HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elliot.weinberg@nitelog.com (Elliot Weinberg) 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl
Date: 19 Nov 92 07:38:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Nitelog BBS - Monterey, CA - 408-655-1096
Reply-To: elliot.weinberg@nitelog.com (Elliot Weinberg) 


KPK>   About two years ago I read in a newsgroup (alt.paranormal
KPK>   I think ) files released by the U.S. government under the
KPK>   freedom of information act (FOIA).
KPK>            In these files were letters from USAF officers
KPK>   to mainly independant investigators, 'confirming' that
KPK>   UFOs do exist and the US government does indeed have in
KPK>   their posession a number of cadavers and wreckages from
KPK>   crashed UFOs.
Sorry, but no it does not make any sense.. nonetheless, the number of
"true believers" remains limitless. Magnetic propulsion in the sense
that you can get something for nothing is just one more dream.
Gravitational propulsion works even better.. i.e. if you jump off the
top of a skyscraper you will get a free ride down! Incidentally, this is
the origin of all those cadavers.. they came from beta testers jumping
off tall buildings. (Although I recall there used to be some government
offices where you really couldn't tell the workers from the
cadavers!) The basic rule of thumb for all UFO'ers and energyless
propulsion systems is that if there were any possibility of no-cost
energy devices the power or automotive or whatever companies would be
making them and, of course, charging you for them. Regards.
                       
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ghw@brahms.udel.edu (George Watson)
Subject: Why B and H too?  Was Re: Why "p" for momentum?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:46:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.133853.10928@vpnet.chi.il.us> mox@vpnet.chi.il.us (William Moxley) writes:
>Does anyone know why "p" was chosen to represent momentum?  Other than
>that "m" was already taken?
>
>		William Moxley
>		mox@vpnet.chi.il.us

**** I have a similar question concerning B and H representing the
magnetic fields. ****
-- 
George Watson                  | 
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy   |   Gosh darn the torpedos,
University of Delaware         |     full speed ahead!
ghw@brahms.udel.edu            |
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pott@wormwood.eecs.wsu.edu (Patrick Ott - EECS (EE331))
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: What is a recoil-mass time of flight spectrometer?
Date: 21 Nov 92 03:13:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: serval.1992Nov21.031305.8554
Organization: Washington State University

I was wondering if someone knows just exactly what a recoil-mass time of  
flight spectometer is and what it does. I am doing a study of an  
electrostatic particle focusing device used in this spectrometer, but I am  
not sure how this kind of spectrometer is used or how it works.
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Tuesday, 17 Nov 1992 13:32:05 PST
From: <RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Hadron jets

In article <rsf1.722031249@Ra.MsState.Edu>, rsf1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Robert S.
Fritzius) says:
>
>The following propuzzle is inspired by the Jacob and Landshoff article,
>"The Inner Structure of the Proton," Scientific American, March 1980.
>
>Suppose our job is to slam 30 GeV protons head-on into other 30 GeV
>protons, but every now and then a nitrogen or an oxygen nucleus happens
>to drift right into the path of one of the kamikaze protons.  KaBam!
>
>Might we not expect to see a shower of hadrons, spawned by the rude
>and violent dismantling of that hapless nucleus?  If so, can we
>easily discriminate that shower from those brought about by the
>desired proton-proton collisions?
>

1) Energetic protons don't "see" the nuclei. the result is that the nucleus is
a collection of protons and neutrons. Add the events up and thjat is what you g
et.

2) proton-nucleus interactions are low momentum events which have low cross-sec
tion

3) You can tell the difference from the momentum profile. of the event. Large P
t events are the signature.

rajagopalan
From: ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Sarfatti answers Gallis re: unitarity barrier to FTL QM COMM.
Date: 22 Nov 1992 00:00:06 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <By1qI5.GJG@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us 
(Jack Sarfatti) writes:
|There is enough ambiguity in the details of interpretation of QM that it is
|a quibble whether I am using standard QM or a deviation from it. Let's see
|what experiments say! If you like call my model "Sarfatti Mechanics".

Fine. "Sarfatti mechanics".

|It is arrogant for all of you to presume and pretend that "standard
|quantum mechanics" is unambiguous. Even Feynman said he did not really
|understand it. So did Bohr.

They didn't say that it was so ambiguous that the answer to what is
essentially an undergraduate QM homework problem could not be clear.

This discussion has gone beyond the point of diminishing returns for
me, and I don't plan to have anything more to say about it. I think
Sarfatti's most recent comments speak well enough for themselves.

Keith Ramsay         "But I really think that frequent posters such as 
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca  myself, Dale, Scott, McIrvin and others are not 
                     crackpots; we are simply loudmouths."
                                        -John Baez
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: No Spin in 2 Dimensions?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 11:29 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <FRANL.92Nov16233347@draco.centerline.com>, franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes...
>hoconnel@iti.org (Heath O'Connell) writes:
> 
>> zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:
>> 
>> > but then QM doesn't work too well with SR anyway
>> 
>> QM and SR work quite well together.
> 
>Then how do you reconcile wavefunction collapse with the relativity of
>simultaneity?

You don't necessarily need to.  The point here is that QFT, the only
consistent merger of QM and SR, provides a correct description of all
known experimental results both in the quantum and v -> c limits.  
Besides, as has been previous discussed here, you can look at wave function
collapse in any frame you want.  It will only be simultaneous in one frame,
but in the others the collapse will cause no unphysical (read acausal) 
behavior.

So, it seems to me that it comes down to whether or not you are 
happy with accepting the interpretation of QM in terms of wave-fuction 
collapse.  If you are, then everything is OK.  If not, then with or without
SR you will not be happy with QM.  

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Rel. & Phys. Don't Mix; Einstein Qu
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 07:27:36 GMT

In article <1541700009@gn.apc.org> antennae@gn.apc.org writes:
>
>
>None the less valuable for that.  I could counter-quote you an
>Einsteinism that would seem to indicate that physics and religion
>*do* mix.  Einstein himself found an out where there were no doors.
>This little posting would have looked better if its first three
>sentences had been numbered and separated, since they are three
>quite distinct thoughts.

     I'm exceedingly confused.  Is this in reference to three sentences I 
     quoted, or the single sentence about doors that someone else 
     quoted?  If it is about mine, I agree that there seems to be a number of
     distinct thoughts.  If it's about the doors, I'm still trying 
     to figure out what the poster thought it showed.

     By the way, why announce a counter-quote?  Just fire away.  Or
     are you just teasing us?

                            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: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Continuos vs. discrete models Was: The size of electrons, ...
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:21:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.123636.23533@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.065208.28725@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>>As one simple example consider the difference between a model based on
>>>finite difference equations and one based on partial differential
>>>equations. 
>> 
>>    Name a physical system in which the FDE is considered more fundamental
>>    than the PDE?  For most of us, we take the 'true' PDE and muck it
>>    up, introducing loads of spurious conservation laws and higher
>>    order terms, by deriving a finite difference formulation of it. 
>>    I'd be interested in a system in which we did the reverse.
>
>The diffusion equation (a continuous limit of discrete Brownian
>motion), population growth equation (there can only be a discrete
>number of individuals, after all), thermodynamics. I think quite
>a few physical systems are properly thought of as discrete, and
>the continuous description is an approximation.

     Thanks, I was thinking about the problem somewhat differently
     (though maybe not with sufficient erudition).
     
     I was actually trying to think aloud of a system in which the underlying
     physics was 'discrete'.  Brownian motion is an idealization
     of a rather messy continuous process, as is thermodynamics.
     Nowhere are derivatives discontinuous in these systems in nature.

     Population growth is one that I may buy for the reason that you 
     state, though I can conceive of coefficients in the equation(s) that are
     related to true derivatives from other systems.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Quantum connection communication is impossible in standard quantum mechanics. Therefore, "remote viewing" etc is not consistent with known physics. Ramsay, Gallis et-al right after all.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:56:24 GMT


Well John Baez will have to agree with me on this. Like Nixon - you won't
have Sarfatti to kick around as a "crackpot" any more - no crackpot ever
can admit his GENIUS idea is dead wrong! (using capital letters is not
a sufficient criterion for crackpotness) -

Sarfatti now admits: Quantum Connection Communication is an Illusion!

OK , I agree if

U|o,-> = |o,+>

U|e,+> = |e,+>

if <e,+|o,-> = 0

then invariance of inner products (unitarity) requires

<e,+|U*U|o,-> = <e,+|o,+> = 0

so that in pair problem

|a,b>' = (1/sqrt2)[ei^phi|ae+>|be+> + |ao+>|bo->]

the nonlocal joint probability is

|<ax|<be'+'|a.b>'|^2 = (1/2)|e^iphi<ax|ae+>cos@+<ax|ao+>sin@|^2

=(1/2){|<ae+|ax><ax|ae+>cos^2@ +<ao+|ax><ax|ao+>sin^2@

+ sin@cos@[e^-iphi <ae+|ax><ax|ao+> + e^iphi <ao+|ax><ax|ae+>]

the local probability at the receiver p(be'+') is the sum over all x

but

Sum|ax><ax| = 1

therefore

p(be'+') = {1 + sin@cos@[e^-iphi <ae+|ao+> + e^iphi <ao+|ae+>]}/2

= 1/2

since unitarity requires <ae+|ao-> = 0

this means that quantum connection communication is impossible, even in
fluctuations, in standard quantum mechanics. Therefore, alleged psychic
phenomena like "precognitive remote viewing" cannot be explained within
standard quantum mechanics.
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: re: Kill command - how to undo it?
Date: 23 Nov 1992 16:56 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes...
>I experimented killing "abian". It works but the cure may be worse than the
>desease. There are so many "abian" postings that it takes quite a while to
>kill the posts before being able to read what's left -wasting money. How
>do I undo the command. Please use my e-mail to reply.

Yeah, I hear Hannu had the same problem with that crackpot Abian. Maybe
that's why he left.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:47:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.144029.29898@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts) writes:
>bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>
>>sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>:>>> ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts) writes...
>>:
>>:>>(And if you think that, say, positron-electron annihilation is an example of
>>:>>the destruction of mass, then think again.)
>>:
>>:>Sure.  What would *you* call it?  Where do *you* think the mass goes?
>>:
>>:>>It wouldn't surprise me if American Universities were turfing out copies of
>>:>>J. Phys. A! I only included the reference in case people doubted the
>>:>>authenticity of my claim - I hadn't thought people would go to the trouble
>>:>>of looking it up. 
>
>>Etc.  Scott, don't you imagine this whole tempest-in-a-teapot is the old
>>confusion over "relativistic mass" versus "rest mass"?  Bondi probably
>>said that mass is conserved, meaning relativistic mass, which is just a
>>statement of conservation of energy less a factor of c squared.  Rest
>>mass isn't conserved.
>
>Exactly. Congratulations!
>
>I don't believe that Scott Chase realises this, however, if he thinks that
>mass is lost in particle-antiparticle annihilation.

     This is absurd.

     Why, pray tell, did you have to resurrect some obscure reference
     of Bondi's to make this less-than-interesting point?  Yes, rest mass
     is not conserved.  Yes, 'relativistic mass' (usually read 'energy')
     is conserved.

     I hardly think Scott is now rushing to publish this stunning revelation.

                                 dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: History of AC vs DC Power >>THE TRUTH!<<  *=*
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 23:30:51 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:

> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
> 
> > steve@pepe.aero.org (Steve Sedlacek) writes:
> > 
> > > A new Swedish study apparently confirms a moderate
> > > correlation between living near high-power transmission lines and cancers
> 
> > 	It is also a known fact that there is a high rate of 
> > cancer among uneducated and poor people.
> 
> Fine so far...
> 
> > The reason being, they 
> > simply do not have proper hygiene, sanitation, or eating habits.  
> 
> Whoa!!!  Strike hygiene from that list.  Unless by "do not have proper
> hygiene" you mean "fail to wash hazardous/radioactive waste off they
> hands after contact", dirt on your skin won't give you cancer.

Fran,

        It is not the "dirt" on ones hands that can give one 
cancer- it is the bacteria that can.  If one autoinfects with 
certain strains of bacteria, the metabolic byproducts of this 
bacteria can cause (and does cause) cancer in humans.  This is an 
accepted medical truth.  The idea behind eating high fiber diets 
is to minimize the exposure ones colon and rectum have to face 
from these anaerobes that excrete carcinogenic metabolites.  The 
"fiber" absorbs the toxins, gives rise to more rapid evacuation of 
the bowels- thus reducing exposure, and promotes the overgrowth of 
nonhazardous forms of bacteria (e.g. Escharichia Coli).  

        The poor and uneducated often don't wash their hands to 
eat, and thus infect themselves with whatever they have handled 
during the day.  Given this, they often have diets poor in fiber, 
rich in fat, smoke and drink.  Four strikes, and you're out....sq

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: Continuos vs. discrete models Was: The size of electrons, ...
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:36:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.065208.28725@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>>As one simple example consider the difference between a model based on
>>finite difference equations and one based on partial differential
>>equations. 
> 
>    Name a physical system in which the FDE is considered more fundamental
>    than the PDE?  For most of us, we take the 'true' PDE and muck it
>    up, introducing loads of spurious conservation laws and higher
>    order terms, by deriving a finite difference formulation of it. 
>    I'd be interested in a system in which we did the reverse.

The diffusion equation (a continuous limit of discrete Brownian
motion), population growth equation (there can only be a discrete
number of individuals, after all), thermodynamics. I think quite
a few physical systems are properly thought of as discrete, and
the continuous description is an approximation.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY

Newsgroups: sci.physics,misc.jobs.offered,atl.general,ga.general
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why "p" for momentum?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 10:24 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov16.140908.1@physics.monash.edu.au>, voros@physics.monash.edu.au (Joe Voros) writes...
>mox@vpnet.chi.il.us (William Moxley) writes:
>> Does anyone know why "p" was chosen to represent momentum?  Other than
>> that "m" was already taken?
> 
>It is tied to the fact that "q" is used to designate position.  As my
>..signature has attested for a bloody long time now, Quantum Mechanics is
>God's way of reminding us to mind our P's and Q's.

Actually, I never thought about this before.  It always seemed patently
obvious why we should use p for pmomentum!

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:46:21 GMT

In article <6cJ6TB3w165w@iowegia.uucp>, quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
|> craigen@ace.acadiau.ca (DOUGLAS CRAIGEN) writes:
|> 
|> > >>Then how do you explain the large number of people who are both scientists
|> > >>and are religious?

ETC

|>         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.
|> 
|>         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

An atheist believes that the statement "God exists" is false. Certainly
a scientist should not be an atheist because no scientific evidence
exists to prove that God does not exist. It's like believing the
nonexistence of stars 1 trillion light years from us simply because no
evidence exists for their existence. I have not seen evidence supporting
the existence of God. I have not seen a formal account of what God is.
How can anyone prove anything about God?

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA .  Att:  M.P.WIENER  and  J. BELL
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:46:35 GMT

Mr. Wiener   you wrote:

>>In 1905, Einstein pointed out that there is an inertia associated with
>>energy.  T=E/c^2.  (Not E=mc^2.)  

I am saying:

  In 1991, Abian pointed out that there is an INERTIA 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)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: domestic heat pumps
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:20:28 GMT

I would like to install a ground source heat pump in my home. I now use an oil
furnace with circulating hot water for heating, and I'm spending about C$1500
per year to feed it. I have a lake outside from which I can pump the heat, so I
expect that I can get a ground source heat pump which will have a much better
coefficient of performance than I would get from an air source pump. Does
anyone out there have any experience with such animals?

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: PS re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:16:36 GMT


a peice of beyond QM got left out inadvertently -one should recall

|a,b>' = |a>|b>

|a> = |a+>

|b> = (1/sqrt2)[e^iphi|b+> + b|->]

|a,b>' though not entangled is still connected because the basis for
|b> is same as that for |a>. The a-detector prepares both photons from
the future. The b-detector analyses what a-detector prepared (or vice
versa). Details in Lecture 4.

This leapfrogs right over the Ramsay,Gallis et-al objections of a
nonlinear nonlocal operator U that induces |a,b> -> |a,b>'
in the course of time. This transformation does not happen in time. If
you like it happens "out of time" in that the configuration of the future
detection apparatus reaches back to create different pair state structures
|a,b> for experiments done with two detectors on each side, and |a>|b> for
the detectors with half wave plate interferometer on one side. That's the
testable prediction -sin2@cos(phi) polarization signal.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories