HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wolf@doppel.first.gmd.de (Wolfgang Koehler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: An Alternative Physical Model for SR
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:30:00 GMT
Reply-To: wolf@first.gmd.de
Organization: GMD-FIRST, Berlin
In-reply-to: tigelaar@epcot.spdc.ti.com's message of 28 Dec 92 16:30:45 GMT


In article <1992Dec28.163045.15897@spdc.ti.com> tigelaar@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Howard Tigelaar) writes:

   A second physical model is presented which also explains the
   equations of special relativity and Minkowski diagrams.  I realize
   there is virtually no chance of this model being correct but I
   would like to know if this model was considered before and if so
   what experimental evidence was used to reject it or if I have made
   fundamental errors in developing this proposed model.  In special
   relativity, we first choose a physical model of the photon and then
   use the equations of special relativity to predict space/time
   interactions given the model.  It is more the physical model of the
   photon than the equations of special relativity that determines the
   physics of space/time.
   [stuff deleted]

I think you have narrowed SR too much if you think it describes only
the behaviour of photons.
(Sorry if I missed other intentions)

First SR is a *general* theory of space and time where all kinds of
classical fields are acting in (including gravity.)

Especially it is the first theory that gives a consistent explanation
of Maxwells equations (the equations for all electromagnetic interactions).
These eqs. contain "c" as a parameter and SR as the first stated that c
is a constant in all reference frames.
The simplification of these eqs. with the introduction of SR is enormous
since it reduces 4 independent eqs to only two.

wolf




--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ... always look on the bright side of life ... (Monty Python)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Koehler                               wolf@first.gmd.de
GMD-FIRST an der TU Berlin              German National Research Centre 
Tel. (Berlin 030/049) 6704-2650              for Computer Science



Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call moder(and sci.physics.research-NOT!)
Organization: The World
	<1992Dec24.074121.11426@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:28:19 GMT

Yea, well maybe the tag team was exposed to a little physics, if nothing
else.  It sure beats the horoscopes they are exposed to everyday.

    It is the hope of many that the Internet over time be more accessible
to the general public, so that more people can benefit from this valuable
information resource.  The downside is that more people will have access
to USENET, which will lead to more "stupid" questions and "stupid" postings.
Hopefully areas like sci.physics won't be flooded with such stuff.
And if so, I think it is not a high price to pay to have to deal with
these distractions from "serious" physics.  Physicists in general do a
lousy job of explaining physics to the general public, and can learn much
from the "stupid" questions that are posted, in terms of public misconceptions.


Thus, my pitch to keep sci.physics as is and unmoderated.

Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA -  Conversion of TIME into matter 
Summary: SPECIAL MACHINERY TO CONVERT ENERGY TO MATTER
Keywords: CONVERT,  MASS,  SUNRAY,  MAGNETIC RAY, GRAVITY RAY, TIME RAY
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 00:25:34 GMT


For Readers of  TIME HAS INERTIA  only

  In my previous posting , I mentioned that:

It is easy to solidify water vapor (an ordinary refrigerator would do it).

It is more complicated to solidify Oxygen or Nitrogen.

It is much more complicated to solidify (convert into matter!) a sunray.

It is much, much more complicated to convert into matter an electric ray 
(arc)

It is much, much, much more complicated to convert to matter a  magnetic ray

It is much, much, much, much more complicated to convert into matter a gravi-
ty ray.  

It is much, much, much, much, much more complicated to convert into matter a 
TIME  (and perhaps a Space - which I doubt)  ray.


    For all the above, an extremely complicated machinery  operating at
near absolute zero temperatures and overwhelming pressures will be
required.

    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)
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN  replies to POLOWIN
Date: 21 Dec 1992 20:21:00 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada


In article <BzFE4H.9Dw@news.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>In article <BzFBo6.F12@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polow
>>[Abian claims that]
>>sulfuric acid emits heat when it contacts water in an attempt to 
>>maintain its status quo by evaporating the water -- ignoring the fact
>>that conc. sulfuric will happily absorb water vapour from the air.

>   IT IS THE  TENDENCY OF THE WATER IN THE AIR NOT TO ALLOW THE
>   CONCENTRATION OF THE ENEMY ( i.e. the sulfuic acid)  AND THE WATER
>   IN AIR TRIES TO DILUTE THE ENEMY AND FEEL SECURE (the same
>   way that General Petain tried to dilute the enemy)

The why is it that oil under the same conditions does NOT absorb water?  
What does water have against sulfuric acid, that it should consider it an
enemy?  

If you put two glasses, one half-filled with water, and the other half-filled
with concentrated sulfuric acid, inside a sealed chamber, in a few days one 
glass will be empty and the other will be full of dilute sulfuric acid.  The
"status quo" is not maintained.  If you do the same thing with half-filled 
glasses of water and vegetable oil, then as long as the chamber is sealed, the
status quo IS maintained.  The reason has nothing to do with "security".

- db

   

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: nariani@utdallas.edu (Sushil Nariani)
Subject: QM question
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 01:04:56 GMT

Scott Chase writes:
There is a difference between making a measurement of position and a 
measurement of momentum for a free particle.  Only the momentum is 
a good quantum number, i.e., position does not commute with the Hamiltonian.
That is, position, in general, evolves in time, no matter what you do.
The rule you describe only applies when the operator *does* commute
with the Hamiltonian for the system.  

	So what *does* happen when I make that sort of a measurement? In
	general, what does measurement mean in QM and what is it's effect
	on a system? [If this is in FAQ, please indicate without flames :-)


Since kinetic energy is p^2/2m, it will be very hard to construct a system
for which x is a good quantum number.  I suppose you could imagine a 
velocity-dependent potential which cancels the kinetic energy, though I 
don't know what physical system this would describe.  If position is a
good eigenvalue, then it will surely be very strange indeed.

	suppose you could devise such a system. It would still not leave
		the particle in a delta function eigenstate, right? 

		Sushil


Xref: sparky sci.physics:21975 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2666 alt.alien.visitors:9506 alt.paranormal:2728 sci.skeptic:21875
From: jjs40@cd.amdahl.com (John Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic
Subject: Sarfatti fans take note.
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:08:19 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

You can find a letter to the editor from Jack in today's (12/31) San Francisco
Chronicle.  It contains some mumblings about how the government should be
allowed to pursue secret programs.  Kind of a pro-conspiracy theory stance.

Personally, I find him to be far more entertaining than some of the other
local alt.wackos such as John Winston.  Sarfatti reads like a bad acid-SF
novel, as opposed to Winston who is a lot more like the Weekly World News.

-- 
John Sullivan, Engineer/Computer Development.      Email: jjs40@cd.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA.                  Phone: (408)746-4688
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - NewScientist Article
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 19:35:37 GMT

In article <93e1VB1w165w@dorsai.com> shire@dorsai.com (Kenneth Shire) writes:
>> What's sad is that he died (1930) on an expedition in deep Greenland, and
>> so there was no one to really push the theory afterward.

>Sad indeed!  Though I am not by profession a physical scientist, it seems 
>that the it was not simply that the observational evidence didn't jibe 
>with Wegener's theory that did it in.  My training is in sociology, and 
>more specifically in ethnomethodology, which deals in the ways in which 
>members of groups cooperate to put together a version of "reality" that
>they find convincing and within which they can operate to achieve their 
>goals.  

>BTW, though I have seen one biographical essay on Wegener, I am always in 
>search biographical material and any and all information on articles, 
>books, monographs, in English would be appreciated.  [I know there are 
>German books but I'm not up to the translation.]

For those who forget, we're talking here about the continental drift
theory.  A somewhat interesting book to check out is The Reception of
Unconventional Science, edited by Seymour H. Mauskopf.  It consists of 4
essays.  One of the best is a little history and analysis of the
reception of the continental drift theory.  The other 3 are about: the
reception of quantum physics in England, the reception of Rhine's work
on parapsychology (which was apparently ran into some difficulty simply
because of a general distrust of statistics at the time -- not because
statistics were being used wrong, simply because statistics in general
was new and unfamiliar!), and the reception of acupuncture in the West.
The fact that two of these theories are "true", one "false" and one
still murky is nice.
From: eng10370@nusunix1.nus.sg (CHEW JOO SIANG)
Subject: can sound waves boil water?
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:14:39 GMT

I was thinking of this the other day - we all know that a microwave oven
works by resonating the water molecules at its natural frequency - this
causes a rise in its temperature. The question is, can we do the same
with sound waves - using it to resonate the water molecules. I know that
you need incredibly high frequecies to achieve it but is the concept
sound theoretically?

Kumaresan a/l Kanagasabai
eng10370@nusunix1.nus.sg 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:26:16 GMT

In article <mdW=H4=@engin.umich.edu> vejcik@daq (Steve Vejcik) writes:
>I agree.  I understand people's sentiment that the crackpots can get out
>of hand and tend to dominate the discussions to the point of getting
>very tedious, but hey, it _is_ very easy to just type 'n'.  This group
>gets some fun threads going but that's it.  I don't think its reasonable
>to expect anything that will affect research to take place here.  

It is only fair to point out that the originator of this thread was
satisfied when he learned how to create a KILL file on his system.
The timely question is whether to form a separate moderated group for
research-related topics. There is now serious discussion of this
subject on another thread.

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Is Baez a time traveller or merely a Platonist?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:44:34 GMT


Baez makes the amazing remark with which I agree:
"I already posted one reply to this, but let's suppose one really doesn't
see what the point of unifying general relativity and quantum theory is.
It's true that most of the experiments one can *easily* imagine to test
quantum gravity *would* require a really advanced super-technology to
carry out.  (E.g., rigging up a particle collider to wham charged
Planck-mass mini-black-holes into each other, or trying to start a new
universe in your basement by messing with the Higgs potential.)  Being
an optimist in certain matters, I feel that if humanity doesn't croak
first it will eventually learn how to mess with the fabric of spacetime,
and that's what quantum gravity is about.  But it's not going to happen
soon -- unless, as is so often in the case with physics, something
unexpected happens!!  (Who'd have thought that messing around with rocks
that spoiled photographic plates would have led to the ability to
vaporize whole cities?)

of particular note is "by messing with the Higgs potential" - that's
how UFOs fly if they are real - note I say "if they are real" not
"they are real" - so for this heresy - this poetical remark I and
others are to be banished? Plato feared Poets - so does Baez. Is
Baez a reincarnation of the Grand Inquisitor - see Doestevksy - he
knows that all the things I envision actually do exist - but he is
protecting the prime directive and does not think you primitive
beings in the 20th century can handle the truth.
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Date: 1 Jan 93 16:14:18 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <mcirvin.725844416@husc.harvard.edu>, mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin) writes:

> [...]
> Of course, such [nonlocal] theories remove the original rationale for hidden-variable
> theories, which was precisely to get rid of spooky action at a distance.

The major motivation was to get rid of probability as a
fundamental aspect of physical theory. There was little understanding
of the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics when this debate started
in the 1930s.

Paul Budnik

Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: Dale Bass on The Good, the Bad, and The Bogus
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 02:09:26 GMT

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
: 
: >No, the situation is not that simple. My point about Gardner's article is
: >that I was an obscure asst prof at San Diego State until I became a
: >useful idiot of un-named intelligence agencies - a pawn in a vast
: >geo-political game - some of the spooks revealed themselves to me in the
: >mid-80's.
: 
:      Where's alt.conspiracy when you need it?  (not in the header, good,
:      I'll put it there). Somehow, pawn is not the position in which 
:      I envision you. 
: 
Now I understand everything. Dale Bass is an agent provocateur in the pay
of a vast global conspiracy. His modus operandi is to pretend to take
Sarfatti more seriously than Abian, thereby thrusting him unwillingly into
the public eye.                                                           
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: dbriggs@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Daniel Briggs)
Subject: Re: Why no Nobel Prize in Math?
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 18:54:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.145732.19319@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
  wjh@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (william.j.hery) writes:
>hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner) writes:
>>       It seemed unlikely to me at the time that a mathematician
>>would have a love life, much less an adulterous one, but I've
>>since realized they're human too.
>
>?????? Is that because you think that all mahtematicians are 1) asexual,
>2) homosexual, 3) perfect moral speicmens according to some moral
>code that you recognize, 4) prudes, or 5) just don't have the time
>because they spend so much time doing mathematics?????

Well, I can add a mildly amusing bit of annecdotal evidence which suggests
that there might be a grain of truth to the above.  (Take the implications
with a few smileys, but the story *is* true, albeit more than a decade
old.)

A friend of the household, before I moved in, was active with COYOTE in the
SF Bay Area.  I can't remember the acronym expansion, but it is (was?) an
organization to promote legalized prostitution.  Among other things, COYOTE
kept summary statistics of the sales activities of all their members, as
ammunition for their lobbying battles.  There was always a big correlation
between sales and a major convention in San Francisco.  Until the AMS had
a major meeting there, that is.  COYOTE had its worst weekly sales ever!

(And Bill, I don't think the Alejo meant anything by the original post.
It's a lot easier to laugh at ourselves, and realize that the stereotype
really is pretty funny.  It's certainly not true in general, but there's
just enough reality in the stereotype to make it funnier than random
slander.  Don't give yourself an ulcer.)

-- 
| Daniel Briggs  (dbriggs@nrao.edu)                      |  USPA B-14993
| New Mexico Tech / National Radio Astronomy Observatory |      DoD #387
| P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM 87801   (505) 835-7391        | 
Support the League for Programming Freedom   (info from lpf@uunet.uu.net)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: moshier@world.std.com (Stephen L Moshier)
Subject: inductance of a coil
Summary: query: modern way to calculate inductance?
Keywords: 19th century physics
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:19:41 GMT

    Recently I needed to know the electrical self inductance of a
thick solenoid to an accuracy better than the ham radio formula
offers.  This led to an obsessive literature search that turned
up many horrific formulas in expressions of infinite series, each
term of which is a hypergeometric function.  These had names like
Maxwell, Stefan, and Butterworth attached to them.  This
literature ran from 1845 to 1915. The handbook tables for a thin
solenoid were invented by Nagaoka, whom I'd not heard of, in
1909. I made a computer program for all of them, in their honor.

    What I did not find (though I didn't look too hard) was
recent work on this topic.  The latest item on any sort of
accurate inductance calculation was a Bureau of Standards
circular dated 1952.

    My question is, what is the modern way to calculate
inductance?  Could someone mention a reference?

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Cappucino Noise + steam hammering
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:20:13 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Well, there are steam bubbles and there are steam bubbles. Steam
bubbles in the bottom of an open pot of boiling water may have 
their effects limited to the production of little crackling sounds,
but steam bubbles
inside the boiler tubes of locomotives are quite capable of blowing
the boiler to bits. Steam bubbles explosively expanding and collapsing
inside the plumbing of a heating system will move kg slugs of water
at a good clip.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: The Pagels Phenomenon 1 (The cases of mcinnes and kepley).
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:45:47 GMT

kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
: >goofy
: 
: Well..maybe so, but I'm new to this group and telecommunications are very
: poor means of transmitting things like irony and sarcasm.  Without voice
: inflections and facial expressions it can be pretty hard to pick up on
: a person.  Many of the people here seemed to be treating you as serious
: with your threats of lawsuits and intimidating letters to employers.  If
: that was all a joke (and lately you seem to have been making it into one)
: then I appologize...sorry.
: 
I'm sorry, I was unable to read sci.physics on 31 December because of
illness and have consequently lost this thread. What is going on here?    
ps Yes, I know, strange to get sick BEFORE the New Year party...a case of
intestinal precognition? A nauseating telepatype from the morning of 1
January?
From: elliot.weinberg@nitelog.com (Elliot Weinberg) 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Help me deal w/ infin
Date: 31 Dec 92 08:30:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Nitelog BBS - Monterey, CA - 408-655-1096
Reply-To: elliot.weinberg@nitelog.com (Elliot Weinberg) 

SA>   Date: 23 Dec 92 02:03:09 GMT

SA>     a = b   =>                   a - b  = 0    (1)

SA>     a - b   =>  a^2 = ab  =>   a^2 - ab = 0    (2)

SA>     (1) and (2) implies :
SA>     a^2 - ab = a - b =>  a (a - b) = a - b =>  a (a - b) = 1 (a - b) =>  a

SA>   which proves that any arbitrary number equals 1 ! Why don't you ask your

EHW> Dividing by zero(a-b) has been the standard Congressional/White
House budget practice for years. As you say, it enables ANY number to
come out equal to ANY OTHER number! Now that we have donated our own
Leon Panetta to OMB look for some new, slightly more rigorous, math!
Regards.

               
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: moderating sci.physics
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:08:59 GMT

Concerning me being a moderator:

"If I am nominated, I refuse to run"

"If elected, I refuse to moderate"

And besides, I don't have a formal degree in physics.  :^)

See my recent posts.

Jon Noring

-- 

Charter Member of the INFJ Club.

Now, if you're just dying to know what INFJ stands for, be brave, e-mail me,
and I'll send you some information.  It WILL be worth the inquiry, I think.

=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | I VOTED FOR PEROT IN '92 |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | Support UNITED WE STAND! |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   |  caravan moves on."      |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21875 rec.arts.startrek.tech:7158
From: jdsiegel@garnet.berkeley.edu (Joel Siegel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Accellerating Spaceship (yet another bird in a plane)
Date: 30 Dec 1992 07:21:45 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <ewright.725660501@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>For example, if you had two chunks of matter, one negative and
>one positive, the negative chunk would move away from the positive
>chunk because of repulsion.  However, the positive chunk would move
>toward the negative chunk, trying to catch up.  So, toss a chunk of
>negative matter out the door of your spaceship, and away you go!
>

Ahhh... perpetual motion?  That could be better than warp drive! :-)


-- 
Joel Siegel <jdsiegel@garnet.berkeley.edu    jdsiegel@ocf.berkeley.edu>
"Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in
affairs which properly concern them."  - Paul Valery
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21679 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2595