HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robtow@colour.Eng.Sun.COM (Rob Tow)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Wanted:  Slides/Photos of RAINBOWS
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:31:15 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: colour.eng.sun.com

In article <12138@ns-mx.uiowa.edu: jlhaferman@l_eld09.icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeff Haferman) writes:
:
:
:I am putting together a little talk on an explanation of the rainbow
:via the geometrical optics approach.  Does anyone have slides or photos
:of a rainbow that I could "borrow" (I would absolutely return anything
:I receive).  A single photo or slide would do, but I would really like
:to find a photo that clearly shows a secondary bow, dark band, and 
:supernumary arcs.  In addition, if someone has a nice photograph of a
:"glory," I would like to see that also.
:
:Any pointers will be very much appreciated!!
:
:Jeff Haferman
:

You will find what you need in the color plates of the following:

	"Rainbows, Halos, and Glories"
	by Robert Greenler
	Cambridge University Press
	first published 1980; paperback edition published 1989
	ISBN 0-521-23605 (hardback)
	     0-521-38865 (paperback)

-Rob-
From: slambert@willamette.edu (Sean Lambert)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: lab suggestions
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:02:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: willamet.1992Apr8.230245.5056
Organization: Willamette University, Salem, OR



	I was wondering if anyone could suggest a fair sized lab that I
	could do for my optics class.  So far we have done the following
	labs, all of which were not very intense:
	Measure the speed of light
	Observing two-beam interference using the Michelson
	interferometer
	Observing Fraunhofer diffraction
	Observing Fresnel diffraction
	Play around with elliptically polarized light

	some ideas for the lab, which is suppose to be about twice the
	size as one of these, are:
	Measure the speed of light across a long distance, two miles or
	so.
	Measure the speed of light in water.
	Play around with the Michelson interferometer when a gas is
	involved.

	that is about the only ideas that I can come up with.  I would
	greatly appreciate any suggestions

	thanks a lot
	sean............................slambert@willamette.edu
From: UCSKJM@ucs.UWPLATT.EDU (KURT MILLER)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: random dot stereograms?
Date: 7 Apr 92 05:50:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucs.7472CB6FD7FF4026BF


        I am looking for a program that can generate and output randomdot
stereograms on an msdos based system.  I've seen a demo for one, but I am
looking for an actual program.  Please mail me any info.  Thanks.
 
        =================================================================
        |  Kurt Miller                          UCSKJM@UCS.UWPLATT.EDU  |
        |      The Future is DIGITAL            UCSKJM@UWPLATT.BITNET   |
        |              University of Wisconsin Platteville              |
        =================================================================
From: dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk (Codesmiths)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Fibres and DataGloves
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:33:01 GMT
Reply-To: Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk


> Basically, can anyone explain to me how DataGloves work?


I've worked with force sensing & optical fibres. We had a cheap,
simple polymer fibre laid loosely between two plates, squirted an LED
up one end and measured the output intensity. The plates had a series
of parallel ridges formed on them, and the fibre zigzagged between
the ridges.
                    | Force applied downwards
      Side on view  V

    ===========================
       V     V     V     V
-----\   /-\   /-\   /-\   /-\
      \_/   \_/   \_/   \_/   \____
    A     A     A     A     A
    ===========================


As the load increased, the fibre bent round a smaller radius, it's
transmittance decreased, and the output went down. Dead simple,
sensitive & fast. Only problem was non-linearity outside a small
force range.


I'm pretty sure a DataGlove works on the same principle (from a Sci
Am article a few years ago), not diffraction patterns. The fibres run
from a box on the back of the hand, down each finger & back again.
Datagloves measure each finger joint individually, and I think they
use a separate fibre loop for each joint.

          Andy Dingley    dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk
From: 881277m@ace.acadiau.ca (WALLACE MCLEAN)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Time essay by James Randi
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:17:24 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

In article <1992Apr15.001727.718@u.washington.edu> mpark@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Park) writes:

>Hi all.  Don't know why I haven't seen this mentioned here
>(maybe everybody already knows, maybe nobody cares...) but
>in last week's TIME magazine ("The College Crunch" issue, 4/13)
>there is an essay by James Randi that should give all sci.skeptic
>readers warm fuzzies.  Just FYI.

There's also an article on Randi in the most recent edition of REFLEX.
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why psychics don't win the lottery
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:23:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: newshost.1992Apr7.192359.19636
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <92097.134432RZANDBER@ESOC.BITNET>, RZANDBER@ESOC.BITNET (Rene Zandbergen) writes:
|> This is why:
|> Say I'm a psychic (which I'm not). I am at one of these places where
|> they sell lottery tickets. I ask for one and am presented with a number
|> which, as I immediately realise, will not yield a prize.
|> So I don't buy the ticket. (And I save some money which a non-psychic
|> would have lost).

Many lotteries (if not most) allow the sucker (I mean customer) to
select his (her) own number.  This is why, when the potential payoff
gets really big, it is possible that the expected return from playing
rarely selected numbers can get greater than cost.  A NZ (or was it
Aussie) syndicate recently bought out a lottery in that way (they
bought one of every possible combination of numbers).

A psychic would presumably select the winning number without all
the hastle of buying up all possible combinations.

J. Giles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Free Will QM etc.
Date: 6 Apr 92 11:23:52 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

in article <8038@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, dekorte@next2.scri.fsu.edu (Stephen Dekorte) says:
> 
> In article <1992Mar16.010834.7995@hellgate.utah.edu>  
> tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
> .......
>> Hmmm, I am not sure about animals having free will.  Maybe.
> 
> Q: do cells have 'free will'? 
> 
> If not, how can free will be a characteristic of a being composed
> of cells, such as ourselves? 

Q: do cells have 'knee caps'?

If not, how can knee caps be a ...  oh forget it. Chris Ho-Stuart
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8168 alt.atheism:8529
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Does the Bible have any contradictions
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:25:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <kus1htINNj3f@pollux.usc.edu>, aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu writes...
>Someone asked me if there are any contradictions in the Bible, and I
>could not answer.  Can anyone point out some to me (if, in fact, they
>do exist)?  I'm looking for two different types of contradictions, the
>first being far more important:

Yes, they exist, and in very large numbers.  You should be able to find
entire books of them in your local library.  Thomas Paine's _Age of
Reason_ is a good classic source.  Two publications which regularly
publish such information are _Biblical Errancy_ and _The Skeptical
Review_.  (A free sample of the former may be obtained from BE,
3158 Sherwood Park Drive, Springfield, OH 45505, while a free year's
subscription to the latter may be obtained from TSR, P.O. Box 617,
Canton, IL 61520.)

>1.  A self-contradiction:  some fact described in one place in the Bible
>is described in unambiguously different, mutually exclusive terms in another 
>place in the Bible.

Compare:
1 Samuel 16:10-11 and 1 Chronicles 2:13-15
1 Samuel 17:4,7,50 and 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5
2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4
2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18
2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1
(and so on--the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are good sources
for contradictions because they describe the same events in many places)

a good New Testament one is
John 3:13 versus 2 Kings 2:11, because it shows Jesus saying something
which conflicts with the OT passage.

>2.  A contradiction with empirical fact/science:  some fact about the
>natural world is described in the Bible which is unambiguously contrary to 
>modern scientific knowledge.

Rabbits chew cud (Lev. 11:6)
Bats are birds (Lev. 11:13-19)
Some insects have four legs (Lev. 11:23)
The earth rests on and was formed out of water (Exod. 20:4, Deut. 4:18, 5:8,
   Psalms 136:6, 2 Peter 3:5)
The earth rests on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8), does not move (1 Chron. 16:30),
   has edges and corners (Deut. 13:7, 28:64, 33:17, 1 Sam. 2:10, Job 28:24,
   etc.)
The mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds (Matt. 13:31-32)
etc.

>Thanks in advance, though it would seem that not many of these exist 
>seeing as the Bible has been around for centuries.  Please try and
>email me any answers you may have (no matter how long or short) because
>I will be posting this to a lot of newsgroups (too many to review for
>replies).  Thanks again...
> 
>Email address: aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu
> 
>AAA

I've also emailed this.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Evolution and God
Keywords: Evolution,proof
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 12:03:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.133637.21999@bradford.ac.uk>, K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON writes:
>I believe
> the absence of intermediate forms is one reason why the theory remains an
> hypothesis.

Intermediate forms between what?  Between two known species?
That is, between two already found fossils.

You want that, given two fossils, there should be another,
intermediate one?  Then you need infinitely many fossils.

Sorry, your logic doesn't work.
-- 
-Caddy--(thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany)-----
The question of whether the electron is a wave or a particle
has a clear and definite answer:  No.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:7994 alt.pagan:4582
From: shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: "experiments"
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:55:55 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Robt Anton Wilson, The_New_Inquisition, New Falcon Press, I think, don't
know the date.

I consider myself to be relatively skeptical.  The people who drive me crazy
are the folks who maintain doubt about everything except the possibility
that their own skepticism may be interfering with their good judgement.

It's rather like an agnostic who doesn't know if anyone aught to believe
in god, but is *damn* sure anyone who does is an utter fool.

I would hope that people can accept that some things are suitable to 
proof, and some things might be suitable to proof at a later date, and
some things don't require proof.  You can not prove love, a piece of art,
a poem, or a prayer.

The point is that there are things about magick that are personal, and
defy proof to another individual -- not only defy proof but defy demon-
stration.  And like love, the more you ask for proof, often enough, 
the less likely you are to find any depth in return.

I would be happy to talk about personal experience, but I don't ask 
people to "believe" me.  I'd rather they didn't try to call me a liar,
an idiot, or burn me at the stake.  I would find it delightful if I
found some people who were interested in the same sort of catch as catch
can inquiry such as I find myself in.

Keep your mind *and* your eyes open, y'all!
-- 
Shava Nerad Averett				shava_averett@unc.edu
/*  all materials (c)1992, Shava Nerad Averett, and have nothing significant
    to do with the University of North Carolina, a mostly owned subsidiary 
    of the NC Legislature, a mostly owned subsidiary of the DOT.      */
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Wake of the Goddesses (OH NO!)
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:48:38 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

I read an announcement of a book titled:
In the Wake of the Goddesses.  Women, Culture, and the Biblical
Transformation of Pagan Myth.

by Tikva Frymer-Kensky
(who is said to be a biblical scholar).

From the announcement I gather that the author says that in the ancient
Middle East (Sumer and Akkad) the "complex of antiwoman, anticarnal
ideas" did not exist, and that this complex arose out of the confrontation
of Israel with Greek civilization, and that it was inherited by
Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.

Note: she apparently does not hold strong opinions about who was 
running societies in the old time and also not that she is proposing
matriarchy, ambi-archy, matri-centrism, merely that what is known 
about the role of female deities and ancient culture suggests that
in those times women were not regarded as a lower class of beings.
(I hope nobody will try to pin on me all kinds of silly ideas)


I would like to know more about this book.  Is it good?
Is it worth the money?  Is it perchance the book that started
off the acrimonious Sheaffer-Siano-Petrich debate (with its
unsavory `such-and-such is a crypto-creep' branches)?

How does it compare to the works of Elizabeth Gould Davis,
Riane Eisler, Camille Paglia?

JWN
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Creationists do Injustice to Early Civilizations
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:47:13 GMT
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

As any reader of this group knows, I am an athiest.  The following is
not meant as a biblical apology, but rather showing how modern day
fundementalist, with their literalist interpretations of the bible are
doing a great injustice to certain earlier civilizations, specifically
the Babylonians.

For the purposes of this post, I will only be concerned with the P
authored segments of the OT.  I will consider two of the: Genesis
chapter 1, the creation story and Genesis, chapter 7 (?), the Noahcian
flood story.

The ancient Babylonians were the most advanced astronomers inthe world
at that time.  They knew of 7 planets in the sky, Sun, Mercury, Venus,
Moon, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, which is why there are 7 days in the
week.  [As an aside, we know that the ancient (?) Teutonics also had 7
days in their week as evidenced by the names of the days.  Was this a
case of modifying an existing idea when the cultures came into
contact, or was it independent "meme" evolution?]  Anyway, I postulate
that they also had a VERY RUDIMENTARY idea of evolution, and that
their expression for this is chpater 1 of Genesis.  They seemed to
understand that the formation of the Earth preceded any life forms,
and that when life arose, it did so in the order of plants, animals,
more complex animals.  Instead of taking this story literally, we
should reflect upon its authors and ask ourselves, how much did they
really understand?

I also postulate the the ancient Babylonians had found fossil remains
of animals they couldn't identify and/or ruins of cities that they had
no record of.  To account for this, they invented the flood story, a
reasonable natural distaster to choose considering that the fertile
cresent was flooded on a regular basis.  Of course, the story of Noah
had to be invented to account for the survivors of the flood.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The story of Jesus Christ appearing after
Field Robotics Center,          | he was dead is the story of an apparition,
Carnegie Mellon University      | such as timid imaginations can always
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | create in vision, and credulity believe.
(412) 268-3856                  | Stories of this kind had been told of the
                                | assassination of Julius Caesar...
The opinions expressed are mine | Thomas Paine
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Sensible interpretation of the unknown (was: I don't know).
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:36:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.011318.6261@cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
(Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.092904@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes:
>>   If we don't know if it exists then the sensible default assumption is that
>>it doesn't exist.
> 
> Not always.  The Japanese didn't believe a nuclear bomb existed until
> mid-August, 1945.  In choosing a "sensible default assumption," you need to
> look at the possible consequences of being wrong.

   I acknowledge and accept your correction.  What price ignoring psi?  :-)

> 
> >The extensive negative results and weak positive results for psi
> >indicate the current sensible assumption about psi is that it doesn't exist.
> 
> Here I agree with you.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Namagiri (was Re: Evolution AND or OF God??)
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:33:10 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <3703@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>
>> Ramanujan claimed that "goddess Kali" gave him some of his theorems, while
>
>Beg you pardon. It was Namagiri, one of the consorts of (I believe)
>Shiva. 
>
>JWN
>

Correction: Namagiri was one of the consorts of Narasimha, the lion-headed
fourth incarnation of Vishnu. Ramanujan and his mother were devoted to
her shrine at Namakkal. 

JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Subject: The Historical Jesus III:  Was Matthew an Eyewitness?
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 06:02:30 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Keywords: historical jesus, creation/evolution debate, gospel of Matthew

This is the third in a series of posts examining the historicity of
Jesus, specifically whether the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
It consists of quotes from references (in brackets) listed in the
concluding post.

[1](113)
	Like the other gospels Mt is anonymous. ...The use of sources
(Mk, Q, Special Mt material) precludes apostolic authorship or eyewitness.
The name Matthew was attached to Mt for apologetic reasons in the second
century.
...A date between 70 and 110 is required: perhaps about 85.

[2](143)
	The Gospel of Matthew itself clearly contradicts the claim that
its author had been an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus. ... The use
and reinterpretation of sources which lay before the evangelist, as well
as the linguistic form of his work, thus lead to the compelling conclusion
that the author could not have come from among the circle of the twelve.
...can be dated around A.D. 90

[3](152)
	We can therefore understand Papias' statement only against the
background of a period in which efforts were being made to find guarantees
for the Church's tradition. ...The author in fact remains completely
unknown to us.  ... He was certainly not an eye-witness of the life of Jesus.
...could have been written in the 80's

[4](128)
	...A likely date for the writing of Matthew would be, therefore,
about 90 to 95. ... To settle on so late a date as this virtually excludes
the disciple Matthew from consideration as the author. ...[and] at best
was reporting at secondhand the recollections of an apostle.

[5](61)
	First, the painstaking analysis of several generations of source
critics has made out a very convincing case for seeing Matthew as
dependent upon a collection of sources - to what extent oral or written
remains debatable - which includes Mark, Q, and a special source...
The great contribution of recent redactional studies has been in the
discovery of the...shaping of Matthew's Gospel by an editor...

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Why Psychics don't win
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
            <1992Apr15.173107.7981@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
            <1992Apr16.160435.27916@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:02:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.160435.27916@Princeton.EDU> 
  rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.173107.7981@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
  amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>>
>>Okay, sure.  I admit that I have not actually seen the PEAR studies or
>>know much about them.  I do feel that the skeptics have more or less the
>>right idea in this situation though.  Every time before, when someone has
>>popped up and said, here is convincing evidence for PSI, *every single time*,
>>it has proven to be either a deliberate or unconscious fraud.  While I
>
>Since I am stuck waiting for a huge graphic to print, I will take a
>little time to protest this statement.  There are, in *research* studies
>of psi only a few cases, like two I am aware of, possibly several
>I don't know about, where the evidence has "proven to be [tainted by]
>either deliberate of unconscious fraud."  

I guess either we read different journals (or have a different version of
research) but James Randi dug up dozens of cases of Psi research which are,
to put it mildly, complete fabrications from beginning to end.  Targ and
Puthoff (sp?) if memory serves, couldn't run a controlled experiment to
save their lives.

... deleted ...

>Roger N

C Frog
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Why psychics don't win the lottery
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:37:47 GMT

In article <92097.134432RZANDBER@ESOC.BITNET>, Rene Zandbergen <RZANDBER@ESOC.BITNET> writes:
>This is why:
>Say I'm a psychic (which I'm not). I am at one of these places where
>they sell lottery tickets. I ask for one and am presented with a number
>which, as I immediately realise, will not yield a prize.
>So I don't buy the ticket. (And I save some money which a non-psychic
>would have lost).

So you ask, instead, for the sort of lottery ticket in which you CHOOSE your
number.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic