HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:34:01 GMT

It does seem to me that the "principle" of maintaining the status quo
[status quo ante, to be pedantic] has some predictive power, for example
if applied to self-gravitating systems such as interstellar molecular
clouds in the process of star formation, or to things such as Co-60
nuclei, and that the resultant "prediction" is flat WRONG.

In other instances, such as the relative responses of U-235 and
U-236 to neutron irradiation, or the responses of a lump of gold
and a lump of picric acid to a hammer blow, the "principle" clearly has no
predictive power whatsoever.

John Lewis
Physics Dept
Memorial Univ of Nfld.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND REACTION TO PROVOCATION  
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 15:43:26 GMT

In article <abian.719027964@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>, abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
 > (4)     THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVO-
 >         CATION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO    

The STATUS QUO of a system, defined as non-change, can be described by N bits.
There is then 2^N possible ways to change the STATUS QUO.
Since there is no further simplification of what is ment by provocation
and reaction, one have to use the general formula, namely a table with
2^N bits representing what changes are provocations, and another table
of N*2^N bits with all the reactions to provocations.

Since mr Abian haven't supplied more than a few examples from those tables,
and no simplifying rules, only mr Abian can use his Principle to anything,
thereby making his posting completely useless.

According to mr Abian, his Principle is the best Explanation, and much better
than science. This must mean that complex models are better than simple ones,
and that it is unnecessary to explain how thing things happens, i.e. supplying
the tables.

This enables me to construct a principle better than mr Abian's.
The 'Principle of yhus', which is based on getting the next state of a 
system just by indexing a table with N*2^N bits.

My Principle:   CHANGE

Much simpler, isn't it?

Kim0
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech
From: gene@aee.aee.com (Gene Kochanowsky)
Subject: Re: STRUCTURE OF TIME -- interpretation?
Organization: Associated Electronic Engineers
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:51:24 GMT

mhosea@seas.smu.edu (Mike Hosea) writes:

>In article <1992Oct10.030003.9615@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.230025.13593@seas.smu.edu> mhosea@seas.smu.edu (Mike Hosea) writes:
>>> I write:
>>>>     That is why the process of physics includes experimental data
>>>>     for falsification.  Faith offers no such falsification.
>>>
>>>It is often the case that people assume beliefs as a matter of Faith about 
>>>things that ARE subject to falsification.  Your definition of Faith is
>>>idealist and too narrow.
>>
>>     The  point is that they are only subject to falsification by
>>     your rules.  Faith does not play by these rules.  If I had Faith
>>     that the chair below me was actually the hand of God, then 
>>     there would be no way for you to show me that it wasn't.  However,
>>     if I admitted the possiblity that you could show me, through
>>     apparent evidence, that it was 'really' a construction made of
>>     wood and metal, then I would no longer have my previous Faith.

>Well, I have to concede your point about "my rules".  Personally, I want
>my beliefs to be consistent with observation.  I limit my Faith accordingly
>to things like the existence of God, Jesus was God incarnate, etc.  If God
>were to appear to me and tell me in no uncertain terms that something or 
>other was not as I had Faith that it was, I would alter my Faith in that
>matter.  True, I would no longer have my previous Faith, but my Faith in God 
>is strongest and so must prevail.  If science were to produce evidence that
>convinced me "by my rules" that something or other was not as I had Faith that
>it was, I would conclude that I had erred in having Faith in that thing in the
>first place, and I would eliminate the "faulty" belief.  There are practical
>problems though, like the possibility of being deceived or misinterpreting 
>the evidence.  I find myself arguing that Faith and science should be totally
>separate, which I suppose means we are in general agreement.
>-- 
>Regards,
>Mike Hosea (mhosea@seas.smu.edu)

	Surely there must be another forum on net news for this sort of thing.
	There are many people here trying to do science. You "Don't confuse
	me with facts, I know my religion" types, GO ELSEWERE PLEASE! As for
	the poor fellow above, either get a religion, or give up science,
	but GO ELSWHERE!

Gene Kochanowsky
-- 
Gene Kochanowsky                           | "And remember ....
Associated Electronic Engineers, Inc.      |       The better you look ... 
(904)893-6741 Voice, (904)893-2758 Fax     |       the more you will see."
gene@aee.com                               |               Miss Lidia
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: BAEZIAN physics and astronomy [was: Space-time IS a semi-Riemannian manifold (?)
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 16:48:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.060042.12264@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:

>: I must have drunk too much at the reception 'cause I'm going to try to
>: stick up for McInnes B T (Dr).  He is not contradictory if he assumes
>: that spacetime is a semi-Riemannian manifold, hence a set of point, and
>: if he assumes that each point is, or designates, an event.  The latter
>				    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Too bad, you were doing well up to this point. It IS, it doesn't
>designate.

I just threw that in to irritate you (and to be correct).  I know you
think spacetime IS a manifold, that is, it actually IS an ordered pair such
that the second element is a set of subsets of the first element, closed
under unions and finite intersections, containing the empty set and the
first element, such that for each element of the first element there is
an element of the second element containing it and also homeomorphic to
R^4.  (Sorry, I got tired at the end there and didn't reduce it all to
set theory... plus I was just defining a topological manifold, not a
smooth one.)  I prefer to think of spacetime as the loosely defined
thingy we find ourselves in (you know, space, and time), and recognize
that the 4-manifold is simply the latest and best mathematical model, or
theory, of spacetime, a model that is always subject to possible
correction or improvement.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Understand...!!!!
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:46:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.021536.10207@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
)bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
): In article <1992Oct7.061158.15794@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
): 
): )Time is the length of timelike worldlines. That's all. Just take
): )spacetime seriously, and the universe is yours.             : 
): 
): But - what is length?  :-)
): 
)The integral of a certain function along a curve.

This seems to be missing a lot even from the purely mathematical end
of things as it stands.  Though I suppose that filling in the appropriate
formulation for 'a certain function' based on the metric tensor (or whatever)
wouldn't clarify matters much :-(.

More importantly, there isis the question of how to tie the mathematical
formalism to reality, unless one introduces the concept of a ruler.  Which is
(naturally) used to _measure_ length.  Which gets back to the previous
philosophical point wrt instrumentalism, of course.

Also, I think that the idea of viewing time as a length, though an important
breakthrough as far as relativity goes as the two do get 'mixed together',
doesn't really do justice to the difference we experience between the two.
One can move around at will in the three normal spatial dimensions - and this
does have an effect on measured time - but one cannot (IMO at least, I
suspect someone may actually want to argue this point!) move around at will
in the time dimension.

I still like my original answer (time is what you measure with a clock) much
better than yours (surprise :-)).

It is worth noting that if one can measure length, one can measure time -
at least given the assumption that the speed of light is constant (may be 
a problem near the big bang - and I think gravitational fields may affect
this too).

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Time to develop a crackpot index?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:17:18 GMT

In article <14OCT199210280058@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.043202.2607@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes...
>>Okay, since not everyone is posting to alt.physics.new-theories who
>>should be, I think it's time to develop a crackpot index.
>
>I think that comparing oneself to Galileo is far more egregious than comparison
>to either Einstein or Newton, and probably warrants a 40 point hit as a sure
>sign of a crackpot.
>
>Claiming to deserve the Nobel prize is a 20 (unless you really do, in which
>case it's only a 5 for arrogance.).

I agree with these and will put them in.  Abian seems to be the latest
offender.  Also, 50 for claiming to be God unless you are.  :-)
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Eigenvalue Problem
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 22:19:23 GMT

In article <1bb7r7INNr1l@manuel.anu.edu.au> rwc124@rsphy1.anu.edu.au (Roderick Vance) writes:
>
>
>My question concerns the eigenvalue equation:
>
> (del^2 + k^2 n(x,y)^2) psi = beta^2 psi
>
>where psi is a function of the rectangular co-ordinates (x,y)
>      del^2 is the two dimensional Laplacian d2/dx2 + d2/dy2
>and   beta is the real eigenvalue.
>
>This equation is gotten from the three dimensional Helmholtz 
>equation when we assume a three dimensional solution of the form
>
>   psi(x,y) exp(-i beta z)
>
>My question is: when can there be two or more linearly independent
>solutions psi1(x,y), psi2(x,y), ...  corresponding to the SAME 
>eigenvalue. 

I presume you are working in some region in the plane.

What are your boundary conditions?  These make all the difference.
If you are using Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions (i.e. the
function or its normal derivative vanish on the boundary) and your
region has some symmetry there will often be more than one eigenvector
for a given eigenvalue.  However, symmetry is not necessary to get
non-simple (aka degenerate) eigenvalues.  I crosspost to math - and
wonder why you didn't, since this after all a math question.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: hm@opus40.ix.de (Harald Milz)
Subject: Field strength of earth magnetic field
Organization: iX-Redaktion
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:14:53 GMT


Can anyone tell me the field strength of the earth 
magnetic field, measured in Gauss or Tesla?

Thanx.


-- 

|Dipl.-Ing. Harald Milz                   |    EMail:		hm@ix.de |
|iX - Multiuser Multitasking Magazin      |    FAX:    +49 511 547 47 33 |
|D-3000 Hannover 61, Helstorfer Str. 7    |    Tel.:   +49 511 547 47 66 |
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave Griffiths)
Subject: Re: Questions of transparency
Organization: Primitive Software Ltd.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:22:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.022709.21439@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.234101.9875@prim> prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave Griffiths) writes:
>
>>If a beam of light passes through a glass block, are the majority of the
>>photons which emerge on the other side the very same ones that entered? Or
>>are the photons absorbed and retransmitted?
>
>There is no such thing as "the very same photons".  Photons being
>identical bosons, and light being a collective state of such, it really
>makes no sense I can see to try to answer this question.  
>

Sorry, I'll rephrase the question. If one single photon enters the glass
block, is it absorbed and retransmitted en-route, or does it pass straight
through unimpeded? Seems like quite an important point since much
discussion about QM inteference experiments assume single photons passing
through polarizers, beam splitters and so on.

If the photon _does_ fly straight through, why does it slow down? The gaps
between atoms are a vacuum and it should whizz through at the speed of light!

Finally, if the hand-wavy argument is that the energy of the photon is
transferred into oscillating fields of charges in the glass block... how?
If nobody had yet discovered transparency, could QM have predicted it,
together with the index of refraction and speed of light given the
molecular structure?

Dave Griffiths
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Question on aerodynamics........
Date: 15 Oct 1992 23:40:45 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: astro
Originator: richard@astro.West.Sun.COM

bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:

>Frisbees have a relatively thin disk with a heavy outer rim, so a spinning
>frisbee has a large angular momentum, and only a large torque
>will change it - so it won't wobble in mid-flight.

Angular momentum plays another role.  The spin means that one edge is
moving through the air faster than the other.  Say the frisbee spins
clockwise.  The left edge moves faster.  The left edge thus gets greater
lift.  This produces a torque in the forward direction.  Since the angular
momentum points downward, the forward torque causes the front edge to
rise due to precession.  This helps direct the frisbee upwards as well
as keeping the angle of attack optimal for lift.  This is especially
important for the aerobie since it won't get any "lift" at all without
a good angle of attack (more like push than lift).

    Richard M. Mathews			 Freedom for Lithuania
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.Com		        Laisve!
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Stephen W. Hawking?
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:42:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1bk823INNinb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an938@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (George II Lenzer) writes:
>
>	Well, those aren't quite the answers I had in mind.
>But thanks anyway.  Tons-o-laffs>  @ @
>				    ^
>				  #   #
>				   ###
>
>	The course I'm doing the paper for is called: Science
>and Religion.  The texts are the Dancing Wu-Li Masters and
>Religions of Man.  It is a non-science majors course and therefore
>treats this subject with a broad view.  I was hoping that someone
>here had info on Mr. Hawking's personal view of Science and
>Religion.  
>
>					I am not a Trekkie,
>					George II Lenzer

    One interesting thing about your course is that, at least for the
    science part if based on 'Dancing Wu-Li Masters', is that it is mostly
    misleading and incorrect.

    'Dancing Wu-Li Masters' is a horrible thing to be visited upon
    defenseless non-science majors.

                             dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: How do you draw a straight line?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 19:32:28 GMT

I wrote:

>>The compass is nice because it works straight from the definition of a
>>circle, while a ruler, as you note, is not so nice since it does not
>>work from the definition of a straight line as the shortest path between
>>two points.  However, there is a machine that has been built which draws
>>straight lines "by definition."  Alas, I forget how it works. 

Andrew Mullhaupt wrote:

>For a while after Watt invented his improved steam engine, the hunt was on
>to find a mechanical linkage which went back and forth in a straight line
>segment 'by construction'. The usual solution, (a thing called Watt's linkage)
>is only a second order approximation to a straight line, but this was
>good enough to make locomotives out of. It was quite a while later when
>the problem was solved exactly, by a (French?) guy who's name escapes me.
>
>The essential idea is to use a mechanism which transforms revolution (circular
>motion) into straight line reciprocation. The fastest way to arrive at this
>is to observe that inversion in a circle can be performed by a linkage, and
>better yet, it can turn revolution to reciprocation exactly. (I can't remember
>clearly but I think you need two inversions to make the actual device.)

YES!!!  THIS is what I was dimly recalling, folks, not the plumb bob.
See?  I'm not as crazy as I often seem.  Now that we have the name of the
the first attempt, Watt's linkage, maybe we can find out the name of
the French (?) guy's version, what the rules were of the game these guys
were playing, and how the winner won.  

As far as I can tell, the game is to make something our of hard steel
parts which has a hole in it that you can stick a pencil in, such that
when move the movable parts you wind up drawing a straight line "by
definition" in just the same way a compass draws a circle "by
definition".  It is a matter of principle, not of accuracy; i.e., we
don't need to worry about general relativity, quantum mechanics and
everything else in this game - we pretend we are 1800's believers in 
idealized rigid mechanical parts.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Over the hill at 40?
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 09:47:59 GMT

Some time ago I received a letter from the son of an old friend, seeking
advice as to whether he should endeavour to become a [theoretical]
physicist. He has just completed a BS in a respectable US university.
Among other penetrating remarks, he observes: " I noticed that
relatively few of the profs over the age of 40 were active in research,
even though they obviously knew their stuff. Why is that? What do I do
if I find myself in that situation?"
How should I reply? [ Please don't regale me with anecdotes about how
dear old Professor Methuselah is still publishing at the age of 132. Of
course if you wish to deny that people over 40 are, in general, markedly
less active, then by all means argue that point.] Thanks.
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Re: VERY fundamental question
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 08:49:14 GMT

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
: 
:      The difficulty with admitting 'why' questions of a certain nature
:      is that you get answers like Albian's.  At some point it stops
:      being 'how' and becomes 'why'.  You apparently consider the sequence
:      of questions leading to that difficulty a series of 'why' questions,
:      rather than a series of 'what' and 'how' questions.  It seems to make
:      more sense, though, to admit the different nature of the question
:      by describing them as different types of questions.
: 
:      And I believe that Mach and other positivists would have held
:      to the 'popular' view (actually not so popular when you hear
:      some of us speaking or writing).

Nobody believes in positivism anymore, do they?

: 
:      You'll notice that you have no trouble in any of the above situations
:      with losing scientific meaning if you simply ask 'How' instead of 'Why'.
:      'How did there come to be 9 planets (if there are 9)?' is a perfectly
:      reasonable question.
: 
:      Also, you beg the question by answering 'Why does the earth go around
:      the Sun?' with 'The earth travels along a geodesic.'
:      This is the answer to 'How do we think the earth travels around the
:      Sun?'   
: 
:      The answer to 'Why' is 'Because the Pixies want it to.'
: 
 I am using the words "how" and "why" in the usual way. "How" does the
Earth go around the Sun? On an orbit which is approximately like an
ellipse, but not exactly. "Why does it go around?" You are asking this
question because you are unable to perceive that spacetime is curved. If
you had been aware of it directly, then the question would not have
occurred to you. This is how we answer "why" questions [in the rare
cases in which they can be answered].

: 
:      When was the last time you saw the 5th dimension?  Your whole
:      answer is simply an approximate construct invented by us to explain *what*
:      happens, not why it happens.  The phenomenon does not know whether
:      we have developed this current explanation or that current
:      explanation.  It simply continues to do what it has always been
:      doing.
: 
:      So the answer is, as with all physics is 'Because it does'.
: 
:                             dale bass
: 
Wow, Dale, you are an anti-Barbie! Physics must be so easy for you!
Why are there three generations of particles? Because there are.
Why is gravity so hard to quantise? Because it is.
What is the correct ground state for strings? Whatever it is.

Come back Hannu, all is forgiven........

No offence, Dale: I just find it hard to believe that you got into
physics in order to learn that all the really interesting questions are
fundamentally meaningless. :)
: 
: 
: -- 
: C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
: Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
: University of Virginia
: Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: davids@spira.bri.hp.com (david sixsmith (contractor))
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: New group/groups : Branching of sci.physics
Date: 15 Oct 92 10:25:59 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.1 PL6]

Let see a show of hands for sci.fruitcake

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dave Sixsmith                       |  Disclaim, disclaim, disclaim, etc.    |
| Bristol, England                    |                                        |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ps02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PENELOPE E. SMITH)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Top 10 List (was Re: Another Cute Math Joke)
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:38:25 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct3.165309.20134@morrow.stanford.edu>, COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanfo
rd.edu (Paul L. Cowan) writes:
>In <1992Oct2.123755.22685@ulrik.uio.no> jarleb@athena.uio.no writes:
>
>:        TOP TEN EXCUSES FOR NOT DOING THE MATH HOMEWORK
>: ( Good stuff deleted, with tears of laughter)

and
>After all this is sci.physics. If there is one (in the FAQ?) please excuse
>this modest attempt:
>
>        TOP TEN EXCUSES FOR NOT DOING THE *PHYSICS* HOMEWORK
( More tears with the good stuff)

One problem with the Math list:  Where does the following excuse go ?

     I decided not to do it, for I am the axiom of choice.

And a new joke, for those who have been up all night doing difficult integrals:

Q:  What did they say to R. Feynman (of the path integral) during the
inversion in Pasadena?
A:  Surely You're Choking Mr. Feynman!

        Eric Christenson, (husband of Dr. Smith)
-- 
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Penelope E. Smith               PS02@NS.CC.LEHIGH.EDU
Department of Mathematics       PS02@LEHIGH.BITNET
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA
Newsgroups: sci.physics