HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cbettis@unlinfo.unl.edu (clifford bettis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Magnetic lenses
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:22:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln

In <12583@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:

>In article <1992Jul29.141543.12833@unlinfo.unl.edu> cbettis@unlinfo.unl.edu (clifford bettis) writes:
>>The optical phase information is lost in the recording
>>process (i.e. the TV camera only records intensity) and therefore the 
>>information necessary to reconstruct a complete image is missing. 

>What you're trying to say is that an image is made up of a set of
>points (small regions of acuity), and your poor vision (due to
>myopia, the inability to focus properly, such that the virtual
>image is formed in front of the retina instead of on the retina)
>turns each point into a blob, covering more retinal receptors than
>it should, overlapping with blob-smear from adjacent points,
>creating a fuzzy image; and it is not possible to create an
>arrangement of points which is then made fuzzy by this myopia, such
>that this fuzzy image actuall forms some clear image on the
>retina.

>Is that what you're trying to say?

>Phase information isn't an issue.

>>To make a TV capable of such feats the band width of the signal would 
>>have to be on the order of the frequency of light.

>It's strictly a pixel problem; bandwidth isn't an issue.
>If Matisse (or was it Manet?) couldn't do it, we can't.

>				--Blair
>				  "What am I saying?"
As far as what is happening on the retina phase information doesn't 
matter (the individual rods and cones respond to intensity; but as far
as how that information reaches the retina (as a real image) phase 
does matter.  To deblur an out of focus image you need to do a fourier
transform (in general a fresnel transform); you can think of a lens as
a analog device for doing spatial fourier transforms of images.  If 
you are missing the phase information you cannot reproduce the real 
image. Would there be another way to selectively turn on the right 
pixels on the retina without using a lens? I can't think of a pratical
one; but I suppose you are right, if you could do that you could 
transmit visual images to the optically challenged (such as yours 
truly) that contain only intensity information and "look" in focus.
Cliff Bettis
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.religion.misc
From: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Re: Structure of Time (LAST COMMENT)
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 07:10:10 GMT


 Hi !  (For the last time)


   My employer denied me to write any more in the Net. I don't know yet what
 additional consequences are. Some one called Kari Sepp{nen (High school
 student from Otam{ki, Helsinki.?) (kseppane@robocop.cs.hut.fi) writed in
 tnclus.huuhaa newsgroup in Finland
 (News/netserver=otax.tky.hut.fi/netprotocol=tcp) this unpleasant request
 to my employer in his message <66426@otax.tky.hut.fi> dated 21 Jul 92.

   I would liked to answer your comments about "Structure of Time", but I'am
 not allowed.

   I would only like to say about Hanna-Maria that I'am a religious man,
 I believe that God exists, because He is Existence Himself, and if someone
 is arguing that Existence Himself does not exist, then he/she argues at the
 same time that he/she himself/herself does not exist. I also believe that
 almost everything is possible for our God. This is a matter that we don't
 understand at the moment, because we are still so undeveloped compared
 to Him. These are the main reasons why I don't need to explain to myself
 this Hanna-Maria's part in my paper "Structure of Time". I simply believe it.


 Oulu  -  Finland  31.7.1992   Hannu K. J. Poropudas

    "Don't you like your body as a 'neutrino cage' for your 'neutrino soul'. ?
     If you don't, then simply ask God to release you."
From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Flywheel Battery
Date: 11 Jul 92 19:14:08 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

In article <9912@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite) writes:
>In article <75361@ut-emx.uucp> johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>
>Probably the best solution is to mount the flywheel on gimbals so it
>is not really connected to the attitude of the vehicle.  Then the
>vehicle can turn any way it pleases and not be effected by the
>flywheel.  Gyroscope designers probably know all about how to do
>this.  With a really clever design these gimbals might even have
>some built in "viscosity" to help keep the vehicle upright in an
>accident.

That's probably true, but one could also have two counter-rotating flywheels
so the total angular momentum is zero (high bearing stresses though).

-- 
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@          | International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |isus.tnet.com  | Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |ncar!enuucp!   | System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice_602_996_1717 telesys!isus!hoyt The Universe in two postulates!_________|
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Noah's formation: The rainbow
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul20.170623@hlrz24.hlrz.kfa-juelich.de>
	<14flcvINNi08@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Jul22.002655.25311@trl.oz.au>
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:13:31

I'm surprised at all of you.  Isn't the rainbow God's warning to Noah that

"It won't be water but fire next time."

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Defining Photons
Keywords: Relating photons E=MC^2 criticism
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:20:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.712254044
Distribution: na

dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE) writes:

>I think anything with a charge will appear as a particle in the classical
>limit, whether boson or fermion. Like a W in a cloud chamber. And anything
>which interacts as weakly as a neutrino would behave like a wave.

Perhaps in some sense the neutrino would, since it wouldn't be
localized by interactions with other fields or media.  But you
would not be able to build up an immense oscillating amplitude
for the neutrino field so that it could act like a wave in a
classical c-number field when you go to the classical limit. 
High energies necessarily correspond to short wavelengths, not
large occupation numbers, since the occupation number of a
neutrino mode is at most 1.  That's what is meant by "the
classical limit for a neutrino is particle-like behavior."

-- 
Matt McIrvin  mcirvin@husc.harvard.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 27 Jul 1992 16:19:19 CDT
From: <U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: non-orientable cosmology

Regarding the speculation by G. Ellis that we are seeing the same galaxies
multiple times due to light going around the universe more than once :

Isn't there a result from General Relativity that holds that a photon can
travel around the universe at most once before the universe collapses
again ? (The version without the cosmological constant). So, if this is
observed, does this kill off standard G.R. ?

                                                  Joseph B. Dunphy
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Defining Photons
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:40:07 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: mcirvin@husc10.harvard.edu's message of 26 Jul 92 19:28:19 GMT


   snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:


   >       If you are a college professor , the taxpayers  or  students  pay
   >       you to enlighten and clarify issues pertaining to your specialty.
   >       Why then have you not yet found a word other than ``particle'' to
   >       describe  that  which has no mass , to differentiate it from that
   >       which does?.  

If that's all you want, then a new word is easy. I'd suggest the old
"wavicle" - although that's been used for massive waves as well as
massless particles. If that won't do, how's about a "gravinon" ;-)
I think that has just the right mixture of obfuscation and
pseudo-classicism!

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*
Xref: sparky sci.physics:11841 sci.astro:8410 sci.philosophy.tech:2884 talk.religion.misc:12839
From: murphyg@Software.Mitel.COM (Gary Murphy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Structure of Time
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:44:13 GMT
Organization: Applications Software II, MITEL Corporation, Kanata, Ontario,
	Canada
In-reply-to: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi's message of 28 Jul 92 08:24:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.102429.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi> hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:

	Re: Structure of Time

	  I'am very sorry that I have encounter here many peoples who seems to be
   somekind of representative of "inquisition". I always belived that just
   physicists love the truth most, what ever the truth is.
	  These "inquisitors" have contacted to my employer and they have tried
   to insalt me and my paper. My employment is in danger at the moment.

   Oulu  -  Finland  28.7.1992  Hannu K. J. Poropudas

			"I promised never to lie to God"

Perhaps this suggests you are closer to the mark than even you believed,
as why else would these people find your posting to be such a threat,
far more so than those notorious posts which catch the eyes of the
censor board!  I've seen people on the net be barred from posting for
extremist (racist, sexist or just plain insensitive) opinions, but never
for so innocent a posting as yours --- even with the corrected reprints,
you cannot even be blamed for wasting bandwidth at even a fraction of
the percentage as, say, "prisoner's" posts to alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
or even the weight of just one .GIF in any binary group!

I recommend you keep a log file of the positive comments you receive and
present these to your employer --- I found your postings most
interesting (and even wrote to you requesting digitized versions of
Hanna-Maria's drawings), at minimum entertaining and certainly of no
less 'scientific value' than the .GIF of the "Face On Mars" (anyone
remember the gigabytes we wasted debating Cold-Fusion-in-a-Teacup?)

--
Gary Lawrence Murphy - Gary.Murphy@software.mitel.COM - (613) 592-2122 x3709
"We don't have to work to create a natural mind; it just is." --- Morita
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mazzucch@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (massimo mazzucchi)
Subject: MICROVAWE
Organization: Computer Science Dep. - Milan University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 08:26:54 GMT
Summary: information about FET HEMT

hi i am max and i will information about
microvawe expecially the caracterization of direct current
of FET HEMT

if you can give information 
my e-mail is

mazzucch@ghost.unimi.it

Thanks bye
Xref: sparky sci.physics:12022 sci.astro:8472 sci.philosophy.tech:2908
From: rhatcher@fnalc.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Structure of Time
Date: 30 Jul 92 03:28:07 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab

Jezz, that was a long list of groups.  Well, I'll edit it next time :-)

In article <1992Jul29.190732.23677@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
> : Should we really believe that somebody reported this guy to his
> : employer? Are there really such bastards out there?
> 
> Who knows? Yes, there are such people out there.
> 
> Bill

Just for the sake of argument:  Stop and think a minute, here.

1) Do you really think that the person who wrote to the employer said
   "Hey, this guy is being an ass, fire him from your company" ?
   Most likely he said "Hey, this guy is posting to inappropriate
   newsgroups, please talk to him about net-equitte".  Hardly makes
   the person a "bastard" in my eyes.
2) "report" to his employer seems to have aquired bad connotations
   here.  What if his employer just happened to see the posting
   and considered it inappropriate.  How would that be different from
   somebody else directing the employer's attention to it?  If you
   don't want it read by your employer, maybe you shouldn't  post from
   a company account?
3) He was asked nicely not to post to several groups (sci.physics being
   the one of interest to me)
4) We only have his (less than credible) statement that his job is in
   jepoardy.  Maybe his employer read him the riot-act on company net
   usage rules, with an implied threat of future action if he continued.

Let me state for the record:  I didn't do it (write the employer) and
generally I have ignored the posting.  (Though I seem to be having a
mild flame fest in e-mail with a guy that was encouraging future posts
to sci.physics).  I think for him to lose his job would be INAPPROPRIATE
punishment for the severity of the rules he did break.  But I will *not*
mourn the loss to sci.physics if he loses net priveleges, either.

-robert

 Robert W. Hatcher        | 256D Physics-Astronomy    | hatcher@msupa   (Bitnet)
 Software Tzar, Hunchback | Michigan State University | msuhep::hatcher (HEPnet)
 (517) 353-3008,-5180     | East Lansing, MI 48824    | hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Blue Sky
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:17:50 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <BrzH7H.DJw@acsu.buffalo.edu> kriman@acsu.buffalo.edu (Alfred M. Kriman) writes:
>   In the ravel of thread that followed, a consensus developed for the
>standard "correct" answer of Rayleigh scattering.  As has been noted in
>many posts, this perception is not just a question of physics.  In fact,
>the standard answer would yield not a blue sky but a PURPLE one, if our
>eyes were equally sensitive throughout the spectrum of "visible" lights.
>(It's why we speak of ultra-_violet_, and not "ultra-blue".)

OK It's getting to be time I posted my prediction.

>P.S.  Why does everybody forget blueberries when talking about blue foods?

Karlin's answer to this was No - blue on the vine, _purple on the plate_. So
blueberries were not (for him) blue food.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Aristotle and the Modern Physicist
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 14:18:32 GMT

NOTE: John C. Baez is the author of this article.  I am only using my
account to post this article for John as a favor - Mark Corscadden

In article <1992Jul28.042614.21717@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
>I'm sorry, I expressed myself badly. What I meant to ask was this.
>Presumably there is some "quantum spacetime" that approximates Minkowski
>space. What does it look like?

When you find out, publish your results and you'll be bound to get
tenure.  This is what's known as a HARD QUESTION.  

My favorite answer is given by Ashtekar and Smolin's recent paper,
"Weaving a Classical Geometry from Quantum Threads".  I gave ref for
this paper a while back.  

Perhaps when the school year starts I'll post some things on what the
recent work on quantum gravity in the loop representation has to say
about this and other questions.

John Baez
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas J. Nugent)
Subject: Re: "What's New" July-24-1992
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:30:35 GMT

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

>Pretty accurate summary of the APS position.  Once it became clear that 
>microgravity work was compromised by vibration, interest fell, and then 
>I think those plans were dropped from the station altogether in the 
>latest review of the project. 

Like I've said, it has recently come out that microgravity work is _not_
compromised - it is still possible, and in fact they expect to get some
pretty good microgravity research out of SSF.

"It's human nature to stretch, to go, to see, to understand.  Exploration is
not a choice, really, it's an imperitive."
			- Michael Collins
-- 
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
Tom Nugent		e-mail: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mkennedy@nyx.cs.du.edu (Max Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Magnetic lenses
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 03:10:49 GMT



This thread reminds me of a question I've wanted to ask for awhile.

How well do pinhole glasses work as far as seeing with them goes?
I recall reading of Franklin messing with them (as well as regular
old spectacles).  Also, is there any merit to the "improve your
vision" claims of some sellers of such glasses such as Lazervision.
I've thought of buying a pair as a curiousity, but its nice to be
able to speel off acurate information about such things when visitors
pick up something interesting in your home.  (My home is littered with
stuff I find interesting.)
 
Thanks,
 
Max Kennedy
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 29 Jul 1992 04:19:00 CDT
From: <U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Lense-Thring EFFECT (was Re: Gravitational "Magne
 <phfrom.153@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> <l6438mINN4de@pollux.usc.edu>
 <1992Jul17.145707.164250@dstos3.dsto.gov.au>
 <92209.154555U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>

OK, it's obvious from the lack of a response that I've missed something
painfully obvious to all, but what ?

                                         Joseph B. Dunphy
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Converting the masses
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:38:06 GMT

In article <MATT.92Jul22142345@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

[..]

>That is: I define the inertial mass of a body as the "m" appearing in
>the equation
>               F = m a,                                        (1)
>and I define the gravitational mass of a body as the "m" appearing
>in the equation
>               F = G m M / r^2.                                (2)
>I believe that these definitions are customary; I don't know what
>other meaning could be attached to the phrases "inertial mass" or
>"gravitational mass."

[..]

That are excellent definitions of inertial and gravitational mass. I'd like
to add a comment on *gravit'l* mass: 

In principle, it is not guaranteed a priori that the field generating 
"active" gravit'l mass *M* which occurs in the gravit'l field eq (Poisson eq)
(U:      Newtonian gravit'l potential, 
 \Delta: Laplace op (assume most of the audience speek TeX))

       \Delta U = - 4 pi G M                                    (2a)

is identical to the interaction perceiving "passive" gravit'l mass *m* 
appearing in the force eq/momentum law

       F = m * \nabla U .                                       (2b)

Identity can be simply established for interactions based on a Lagrange
density on a very general level (in Newtonian continuous media phys, SR
and GR).

(in GR the eq's (2a) and (2b) read, respectively:
      G_ = 8 pi T_         (Einstein eq)                        (2a')
      
      T_mu^nu_;nu = 0      (eq of continuity)                   (2b')
)

This feature is identical in theories involving charges 
(e.g. electromagnetism, electro-weak theory, chromo dynamics, or thelike;
just put M -> Q, m -> q for the e.m. case.)
It results from the simple fact that the gravit'l mass is, from the 
theoretical point of view, the charge corresponding to gravit'l interaction,
i.e. gravit'l charge.

[Side remark 1:]
So if one could prove that any interaction had different active and passive 
charges for at least one particle, one had found that nature cannot be 
described by a Lagrangian based theory. All nice features of the Lagrange,
and Hamilton, theory would no more be present (i.e. automatic conservation
laws, conserved currents, etc.).

[Side remark 2:]
For gravity to be interpreted as a manifestation of a dynamic, non-trivial
geometry (e.g. curvature) there's also *need* for the equivalence of
inertial and (passive) gravit'l mass since (2b) is then replaced by the 
covariant eq of continuity of the energy-momentum tensor (Einstein 
equivalence principle). 
--
 Hartmut Frommert, LS Dehnen, Physics, | E-Mail: <phfrom@dknkurz1.bitnet>
 Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60,     |     or  <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany   | + SAVE THE WHALES ! BOYCOTT NORWAY !        +
 Phone: +49-(0)7531-88-3747   | + Whales R intelligent. Whale killers not.  +
+ Whale killing is murder. Eating whales is cannibalism. Eat whale killers. +
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas J. Nugent)
Subject: Re: Mirror reflections - quantum theory of light
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:34:09 GMT
Keywords: mirrors, reflection of light, photons

dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE) writes:

>jonathan@cs.yorku.ca (Jonathan Ostroff) writes...
>>According to the quantum theory of light, when I see a reflection of
>>myself in a mirror, am I seeing the original photon stream as it left
>>me.
>>Or, am I seeing new photons. This may be because of what happens when
>>the photons hit the mirror. For example, do the photons collide with
>>mirror atoms and become absorbed into these atoms. These excited atoms
>>then perhaps give off new photons that reflect back to form the image.

>You are close. The photons are not 'absorbed into these atoms' per se.
>The photons basically cause the electrons in the mirror to wiggle, and
>wiggling charges radiate (make new photons).

Also, someone looking at you may not see all original photons.  Don't
some of them form electron positron pairs, which then reform into a photon?
Oh, wait.  That needs an energy at least in the x-ray range.  (I know I
personally can't see x-rays.)  Well, with other quantum processes, aren't
at least some of the photons others see not original?

``My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe,
  why it is as it is and why it exists at all.''
	- Stephen Hawking
-- 
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
Tom Nugent		e-mail: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Malnex fax to snarfy
Keywords: Quantum Radio FTL communications
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:53:11 PDT
Reply-To: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us




       This fax came through from Malnex today-

       It's  addressed  to me personally but I thought I'd share it with
       the group-

       snarfy

       ----------------------------Cut Here-----------------------------

                                   7/28/92
       Mr. Ostrowski ,

        We  have  reviewed J. A.  Carr's criticism of the ``Street Sheet
       Tech Brief # 2 '' as well as monitored ensuing discussion between
       you and the other participants. The decision here is to  let  the
       article  stand  as  posted  with  you  defending as best you can,
       without further commentary from us.  This is  to  help  your  own
       understanding as well as to aid us in evaluating the advisability
       of releasing additional information of this kind.

        For your personal edification:

        This  group  does  seem  willing  to  be  patient  with  you  in
       explaining some  basic physics principles, although in  doing  so
       the  dialog  tends  drift  from the point you are trying to make.
       This seems to have been corrected in the last posting of yours  ,
       however  the  attempts  at humor (comparing Carr's criticism to a
       church oriented inquisition hearing ) are  rather  unprofessional
       and makes it look like you are not serious.

       Malnex


Newsgroups: sci.physics