HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re:   VERY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.     ABIAN ANSWERS TONDERING
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:29:59 GMT

In <1992Oct14.084233.6403@dde.dk> ct@dde.dk (Claus Tondering) writes:
    Question:

>   How does a magnet work? I mean, when I place a magnet close to, say,
>   a needle, the needles moves. What makes it move? How can the magnet
>   exert a force on the needle over a distance? It seems like magic to
>   me.

    ANSWER (Abian):

    Every object has magnetic, electric, and maybe other charges.  A 
    piece of wood, a piece of iron, a drop of water, a brick, a piece 
    of flesh, a stone, a fly, a needle, a  magnet, ... every one, every 
    one of these has magnetic, electric, and maybe other charges.  
    However, in some of them these charges could be so minute, so ex-
    tremely minute that they are almost undetectable by ordinary even 
    very sensitive instruments.
    
    As in the case of electric charges (see my previous postings)
    there are also two magnetic charges,  N (orth) and  S (outh).  A 
    powerful magnet has strong  N and  S  magnetic charges and (as men-
    tioned above) a needle also has  N  and  S  magnetic charges which 
    could be extremely small. 
    
    Now , as in the case of electric charges (see my previous postings)
    the space has also the tendency of maintaining its magnetic neutrality
    So when  you pose a (magnetically very feeble) needle close to a strong
    magnet, the space will force the needle to move toward the magnet in
    such a way as to prevent the augmentation of the total magnetic charges, by 
    neutralizing the small amounts of N and S magnetic charges of the
    needle by respectively the stronger S  and  N  charges of the magnet.
    All this in accordance with space's tendency of opposing a larger con-
    centration o magnetic charges  and maintaining (wherever possible) the 
    status quo of its magnetic neutrality.   
    
    Now if you bring two strong  magnets close to each other, then again
    the magnets will move in such a way  (repulsing or attracting each
    other) in order to comply with space's tendency of maintaining its
    magnetic neutrality.  Of course an exterior force, such as our hands 
    very often will overpower space's tendency of maintaining its magnetic
    neutrality and we will move magnets almost any way we want if our hands
    are sufficiently strong.
       
    Mr. Tondering, please let me know (by posting in sci.physics)if my
    answer is satisfactory to you.
    Have you heard of a more convincing explanation ?  My explanation is
    probably the best.  I doubt if anyone could explain it better.
    At best they will give you a mocking, sarcastic and supercilious 
    run around.
From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix (?)
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:18:37 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

In article <1992Oct15.180132.2769@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

  [lots of comments to the effect that science
   and religion are quite different beasts!]

Hmmm...  Dr. Bass, are we communicating here?  I went down the list of
comments you made and pretty much said "yup, yup, yeah, that's a bit
blunt but pretty much right on..."

Physicists historically seem to have borrowed *heuristics* from religion,
not scientific facts.  Newton apparently made a rather huge leap from
local gravity to planetary motions in part because his way of looking
at the world included the idea that there was a God that had built the
cosmos efficiently and effectively.  Good designers are parsimonious, so
he assumed that God's design for how the universe should work should also
be parsimonious.  Regardless of its source, it proved to be a doggone
effective heuristic for Newton, who was still living in an age where
folks were quite willing to say "the world is as we see it -- why try
to explain it further?"

It still is a doggone good heuristic in physics, only it is no longer
explicitly associated with the Western monotheism from which it was
largely derived.  Now it's just a precept, one that is generally taught
in a distilled and highly abstract form that is relatively devoid of
any specific religious content.  Doesn't change its ancestry, however.

So why bang on such points?  Because if you are truly interested in
being as "scientific" as possible, you *need* to know the origins of your
own heuristics.  Is there any proof that the parsimony assumption will
always be the best heuristic to use?  Certainly not!  If you say that
there is you really *are* getting into religion, not science.

So why not recognize it for what it is -- an assumption with an interesting
history -- and be careful not to implicitly make it your *only* possible
working assumption while pursuing science?  Despite its very good track
record, there may well be cases where something else is needed.  If science
is your goal, knowing that parsimony of design is really more a borrowed
precept of the Western monothestic religions than some kind of "obvious"
(it most certainly is not) tentant of science is probably the is probably
the *best* way to keep from being unduly constrained by it.

				Cheers,
				Terry
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton)
Subject: Re: How do you draw a straight line?
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:15:06 GMT

geg@beep.mis.semi.harris.com (Gregory E. Garland) writes:

>Assuming I'm visualizing how this thing works; it will only draw
>a line for a small arc oscillating back and forth.  Got any pretty
>pictures of something that will turn continuous full revolutions into
>a straight line?

Well theoretically there were no restrictions.  So theoretically
it should be "good" for the full revolution of the arm around
point A provided the arms k are long enough but I'm not saying
this too loud just yet.  I think it might tend to jam at large
angles.

I believe I'll make a couple and see how they work.

John Hagerman had a good idea.  I don't know if you saw his article 
but here's a repeat.

> Here's something I made up.  The two circles represent meshed gears,
> where the meshing requires that they turn in opposite directions at
> the same rate.  The two linkage points inside the tops of the circles
> are attached to the gears; the other linkages are as usual.  The point
> at the top oscillates up and down in a straight line as the gears turn
> continuous full revolutions.
> 
> Do you forbid gears?

I don't know - do we?
	
	Jim
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Missions
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 04:54:37 GMT

Okay, in this post I counted roughly 77 capitalized words not counting
acronyms, book titles and section headings.  We also have a few blatant
errors of fact, a claimed "GENERAL UNIFIED" theory of physics (Larson's)
without any testable predictions thereof that I can see, and warnings
about nasty conspiracies.

I will be generous and say 1 obvious error of fact, namely, that the
Russians have electrogravitically propelled "cosmospheres" equipped with
"psycho-energetic range finding" (PRF) and armed with all sorts of nasty
weapons.  If I were in a bad mood I would count this as many obvious
errors of fact.

So we get:

-5 credit + 5 x 77 capitalized words + 30 x 1 revolutionary theory + 
20 x 1 conspiracies.

(I forget if I put it in but conspiracies count 20 points.)  

This gives a crackpot rating of 425 points if I did the math right.
Quite high I'd say, despite my massive generosity.

>               The Russians have spacecraft called "COSMOSPHERES", 
>          which were originally built and used for "Star Wars" defense.  
>          They are spherical in shape, INvisible to radar beyond about 
>          50 miles away, atomic-powered [possibly Migma fUsion], 
>          electro-gravitic (can hover against gravity), and equipped 
>          with "Psycho-energetic Range Finding" (PRF) which tunes-in to 
>          the actual atomic signature of an object or target.
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Mattel on women
Summary: Northern Exposure provides contrast
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:19:56 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

Last night's episode of Northern Exposure provided an interesting 
counterpoint to the attitude of Mattel on women and mathematics. 

Although the discussion of mathematical issues had its weak moments, 
the kinds of questions (repeating numbers, infinity) that make real 
math interesting were out for all to see.  Further, the character was 
almost less quirky than most on the show, and it was her intellect 
that was part of her attraction for Chris. 

If only Barbie would say "Ken, do you need help with your math homework?"

(By the way, the stink is big enough for the Barbie story to make the 
national news.  Maybe there is hope after all.)

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
From: pab1@quads.uchicago.edu (paul andrew braier)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: 1992 Nobel Prizes: a prediction
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:06:48 GMT
Reply-To: pab1@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct15.022403.1496@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tekman@ecn.purdue.edu (Erkan Tekman) writes:
>In article <93071@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>|> In article <9OCT199221030655@utahep.uta.edu>, sawyer@utahep (Lee Sawyer) writes:
>|> >other is not de Broglie (the work that he was cited for was
>|> >in his dissertation - a unique occurance as well, I believe).
>|> 
>|> Didn't Glaser invent the bubble chamber as a grad student?
>
>and Mossbauer was a grad student when he came out with the spectrescopy named
>after him.
>
>E. Tekman 

Another example:

The stuff I'm working on now is just mind-boggling!



Paul "Mr. Grad Student" Braier

-----------------------
Paul A. Braier
pab1@quads.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: Quantum Zeno Effect, Part 1.
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:40:10 GMT

In article <5992@dove.nist.gov>,
gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan M. Gilligan) writes:

>The ``quantum Zeno effect,'' (as distinct from the paradox) consists
>of the inhibition of a driven transition (rather than a spontaneous
>one). The initial proposal was by R. J. Cook (Phys.  Script.  T21, 49
>(1988)). The experiment was by Itano, Heinzen, Bollinger, and Wineland
>(Phys. Rev. A 41, 2295 (1990)).

I'm not sure what you mean by "driven" and "spontaneous" transitions.
In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, if a transition between states
takes place then it is because the states are not eigenstates of the
Hamiltonian. Some transitions--for example, when an electron falls
from an excited energy level into the ground state--seem to be between
two different energy eigenstates. However, these excited states are
only eigenstates of a *part* of the total Hamiltonian; the dynamics of
the electromagnetic field are not included. I'm not sure if an excited
atom can be in eigenstate of the total Hamiltonian (matter +
electromagnetic fields).

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Stephen W. Hawking?
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:00:49 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

In article <1992Oct16.163759.29856@alex.com>
jon@alex.com (Jonathan Heitler) writes:

> ... what advice, concerning what to read, would you [Dale Bass] give to
> those of us who know enough to know that we are interested, but don't
> know enough to know that we are being mislead?

If you really, honest-to-goodness want to understand why QM is so weird
and see in a way that doesn't add a whole pile of highly extraneous
philosophizing, try Richard Feynman's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light
and Matter."  I know of no better explanation of the bottom-line oddness
of QM that at the same time so successfully resists the temptation to
make it more than it is.  Math is strictly avoided, yet the visual ideas
arguments and concepts he uses in its place are scupulously in agreement
with the underlying theory.  Feynman doesn't just make analogies -- he
actually translates QM into a form that is less apt for calculation
purposes, but is a good deal more understandable to the average person.

A warning, though:  This is a book devoid of "sound bytes."  You must
actually *read* the arguments and take them all the way through before
you will be able to truly get that little thrill of understanding of
just how bizarre the universe really can be.  (You can also be pretty
sure that any book that relies on short, catchy assertions about the
nature of QM to "explain" it to the reader is pretty much a joke.  Such
brief analogies invariably miss the real point and usually leave the
reader worse off than when she or he started.)

				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: How to get preprints in latex form electronically
Date: 15 Oct 1992 10:35 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <14OCT199212090245@zeus.tamu.edu>, dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE) writes...
>jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes...
>>I was going to to refuse to tell anyone how to get things from 
>>gr-qc, since this has come up so often, but someone I like asked me
>>so I will post the recipe and save it in a file so I never have to type this
>>again.
> 
>I think this stuff deserves a place on the FAQL

This is another plan that I have had in the works for a while.  The last time
John posted the list I saved it with the intention of combining it with 
some other information that I have to make a FAQ entry on where to find
on-line physics information.  Look for it in some future edition.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: How do you draw a straight line?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:04:15 GMT

In article <jim.719007306@st-michael> jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton) writes:
>geg@beep.mis.semi.harris.com (Gregory E. Garland) writes:
>> Do you forbid gears?
>
>I don't know - do we?

Ideal gears (or friction drives) and ideal belt-drives give easy
solutions.  But apart from taking all the challenge out the problem,
the usual objection to these solutions is that there is no such thing
as an ideal gear (slightly irregular motion as the teeth slide over
each other) or belt-drive (same problem as the chalk-line solution:
how do you know your geodesic isn't curved, etc.?).
-- 
Vaughan Pratt   pratt@cs.Stanford.EDU     exp(n pi sqrt(163)/3) for n=1..30
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tem1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Miller)
Subject: New group/groups : Branching of sci.physics
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:49:28 GMT

Since this board is huge, why don't we break it into the individual branches
of physics?  (If this is so already, then our sys admin has censored them)
For example, sci.physics.quantum, sci.physics.optics, sci.physics.mechanics,
and so on.  This board is so huge these days, if I miss one day of reading
I'm stuck on this board for over a half hour just weeding through the mess.

Just wondering.
Tim Miller



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Miller		     |  "The only thing we have to fear, is fear     |
   tem1@Ra.MsState.Edu	     |    itself"				     |
			     | "Within each of us lies the power of our      |
Mississippi State University |  consent to health and to sickness, to riches |
Major:  Chemistry/Physics    |  and to poverty, to freedom and to slavery.   |
Minor:  Mathematics	     |  It is we who control these, and not another" |
			     |      ---Illusions, by Richard Bach	     |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: scip1061@nuscc.nus.sg (Marc Paul Jozef)
Subject: Re:  TIME HAS INERTIA, ALTERING THE EARTH'S TILT ... Reply to: WOMBAT
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:50:20 GMT

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
:   To prevent the abovementioned catastrophes, calamities and disasters
: radical and bold methods must be implemented which should be of Cosmic
: order such as Altering THE TILT and/or  THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH.


    How about tilting Iowa state university to the north pole?
 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ddixon@nyx.cs.du.edu (David Dixon)
Subject: Re: Quantum reality silliness
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 18:34:06 GMT

In article <313@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.025445.14017@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, ddixon@nyx.cs.du.edu (David Dixon) writes:

>> The *physical* reality of the matter is that Aspect
>> et al observed Bell's inequality to be violated by TWENTY STANDARD
>> DEVIATIONS!  From the standpoint of statistics, this is the word of God.
>> A lot of arguments are invoked regarding the possible "communication" between
>> polarizers, etc., but it is pretty much straw grabbing on the part of the
>> determinists.
>>...
>
>Since information about the relative angle of the two polarizers influences
>the probability of a jont detection, it is reasonable to conclude that this
>information was communicated to and influenced those results. There is
>no disagreement about this among those who understand Bell's result, although
>some would use different language to describe this. The disagreement is
>about whether this information was transferred instantaneously or by
>some local mechanism that is not yet understood. There are other loopholes
>as well, but I do not consider these to be likely.
>
>The accuracy of the observed correlations is irrelevant since Aspect did
>not prove that the change in polarizer angles and the observed detections
>that were influenced by them had a space-like separation. The
<stuff deleted>
>Paul Budnik

Which is all very well and good, but I would plead for application of
Occam's razor once again.  Any mechanism which enables "communication"
between two polarizers seems weirder and more ad hoc than the non-local
or stochastic effects predicted by current QM.  Until someone does an
experiment
 showing that such a physical effect exists,
then you might as well ascribe Aspect's result to non-commuting pixies.

Anybody want to invent a gamma-ray polarizer so the silly experiment can
be done properly with e+e- annihilation?

					Dave
From: ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: lemon-radio
Date: 11 Oct 1992 23:25:43 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

> However, at sufficiently high power levels (I lived *really* close to
> an AM radio station as a kid), you can get strange effects.

I knew some people who lived across the street from a radio station,
which was powerful enough to interfere with the working of home
computers and the like. As I recall, it was sometimes able to cause
one to reboot itself.

Keith Ramsay     ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Subject: Re: New group/groups : Branching of sci.physics
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:29:00 GMT

mfm0@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>I agree completely.  As best as I can tell, sci.physics.fusion is the only
>"spin-off" group at this time.  But I can't imagine how to break the
>group up without getting some people upset.  Perhaps we could start out with
>sci.phys.SR and sci.physics.GR (or just 1 relativity group).  I see a
>lot of posts on relativity, and that seperation might help a lot.

I think sci.physics.relativity is a good idea. I would also like to
see 'sci.physics.ftl'.

'sci.physics.space_potatoes' might be nice too, but it wouldn't work since
noone would subscribe (including the wood_duck himself).

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix (?)
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:39:51 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Oct15.221837.15717@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.180132.2769@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>  [lots of comments to the effect that science
>   and religion are quite different beasts!]
>
>Hmmm...  Dr. Bass, are we communicating here?  I went down the list of
>comments you made and pretty much said "yup, yup, yeah, that's a bit
>blunt but pretty much right on..."

    I make it a point to never communicate before early evening.
    I'm far too grumpy before that.  Also, the source of the bluntness is
    my personality.   

    Also, if you want, it's 'Mr.' Bass.  'Dr.' is far too pretentious, 
    especially for a graduate student.

[stuff deleted that I mostly agree with]

>It still is a doggone good heuristic in physics, only it is no longer
>explicitly associated with the Western monotheism from which it was
>largely derived.  Now it's just a precept, one that is generally taught
>in a distilled and highly abstract form that is relatively devoid of
>any specific religious content.  Doesn't change its ancestry, however.
>
>So why bang on such points?  Because if you are truly interested in
>being as "scientific" as possible, you *need* to know the origins of your
>own heuristics.  Is there any proof that the parsimony assumption will
>always be the best heuristic to use?  Certainly not!  If you say that
>there is you really *are* getting into religion, not science.

     The point was that you seemed to be finding some special significance
     to the place from whence the 'heuristics' came.  I do not think
     that it matters.  The track record is all that matters since 
     what we are describing are physical phenomena.  The rest is simply
     cultural anthropology (to be read with the appropriate sneer).

                                dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926