HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (T. Little)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Keywords: Moon Neutral Point calculation
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:45:27 GMT

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

> (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) writes...
>> 
>>G can be calculated from basic Reciprocal System principles to
>> the minimum accuracy of the three numbers used as a starting point:
>>	c, Avogadro's number, and the Rydberg frequency.

>Well, now here's something testable.

>c  = 299,792,458 m/s
>N  = 6.0221367x10^23 /mol
>R  = 13.6056981 eV

>Would you please demonstrate a derivation of G from this data?

I suspect that a few other people would also be interested in such a
derivation.  All the quantities above are known to higher accuracy than G
itself (to my knowledge).

Also, if you give any strange numbers, include their derivation also.
Especially the one relating the mass of a C^12 atom (which is essentially
what 'N' is) to something fundamental.
--
T. Little   a.k.a.   u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: u108502@beta.lanl.gov (Andrew Poutiatine)
Subject: Re: Do Balloons fly?
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:29:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.130316.28438@kth.se> e92_anh@vaxkab.lne.kth.se () writes:
>This will probably sound like a silly question to a lot of you, but WHY
>does a helium-filled balloon rise upward? Is it because of the
>difference in air-pressure at the balloon's top and bottom, causing the
>resulting force to press it upward?
>
>Thus, consider this: If the air surrounding the balloon had exactly the
>same density on all sides, then the balloon would not move (I think).
>
>So, is my airpressure-theory correct? I'd very much like to know!
>
>			-Andre' Heinonen, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden


Yes, you are exactly right, it is the pressure differential (gradient), that
causes a balloon to float.  Note that bouyancy is predicted in the hydro-
static equations, even if one assumes a constant density fluid, with no 
spacial or temporal density variations.  Even for constant density fluids, 
a hydrostatic pressure gradient is required for static equilibrium in a 
gravitational field.

	-AIP
From: cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:03:00 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <BxIx5p.Fxs@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU| sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
|	Finally, I do think that doing science requires a prior commitment to 
|a world-view in a way that is not wholly unlike that found in religion.  But 
|this is at a deep (you might say meaningless) level that does not come up in 
|the daily practice of science, and the latter is, after all, the thing that 
|most scientists are interested in.

I agree with you here.  However, my only act of faith is to accept the reality
of the world I have access to through my senses.  This is not a very strong
leap of faith, as it merely constitutes a rejection of solipsism.

|	My impression is that this thread has just about been done to death 
|by now.

No argument here!  :-)

Tim
-- 
Tim Dodd, Research Scientist, Georgia Tech:  cegtitd@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: thomasc@athena.mit.edu (Thomas Wallace Colthurst)
Subject: Re: What's a manifold?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:34:19 GMT

I would like to recommend Jeff Week's "The Shape of Space" book as an 
excellent elementary introduction to manifolds.  And I'm not kidding
when I say it is an excellent elementary introduction to manifolds --
you could use this book to explain fiber bundles to high schoolers.
This book does not suffer from the calculus-test disease that John 
Baez refers to (the ambitious urge to throw in everything having to
do with manifolds), but in all fairness, you really do need to see 
lots of manifolds and their applications to get a feel for them.  Just
giving the standard open-neighborhood-looks-like-R^n doesn't do a lot
for most people.

I see that we have sci.physics on the Newsgroups: line, so I would
like to take this opportunity to relate a bad pun.  A couple of years
ago some astronomers did a statisitical star count survey.  This survey
was a predecesor of those which found the Great Wall, the Great Void, and
other fascinating large scale structures, but it differed in that it took
a much narrower ray and followed it out much farther.  Well, when the
astronomers plotted the number of stars they found as a function of distance
they were surprised to find that the distribution was almost periodic.  
That is, if you take into account the fact that the ray measures out a
bigger area the farther you go out, the star count graph would almost
repeat itself.  Well, when the mathematicians found out about this, they
were very excited, as this would be exactly what should happen if our
universe was a non-trivial three dimensional manifold -- that is, if our
universe had loops.  In particular, one of the simpler and thus perhaps
more likely manifolds for which this could happen was discovered by Jeff
Weeks (the author of the above recommended book).  Thus would the ancient
prophecy of the universe being made in a Weeks be fulfilled.

-Thomas C
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:27:52 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <1992Nov3.183520.27343@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>> 
>>       Why do certain people have such difficulty with the proposition
>>       that there are domains which 'science' and 'logic' can never reach?

Because to admit they exist is to open oneself to arguments
based on imagination and improbability.  If science is to
be limited by theologians then the theologians have leave
to create any number of scenarios for deities.

I have no problem with religious fiction (I mean, I *love*
Dr. Who, and that's hardly any better science than is the
Bible).  However, when the authors of these fictions claim
that they are not fiction, then they reach into the realm
of schizophrenia.  Further, when the adherents of these
authors accept these pronouncements as true, and form
political coalitions with the purpose of using this fiction
to redesign the social laws which govern the limits of my
behavior, then it is only right, natural, and obvious that
I should have "difficulty" with it.

I should point out that anything a logician can't reach is
also therefore unreachable to a theologian, so it is self-
defeating to declare voids in knowability.  Since you declare
voids in knowability, you declare yourself defeated.

>Yeah.  Surely Goedel is good for *something* ...

Propping up the television set, last time I saw it.

				--Blair
				  "'There!  I've run rings
				   around you, logically.'
				   'Ohhh--INTERCOURSE the penguin!"
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:58:39 GMT

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). 
|> 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.

	This is complete nonsense.  There may be religious leaders who 
demand unquestioning acceptance of belief, but I've certainly never met one.  
As a matter of interest, how many have you actually asked?  Most religions 
do indeed require some kind of intellectual commitment eventually, but in the 
varieties I'm familiar with that commitment is compatible with continued 
questioning.  


|> 	In Science everything is fair game for questioning. It is expected
|> that everything will be questioned. 

	Right.  I frequently hear scientists questioning the basic 
trustworthiness of their senses and of other scientists, or the need to 
test theories with experiments.  Come to think of it, 
I have read postings from people like that on sci.physics, but they're 
usually advocating some theory that involves space potatoes or hollow 
planets, or the like.  You simply can't do science without the 
"unquestioning belief" (usually unconscious) in the foundations upon which 
it is built.



-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Barbie is Right! (was: Mattel on women)
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:10:28 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Nov8.013814.18382@Princeton.EDU> ajackson@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Andrew William Jackson) writes:
>
>
>Men are inherently better at math than women are.  Culture is not a force
>unto itself but a reflection of our fundimental nature.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.  (Whew! Sorry about that!
Had to get it out of my system!)

Culture is NOT a reflection of something "fundimental" [sic] in human
nature.  If it was, then culture would have remained stagnant since
human nature arose.  We would have the same culture today as we did
50, 100, 200, or 2000 years ago if culture came from a "fundimental"
nature.

Human nature has not changed significantly in many years...this is
why Shakespeare still has relevancy in today's world.  On the other
hand, _culture_ has gone AAAAALLLLLL over the place, with accelerating
changes as you approach the modern day.  (In fact, it might be interesting
to find out whether culture change is geometrically or exponentially
increasing....hmmmm...)

In other words, the original posters contention (which I stupidly deleted)
that it is culture that "keeps women from math" (not a direct quote),
and not some inherent, "fundimental" cause that you postulate.

	Thank you for your time.
	Jason
	Southern Arizona Gizmonic Institute
TIME IS ON MY SIDE YES IT IS
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:24:08 GMT

In article <6cJ6TB3w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:

>
>        It has been my experience that when a true professional 
>scientist is challenged- science vs. beliefs, they will invariably 
>admit that they are truly atheistic, and wear the religion as a 
>badge because it was a heritage of their parents, etc.

     Is this the definition of 'true professional scientist'?  I know
     a fairly large number of 'scientists' who would disagree strongly
     with the characterization above.   Are they not 'true professionals'?

>        When I was younger, I believed in a deity.  I prayed and 
>all that.  I also noticed nothing happened.  I took up science, I 
>experimented and all that.  I also noticed that GREAT things could 
>happen!  Needless to say, I am a scientist today- but above all, I 
>am a complete unequivocal atheist.  I have no beliefs or need for 
>belief in any form of deity.  I believe in science..........sq
>
>(but I work with a bunch of GOD heads...)

      That's two testimonials now from people who are apparently 
      pissed off at God for being on the phone and are now punishing
      him for His inattention, he again said dryly.  Why does y'all's 
      new faith seem to be predicated on the old one not having done 
      anything for you?  Seems a mite pointless to me.  Why refer to 
      old faiths at all?

      On a more directed note, believe what you wish, but please
      do not mistake faith for science. 

      By the way, are you saying that the 'GOD heads' you work with 
      are not 'true professional scientists', or are they just
      closet athiests?

                           dale bass


-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: No Spin in 2 Dimensions?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, LA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 05:17:42 GMT

In article <92315.002515CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu> <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"
>(i.e. in a 2-dimensional differentiable manifold of some sort?). What might
>they have meant, please? Any ideas?
>Thanks,
>Carey

Well, I'm not sure what he's saying is exactly right, but if he meant
1+1 dimensions (one space, one time) I can imagine one reason why it's
"obvious" - things can't turn around in 1-dimensional space!  That is,
the rotation group O(1) is disconnected - just Z_2.  (And the element
that's not the identity is really reflection, or parity.)

Of course if one treat spin relativistically in 1+1 dimensions one gets
the group O(1,1) -- the connected component of which is just the group
of real numbers, R.  These parametrize "boosts" - aka Lorentz
transformations.  Particles can transform nontrivially under boosts and
the "spin" is parametrized by a real-valued parameter since the
irreducible unitary representations of R are just  t -> exp(iat)  where
a is a real-valued parameter.

Hope this isn't painfully abstruse.  It boils down to the fact that
spins describe what happens to particles when you rotate them, and
rotating particles in 1+1 dimensions is relatively boring.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Solid-state doesn't use QED! (Was Re: Particle Research)
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 04:20:22 GMT

In article <MATT.92Nov8225553@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <23767@galaxy.ucr.edu> baez@ucrmath.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:
>
>> In solid state you have
>> quite a bit of choice in terms of finding systems that have roughly some
>> Lagrangian or other, so you can really test your mathematical notions to
>> some extent.  (Typically, of course, the real condensed matter system is
>> more complicated than the Lagrangian you guessed for it, so these "tests"
>> are always suspect.)
>
>Oh, but that's the whole point of a renormalization group analysis,
>right?  You just show your Lagrangian includes all of the relevant
>parameters.
>
>In a sense, I think that the renormalization group justifies, in
>retrospect, a lot of what physicists have done for over a century:
>modeling a very complicated system by a simple mathematical
>description.

Hmm.  It's a good point but I don't think the renormalization group
hides all sins.  That is, I'm sure there are plenty of solid state
physics problems where you say "The Lagrangian is probably like this..."
and calculate something, decide that you're getting the wrong answer,
and say "Hmm, maybe I should try a different Lagrangian - oh yeah, I
must've neglected the Flugenhasen effect, which we can model by an extra
term of the form...."  It seems, for example, that that's been going on
a fair amount in the efforts to understand high-Tc superconductivity.

Now, why is this true?  Well, for one, probably because in solid state
you never show your Lagrangian includes all the *possibly* relevant
parameters; there are simply way too many, iron atoms (e.g.) having lots of
degrees of freedom.  You instead guess and hope that you have got all
the relevant parameters.

Also - and here I am on shaky ground - there is more to life than
critical points, and renormalization group analysis doesn't answer every
question you might dream up about what's going on away from critical
points - I don't think.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.engr.chem
From: kgrossha@radford.vak12ed.edu (Kurt Grosshans)
Subject: Re: Specific Heat
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Radford)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 02:11:32 GMT

jdebruyn@newton.physics.mun.ca  writes:
> In article <1992Nov08.184022.19409@radford.vak12ed.edu> kgrossha@radford.vak12ed.edu (Kurt Grosshans) writes:
> >jerry@wshb.csms.com  writes:
> >> 
> >> I am trying to find what metals have these specific heats:
> >> 
> >>    1) 2740 joules/kg deg.C
> >>    2)  848.6 joules/kg deg.C
> >> 
> >> Please replay E-mail: jerry@wshb.csms.com
> >> 
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >> -- 
> 
> >Am I crazy, or are his units off for numbers of that magnitude?
> >-- 
> >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=
> >Kurt Grosshans
> >kgrossha@radford.vak12ed.edu
> >
> 
> First of all, you are crazy. According to my handy CRC handbook
> of Chemistry and Physics, Aluminum, for example, has a specific heat
> of 0.215 cal/g-deg at 25 deg C and atmospheric pressure.
> This is .215*4.184*1000= 899.6 J/kg-deg in MKS units, pretty close
> to the original poster's #2. Most metals are lower. The closest
> thing to #1, according to my table, is Sodium, which at room temp.
> is about half of the desired (?) value. 
> 
> Now for the point which prompted me to post in the first place -
> why the #$%%& did the original poster ask for this info over the
> net? Why didn't he look it up in HIS CRC Handbook? It only took
> me a second. He has to wait longer than that to get his reply. I think
> some people tend to use their computers instead of their brains a
> little more than is prudent, sometimes!
> 
> ...a favorite gripe of mine, sorry.
> 
> 

Point 1 is well taken...

Point 2 is not. The CRC is a reference tool. So is the computer.
What's the problem?
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=
Kurt Grosshans
kgrossha@radford.vak12ed.edu

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Sarfatti answers Gallis
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:25:42 GMT


Responses by Sarfatti in [..]:
From MRG3@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Thu Nov 12 06:00:23 1992
Date:    Thu, 12 Nov 92 09:01 EST
From: <MRG3@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: the final blow!
To: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us

your notation is extremly confusing, I assume that
a,b indicate subsytem a,b  [YES]
o,e indicate ordinary, extraordinary rays in a birefringent crystal [YES]
+,- indicate two orthogonal spin directions [YES]

you then say
> so that |a,e,+> = i|a,o,+>  [YES if input superposition before action of
half-wave plate is |a,e,+> - |a,o,-> - the phase factor will depend on
superposition]

This indicates that the two states differ by a phase, and hence the
ordinary ray state is not linearly independent of the extraordinary ray.

[NO! it does not mean that at all! The ordinary ray is |a,o,->, the half-
wave plate rotates its plane of polarization by 90 degrees so it is no
longer an ordinary ray but it is now |a,o,+> having the same polarization
as the extraordinary ray!]

But any polarization can be written as a linear superposition of these two
rays.They are not orthogonal, but they are linearly independent.  I would
think that, rather than gloating over this result, you would be dismayed
that consistency of your description implies such a nonphysical condition.

Of course, I may be misinterpreting your notation, [YES you are.] but there
have been a large number of well formulated arguments as to why your
description is not valid.

-mike gallis
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Keywords: unar Neutral Point Lunar Neutral Point Calculation
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:31:32 GMT

In article <4587@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>   >Snarfy Babbage,
>  > thou scourge of organ-grinders,
>
>   Alright - the metaphor eludes me here . "Organ grinders?"

Charles Babbage, whom we remember today for his valiant attempts to
build a large mechanical computer, was better known to his neighbors as
a detestor of organ grinders.  If one parked under his window he would
yell at him to go away.  Pretty soon the organ grinders were having a
field day coming in droves to play under his window and have him yell
at them.
-- 
Vaughan (would you settle for an accordion?) Pratt
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sl26@ellis.uchicago.edu (sangjin  lee)
Subject: debates
Reply-To: sl26@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:31:32 GMT

Hi, I just found this newsgroup, and started reading them. Especially I was
following the thread 'Science vs. Religion' article.
Frankly I'm quite surprised that there exist people who believe the
realistic view of science, which I thought were dead long long time ago. As
far as my knowledge goes, there were two extreme ideas about sciences;
realistic view related with positivism and pure instrumentalistic view. All
are effectively rejected, and the credible understanding now is 'critical
realistic' view.
However, one should never fail to discern theories from real hard facts.
What really exist are hard facts, not the theories. Theories are nothing
more than models to understand the facts, or as some say metaphors.
What really exists is for example the phenomenon we describe as gravity,
like we stick to the earth, apples are falling from trees, etc. Newton's
gravitation is NOT the nature itself, nor the fact. It's a theory. So it
could be replaced, and it was. In the same way, general relativity has
come, but still is a theory, not the Nature itself. However beautiful it
is, it may be replaced, and we don't feel sorry about that. But the fact
are still there as they were a few centuries ago.
Science should be very cautious about this aspect lest it should draw very
hasty conclusions.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN replies to PEREGRINO
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:56:31 GMT

In <12950096@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM> ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino) writes:


>I'm still waiting for the reaction to my provocation!

>You explained how ink diffused into water. I asked why
>the same situation does not happen with oil and vinegar.

Mr. PEREGRINO,
   
   I have answered your question .  Please see
 
   Message ID: <abian.720763089@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>

                                               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)