T2 age 4 years, E1 age 7 months.
>      T2 meets E2: both are age 4 years plus 7 months.
> {more deleted}
>      If we can agree on the resolution of the paradox, then perhaps we can go
> on to discuss its significance.  This version of the paradox reveals one or
> two loopholes in the usual understanding of special relativity with
> interesting implications for physics.  -|Tom|-
> -- 
> Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
> Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
> supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.

I disagree.  You are confusing time dilation with changes of coordinates.

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Twins Paradox Resolved
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:46:46 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link


Earlier, I wrote:

>> As for logical problems, one must give up totally on the concept of
>> distant simultaneity; and one must accept that *apparent* aging depends
>> upon direction of travel, approach or receding.  There is a way to avoid
>> both of these considerable logical compromises.  But I do not argue that
>> they cannot be possible, only that one must make a sacrifice
>> (unnecessarily, it turns out) of "common sense" to accept this
>> interpretation of the experimental data.

and clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) replied:

> I can only quote from _Through the Looking Glass_:
>  "I can't believe that!" said Alice.
>  "Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone.
>  "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes." Alice laughed.
>  "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
>  "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.  "When I was
>  your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.  Why, sometimes I've
>  believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast..."

     Cute, but your point was lost.  What is it that you find impossible to
believe?
     a) SR
     b) the need to give up on distant simultaneity
     c) that apparent aging depends upon direction of travel
     d) that other interpretations consistent with the experimental evidence
are also possible
     e) something else

     -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:17:49 GMT

jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

>alexa@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alexander Anger) writes:

>>[..]  I once thought
>>physics was to be a search for truth 

I continue to think that..

>>based on experimental observation,
>>and not a mental excercise in symbol manipulation.  

     Why that flame ? Do you think that an appropriate exact, unique language
     for the description, and explanation, of your observations and 
     experiments is not needed ? What experiments would you do next it 
     theory would not give a hint now and then ? What do you want to do with
     the results of your experiments ? Just store on a floppie ?

>>But some theoreticians
>>forgot.  

.. instead I am a theoretist.

>> [vote for applied science only deleted]
>> $8 billion [..] ([..] it'll really cost twice that much) [..]

First of all, some G$ over many years are a *small* percentage of your
nation's budget, which compares well with those other countries spend
and the US spent in the past. 

Second, this money is not thrown away, but invested in paying high-quality
(and rather safe) scientific jobs. But that subject was beat to death...

[John's good defense of math'l phys deleted]

>[..] particle physics is a
>problematic use of government money, [..]
>because it costs a lot of money [..]

I disagree (see above).

>[..] tachyons (which do not exist) [..]
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
               Can you prove this ?
--
 Hartmut Frommert, LS Dehnen, Physics, | E-Mail: <phfrom@dknkurz1.bitnet>
 Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60,     |     or  <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany   | + SAVE THE WHALES ! BOYCOTT NORWAY !        +
 Phone: +49-(0)7531-88-3747   | + Whales R intelligent. Whale killers not.  +
+ Whale killing is murder. Eating whales is cannibalism. Eat whale killers. +
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Super Conducting Supercollider
Date: 31 Jul 92 21:02:49 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Jul31.185001.2485@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>In article <25116@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
> 
>     Moron or not, I think he was very effective in making his points.
> 
>     My favorite exchange, though, was the one about the Nobel Laureates.
>     "Nobel Laureates in physics?  Who cares about them?"  
> 

I guess it depends on what you mean by "effective."  Statements to the effect
that particle physics has nothing to do with the origins of the universe
and that if we want to understand it we need to study chemistry and biology
just convinced me that he had *no* idea of what was going on around him.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Subject: Re: ... an infinite mesh of 1ohm resistors ...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:36:00 GMT

graeme@castle.ed.ac.uk (G J Ackland) writes...
>This source / sink argument is all very nice.
>Doesn't it give the wrong answer for a Bethe lattice though?
>  
>__/  \__
>  \__/
>__/  \__/
>  \  /  \
> 
>where the absence of cicuits mean the solution is trivially 1 ohm, but
>the three-way split of the current appears to give 2/3ohm using this
>source/sink argument.

Well, it depends how you measure current. Do you put your ammeter in series
with the central 1ohm resistor, or in series with the power source? In the
former case you would get (Vin-Vout)/1ohm. In the latter case you get
(2Vin-Vout)/1ohm assuming the ammeter is in series with the Vin terminal.
There is more current here because some of it goes to infinity.

So for example, if Vin = +1/2 and Vout = -1/2 then 3/2 amps flow in,
3/2 amps flow out, and the central resistor carries 1amp. If Vin = 1,
Vout = 0, then 2amps go in, 1amp comes out, and the central resistor
carries 1amp. Voltages are given relative to the voltage at infinity of
course.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Non-Existence of Existence (and God,too).
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:58:08 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I'd like to point out that some medieval (I think) theologian 
DID argue that God is a being who has all properties, including
that of existence, therefore God exists.  This argument does sort of
qualify for the "just as lame as all the other ontological arguments"
award (how's that for faint praise?)

Marvin Minsky writes:
>  To say that a certain object exists is like saying that it's in the
>universe.  There isn't anything wrong with that.  But then, to say
>that the @i[universe] exists is saying that the universe is inside
>itself - which makes no sense at all.  ...

Mr. Minsky, last time you posted this I disagreed, but there's no
point in rehashing it ... but I have no trouble believing that the
universe exists, without having to be inside anything at all.
[I guess that shows I'm not a quantum cosmologist.]
(BTW, I notice that your phrasing is exactly the same as last time -
*and* you're using SCRIBE instead of TeX.  No fair saving your old
arguments, I've half forgotten mine!)

Ben Weiner

This post was generated by a computer program, which expressly disclaims
any implied warranty of fitness, merchantability, or usability for
the advertised or any other purpose.
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: What is ESRF?
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:53:40 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Jul30.140218.13521@walter.cray.com>, sxb@fermi.cray.com (Stephen Behling) writes...
> 
>  I have been asked about a European project with the
>initials ESRF.  I have no idea.  Can someone help?
> 
>  This was asked in a query along with the APS (Advanced Photon
>Source) at Argonne--so I guess there's a common thread.

Well, since it has to do with photons, I would guess "European Synchrotron
Radiation Facility."  But it's only a guess.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Noah's formation: The rainbow
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:19:32 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Distribution: na
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <24724@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.091322.13842@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>, cpyy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes...
>> 
>>I understand how a single prism refracts white light to form a rainbow.
>>Could someone explain the nature of a true (Noah's Arc type) rainbow,
>>as formed by rain?  In particular, I am interested in a full description

It is important that you know that the rainbow is not produced by 
refraction of light as in a prism.  The prism effect only produces the 
dispersion of color across the bow.  The bow would appear anyway (as a 
bright white band) if there were no dispersion of colors in water.  A 
rainbow occurs because light rays are reflected inside the water drops 
in such a way that many different incident angles lead to common exit 
angle.  In effect, light rays "pile up" at the angle of a rainbow. 

There are secondary and tertiary bows, plus additional structures 
between the bows.  There is also the effect known as the "glory" that 
occurs near 180 degrees and can sometimes be seen quite clearly from 
an airliner.  My favorite is when the glory around the aircraft shadow 
appears to be leaving a mark on the clouds, an illusion produced by 
the shadow of the contrail following the plane. 

>Please run, *do not walk*, to the nearest bookstore and purchase the
>latest issue of Sky & Telescope, which happens to feature much simple
>discussion and some beautiful photography of rainbows and their variations.

Thanks for the pointer.  An article also appeared in Scientific American 
about a decade ago, and had the virtue of discussing the supernumerary 
arcs and the development of Airy functions to solve the rainbow problem, 
which had reappeared in heavy-ion scattering theory in nuclear physics 
at about that time. 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Trapped!
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:33:59 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I dunno, I think the good old Cosmological Principle (that our 
observation point is not a special place) might qualify as the
"misanthropic principle."  After all, it says that we humans are
rather insignificant - nasty little carbon lifeforms living in a
putrid stew of atmosphere, stuck spinning aroung an undistinguished
star in a rather boring Galactic suburb.  Well, maybe that's only
my phrasing.  But in a way the "nothing special" principle is the
antithesis of the anthropic principle; it's also older, and more
necessary for actually doing astronomy.

Ben Weiner
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Converting the masses
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:24:18 GMT

In article <phfrom.218@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> I wrote:

[..]

>In principle, it is not guaranteed a priori that the field generating 
>"active" gravit'l mass *M* which occurs in the gravit'l field eq 
[..]
>is identical to the interaction perceiving "passive" gravit'l mass *m* 
>appearing in the force eq/momentum law 
[..]

>This feature is identical in theories involving charges 
>(e.g. electromagnetism, electro-weak theory, chromo dynamics, or thelike;
>just put M -> Q, m -> q for the e.m. case.)
>It results from the simple fact that the gravit'l mass is, from the 
>theoretical point of view, the charge corresponding to gravit'l interaction,
>i.e. gravit'l charge.

To avoid confusion, this needs some explaination: 

In a theory of interaction which couples to some charge (EM..), it is also
not clear a priori it the "active" field generating charge (source) in the
field eq is identical to the "passive" interaction percieving charge
(the "object" of interaction), but, as in the case of gravity, the identity
is established by founding the theory on a variational principle/Lagrangian.

Hope this blows away the cloud I might have generated.
--
 Hartmut Frommert, LS Dehnen, Physics, | E-Mail: <phfrom@dknkurz1.bitnet>
 Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60,     |     or  <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany   | + SAVE THE WHALES ! BOYCOTT NORWAY !        +
 Phone: +49-(0)7531-88-3747   | + Whales R intelligent. Whale killers not.  +
+ Whale killing is murder. Eating whales is cannibalism. Eat whale killers. +
From: saouter@irisa.fr (Saouter Yannick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: ... an infinite mesh of 1ohm resistors ...
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:14:42 GMT
Organization: Irisa, Rennes(FR)

In article <1992Jul28.000844.27051@mixcom.com>, ttyytt@mixcom.com (Adam Costello) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul27.210947.5820@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder) writes:
|>
|> In each network, connect a 1 amp current source from B to A.  In the
|> limit, we have the infinite network with a source and no sink.  I'm
|> still not convinced, because I'm not sure "limit" makes sense here.
|> Any comments?
|> 
|> AMC

If "limit" does not makes sense, what can mean "infinite" ?

saouter@sigle.irisa.fr
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The Future of Physics
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:01:38 GMT
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

In article <1370047@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> alexa@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alexander Anger) writes:

>Now, you can tell that I am not a particle physicist.  Some would argue
>that it is because my mathematical skills floundered somewhere between
>complex analysis (the branch cuts were the last straw) and group theory.
>I simply lost interest in a field where the role of "physics" and
>"mathematics" seemed to have somehow gotten transposed.  I once thought
>physics was to be a search for truth based on experimental observation,
>and not a mental excercise in symbol manipulation.  But some theoreticians
>forgot.  My vote is against the SSC, and for materials science, and for
>plasma research, and for high-Tc superconductivity research, and for
>chaos theory (because at least that's - IMHO - fun), and for quantum
>device research, and for the hundred or so other fundamental research
>projects which would ordinarily have to make way for this $8 billion
>(and you know it'll really cost twice that much) research behemoth.  And
>if enough others start thinking along my lines, then indeed, the search
>for these elusive quarks will have finally found their rest in the 
>human spirit where they belong (along with tachyons and whatever those
>weird gauge-particles are supposed to be).  

I find your otherwise laudable response to be marred by grumpy remarks
about the use of math in theoretical physics.  Of course I would,
wouldn't I, since I'm a mathematical physicist.  But you simply weaken
your case by introducing the suggestion that you dislike particle
physicist because of traumatic experiences with branch cuts at an early
age.  As Galileo said (roughly), the laws of physics are written in the
language of mathematics.  Many of the best theoretical physicists (let
me list Archimedes, Newton, Laplace, Gibbs for a start) were
forced to develop new branches of mathematics to describe the laws of
nature, and this mathematics has ALWAYS seemed complicated and difficult
at the time.  It is more sensible to argue that particle physics is a
problematic use of government money, not because it uses yucky math, but
because it costs a lot of money and seems unlikely to produce
significant practical technological breakthroughs in the near future --
as you pointed out. 

Indeed, if you check, plasma research, solid state physics, and
"chaos theory" (better to say "nonlinear dynamical systems theory") are
all avid consumers and producers of fairly fancy mathematics.    

Particle physics is beautiful and fascinating, and there's no point to
speaking of "tachyons" (which do not exist) and "weird gauge particles" (e.g.,
photons!) as if they were a pack of pesty little cockaroaches.  It only
undermines your otherwise valid points.  
Xref: sparky sci.physics:11879 sci.astro:8423 sci.philosophy.tech:2890 talk.religion.misc:12880
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Structure of Time
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:56:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Goofy writes... 
>	  These "inquisitors" have contacted to my employer and they have tried
>   to insalt me and my paper. My employment is in danger at the moment.

I find this totally unbelievable (except the insult part). He is having
paranoid delusions. Not altogether surprising, considering what we've seen.

murphyg@Software.Mitel.COM (Gary Murphy) writes...
>Perhaps this suggests you are closer to the mark than even you believed,
>as why else would these people find your posting to be such a threat,
>far more so than those notorious posts which catch the eyes of the
>censor board!  I've seen people on the net be barred from posting for
>extremist (racist, sexist or just plain insensitive) opinions, but never
>for so innocent a posting as yours

Noone is suggesting this harmless (to us, not to his daughter) individual
be barred. We only want him to post to appropriate newsgroups.

>                                    --- even with the corrected reprints,
>you cannot even be blamed for wasting bandwidth at even a fraction of
>the percentage as, say, "prisoner's" posts to alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
>or even the weight of just one .GIF in any binary group!

>I recommend you keep a log file of the positive comments you receive and
>present these to your employer --- I found your postings most
>interesting (and even wrote to you requesting digitized versions of
>Hanna-Maria's drawings), at minimum entertaining and certainly of no
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>less 'scientific value' than the .GIF of the "Face On Mars" (anyone
>remember the gigabytes we wasted debating Cold-Fusion-in-a-Teacup?)

Entertaining he is. But sci.physics is not a forum for entertainment.
There are appropriate groups for this guy, but he does not even include
them on his Newsgroups: line. Do you see alt.sci.physics.new-theories above?

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Defining Photons
Keywords: Relating photons E=MC^2 criticism
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:21:29 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Distribution: na
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <24910@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>
>Notice that masslessness have nothing to do with these questions.  It a matter
>of spin, not mass.  Massive bosons, such as the W or Z, if we were able 
>to make enough of them to produce a semiclassical state, would behave much
>like photons, not at all like electrons.  

Very good point, Scott.  

And it also follows that large numbers of neutrinos would act more like 
electrons than photons, despite the fact that they are massless. 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Blue Sky
Date: 21 Jul 92 02:45:49 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setuket, NY

Why is the sky blue?

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt

P. S. I have an idea, but I'd like to collect answers from physicists.
I sometimes use as a philosophical example 'go ask a physicist why the
sky is blue, and he'll likely say...' and I would like to be honest
about it. It's been a while since I actually asked any physicists this
question, so here goes.