HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Time to develop a crackpot index?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 04:32:02 GMT

Okay, since not everyone is posting to alt.physics.new-theories who
should be, I think it's time to develop a crackpot index.

I think the simplest system is to add points for various indications of 
kookiness.  

Some proposals:

0) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
1) 2 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
2) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.
3) 30 points for each posting that claims a revolutionary theory but
gives no concrete testable predictions.
4) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or
claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
(without good evidence).
5) 10 points for each claim the quantum mechanics is fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).
6) 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton
claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without
evidence).
7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for posters
with defective keyboards).  
9) 10 points for every use of science fiction works as if they were
fact.

In my next post I'll test this out.

We should also give everyone a credit of -5 for each post, since we all
make mistakes.
From: farmer@henry.ece.cmu.edu (Alan A. Farmer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: VERY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS  -    ABIAN's Comments
Keywords: WHY, HOW, REASON and EXPLAIN
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:22:53 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon

I've been reading Dr. Abian's messages for a couple of weeks now, and at
the very least I'm impressed with his consistent calmness in the face of
repeated rejection.

On the subject of The Principle of Maintaining the Status Quo (unless
something happens that changes the status quo), well, isn't it about the
same thing to say "causes have effects"?  That's a mostly true statement,
at least in the world of day-to-day nonrelativistic macroscopic life.
My problem is with the way Dr. Abian applies the principle, with talk
of inanimate objects becoming annoyed with each other.  As others have
pointed out, you might as well say that the piece of fur derives pleasure 
from being rubbed and produces heat to reward the finger.  I'd like to
see a prediction about some physical situation in which the outcome
is unknown to us Orthodox Physicists, rather than just applying human-
like motives to objects in a known situation.

As for the proposal that we change the axial tilt of the earth in 
order to reduce disease and earthquakes and such, I'm just wondering
by how many degrees we should change it...
Xref: sparky sci.physics:16152 sci.math:12895 soc.men:17464 soc.women:17478
From: mburke@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Matthew Burke - grad student)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Mattel on women
Keywords: Targetting females once again.
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:48:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: serval.1992Oct8.054804.21988
Organization: Washington State University!


Mattel should have Barbie say, "Sure Ken, I can show you how to do
this math problem."

Or something along those lines.

Matt
-- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%      Matthew M. Burke        mburke@eecs.wsu.edu         %
%   Where am I and what am I doing in this handbasket?     %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: brucer@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Bruce Sutherland)
Subject: lemon-radio
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:18:39 GMT

I heard of a tinkerer who built a working tunable radio using
only a lemon, an iron nail, and two copper wires.  I know the
lemon was used as a battery and one wire was wrapped around
the nail (which was stuck in the lemon) to make an inductor
and the other wire was stuck in the lemon and run along the
coils to tune the radio to the desired frequency.  My question is
HOW DID IT WORK?!!  First of all, there's no speaker.  Second
what is the resonant coupling that tunes the radio to the 
right frequency - there's no capacitor.  Finally, if any has
tried this themselves, I'd be interested in knowing quantitative
things like the size and make-up of the nail and copper wires
that would give a lemon-radio which could pick up an FM station.

Bruce Sutherland      (brucer@helios.physics.utoronto.ca)
University of Toronto
Xref: sparky sci.physics:16404 sci.electronics:17052
From: ce062@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joel B Stuckey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: SILICON DETECTORS
Date: 8 Oct 1992 17:09:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ce062@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joel B Stuckey)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


   Does anyone know if its possible to use a ccd (TC-211) for
detection of high energy electrons (1 to 20 Kev)? I would like to 
look at surface scattered electrons and x-rays. I have the spec
sheets for the TI chips but they are only concerned with the visible
portion of the spectrum. If anyone could reccomend  a good reference
on the efficiency of silicon detectors, I would be grateful. (I have
Buli's book already) Thanks.
-- 
Joel B Stuckey     STUCKE98@SNYBUFVA.CS.SNYBUF.EDU
                   CIS 73177,3460
                   Buffalo State College, Buffalo NY
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: lemon-radio
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:10:07 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Bronis Vidugiris writes:
:I don't think you'd need a battery at all, what you need for an AM
:radio is a tuned circuit, a rectifier of some kind (which is where I
:suspect the lemon could come in, assuming this is more than an Urban
:Legend), and a high (preferably) impedance earphone.  [I'd bet that the
:earphone  *was* an extra part, just not mentioned as being part of the
:radio.]

:However, you'd only detect strong signals this way - strong enough to
:forward bias the rectifier.  (Germanium or some other sort with a low
:forward voltage would be preferred, as opposed to silicon diodes which take
:significantly more forward bias to 'turn on')  Old 'crystal' sets used a
:cats-whisker on a crystal to form the rectifier, for example)

This is right, (tho' I dunno about the lemon), for a demonstration in
a general lab I once put together an AM radio out of:

- about 50 feet of wire, stretched-out (one end floating!)
- one of those tunable inductors
- a capacitor
- a germanium diode

I think I cheated and used an amplifier to drive the speaker, because
you don't get much power out of it!  And the reception was terrible
... I could only get one or two stations.

The rectifier is there to get rid of the carrier frequency, BTW.
It should be obvious why this only works for AM and not FM (given what
the initials stand for)
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Quantum eraser
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:04:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.718675484

kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:

>I have just gone through a book called "Tamingthe atom." by von Baeyer.  In it
>he speaks of a "quantum eraser" experiment at Max Planck.  Does anyone have any
>information on whether this experiment was done or not?

I don't know, but Hans von Baeyer was my senior thesis adviser.  I'm
curious.  How's the book?

-- 
Matt McIrvin, posting nonsense again
From: ted@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Emory F. Bunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: New group/groups : Branching of sci.physics
Date: 13 Oct 1992 22:39:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu

I agree that this group is difficult to keep up with because of the 
enormously high rate of posting.  There's at least one thing that would 
help, short of the creation of new groups (which may be a good idea).
There is already a division between sci.physics and 
something.physics.new-theories.  (Sorry, but I can't remember the name.)
It seems to me that a significant fraction of the postings to this 
group belong to threads that unambiguously belong on the other.  So
how about it, folks?  If you want to describe alternative physical
theories, take them to the appropriate group.  Then people can decide
for themselves which groups they want to read.  Those of you
who want to describe new theories will get a less hostile audience,
and those who don't aren't interested in those theories don't have
to wade through them.

Just a thought.

-Ted
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: FEYNMAN 11
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:09:39 GMT


Feynman 11.
Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics and the American Green Movement (in his
The Turning Point) is the consequence of Werner Heisenberg's participation
in the post WWI German youth movement that Adolph Hitler eventually took
over. "Heisenberg had joined the youth movement that formed in Munich after
the trauma of World War I, and the conversation roamed freely: Did the fate
of Germany matter 'more than that of all mankind'? ... Does youth have 'the
right to fashion life according to its own values?' For such students
philosophy came first in physics. The search for meaning, the search for
purpose, led naturally down to the world of atoms." p.78 Gleick's GENIUS

I spent the early part of the summer of 1966 at Heisenberg's Max Planck
Institute in Munich listening and drinking coffee with him and John
Wheeler. I met Heisenberg again in early 70's at Cal Tech while I was a
professor at San Diego State.
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: 1992 Nobel Prizes
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:10:35 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <BvuyJs.8B2@rice.edu> jmack@surf.rice.edu (Jeffrey Mackey) writes:
>Roy Smalley doesn't have a chance at the Chemistry Nobel prize,

I'm sorry to hear this, since I am in favor of intellectual infielders.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
From: jmack@surf.rice.edu (Jeffrey Mackey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Very fundamental question
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:06:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: rice.Bw4L2I.EL1
Organization: Physics

In all seriousness, B's answer should be: "Look, here's Purcell's
'Electricity and Magnetism'. If you have any trouble, come talk to
me. Also, a warning: if you ask 'why?' too much, three things
happen, possibly all at once: 1) you become a philosopher 2) you
eventually engage is self-deception (L. D. Landau) 3) your brain
explodes..." If someone doesn't understand the macroscopic ideas,
no attempt should be made to go into a QED/exchange-particle
explanation.
-J
From: oreillym@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Michael O'Reilly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: GROSS MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT PROBABILITY, DETERMINISM AND LOCALITY
Date: 15 Oct 1992 00:44:26 +0800
Organization: Home
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za wrote:
: From the responses to my postings on QM which I have received, it is
: clear to me that many people are grossly ignorant of basic
: mathematics. Here are some examples of the gross misconceptions
: regarding probability which I have encountered:
: 
: Misconception (1): "Probability is independent of knowledge." To see
: that this is false consider the case of a man who throws a coin over
: a wall. For him, the probability that the coin landed heads up is 0.5
: and the probability that it landed tails up is 0.5. For a man on the
: other side of the wall who can see the coin, there are two cases: If
: it landed heads prob(heads) = 1 and prob(tails) = 0; if it landed tails
: then prob(tails) = 1 and prob(heads) = 0.
: 
Hmm. I have just read a number of posts bashing you on this point, and
it may have been because of your choice of example.

I went to a lecture given by a visiting professor on this subject
(name escapes my mind. Supposedly someone nice and famous).

The example he gave was this.

suppose you see someone flipping a coin. I.e. resting coin on thumb,
flipping in the air, and catching. What is the probability that it
comes up heads?? Most ppl would give the obvious answer that it is
0.5.

There turns out to be three flaws with this.
A little physics shows that the result is dependent on the speed at
which the coin is spinning, and the force with which it was thrown up.
Doing the various maths, and some experiments showed that in fact that
probability of a result equal to the initial face up was about 0.497 NOT
0.5.

Another point is that coins don't have a center of gravity exactly at
the geometric center. The designs on the faces means that it is very
slightly off. This influences the result to.

The other point is that this guy used to be a stage magician. He could
toss a coin and get it head about 80% of the time. So depending on how
much you know, the probability changes.

You reply that "This is just conditional probability!". From what I can
see, it isn't.  You initially say that is it in 50-50. Then a piece on
information comes to like (i.e. point 1). The probability changes!. You
had previously believed it to be 50-50.

Hmm. One thing that has just come to mind is that we are probably a
little confused on what we mean when we say probability.

The definition I believe this prof gave was something along the lines of
the probability being related to the result we expected to get.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: FEYNMAN 1
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:42:24 GMT


OK what I'm going to do is first review important ideas in James Gleick's
new book GENIUS, The life  and science of Richard Feynman which just came
out. Then, over the coming months, I will give comments on his classic Cal
Tech Lectures bringing them up to date where possible. Then I will go to
the Feynman Hibbs book on path integral quantum mechanics, then review his
papers with Wheeler and then his QED. This will take a year or more. I have
MATHEMATICA and MATHCAD and a fax-modem on my computer. Therefore, those
who want more mathematical and graphics stuff can communicate with me
beyond text file format. Multimedia buffs may get some ideas from all this.
"Principles
You can't say A is made of B
or vice versa.
All mass is interaction.
scribbled by Feynman p.5
all page references to Gleick's book. Those who read the book are welcome
to contribute questions ideas etc.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: 1992 Nobel Prizes: a prediction
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:14:15 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer)

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?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:37:19 GMT

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
:    I said and repeat that I will accept THE PRINCIPLE: 
: 
:          THE  TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO AND
:                      REACTION TO PROVOCATION
: 
:   The striking of a match creates an unpleasant friction for the 
: chemical at the top of the match and in order to stop that irritation
: (and maintain the calm status quo) flame is produced.  

Once I went camping and none of the matches would burst into flame. Now
I understand that the reason was that the matches were a bunch of
perverts who enjoyed unpleasant friction.
Next time I'll take straight matches.
:
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Stephen W. Hawking?
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:29:00 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: an938@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (George II Lenzer)

In article <1bd8i2INNcje@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an938@cleveland (George II Lenzer) writes:
>	Has anyone heard anything about Hawking as of late?  I
>need to get info on him for a paper relating religion and physics.

I heard he's getting a divorce over his nurse.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Wavefunction of the universe calculated!!!
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 19:04:20 GMT

In article <burt.718667740@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees) writes:
>
>  But, I thought, I mean, the Marahishi published the wave equation for the
>universe this year in the Globe and Mail (Canada's national newspaper).  It
>took up two full pages of newsprint.  Somebody's solved it?

That wasn't the wavefunction, that was the Lagrangian for the universe.
By the way, I believe that it was a Lagrangian for a supersymmetric
field theory that real physicists have studied, but with the individual
terms labelled with terms like "truth," "harmony," "consciousness".
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: scotbri@flower.samsung.com (Scott Brigham, corp)
Subject: Re: Mattel on women
Originator: scotbri@flower
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:18:04 GMT

From article <1992Oct5.201752.20034@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass):
> 
>      I suggest you'd do more good by taking a job at a nearby middle
>      school and teaching the children some math.  I want to warn you,
>      it is a tough job to do successfully...
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!!!  YOU FACIST OPPRESSOR ...
> 
=========================
 scotbri@rosemount.com  
 Scott Brigham  (AA0HU)
 St. Paul, MN  USA
=========================
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Time to develop a crackpot index?
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:01:43 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

From article <1992Oct14.201220.9007@galois.mit.edu>, by jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez):
... 
> Hopefully the present article gets a 0 crackpot index since my 5-point
> credit cancels my use of caps.

What is the point value of _underscores_ ?

Allan Duncan		ACSnet	 a.duncan@trl.oz
(+613) 253 6708		Internet a.duncan@trl.oz.au
Fax    253 6664		UUCP	 {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!trl.oz.au!a.duncan
    Telecom Research Labs, PO Box 249, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
From: haley@husc10.harvard.edu (Elizabeth Haley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Xmodem math
Keywords: software snarfy request
Date: 10 Oct 92 10:07:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.haley.718711658

snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>    I have a question . Does anyone know of any software that properly codes
>   math  symbols (greek alphabet, integral signs and the like) into a format
>   that xmodem can send / receive?  I promised to publish some of  my  stuff
>   on  the  net,  and have even had some inquiries from outside the U.S.  on
>   other subjects which would necessitate replies by "snail-mail" due to the
>   lack of this code process . Can anybody give me any hints?
One could concievably set the stuff in TeX or Postscript, which were
designed to act as if computer don't understand 127+1. Pobably TeX
would be better, being more, well free, and stuff...
>   snarfy
not snarfy
From: burton@cfm.brown.edu (Joshua W. Burton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: 1992 Nobel Prizes: a prediction
Date: 16 Oct 1992 17:46:22 GMT
Organization: Brown University Center for Fluid Mechanics
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: qcd2.het.brown.edu

>
>  ...yeah, and Alison Chaiken pointed out that Josephson won for work done
>as a grad student. So I was basically way off base on this one. But look,
>in how many of these cases did the committe cite the work actually in the 
>dissertation ? I don't know - I hereby resign from making any blanket
>statements about the prizes.
>
>  To go back to the first question - how many of the physics prizes
>have been awarded to non-PhD's ?
>
>       ================                           
>         Lee Sawyer                                  
>
>         Dept of Physics                          
>         Univ. of Texas                            
>               at Arlington                        

I don't know the answer to this question, but I have in mind a remarkable
example:  J. H. Christenson not only shared the Nobel (with his advisor among
others) for the discovery of CP violation in the neutral kaon system, but
actually collected the prize before his degree was conferred.  If you want
to try this at home, I recommend that you make a shattering experimental
discovery that is easy to reproduce and is clearly important even in the
absence of a theoretical explanation.  Don't think it's happened since 1964.

-- 
Cum catapultae proscriptae |===================================================
erunt, tum soli proscripti | Joshua W Burton (401)351-5908 burton@het.brown.edu 
catapultas habebunt.       |===================================================

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 19:19:51 GMT

In article <R373RB5w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:

>        I am actually suprised that nobody has built a "back-yard" 
>nuke in their basement for "neighborhood nuclear 
>superiority"....sq

Come visit LA 20 years from now.  (I post from Cambridge, true, but
I live on the fringes of that wondrous megalopolis.)  The gangs are
already better armed than the police.
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Stephen W. Hawking?
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:28:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Oct16.163759.29856@alex.com> jon@alex.com (Jonathan Heitler) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.174200.2276@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>|>     'Dancing Wu-Li Masters' is a horrible thing to be visited upon
>|>     defenseless non-science majors.
>
>Oh. If that is so, what advice, concerning what to read, would you 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? (Preferably a book that doesn't use words longer than 2.5
>syllables).

     I can see two looking at my shelves and the various floors around
     the house that serve as shelves (all the walls are full).

     The first is a bit dated, but "The evolution of physics" by Einstein and 
     Infeld is pretty good through about 1940 (mostly written by Infeld,
     who was having monetary difficulties).  To pick up most of the rest
     of the time, you might want to check "QED" by Feynmann.  You might
     find some differences in attitude interesting between the two.

     I'm sure others would be more than happy to give you their personal
     favorites.  Do, however, keep a skeptical mind about stuff even
     famous scientists tell you.  Everything is subject to misinterpretation
     and alteration.

                               dale bass



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