HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mtpins@icaen.uiowa.edu (Michael T Pins)
Subject: Re: Philadelphia Experiment (Project Rainbow)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:44:28 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA


>Re: stcak@cc.newcastle.edu.au

>This information comes from the book "The Philadelphia Experiment -
>Project Invisibility" by Charles Berlitz and William Moore.

A brief bibliography follows:

     BERLITZ CHARLES 1914                                        
   ATLANTIS THE EIGHTH CONTINENT <1984>  (UL)                 
   MYSTERY OF ATLANTIS <1969>  (UL)                           
   PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT PROJECT INVISIBILITY <1979>  (UL)  
   ROSWELL INCIDENT <1980>  (UL)                              
   WITHOUT A TRACE <1977>  (UL)

In the 'Atlantis' books, he "explains" the "truth" about it.
Yea, right.  An author with nearly as much credibility as Erich Von Daniken.

[much gibberish from the book deleted]
> The experiment was first heard about in correspondance to one Morris
>K. Jessup, who had written a book entitled "The Case for the UFO". The
>letters (four in total) were from a Carlos Allende (sometimes Carl
>Allen) who claimed to have witnessed the experiment from the deck of
>the S.S. Andrew Furuseth (the boat on which Allende was serving). The
>letters contained detailed information on the Philadelphia Experiment,
>much of which was corroborated by other witnesses in the book. 

Carlos Allende, aka Carl Allen, is a well-known "hoaxter" who loves to
create fake media stories.  If memory serves, someone actually went to
the trouble of checking, and CA has never served in the US Navy.

>- Well, that's the most important information. Even if it is all
>bunkum as some think, it still makes for an excellent piece of sci-fi.

Well, rather more important information has just been added....
"Excellent" is apparently a rather subjective term here.

>P.S. The reason the eexperiment hasn't been repeated (though some say
>the Government was still carrying out experiments at least until 1976)
>is that noone really understood what was going on.

Or maybe because it never happened in the first place.


-- 
*****************************************************************************
* Michael Pins                |   Internet: amigapd@isca.uiowa.edu          *
* ISCA's Amiga Librarian      |         #include <std.disclaimer>           *
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons (Was: Re: Weapons systems?)
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Nov14.121743.22969@newstand.syr.edu>
	<1992Nov16.101945.24701@crc.ac.uk> <1992Nov18.132635.6171@rdg.dec.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:20:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.132635.6171@rdg.dec.com>
otten@sbpexe.enet.dec.com writes:

   Something to do with Resublimated Thiomolitine??

   Ie: a substance that disolved *BEFORE* the water was added to it.

   Can't remember the story title, but this was the weapon..

This was not a weapon, but a parody on doctoral dissertations that
Asimov wrote while working on his own dissertation.  It was supposed
to be published under a pseudonym, but was published under his name by
mistake.  It therefore came up as a question at his orals, to his
dismay.  (Fortunately, the examiners took it as the joke it was).

All this is found in "The Early Asimov".

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Planetary Defense (Was: Re: Weapons systems?)
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 15:53:07 EST

In article <1992Nov17.205905.1057@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> potucek@winx06.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (R.Potucek) writes:
>All these comments to a similar subject are strange, but what the heck.
>So there was this proposition about very fine dispersed antimatter made
[deleted]
>The idea to use it for a planet is even worse than to use it as a weapon 
>or a defensive mechanism for a space station, as the energy would be 
>released upon the planet...

I'd maintain that planetary defense is impossible against a determined
enemy capable of spaceflight, who's willing to destroy anyting to get at
you.  The only wars that could be fought would be between macro-life 
civilizations.  (Civilizations that have abandoned planets and settling
in any particular star-system.)  

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re:  Sci-Fantasy Weapons (Was: Re: Weapons systems?)
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:54:42 GMT

In article <WVG=H0=@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
writes: 
> This isn't *quite* on the topic, but I remember a story (just the plot,
>no author or title, alas) which is told as a report of a general to his
>commanders as to why they lost a recent war. He concludes that it was
>because of his own force's superior technology. Like the spaceship
>defence that would warp space around the ships so that missiles would
>take an infinite time to get to the ship. Of course, it also stressed
>their radios out of alignment, so that when they came out of the effect
>they couldn't communicate and were slaughtered... and other nifty things
>like that.

Arthur C. Clarke, _Superiority_

It only took three inventions: The Annihilation Sphere (which WAS a sphere,
and therefore could only be mounted on torpedos), The Battle Computer (which
required a couple thousand technicians to keep flipping in fresh vacuum tubes)
and the space warper you already described.  I've heard rumors to the effect
that it was required reading at MIT for a while.  Can anyone confirm or deny
that? 

SR
---


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Non-nuclear explosive
Summary: Any other opinions?
Keywords: antimatter molecular containment
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 20:27:19 EST

In article <u894793.721935652@bruny> (T. Little) writes:
>pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>
>>Take a bunch of buckyballs with an anti-matter ion in the center.
>>(We already have made buckyballs with ions in the center.)
[deleted]
>>	-- Is the buckyball w/anti-matter ion actually stable?
>
>No.  You wouldn't be able to prevent the anti-electrons of the ion from
>reacting with the normal electrons of the buckyball.  
[deleted]
>I don't know whether a hydrogen ion would react (it has no electrons),
>but I would strongly suspect that it does...

What does the net charge of the carbon atoms in a buckyball look like
from the _inside_?  If the net charge looks negative, then an anti-proton
could survive if the surrounding buckyballs were at a low enough 
temperature.  However, in all likelihood the net charge is positive.  
Anyone know for sure?

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Whimsical 'flat Earth' comments
Date: 20 Nov 92 07:43:11 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

tsjenki@eos.ncsu.edu (TIMOTHY SCOTT JENKINS) states
>
>
>	I was thinking that while a disk shaped plannet is not likely to 
>exsist in the real world, what about a planet that is only roughly spherical?
>Something with REALLY jagged edges everywhere.  You might get a fairly large
>area that is disc shaped for most purposes.  Is there any reason to belive that 
>such a planet could exsist? or not exsit?  All of the planets in our solar 
>system seem to be fairly spherical.  What about a LARGE planet fragment.  Say,
>something with enough mass to keep an atmosphere?
>
>-------------Jinks

Read _Mission of Gravity_ by Hal Clement'


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom -- Thomas Jefferson
From: spitzak@gree.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Spitzak)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Whimsical 'flat Earth' comments
Date: 17 Nov 1992 08:00:28 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: spitzak@gree.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: gree


>From time to time in speculative/escapist fiction of dubious
>hard-science merit authors create "flat" planets.  
>
>- How is day/night supposed to work?  Have any internally
>  consistent explanations been created?

I've mostly seen the "planet" given as a disk, and the sun orbits around
it in a perpendicular plane (or the disk rotates this way).  Night is when
the sun is 'below' it.

>-How about seasonal variation?

Well, I suppose if it is a disk rotating to give day/night, you can also tilt
it's rotational axis.  Then each orbit about the sun there are two "summers"
when the sun is perpendicular, and two "winters" when the sun is much nearer
the horizon and thus the disk intercepts less radiation.  That at least does
not violate too many laws of physics.

>-What about climate?  If, geometrically, the scheme consists of a plane
>and a point not on the plane, then some area of the plane is a heck
>of a lot closer to the sun than other parts.  Wouldn't it be hotter there?

Not if the distance to the sun is significantly larger than the disk diameter.

>-Gravity:  Either the "world" is of infinite thickness or it is not.
>If it is infinitely thick, then wouldn't the gravity vectors resemble
>a hemisphere of infinite radius?  Ouch.  What about for a massive
>plane of finite thickness?  If the gravitational mechanics for a Dyson
>sphere can be worked out, what is the equivalent result for a plane?

For an infinite plate of finite thickness of matter, the gravity field is
uniform (the same at any altitude) and finite.  The same is approximately
true at any point near the surface and away from the edges of a finite
plate.  I don't know how much gravity, I expect pretty low...

Bill Spitzak


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: kasprj@jec322.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons (Was: Re: Weapons systems?)
Keywords: infeasible space weapons kill KILL
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge 
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:20:43 GMT

In article <B5BeuB9w165w@west.darkside.com>, max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:
|> rdosser@UTKUX1.UTK.EDU (rdosser) writes:
|> 
|> > Like the Niven story "There is a Tide" in which an advanced race may
|> > have put a 10-foot sphere of neutronium in orbit around their home planet.
|> > Anybody spotting it on deep radar investigates to see if it's a stasis
|> > box, and once they get close....hoover!
|> 
|> Yeah, that was an interesting one.  Unfortunately, he got tidal physics a 
|> little wrong . . . if the neutronium ball had the same mass as the Moon, 
|> for instance, you wouldn't notice any difference between tides from a 
|> neutronium sphere or the Moon.  It's the gravitational mass, not the 
|> density . . .
 
 Slight error of interpretation, I'm afraid. The point is that a planet with
no large moon should only have very slight tides (there is a small solar 
tidal effect). The trinoc (like most Niven aliens) came from a world with
no tides. Thus, the reactions:
 
 Trinoc: what happened to the water?
 
 Louis: oh, don't worry, it's just the tide... hey, wait a minute, you
        need a big moon for tides like that, and the only thing in orbit
        around this world was that silver sphere... which must mean...
 
 both: oh sh*t!

------------------------------------------------------------------
     __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
 ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *| Sam Adams,Spaten# Life is too short #Hudson Lager,Beck's 
     \_| Pilsener Urquell#to drink cheap beer#Pete's Wicked Ale
      ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu
From: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Whimsical 'flat Earth' comments
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:40:50 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA

In article <urf.721982329@sw2001> urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:
>
>As the gravity gradient will be nearly nonexistant to a
>large extent, will make the atmospheric envelope very much
>larger than around a planet.
>
   The depth of our atmosphere is not a function of the gravity gradient.
The shuttle flies in almost one standard gravity, after all (about 85% of
Earth gravity at its highest usable orbit). Essentially all our air sits
in a thickness over which the gravity changes negligibly.


-- 
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Don't let your mind
 neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra  | wander -- it's too little
 utzoo.utoronto.ca!generic!cneufeld              | to be let out alone.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: gwilliam@crc.ac.uk (Gary Williams x3294)
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Organization: MRC Human Genome Resource Centre
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 11:00:32 GMT

><gwilliam@crc.ac.uk> writes about a space monster mentioned byLarry Niven,
>however he forgot to tell the title of the book. Could anyone mail me?

My apologies Rudolf. The book is "Protector" by Larry Niven.
IMHO it contains the best description of a space war every written,
not to mention a VERY plausible alien species. (Insider joke - read the book!).
I still feel paranoid about aliens even 10 years after first reading it.
-- 
GARY WILLIAMS,  Computing Services Section,  Janet:       G.Williams@UK.AC.CRC
MRC-CRC & Human Genome Mapping Centre,       Internet:    G.Williams@CRC.AC.UK
Watford Rd, HARROW, Middx, HA1 3UJ, UK
Tel 081-869 3294   Fax 081-423 1275
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Whimsical 'flat Earth' comments
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:42:28 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Nov16.092149.6051@midway.uchicago.edu> djb6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
}Some bizarre things that occured to me:
}
}From time to time in speculative/escapist fiction of dubious
}hard-science merit authors create "flat" planets.  
}
}- How is day/night supposed to work?  Have any internally
}  consistent explanations been created?

The sun bounces up and down in the center hole of the Anderson disc.

}-How about seasonal variation?

Why?

}-What about climate?  If, geometrically, the scheme consists of a plane
}and a point not on the plane, then some area of the plane is a heck
}of a lot closer to the sun than other parts.  Wouldn't it be hotter there?

Barring technological magic, yep.  Sorta like the N/S winter/summer
variance except constant (see above).

}-Gravity:  Either the "world" is of infinite thickness or it is not.
}If it is infinitely thick, then wouldn't the gravity vectors resemble
}a hemisphere of infinite radius?  Ouch.  What about for a massive
}plane of finite thickness?  If the gravitational mechanics for a Dyson
}sphere can be worked out, what is the equivalent result for a plane?

See also "Anderson disk".  The vector is perpendicular to the plane.

}Lots of smileys for scientific hotheads, but it might be interesting to
}see how silly physics could get given some bizarre postulate like a 
}flat Earth.

A BIG flat earth!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: potucek@winx06.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (R.Potucek)
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Organization: University of Wuerzburg, Germany
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:59:05 GMT

All these comments to a similar subject are strange, but what the heck.
So there was this proposition about very fine dispersed antimatter made
by some <ib09@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>. That would be very, very stupid,
unless you had a certain situation, that allowed you, not to close up
to or leave the object for a while (you could't even spot the stuff 
yourself I guess and even less avoid it).

The idea to use it for a planet is even worse than to use it as a weapon 
or a defensive mechanism for a space station, as the energy would be 
released upon the planet. Now with the trouble we have with simple 
substances as FCCH, the frying effects of this would be tremendous.


<gwilliam@crc.ac.uk> writes about a space monster mentioned byLarry Niven,
however he forgot to tell the title of the book. Could anyone mail me?

			Thanks in advance, Rudolf



---------------------------------------------------+----------------------------
Rudolf Potucek jr.                                 |  A quitter never wins,
University of Wuerzburg                            |  A winner never quits,
                                                   |  but it takes a Human to
potucek@winx06.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de         |     quit in time
---------------------------------------------------+----------------------------
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Non-nuclear explosive
Keywords: antimatter molecular containment
Date: 20 Nov 92 07:41:25 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) states
>In article <u894793.721935652@bruny> (T. Little) writes:
>>pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>>
>>>Take a bunch of buckyballs with an anti-matter ion in the center.
>>>(We already have made buckyballs with ions in the center.)
>[deleted]
>>>	-- Is the buckyball w/anti-matter ion actually stable?
>>
>>No.  You wouldn't be able to prevent the anti-electrons of the ion from
>>reacting with the normal electrons of the buckyball.  
>[deleted]
>>I don't know whether a hydrogen ion would react (it has no electrons),
>>but I would strongly suspect that it does...
>
>What does the net charge of the carbon atoms in a buckyball look like
>from the _inside_?  If the net charge looks negative, then an anti-proton
>could survive if the surrounding buckyballs were at a low enough 
>temperature.  However, in all likelihood the net charge is positive.  
>Anyone know for sure?
>
>	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
>
>
>
Well does gaus's law apply to molecules? If so then it looks positive on
the inside, therefore it would not be stable. Besides, how would you get
it in there in the first place?


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Subject: Re: Whimsical 'flat Earth' comments
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:26:53 GMT

tsjenki@eos.ncsu.edu (TIMOTHY SCOTT JENKINS):
What about a LARGE planet fragment.  Say,
>something with enough mass to keep an atmosphere?

One of the old Professor Jameson stories featured such a planet fragment,
As the explorers went over a 'corner' from the 'side' to the 'top' the
gravity immediately increased several-fold.  They don't write stories
like that any more...

-----
Dani Zweig
dani@netcom.com

Roses red and violets blew
  and all the sweetest flowres that in the forrest grew -- Edmund Spenser


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Subject: Re: Whimsical 'flat Earth' comments
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:38:49 GMT

djb6@ellis.uchicago.edu (Dennis Brennan) writes:

>- How is day/night supposed to work?  Have any internally
>  consistent explanations been created?

>-How about seasonal variation?

These two could be taken care of just like they are
spherical planet. Spin the plate, and the sun will
appear to rise and set. You'll get some season effect
by letting the orbit be elliptical, but a more pronounced
effect will come from letting the spin axis be not
exactly perpendicular to the orbital plane.

>-What about climate?  If, geometrically, the scheme consists of a plane
>and a point not on the plane, then some area of the plane is a heck
>of a lot closer to the sun than other parts.  Wouldn't it be hotter there?

Only for a plate that is _very_ large in relation to
the distance to the sun.

>-Gravity:

For a point mass, gravity decreases with the square of the
distance; for a line mass, gravity decreases proportionally
with the distance, as long as you stay "far" from the ends;
for a plane mass, gravity doesn't decrease with the distance
if you stay "far" from the edges.

It would be perfectly possible to walk around the edges.

The problems as I see them are that if you don't want the
plate very thick, you have to make it extremely dense, and
if you allow it to be very thick, it has to be extremely
large, or it's almost no difference from a spherical planet.

In either case, it will have to be nearly impossibly rigid,
in order not to collapse into a sphere.

As the gravity gradient will be nearly nonexistant to a
large extent, will make the atmospheric envelope very much
larger than around a planet. Good or bad? Depends on what
you want to do.
--
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se  (n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk)
 "Failure requires effort. That's why some people never fail." -Bengt Anderberg
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: matt@severian.chi.il.us (Matt Crawford)
Subject: Re: Spin energy?
Organization: The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:47:28 GMT

Tony Buckland:
> Some of the physics being thrown around in the "weapons"
> discussion reminds me of something I read somewhere in the
> last few years (don't you love these precise references?),
> to the effect that there's more - a lot more - energy in
> the spin of particles than in their mass.  Anybody recall
> this, and/or have opinions?  One obvious application would
> be in a drive that got its energy by "de-spinning" matter; 
> producing god knows what kind of residue.


Sorry, but this is all double-talk.

First of all, nobody can say how much energy is in the spin of an
electron unless they know the moment of inertia of an electron.  (We
know the angular momentum.)  To know that, you either have to throw
it in as a new fundamental property or know some internal structure
of the electron.  As near as can be measured (about 10 significant
figures), electrons show no sign of hainv any internal structure.

Second, if you could "de-spin" a particle, where would the algular
momentum go?  Conservation of angular momentum is a consequence of
the invariance of the laws of physics under simple rotations of the
coordinate system.

Third, supersymmetric theories do have a concept of turning a
particle of a given spin into a "supersymmetric partner" whose spin
is greater or less by 1/2 unit.  But since no supersymmetric partner
of any known particle has been discovered, those partners would seem
to have a mass far greater than that of the known particle (if the
partners exist at all).  In otherwords, the process would consume,
not produce, enormous amounts of energy.
__________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford       matt@severian.chi.il.us       Java Man