HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: No big crunch?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 18:53:32 GMT

In article <6NOV199211570602@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.212050.25373@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...

>>     However, getting back on track it is silly to say that a theory that in 
>>     some sense avoids internal inconsistency has passed some sort of 
>>     valid scientific 'test'.  It's like patting oneself on the back
>>     for not having assumed ii equals 3 and ii equals 5 at the same
>>     time.  
>
>.... However, I assure you
>that it really works that way in particle physics.  Internally consistent
>theories come much more easily in classical physics than in quantum field
>theory.  Over the fifty-odd years of particle physics history, internal 
>consistency has repeatedly been a useful way of discovering new physics.

Let me strengthen Scott's point in a rather backhanded way.  Saying that
"Internally consistent theories come much more easily in classical
physics than in quantum field theory" is an understatement.  In fact, as
I never tire of repeating, none of the quantum field theories that are
used by physicists to do practical calculations have been shown to be
consistent - despite huge amounts of work by very good physicists and
mathematicians.  So in practice one doesn't even seek (demonstrable)
consistency; one simply seeks to avoid the KNOWN causes of (seeming)
inconsistency - this is quite hard enough!  

The other curious thing is that nonrenormalizability and anomalies -- two
things one tries mightily to avoid - have never been shown to lead to
inconsistency in a quantum field theory; they merely indicate the
failure of a certain perturbative method for doing calculations with the
field theory - a perturbative method with rather shaky foundations to
begin with!  Of course, the word "merely" above is tongue-in-cheek,
spoken like an ivory-tower mathematical physicist.  Since all we have of
these quantum field theories is "a certain perturbative method for doing
calculations, with rather shaky foundations," anomalies or
nonrenormalizability are utterly crippling at the present time.  One can
imagine a future in which nonlinear analysis is much more sophisticated
than it is now, in which one could prove the consistency of interacting
quantum field theories, perhaps even some that are nonrenormalizable or
have anomalies... at this point, we can only guess.
From: claborne@npg-sd.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM (Chris Claborne)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Gravity, why?
Date: 12 Nov 92 05:52:37 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Corp., Network Products - San Diego

I am looking a book or books that will explain gravity for the lay person.
I want to know why an object with a large mass (like the earch) pulls at 
everythng arround it (light, me, my computer).  What is it that is causing
the pull?  How can we have gravity waves?

Your help would be appreciated.

                                    ...  __o
                                   ..   -\<,
chris.claborne@sandiegoca.ncr.com  ...(_)/(_).                 CI$: 76340.2422
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Subject: Re: No Spin in 2 Dimensions?
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:06:52

Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews) writes:
   <CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
   >I heard it said by a former physics grad student that a certain professor
   >of his said that it is *obvious* why there is "no spin in 2 dimensions"

   Just taking a guess at what the professor might have meant:

   In QM, the commutator of any two different angular momentum operators is
   a constant times a third angular momentum operator linearly independent
   of the other two.  If you have two dimensions and only two independent
   angular momentum operators, what is their commutator?  

In fact, in two dimensions there is only _one_ angular momentum operator --
along the axis normal to the plane. There's nothing for it not to commute 
with, at all.

   Classically, which direction does the cross product, RxV, point in two
   dimensions?  

It doesn't point at all: only one of the three components of (the 3-D) RxV
is ever nonzero (in 2-D), so it's best to think of it as a scalar...
(though in 2-D relativity it probably isn't _really_ a scalar quantity;
but then QM doesn't work too well with SR anyway...)
--
Craig DeForest -- astrophysicist for hire.   DoD#314159; PhD#271828
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: gene@aee.aee.com (Gene Kochanowsky)
Subject: Science vs Religion
Keywords: faith science religion proof belief
Organization: Associated Electronic Engineers
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:35:34 GMT

ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:

>In article <1992Nov6.145757.26607@aee.aee.com>, gene@aee.aee.com 
>(Gene Kochanowsky) writes:
>| 	Faith is the unquestioning acceptance of beliefs. This is important,
>| if you question the beliefs, then you do not have faith. Ask any priest,
>| minister, mullah, rabbi, shaman, witch doctor you come across. If you wish
>| to become a "__________" (fill in the blank), then you must accept fully 
>| the "_________" (fill in the blank) of "__________" (fill in the blank). 


>We can stop here. Religion is typically a matter of *commitment*-- but
>not necessarily to *belief*, possible instead a given practice. The
>word "faith" is often used, it is true, to mean other things.


	You don't have proof, you don't have faith. All you have is some kind
of commitment, but it is not clear whether it is to get faith or proof or what.
	It seems that what you have is a situation of convienience, sort of
hedging your bets. I can hear you thinking "It couldn't hurt just in case 
there was a God", no real choice being made here.
	I think you _should_ go back to your religious group. If this is what
it has come to today, its a sorry thing.


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
From: steve@pepe.aero.org (Steve Sedlacek)
Subject: History of AC vs DC Power
Keywords: alternating current, direct current
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation; El Segundo, CA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:44:25 GMT

A question came up at lunch yesterday:  Why is our power system completely
AC?  What are the historical and physical factors which led to the present
power grid?  I beleive there are some DC high power transmission lines in
Europe.  A related question concerns the supposed effect of EMF on cancers,
especially in children.  A new Swedish study apparently confirms a moderate
correlation between living near high-power transmission lines and cancers.
Possibly the static field of DC transmission would be "less damaging" than
the fluctuating field from AC?  Again, what is the HISTORY and WHY should
power transmission be AC (I assume it is more than just transformers to
step voltage up and down being easy for AC).


-- 
Steven Sedlacek			sedlacek@aero.org
From: cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:02:27 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Nov5.173352.20400@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
+In article <73753@hydra.gatech.EDU+ cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd) writes:
++If a concept is defined in such a manner that it cannot in principle
++ever be shown to pertain to a component of reality, that concept is by
++definition meaningless. 
+
+     This seems to depend, to a great degree, on your definition of 
+     'reality'.  You may well define it so that anything that is 
+     not reality is meaningless.  If, however, you define it so that reality
+     is equivalent to the domain of science,  things that are outside
+     do not lack innate 'meaning.'  In fact, it is arguable that *any*
+     concept of which one can conceive has 'meaning' simply in the conception,
+     regardless of the nature of 'reality'.
+
+                             dale bass

"Meaning" refers to the mapping between words and the objects to which they
refer.  If a word is defined in such a way as to preclude even the possibility
of establishing that its referent does in fact exist, then there is no
semantic mapping and hence, no meaning.

Words can also refer to concepts.  A word can be regarded as meaningful
if the concept it refers to exists, but if there are no real referents
for the concept, then the concept is meaningless in the same way as a
word would be.

Since there is no law disallowing the existence of meaningless words or
concepts, one can in fact carry on quite detailed and apparently learned
discussions of great technicality over concepts which are in fact meaningless.
Philosophers & theologians often do this without giving even a thought to
whether their subject pertains to anything outside their conceptual
universe.

It is not difficult to fall into a mode of thought wherein it is implicitly
assumed that just because we have a word for something, that word is
necessarily meaningful (i.e., refers to something real).  If we wish to
acquire the truth, this is something which must be guarded against.

You cannot render something real by altering the definition of "reality".
To do so amounts to nothing more than playing with words and imparts no
useful information.  Indeed, loose terminology can be very misleading
to the unguarded mind.

Tim
-- 
Tim Dodd, Research Scientist, Georgia Tech:  cegtitd@prism.gatech.edu
Xref: sparky sci.physics:18179 sci.math:14438
From: ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The size of electrons, and Fanciful misc SAGA
Date: 8 Nov 1992 21:57:27 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov8.154955.15938@prim> dave@prim.demon.co.uk 
(Dave Griffiths) writes:
>Occams razor
>might suggest that there are _no_ continuums out there. We can get by OK
>without 'em.

I don't think continua are inherently more complex, in such a way as
to allow Occam's razor to be invoked. If you conclude that something
is best regarded as discrete, you ought to have some reason for your
choice of the smallest length, as well as the structure of the lattice
(if it is a discrete model of space, say). I don't see any good
evidence for space as being any particular sort of lattice- for
example- and until such appears, I think we should regard continuous
models of space as preferable, for being less arbitrary, for
omitting these irrelevant parameters which are needed only to
discretize the model.

Keith Ramsay
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy
From: u108502@beta.lanl.gov (Andrew Poutiatine)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:57:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.203722.6838@engage.pko.dec.com> moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
>In article <4586@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes...
>> 
>> 
>>    Well  ,  it  sounds  like the willingness to cling to some kind of la-la
>>   land belief that our  government  wouldn't  lie  to  us  about  the  moon
>>   landings  won't  just  melt  in  the  face of straightforward ,elementary
>>   mathematics ,and piles of circumstantial evidence. I guess I'll just have
>>   to use even bigger piles of circumstantial evidence and MORE  math.  Here
>>   goes:
>
>Well, since if the Moon's gravity were 0.64G rather than around 0.16G, this
>would mean the Moon is 4 times as massive than it allegedly is as we know
>its diameter.  But if this were the case, the Earth-Moon mass ratio would be
>quite different, thus the barycenter would move, tides would be quite
>different, the motion of the Earth-Moon system around the sun would be
>different,  and so forth, none of which correspond to observed information.
>
>

Not if they have lied about the mass of the earth, the sun, the density of 
water, and perhaps even the gravitational constant (not to mention where they 
were when they said they were going to be working late!) :^)  ;^)  :^) .


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: gene@aee.aee.com (Gene Kochanowsky)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Organization: Associated Electronic Engineers
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:57:57 GMT

cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd) writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.225441.22809@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU+ crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>+In article <73642@hydra.gatech.EDU+ cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd) writes:
>++In article <1992Nov4.182157.17016@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU+ crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>+++In article <1992Nov4.171314.22145@ugle.unit.no+ kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar Stvringyhus) writes:
>+++++      Why do certain people have such difficulty with the proposition
>+++++      that there are domains which 'science' and 'logic' can never reach?
>+++++                                 dale bass

	I have no difficulty with this at all. Religion at its base is about 
a thing called faith. If you wish to understand religion you must understand 
faith.

	Faith is the unquestioning acceptance of beliefs. This is important,
if you question the beliefs, then you do not have faith. Ask any priest,
minister, mullah, rabbi, shaman, witch doctor you come across. If you wish
to become a "__________" (fill in the blank), then you must accept fully 
the "_________" (fill in the blank) of "__________" (fill in the blank). 
After this acceptance you will be "saved", "accepted into Vallhalla", be 
able to "join your ancestors in piece" or what ever else makes you feel 
comfortable with the after life.

	In Science everything is fair game for questioning. It is expected
that everything will be questioned. Therefore, people in science must have
a hard time being faithfull. In order for them to succeed, they must wall
off an entire area of understanding, because then they would have to begin
questioning it. 

	So here is the kicker, if you begin questioning it "religion" then 
you are not of the faithfull, and if you are not of the faithfull then you 
do not truely understand it, therefore there is no way that you can question 
it properly.

	Neat. I have often though of starting my own religion, but my
scientific scruples would not allow me. Oh well.

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
From: lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA,    ABIAN replies to CHALOUX
Date: 3 Nov 92 17:43:56 GMT
Organization: Society for the Appreciation of Janni Lee Simner

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> chaloux@mandolin.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux) writes:
> 
> >I think there is at least one case where this is wrong. To be specific,
> >elementary particles decay under no provocation whatsoever. Thus you have
> >change without provocation and you have a tendency over time to change
> >rather than to stay the same.
>  
>    What provokes  an elementary particles to decay -  is exactly the
> annoying tendency of TIME  to stay still and maintain its status quo. 
> So, the elementary particle is annoyed with the stubbornness of TIME and 
> supplies energy to PUSHM TIME FORWARD - and hence the elementary particle
> DECAYS, and TIME MOVES FORWARD.

Oh lawsy.
 
If at first you don't see a provocation, invent one.

	Larry "Lawsy lawsy lawsy" Hammer
--

                         \   The work is rather too light, and bright,
LNH@physics.arizona.edu   \  and sparkling; it wants ... a long chapter
sometimes a Wombat         \ of solemn specious nonsense. -- Jane Austen
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: History of AC vs DC Power >>THE TRUTH!<< *=*
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 03:15:50 GMT

In article <Qf10GGi00WBOQ4orMH@andrew.cmu.edu> Kevin William Ryan <kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>    The best way to do the AC/DC conversion that I know of is paired
>motor/generator sets, but these are considerably clunkier than
>transformers. Higher voltages are de rigeur for long transmission, but
>nasty for plugging in the toaster, so the conversion is important.


No, motor generators are mostly obsolete.  It's done with power
electronics these days (banks of thyristors).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA   ABIAN  replies to R.J.KNAPP
Summary: Concerning the validity of (A1)
Keywords: Principle (A1)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:49:45 GMT

                                         11-6-92

Dear Mr. Knapp

   Sorry for the delay in my response.
   
   I respectfully submit that I have and had no intention whatsoever to
insult you, or to question your integrity. I apologize if I was not
tactful in my previous correspondence - perhaps it was a reaction to
your (provocation?) statement that "I was giving you a snow job with 
my (A1)." I also wish that you have not used that language.  But it 
is O.K.
  
  My (A1), i.e., 

(A1)   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVO-
       CATION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO


should be read very carefully and especially emphasis should
be made on  "A"  in the last sentence of  (A1).

 Let me first say, how I would explain  your conversion from Catholi-
cism to Buddhism.  You were raised Catholic that was your original
status.  Then you were exposed to different ideas. You were provoked 
but in the meantime you had an internal struggle and tendency of 
maintaining your original status quo. However, the provocation was 
strong enough and you succeeded in transition to Buddhism and now, 
you have the tendency of maintaing "A" new status quo, namely Buddhism.  
Who knows maybe in the future you will be again provoked strongly 
enough to transit again to  "A" status quo which could be Agnosticism 
or again Catholicism, or... and if at this moment, you say "Oh, no " this 
will again show (according to (A1) that you have the tendency of maintain-
ing your present status quo.

  By the wat there is nothing wrong to transit from one status quo to
another - any progress is such a transition!

   I do not like making any personal remarks, but you asked me to explain 
your transition from Catholicism to Buddhism base on my (A1).

   Now, concerning observations in Physics in support of (A1).  I 
refer you to many articles in sci.physics in connection with
"lost mass", "lost energy"  that puzzle physicists and make them
wonder where mass or energy is irretrievably dissipating.  I claim 
that "some energy is irretrievably dissipating for moving TIME
forward for overcoming the inertia of TIME in its tendency of
maintaining its status quo.

   With best wishes and regards,
                                          Alexander ABIAN                  
-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
Xref: sparky sci.physics:18753 sci.philosophy.meta:2541
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:35:04 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <6201@tuegate.tue.nl> johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers) writes:

>My view is realistic: I believe that there exists a reality, independant
>wether we know this or not. The main thing QM has to learn us about this
>is that the interaction between observers and the rest of reality is not
>always neglectable.


>Therefore, I believe in only one reality. This reality can be described
>by science. I've never seen any hint that there exists anything more.

There seems to be some hint from the modern philosophers that there
might exist considerably _less_ than a fully independent 'objective'
reality.

Bernard D'Espagnat's book _Reality and the Physicist_ is at least one
fairly authoritative physical view to the contrary of realism.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
From: cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:01:25 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Nov4.225441.22809@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU+ crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
+In article <73642@hydra.gatech.EDU+ cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd) writes:
++In article <1992Nov4.182157.17016@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU+ crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
+++In article <1992Nov4.171314.22145@ugle.unit.no+ kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar Stvringyhus) writes:
+++++      Why do certain people have such difficulty with the proposition
+++++      that there are domains which 'science' and 'logic' can never reach?
+++++                                 dale bass
++++Because it's a false proposition.
+++
+++     Prove it false.
+++
+++                             dale bass
++
++Ah, this is backwards here!  If I claim that "X exists", and you say you
++see no evidence for X, the burden of proof lies upon me, not you.  I have
++no problem with the proposition that there are domains unreachable by rational
++thought.  (Suppose I ask you what it is like to be nonexistent?)  But I am
++unconvinced that such domains have anything to say about reality (by
++definition!).
+
+     It is not backwards.  Where the burden of proof lies is a matter
+     of taste, especially in propositions that are not provable.  You may
+     well claim that 'X exists', but you will never be able to 
+     'prove' X's existence.

Where the burden proof lies is not a matter of taste.  If you are trying
to change someone's mind about some assertion they hold to be true, you
are the one who must offer reasons for them to reconsider.

+     As far as 'reality' goes, if you may define it as you wish,
+     just don't expect everybody else to share the definition, especially
+     outside of science.
+
+                             dale bass

If a concept is defined in such a manner that it cannot in principle
ever be shown to pertain to a component of reality, that concept is by
definition meaningless.  Science deals with reality; the fundamental tenets
of religion are completely beyond the bounds of reality.  They are *defined*
that way.

Tim
-- 
Tim Dodd, Research Scientist, Georgia Tech:  cegtitd@prism.gatech.edu