HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Graviton beams?
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:05:29 GMT
	<xeno.721775265@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu>
	<1992Nov15.171451.17472@husc3.harvard.edu>
	<xeno.721941530@du248-06.cc.iastate.edu>
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.116
In-reply-to: xeno@iastate.edu's message of Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:18:50 GMT

xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:

> Let's say at time = 0, I notice that there is a ball stationary with
> respect to a black hole, which then begins to fall towards the black
> hole, accelerating to an incredible velocity, it passes through the
> event horizon at time = 10.

We assume that the ball is made of an infinite tensile strengh
material so that tidal forces don't rip it apart.  You never see the
ball pass through the event horizon, not at time = 10, not at time =
10000000.  The ball approaches it in the limit as time goes to
positive infinity (falling ever more slowly as time passes).  The ball
grows redder (its photons lose more and more energy as the ball gets
closer to the event horizon), and after you account for the visual
effects of the time-of-travel of the photons, time appears to be
passing every more slowly for the ball (say it has a clock on it).

> Now, I reverse time, so I can observe the 'white' hole effect.  At
> time = 10, I see a ball thrown out of the hole's event horizon at an
> incredible velocity.

No.  You see a ball rise (slowly at first, faster later) from a
position very near the horizon.

> Is there another higher order effect that is not indepenent of temporal
> direction that I am overlooking?

I'm not sure what you mean by "higher order effect".

If you were made of infinite tensile strength material and were riding
on the ball as it fell, you would perceive the ball passing through
the event horizon in a finite time (and at a very high velocity
relative to the horizon).  Once inside the horizon, there is nothing
you can know about the outside.  By nothing, I don't just mean "no
information", I mean that you can't even ask meaningful questions
about the outside, such as: One millisecond after you have passed the
horizon, how much time has passed outside and how far are you from the
place where you started falling?  These questions are meaningless,
because they assume a degree of flatness to spacetime that simply does
not exist near the black hole.
--
franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio, CenterLine Software R&D
617-498-3255           || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
"So what we've decided to do is set you up in Cicely, situated
 in an area that we Alaskans refer to as The Alaskan Riviera."
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:08:51 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1edfd9INNbd7@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>In article <BxvJMF.4ty@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
>> The problem is not wheither magick is better than
>> science or science is better than magick. Both are quite valid.
>
>I am not alone in disagreeing with this statement. Several centuries of
>research stand behind me.

Research which backs my claim on the  validity of magick is published
in the following books:

	Tao of Physics                      author forgotten, sorry
	Margins of Reality                  Robet Jahn and Brenda Dunne
	The Electromagnetic Man             Robert Becker
	Stalking The Wild Pendulum          Itzhak Bentor
	The Holographic Universe            author forgotten, my fault
	
All of these texts are written by research or theory scientists. 

All magickal phenomena have a scientific basis. Many are still quite
impressive. The best scientist is a curious one; if you are curious enough
to consider for yourself wheither the evidence presented in the above
texts is valid, then by all means do so.

I should point out that stiffling an idea because it does not fit your
worldveiw is not only ignorant, but a very poor means of investigation.
Had Kepler ignored his data because of his fascination with a spherical
universe, then Newton  would not have had the basis he required for his
theory of gravity.

I stand by all my previous statements. 

Lost Boy
From: mcirvin@scws1.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Graviton beams?
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:14:50 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <xeno.721775265@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>
>If time is symmetric, and gravity is time-symmetric, either the event horizon
>of a black hole cannot contain matter OR objects will never reach the event
>horizon whether falling/accelerating towards, or whatever.
>
>Simply shown:  When reversing directions in time, your final velocity becomes
>your initial velocity in the opposite direction.  If you fall towards a black
>hole, you will gain velocity.  If you then pass through the event horizon,
>you will be traveling very fast.  If suddenly we reversed time (remember our
>argument is based on the symmetry of gravity with respect to time), then we
>would have a very very high initial velocity which would somehow be enough to
>propel us through the event horizon and back out into space...

Yes.  And this presents no problems, since in the time-reversed situation
the black hole is no longer a black hole, but a white hole.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: mstemper@ems.cdc.com (Michael Stemper)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:32:01 GMT
Reply-To: mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <BxvJMF.4ty@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
>part of this. The problem is not wheither magick is better than
>science or science is better than magick. Both are quite valid. Anyone
>who has dealt with magick can tell you that it works. Anyone who has dealt
>with science can tell you that it works.

If magic "works", please post instructions for some simple magical
things that we can do at home. I'm sure that personal experience
will help us all to better understand this interesting statement.

-- 
#include <Standard_Disclaimer.h>
Michael F. Stemper
Power Systems Consultant
mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: anti-gravity device
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:57:09 GMT

In article <xeno.721800966@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>In <1992Nov15.013238.9221@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <xeno.721776591@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>>>In <1992Nov13.194018.1@adcalc.fnal.gov> mantel@adcalc.fnal.gov writes:
>>>
>>>>If some one out there honestly believes that creating an "anti-gravity"
>>>>device is possible well then I also have a perpetual motion machine and
>>>>use it to power my wine from water machine.
>>>
>>>Pretty closed-minded...  you should work for the government.
>>>
>>>As for wine from water --- think twice about whether it can be done.
>>>
>>>As for perpetual motion, no law in the universe denies it's possibility...
>>>Thermodynamics you say?  No...  that says entropy must decrease or remain
>>>the same.  No entropy need be increased by motion alone.
>> 
>>But you would a need frictionless/lossless mechanical system. As far as I
>>know, no materials at normal temperatures are frictionless. The only
>>perfect things that come too mind are superconductors, and I believe that
>>liquid helium II is a perfect heat conductor. I doubt that any machine
>>requiring supercold could be described as perpetual. Unless it was operated
>>in a mine on Pluto, or somewhere where the it was perpetually shielded
>>from all sources of heat. I guess that would rule out Pluto, I recall
>>that while very cold, it is not cold enough to liquify helium.
>
>>>---Xeno
>>>P.S.  Ooops, my apologies if you really do work for the government... ;)
>
>>Rich
>
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>
>How about...  (drum roll)  free space?
>'Perpetual motion' is a misnomer...  Perpetual motion exists everywhere...
>If it didn't, then this whole 'entropy' thing would need to be redefined.

I was responding to the topic of "perpetual motion machine", not perpetual
motion per se.  
 
>A single atom exhibits perpetual motion...  two objects in stable orbits about
>a pivot exhibit perpetual motion.  Perpetual motion is everywhere...

I am not sure if QM states that electrons orbit as planets do. If you look
at some of the probability spaces for orbitals, this looks really unlikely.
And planets do orbit around the CG. Atoms are not gravitationally bound, so
I see no reason why they should be so restrained (although this is the first
time I have considered it). And as before, this is not what is meant by
pertetual motion machine. And I really do not think of the atom as a machine,
do you?
 
>Water water everywhere...  But not a drop to drink.
>---Xeno

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon)
Subject: Black holes again (was Re: Graviton beams?)
Organization: Integrated Micro Products Ltd
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:34:59 GMT

In <mcirvin.721764783@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
>
>As for information exiting the hole:
>
>The virtual gravitons and photons yield *no* information about what is
>going on inside the black hole other than the hole's mass, center of
>mass, spin and charge.  These are conserved quantities that belonged to the
>matter that collapsed to form the hole; you need not peel away the skin
>of the finished hole to find them in the first place.
>
>This is the "no-hair theorem."  A black hole has no "hair," just these
>few properties.  Quantum field theory might allow a few other properties
>to appear, though I don't really understand these recent developments.
>I think, though, that they share the property of not being anything that
>you couldn't find out about by other means.

But what about the case of *two* massive singularities, in orbit round
one another, each within the event horizon of the other ... would we
be able to detect them separately, or only calculate their centre of
mass?  Or isn't such a configuration possible anyway?  What about
getting energy out of such a system, using the fluctuations in the
gravitational field outside the event horizon (if there are any)?
-- 

===============================================================================
Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | "C^i tio ne estas .subskribo"
===============================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: tomes@iastate.edu ()
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:05:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.132550.133695@zeus.calpoly.edu> mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:
>tomes@iastate.edu () states
>>In article <1992Nov11.145758.130374@zeus.calpoly.edu> mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:

>>Since most of the things you use current for can be massaged (more turns of 
>>wire, higher voltage, etc) why do you want this much current?  It seems to
>>me that if it lasts for any length of time you would melt just about any non-
>>superconducting device.
>>
>Well if we are talking about rail guns the the Force is aproximately
>
>F=.5(i^2u/pi)ln((w+r/r) 
>
>where i = current
>w=distanc between the rails
>r=radius of the rails
>u=permitivity constant
>(wish i had a kebord with greek leters ;-( )
>
Wait up, here.  Since we're talking about magnetic fields, and the total
curret flux is dependent on the NUMBER OF TURNS OF WIRE, why not use a coil
to generate the field?

The implementation that I heard of was a linear array of magnet asseblies,
each of which was a superconducting coil assembly.  The array was carefully
aligned (!) and used to throw things.  I don't know what: the discussion was
focused on the magnets and the effects of misfires.

The reduction in efficiency (and increase in power consumed) was worth not
having to rebuild the whole rail when a misfire blew up (! his words) a local
peice of the rail.  The big problem apparently was the 'kick-up' at the end
of the accelerator to change the velocity of the projectile to leave the
atmosphere more quickly:  when it didn't make the corner, you got all of the
kinetic energy (suborbital velocity here, folks..LOTS of energy) back in a bad
way and had an amazing horizontal meteorite accident.

Chuck the Merciless
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:19:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.173308.17476@husc3.harvard.edu> mcirvin@scws1.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
>To get a good idea of the current state of experiments involving
>antimatter, read Gerald Gabrielse's article in the latest Scientific
>American on trapping and cooling antiprotons.  He led the group that
>measured the antiproton mass (actually the charge-to-mass ratio) with
>unprecedented accuracy at CERN.  Antiprotons take big accelerators to
>produce; you make them by slamming protons into a stationary target.
>The challenge (besides getting the high-energy people to let you stick
>your apparatus in the beam) is to reduce the antiprotons' kinetic energies
>from 6 MeV to thousandths of an eV so that you can shove them around
>easily, without losing them all to annihilation or escape from the
>requisite electromagnetic trap.  Gabrielse refers to the production of
>an antihydrogen atom as a foreseeable goal, but still quite some distance
>off.  That's the state of the technology:  it's possible to make and
>manipulate individual subatomic antiparticles with some finesse, but
>the assembly of a whole antiatom hasn't happened yet.
>-- 
>Matt McIrvin

Antihyrdogen? Cool! That means that sooner or later some guy like
Oppenheimer can come along and build a nice antimatter-reaction warhead...:(

Seriously, I'd like to see antiatoms around. Maybe this will lead to other
antiatoms, like antiHe or antiBi, and we'll have a new dicsipline called
Antichemistry...
Or an even more complicated discipline like Complex Chemistry with matter
and antimatter mixed in compounds...

And I thought Freshman Chem was a pain!

Lost Boy
From: mcirvin@scws1.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:33:06 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

To get a good idea of the current state of experiments involving
antimatter, read Gerald Gabrielse's article in the latest Scientific
American on trapping and cooling antiprotons.  He led the group that
measured the antiproton mass (actually the charge-to-mass ratio) with
unprecedented accuracy at CERN.  Antiprotons take big accelerators to
produce; you make them by slamming protons into a stationary target.
The challenge (besides getting the high-energy people to let you stick
your apparatus in the beam) is to reduce the antiprotons' kinetic energies
from 6 MeV to thousandths of an eV so that you can shove them around
easily, without losing them all to annihilation or escape from the
requisite electromagnetic trap.  Gabrielse refers to the production of
an antihydrogen atom as a foreseeable goal, but still quite some distance
off.  That's the state of the technology:  it's possible to make and
manipulate individual subatomic antiparticles with some finesse, but
the assembly of a whole antiatom hasn't happened yet.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft)
Subject: PERPETUAL GRAVITRONS
Originator: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:58:31 GMT

From murdoch!uvaarpa!caen!destroyer!news.iastate.edu!pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu!xeno Tue Nov 17 20:19:40 EST 1992
Article: 2088 of alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: Perpetual motion (was Re: anti-gravity device)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:33:48 GMT

In <16NOV199214055439@csa3.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>The difference may seem small to you, Xeno, but it is enough of a change
>to be the difference between the possible and the impossible.  In principle,
>constructing a machine which is arbitrarily close to perfectly efficient is 
>possible, using superconducting devices, etc.  That would fit *your*
>definition of perpetual motion.  But creating a machine that does even 
>infinitesmally more than that - producing more energy than it uses - 
>is theoretically impossible.  

QThis difference is the most likely the cause of any disagreement.  I view
Qmoving a 300 lbs. dumbell twenty miles and then twenty miles back something
Qthat could theoretically be done with no energy loss whatsoever.  
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^
Please be careful with your terminology! Energy is neither created nor 
distroyed. You mean `useful energy', `available energy', `available work',
or `exergy'. 

One way to accomplish the above without degrading energy would be using 
gravitational fields (I think). This would require two massive bodies in
addition to the 300lb_m dumbell. Let's say we have a 10^10 lb_m (or slug)
mass 1000 miles to the right of the dumbell and a 10^8 lb_m 100 miles to
the left. Let the 10^10 lb_m body be moving towards the 300 lb_m dumbell.
The dumbell may first move to the left towards the 10^8 lb_m body until
the more massive body to the right gets close enough. The dumbell may
then begin to move to the right. If the two larger bodies avoid a collision
and no object remains in orbit around any other, each going off never to
interact again, has useful energy been lost? I would think that both of the
larger bodies could be of the same mass and that all three bodies could
have the same momentum and energy as they had before the interaction (though
momentum in another direction) if the trajectory was just right.

Perhaps if gravitational fields could be called into existence at will a
perpetual motion machine may be made. This brings us back the the gravitron
beam. What kind of critters are these gravitrons anyway?

QSo perhaps it is that I am trying to argue this case on the wrong level...
QI suggest that it may not be necessary to expend energy to accomplish certain
Qtypes of work, and therefore machines performing these types of work would
Qbe 'perpetual' in operation.

QAlthough I would mention that it is not theoretically impossible to regain
Qenergy, but only theoretically so highly improbable as to make it well
Qoutside the reach of possible practical use.


>-Scott


Q---Xeno
Q(Gary Snethen)

------David-------
From: Robert.T.Warfield@dartmouth.edu (Robert T. Warfield)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Anti-Gravity and other devices
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:53:30 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu


  Lately I've been seeing a number of posts about devices that do
wonderous things tike anti-gravity and free energy. Along with these
posts are the patent numbers. However, if I remember right, there is no
rule that the device must work before it gets a patent.



**********************************************************************
* Arthur, king of the Britons    * King of the who?                  *
* King of the Brittons!          * Who are the Brittons anyway?      *
* I am, you are, we all are the  *                                   *
* Brittons and I am your king!   * Well, I didn't vote for you.      *
**********************************************************************
Robert T. Warfield@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: anti-gravity device
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:08:08 GMT


>I was responding to the topic of "perpetual motion machine", not perpetual
>motion per se.  
> 
>>A single atom exhibits perpetual motion...  two objects in stable orbits about
>>a pivot exhibit perpetual motion.  Perpetual motion is everywhere...

>I am not sure if QM states that electrons orbit as planets do. If you look
>at some of the probability spaces for orbitals, this looks really unlikely.
>And planets do orbit around the CG. Atoms are not gravitationally bound, so
>I see no reason why they should be so restrained (although this is the first
>time I have considered it). And as before, this is not what is meant by
>pertetual motion machine. And I really do not think of the atom as a machine,
>do you?
> 

I suppose that it depends on your definition of a machine...  It has not
been shown what minimum energy, if any, is required to operate 'intellectual'
machines (ie., machines that perform no physical work, but are capable of
problem solving, computation, and/or data processing.)  In my view, such a
computer could be considered a 'perpetual motion machine' if it could operate
indefinitely without absorbing net energy from its surroundings.


>>Water water everywhere...  But not a drop to drink.
>>---Xeno

>Rich

>payner@netcom.com

---Xeno