HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emarkp@soda.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN replies to SIMPKINSON
Date: 21 Nov 1992 00:24:02 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Keywords: TIME HAS INERTIA,  i.e., TIME IS MATTER,  YES!!!!

In article <abian.722142285@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
}In <1eefkuINNa0f@agate.berkeley.edu> dvs@soda.berkeley.edu 
}
}                                          11-18-92
}Dear Mr. Simpkinson  you wrote:
}
}        
}>Dear Mr. Abian:  Please quantify ANYTHING with your theory.  Please do not
}>use any of the "noises" of famous bravo-sierra purveyors such as Newton,
}>Einstein, Hamilton, et al.  Among the problems you may wish to address:
}
} My reply is:
}
}    I cannot quantify  anything with my Theory because I do not know
}
}            what  A  is in my    E = M(0) exp(-At)
}
}and I do not have a COSMIC ENERGYMETER.   I am expecting that the talent-
}ed Physicists will use my brilliant fundamentally revolutionizing idea:

  Then your theory is useless.

[stuff deleted]

}>   Compute the trajectory of a particle of mass m in a uniform gravitational
}>field (or the Abian equivalent) equal to earth's at sea level given an
}>initial velocity, neglecting air resistance.  Simplifying, How high will a 1
}>kg ball go if I throw it straight up at a velocity of 20 m/s?  Where will it
}>land if I throw it (with the same velocity of 20 m/s) at a 45 degree angle 
}to the vertical?
}
}would be:
}           (a)   around  20.41 meters high  
} 
}           (b)   twice as in (a), i.e., around  40.82  meters  away.
}

  I do believe that the challenge was to use *your* theory to make these
calculations.

------------
E. Mark Ping
emarkp@soda.Berkeley.EDU

  "Stand aside, I take large steps."  --Michael Dorn
  "Say, that's a nice bike."          --Cyberdyne Systems T-1000
  "Pituita es."                       --Unknown Latin Scholar
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Huttunen)
Subject: Re: Flying fast enough and becoming a black hole
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:53:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.222802.2394@sfu.ca> palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:

! Of course it's based upon an absurdity - that a black hole could be observed as
! such in one inertial frame and not in another, at the same time. (The phrase
! "at the same time" is appropriate here, since the spacecraft is at one place.)
! A black hole forms if the *proper* mass and radius are critical.

! "Black holiness" is a relativistically invariant quantity, if a binary one.

I read a similar story in Frederik Pohl's "The World at the End of Time".
In this book there is a superior being, Wan-To, that lives inside a star
and get its energy from it. To cut a long story short, the universe is
getting awfully old and Wan-To has accelerated one particular solar-system
to nearly the speed of light. When the rest of the universe dies of old
age, in this one solar system time has gone really slowly, and it is not
yet old.

This can't work, can it? How could you accelerate with reference to all
other observers? (Wild speculation: you would have to accelerate in the
fourth dimension that is orthogonal to the normal three. In the three
dimensions such an acceleration would look like the accelerating object
would be getting smaller. So I have concluded that a black hole is an object
that accelerates with respect to all other observers...NOT?)

That book, by the way, is excellent.

...............................................................................
Ari Huttunen				 Darth Vader sleeps with a Teddywookie.
From: emarkp@soda.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.    ABIAN replies to CORLEY  (att: INDRA)
Date: 16 Nov 1992 22:11:31 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Principles (A1)  and (A2).  Repelling Forces explained

In article <abian.721884490@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
}Dear Mr. CORLEY,                           11-15-92
}
}  I (alexander Abian) wrote to Indra:
}
}   Indra, please go to the nearest University, go to the Physics Department
}find the most "prominent" physicist there and ask him/her:
}
}    " WHY , say, TWO NEGATIVE ELECTRICAL CHARGES  REPEL "
}
}My guess is that his/her answer will be  "It is a principle , we do not ask
}why,  we use Coulomb's law to quantify the repelling force"
}
}   Indra, my answer is  "According to (A1), the space tends to maintain
}the status quo of its electrical neutrality and opposes a further concentr-
}ation of negative charges, and repels them.  However, if we overpower the 
}space we may crush  spaces' opposition", and a new Status Quo is created.
}   
}   Then Mr. Corley  you wrote to Indra:
}
}>Indra, the real answer is that this is caused by the electromagnetic
}>force which has been understood for literally centuries.  This
}>may sound like mere posturing, (I can even hear Mr. Abian now,
}>"you don't understand it so you call it electromagnetism"),
}
}  Mr. Corley,   you are right, the above is mere posturing.  In fact
} 
} THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES ARE CREATED BY COSMOS PRECISELY TO REPEL
} THE LIKE ELECTRIC CHARGES TO COOPERATE WITH THE SPACE IN SPACE'S
} TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO OF ITS ELECTRICAL NEUTRALITY !!!
}  (brilliant explanation - don't you agree !)
}  

  Why do you assume Mr. Abian that space's status quo is to be electrically
neutral?

------------
E. Mark Ping
emarkp@soda.Berkeley.EDU

  "Stand aside, I take large steps."  --Michael Dorn
  "Say, that's a nice bike."          --Cyberdyne Systems T-1000
  "Pituita es."                       --Unknown Latin Scholar
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Inelastic versus Elastic
Date: 22 Nov 92 21:17:00 GMT

BBLAIS@eagle.wesleyan.edu (BRIAN S. BLAIS) writes:

>A friend of mine wrote me:
>--
>Suppose that you have a bullet running into a block. It does so in a perfectly
>inelastic manner. That is, the bullet stays in the block after the collision
>imparting its momentum into the combination of itself and the block. However,
>some of the energy of the motion is lost in the form of heat, so kinetic
>energy is not conserved.

>Why? I am looking for an intuitive explanation of the conservation of moment
>that allows one to see clearly and distinctly that, even though some of the
>quantity of motion is converted into heat, the quantity of motion as expressed
>by _mv_ remains the same.
>--

Here's a possibly satisfactory way of looking at it.  When the bullet
slams into the block it sets various small components of the block jiggling
about in thermal motion.  These little objects (atoms, say) therefore
possess both momenta and kinetic energies.  Kinetic energy is a scalar
quantity, just a number, so the kinetic energies add up to some amount
which came from the bullet.  But momentum is a vector quantity, so the
momenta associated with the atoms' thermal motions (relative to the
block+bullet's center of mass) cancel out, since they're going in all
different directions.  So the thermal motions can't take up momentum from
the bulk motion of the block and bullet.

I hope that was intuitively satisfying...
a
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.archaeology
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:36:15 GMT

In article <1ei90dINNhgs@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <1ei39gINNf3o@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>>won't last a tenth of the 7000 years the Great Pyramid's
>>owned the planet.
>
>Uh-oh.  7000?  I want to say 4500, but that's the
>Iceman's date.
>
>Nuts.  Anyone remember when the GP was completed?

     Sure. It was supposedly completed in the 26th century BCE.
     
     Lemme see, you know for sure that it took 20 years to build, but
     don't know even the millenium in which it was built?

     Good work.

                           dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Continuos vs. discrete models Was: The size of electrons, ...
Date: 20 Nov 1992 07:26:05 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <Nov.17.22.13.13.1992.11029@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>Let's put a stop to this.  Cells are not cellular automata and I don't 
>think you could find too many respectable biologists who would use 
>cellular automata in their studies.  They're too busy studying cells.
>Anyone who thinks a cell is a finite state machine needs to read some
>biology.  

How then would you describe the microscopic stresses
on an oak beam?

				--Blair
				  "The Larch.
				   The Llllarch."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: alison@wsrcc.com (Alison Chaiken)
Subject: Re: Communicating Physics (was Re: Detecting crackpots - for laymen?)
Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:52:36 GMT

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>Ask a random person on the street to tell you anything about modern
>biology - something you couldn't find in a textbook written in 1950.
>How about chemistry?  I think you would find many more people who
>could tell you lots of qualitative stuff about physics in the last 40
>years . . . .  The Big Bang and the CMBR, quarks, high Tc
>superconductivity, supernova observations, chaos, etc.

I agree that many educated people have heard of the topics you list,
but I would be surprised if most of the same people haven't heard of
plastics and catalytic converters (post-war chemistry), or cloning,
gene-splicing and Jane Goodall (post-war biology).  In fact, judging
by the Science section of the local newspaper, I would guess that the
average person is far more interested in large animal biology and
human evolution than microscopic physics.  This doesn't make me want
to quit physics, but it does make me wonder why the taxpayer would
want to fund certain large physics projects (whose names I can't
mention without starting a regrettable flamewar again).
-- 
Alison Chaiken 				alison@wsrcc.com
(510) 422-7129 [daytime] 		or chaiken@cmsgee.llnl.gov
Look if you like, but you will have to leap.

Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Quantum paradox? Local Hamiltonian dynamics contradicts linear operators in Hilbert space.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:46:50 GMT


Sarfatti Lectures in Super Physics (Lecture 4)

A paradox in standard quantum mechanics?

Suppose we have a coherent superposition

|i> = |1><1|i> + |2><2|i>

<1|2> = 0

<1|1> = <2|2> = <i|i> = 1

but suppose |1> and |2> have no common support in x-space. Thus, whenever
<x|1> not zero <x|2> is zero and vice versa. For example the e and o beams
from a calcite doubly refracting crystal.

Noe suppose we put an instrument in the path of the |1> ket but not the |2>
ket. The action of the instrument should be represented by a local unitary
operator U. But that operator only acts locally on |1> and not on |2> - yet
|1> and |2> are an orthonormal basis spanning same vector space.

Thus, we have a contradiction between locality and linearity of the
operator on the vector space. Physicaly, locality means that U only acts on
|1> not on |2> so that dynamical locality requires:

U|i> = U{|1><1|i> + |2><2|i>} ={U|1><1|i> + |2><2|i>}

In contrast mathematical linearity requires:

U|i> = U{|1><1|i> + |2><2|i>} ={U|1><1|i> + U|2><2|i>}

This very fundamental paradox is at the root of the debate between me and
Gallis,Baez,Ramsay et-al.

Well gentlemen?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Inelastic versus Elastic
From: BBLAIS@eagle.wesleyan.edu (BRIAN S. BLAIS)
Date: 22 Nov 92 10:14:29 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20Lines: 20

A friend of mine wrote me:
--
Suppose that you have a bullet running into a block. It does so in a perfectly
inelastic manner. That is, the bullet stays in the block after the collision
imparting its momentum into the combination of itself and the block. However,
some of the energy of the motion is lost in the form of heat, so kinetic
energy is not conserved.

Why? I am looking for an intuitive explanation of the conservation of moment
that allows one to see clearly and distinctly that, even though some of the
quantity of motion is converted into heat, the quantity of motion as expressed
by _mv_ remains the same.
--

	I was trying to think of some reply to this, and thought that people
one the Net might like thinking about it.  I would like to know if anyone has
any good way of looking at this problem.

			Brian Blais
From: antennae@gn.apc.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - THE ENVIOUS REAC
Date: 20 Nov 92 02:06:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:abian.721860217@pv343f.vincent.i:993895394:gn:1541700003:000:51
Nf-From: gn.UUCP!antennae    Nov 20 02:06:00 1992



No need to apologise to me old thing.

:-)

Indra
Xref: sparky sci.physics:19012 sci.astro:12072
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Higgs Spotted?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 22:35:08 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <1992Nov16.064710.28511@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <FRANL.92Nov14160323@draco.centerline.com> franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:
>>jhh@waldzell.physics.yale.edu (Jim Horne) writes:
>>> "Mars is somewhat the same distance from the sun, which is
>>> very important.  We have seen pictures where there are
>>> canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water, there
>>> is oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
>>> 				     Dan Quayle, August 11, 1989
>>Just where did he spout this intellectual mildew?

In public, of course.

>2) What are the constituent elements of water?

Not, as Danny Boy thinks, anything resembling breathable air.

>     It sounds pretty funny when presented the appropriate way, but

You mean it's fucking hilarious when the Vice President of
the United States of America makes a speech extolling the
virtues of grandly scoped space travel with utterly
disingenuous misapplications of facts that any involved (or,
indeed, sentient) government official would have checked,
at the very least with a local high-school science teacher.

>     Mr. Quayle was an active head of the National Space Council.

He was a politician in a plastic space helmet playing
Plan 9 From Outer Space, and losing.

				--Blair
				  "We have seen pictures where
				   there are holes in the moon,
				   and we believe the moon is
				   made of cheese.  If there is
				   cheese, there is mildew, and
				   if mildew, that means we can
				   have dressing for our salad..."
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: energy and mass for the last time
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:52:49 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts) writes:
>...
>You give me *one* instance of a process where mass is not conserved, or
>energy is not conserved, or energy is converted into mass or vice versa and
>I'll duly oblige and try and explain what I think Bondi would have to say.

So far as your definition of "mass" is what most would call "relativistic
mass," E / c^2, of course mass can't be converted into energy.  (Well,
actually it can: you take a mass, multiply by c^2, and get the energy!
Like centimeters to meters.)  For the last time, this is totally trivial,
just a matter of definition, no physics involved.  

And now, here's an example where energy is *not* conserved.  Due to
the expansion of the universe, radiation is redshifted and loses energy.
Where does the energy go?  It just vanishes.  (See the FAQ, which was
probably written by Scott ;)  What would Bondi say to that (My guess
is he'd say "Yes, so what?")

-Ben
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA   reply to  L. HAMMER (Wombat)
Keywords: put up or shut up
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:22:46 GMT

In <1992Nov19.162938.19599@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat) writes:
                                              11-24-92

Dear Mr. HAMMER, 

You wrote:

>Dr.  Abian, a challenge to you.

>You have repeatedly claimed in wording I can't remember that general
>relativity is wrong in concept, and our belief in it prevents our
>accepting your A1 and A2.  So -- show me why GR is wrong.  Do so 
>WITHOUT using A1 or A2.  If you do, you will have used circular
>logic -- and I'm sure that as a mathematician you understand why
>circular logic is a fallacy.  Attacks ad hominum will immediately
>disqualify you.

My reply is:

 You are asking me an impossible task. 

  Suppose I ask you show me why GR is right without accepting  Einstein's
  field equations as AXIOMS ? 

  I do not accept that experiment has verified Einstein's axioms.    
  No experiment has verified (or can even verify) that Cosmos is a 
  Semi- differentiable  4 dimensional manifold.
 
 I have grave doubts about veracity of Michelson-Morley's  experi-
 mental results!! 
 
 According to some people the experiment has verified that once every 
 year the Madonna in Lourd, France sheds tears from her eyes. People
 even some scientists believe and swear to this.  This is as much of
 an indoctrination as believing in Einstein's field equations.
 
  Why I am so skeptical about  GR  or even QM ?  Because they do not
 treat the item  TIME satisfactorily.  I do, I pointed out the way.
 
 So, Mr. Hammer  I start with my (A1) and conclude (A2).  I believe in
 my (A1) and (A2) deeply and do not need to prove it to the people.  
 I show the way!.  Accordingly  GR,  is wrong since it does not agree
 with my (A2).

 In 1905 Einstein pointed out that some inertia is associated with energy

 In 1991 Abian pointed out that some inertia is associated with TIME.  

With best wishes and regards,
                                           Alexander Abian
-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
Xref: sparky sci.physics:19459 sci.archaeology:2869
From: ajackson@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Andrew William Jackson)
Subject: Superconducting magnetic flux structure visualization
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:50:08 GMT


Does anyone know of an improved technique for visualizing magnetic
flux structures in superconductors.  Kirchner (1969) uses Eu 
based thin films to achive sensitivities on the order of 20 gauss
and resolutions around .5 microns.  Is there an improved (higher
sensitivty) method that is being used now?  Anyone using this 
method or others? (Bitter method?)

Andrew Jackson - Physics Department - Princeton University

ajackson@ernie.princeton.edu
From: rowell5@cats.ucsc.edu (Corbett Ray Rowell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: A least action problem
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:19:05 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


Remember the bead traveling between two points and the question is
"What is its path?"  and it turns out to be a cycloid.
My questions are:
1) What if the bead has a velocity near the speed of light?
or 
2) If the bead were a point charge in an electrical field, a vertical
electrical field?
mail replies to 
rowell5@cats.ucsc.edu
Lock.Bait.Spread.Catch.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Higgs Spotted?
Date: 16 Nov 92 12:59:44
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu's message of 14 Nov 92 11:03:15 GMT

In article <4f1KaHK00YUoROiLkr@andrew.cmu.edu> st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes:

> Two photons is a possible signature for a higgs decay, but it's of course
> too early to say anything definitive.  A mass of 60 GeV is certainly 
> not ruled out by any other experiment.  By next year they should
> have twice as many of these events and more can be said.

The Standard Model Higgs certainly does decay to two photons, but the
branching ratio is tiny!  For a 60 GeV Higgs, it is expected to be on
less than 0.1%.  Whatever this thing at LEP is (if it's anything at
all, that is; as I've said before, I'm very skeptical), it just isn't
a Standard Model Higgs.  It's inconceivable that a Higgs with this
mass could be seen in the two-photon decay mode before any of the
other decay modes were observed.

The reason why the two-photon branching ratio is tiny, of course, is
that this decay can't proceed at tree level: it has to proceed by W
loops and fermion loops. 

Note, by the way, that this is rather general: by definition, a
neutral particle doesn't couple to photons, so any two-photon decay of
a neutral elementary particle has to be some loop effect.  It isn't
terribly easy, then, to concoct a model where the two-photon mode is
the dominant decay.  That is: a particle can only decay to two photons
if it couples to something else, which then begs the question: why
haven't we seen it decay into that something else instead?

Of course, you could say that the particles running around in the loop
are too massive for them to appear in the final state---they could be
W's or superheavy exotic fermions, for instance.  That just doesn't
seem terribly natural to me, though.

--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Dan Quayle and Mars
Followup-To: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:05:44 GMT

Sorry, I can't resist...

> "Mars is somewhat the same distance from the sun, which is
> very important.  We have seen pictures where there are
> canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water, there
  ^^^^^^
> is oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
> 				     Dan Quayle, August 11, 1989

Really, would Mr. Quayle have used the term "canals" if he was even
dimly aware of the history of popular mythology about Mars? (i.e.,
that the notion of canals *is* mythology)

Is Quayle stupid? I dunno. Just glad I don't have to worry about that
question for at least 3 years.

------
Dale Atems                                      "If it walks like a duck,
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI              and quacks like a duck..."
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu                     --- I forget who

P.S. --- Please note the followup-to line above. This thread *really*
doesn't belong in sci.physics. Enough noise already, let's have more signal.
Newsgroups: sci.physics