HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kpearce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (BULLDAWG)
Subject: Re: Metals in liquid Nitrogen !!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:42:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.023731.17721@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
>In article <10DEC199219275429@trentu.ca> lchardon@trentu.ca (PETIT PAPA NOEL.) writes:
>>
>>	I'm sorry if this has been discussed here before, but I'm quite 
>>puzzled by the following:
>>
>>	In my thermodynamics class, we were all happily playing with liquid 
>>nitrogen, freezing squash balls, making erasers explode (BTW, why do 
>>plastic erasers explode when in liquid nitrogen?) and all that kind of 
>>things that you do when you have 10 litres of nitrogen to waste, when a 
>>prof dropped by and told us to try to immerge some piece of metal in the 
>>nitrogen. Sure enough, somebody pulled out a penny and dropped it in a 
>>full styrofoam cup. What happens is the following:
>>The nitrogen will boil for some time, like it boils when you drop anything 
>>in it, but then suddenly it will boil really hard, about 3 times more 
>>violently than it did before, for about half a second, and then it will 
>>just gently bubble away (When the metal is in thermal equilibrium with it, 
>>i guess...).
>>
>>	WHY ???????????????
>>	WHY JUST METALS ???
>>	
>This is an interesting question. You can do the same observation with
>the iron ;
>1. Heat it 
>2. Turn it off
>3. drop small amounts of water on the hot surface(make sure it's horizontal) 
>You'll see 2 different situations :
> - When iron is hot enough, water doesn't touch metal ! Steam production 
>allows drop of water to levitate. If you can fix an iron strictly 
>horizontally, even small drops can survive more than 1 minute.
> - When iron become cooler, the rate of steam production is too small 
>to isolate the drop from the hot surface; in that case water touchs the
>metal & evaporates in several seconds. It seems a bit paradoxical,
>but I'm unwilling to explain the details (surface tension of drop of
>water does matter). Liquid nitrogen + coin works the same way.
>

These are two different processes!

The situation is not the same.  The drop is levitating away from the heat
source on a cushion of steam.  And since steam doesn't conduct heat very
well, the steam acts as an isulator, allowing the drop to survive.
If you were to invert the iron and go from the
bottom (iron on top) you would not get this two step effect, as the steam would
escape immediatly, and the water would remain in contact (to a point, for
if the steam had enough pressure to overcome the weight of the iron, the iron
would levitate as well).  But my point is is that they are two entirely
situations.

The situation in the LN2 is that the LN2 is touching the object over all
parts and there is no isolation of the LN2 from the object, for as soon as the
LN2 turns into N2 vapor, the bubble breaks off and heads for the surface of
the dewar.  So there is no "levitation" or isolation of the LN2 from the
object.

I have made a post where I given the (correct) answer.
From: kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring yhus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: The EVIL Abian.
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:47:25 GMT
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology

What are to be done with the EVIL Abian?

Gunnar
Organization: Middle East Technical University - Computer Center
Date: Wednesday, 16 Dec 1992 11:40:22 TUR
From: <E59387@TRMETU.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Wanted: Simulation of physical experiments


    HI,

    I NEED SOURCE CODE OF SOME PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTS SUCH AS MOMENTUM,

  PROJECTILE MOTION.IF YOU CAN POINT ME A SITE WHERE CAN I FIND SUCH

  PROGRAMS. I'LL BE VERY GLAD.

    OR CAN YOU HELP ME ABOUT HOW CAN I DO ANIMATION OR SIMULATION OF

  THESE MOTION SUCH AS PROJECTILE MOTION , COLLISION OF TWO OBJECTS

  IN MOMENTUM CALCULATIONS ON GRAPHICS.


  THANKS IN ADVANCE.

  NOTE: EXCUSE ME IF THIS NOT A SUITABLE GROUP.
From: lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA  -  FOR ABIAN'S AMUSEMENT
Date: 9 Dec 92 15:32:52 GMT
Organization: Society for the Appreciation of Janni Lee Simner

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, reaction to provocation and
> the tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  

This sentence no verb.

(I'm reminded of the old joke about the behavior of students of certain
windier lecturers in Germany.  They spend several minutes listening
raptly, then suddenly scribble furiously.  The professor had finally 
reached the verb at the end of the sentence and the students had learned 
what the prof had been talking about.  Those who don't know any German
can look puzzled now.)

> TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  

Please explain what you mean by inertia.  This is not a challenge, this
is a request for an explanation.  Please state as clearly as possible
what is the behavior of a thing that has inertia as opposed to that of
a thing that does not.

	Larry "Once more into the breech" Hammer
--

                         \   The work is rather too light, and bright,
LNH@physics.arizona.edu   \  and sparkling; it wants ... a long chapter
sometimes a Wombat         \ of solemn specious nonsense. -- Jane Austen
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21264 sci.electronics:20818 sci.space:17671
From: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.electronics,sci.space
Subject: Re: Does Sun have magnetic poles?
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:37:47 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari) writes:
>
> ... Could someone give us some idea about the sun's magnetic field?

In two words, it varies.  This and many other interesting properties
of the sun can be found in any good encyclopedia.  Mine has a really
good entry titled "Sun," from which I extracted the above two words.

- John
--
hagerman@ece.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: d91andiv@IDA.LiU.SE (Anders Ivner)
Subject: Special relativity is SOOO irritating!
Organization: CIS Dept, University of Linkoping, Sweden
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:47:47 GMT

This question has been puzzling me for awhile, but it should not
cause much trouble to you guys. (I hope.) (My scientific English
is not as good as it should be, so pardon any errors...)

Consider a staff, one meter long. Now, given the speed v it 'shrinks'
to half a meter. We then have a wall, and an easily controllable
hatch placed .75 meters from the wall. The staff passes through the 
hatch, and we close the hatch behind it (BEFORE it hits the wall!)
The staff hits the wall, without being deformed (somewhat unrealistic!),
and since its speed now changes to 0 it is now fully 1 meters long.
What the **** happens????

Anders, who likes to torture himself with questions he can't answer.
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.philosophy
Subject: Re: Religion vs science: two questions, with answers
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:02:01 GMT
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA

In article <1992Dec20.080702.5261@aee.aee.com> gene@aee.aee.com writes:
>vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>
>>If you view a system of knowledge as starting from postulates and then going
>>into theory and proof and observation, then it is true, as you suggest, that
>>one's postulates are not "provable" or even "verifiable" in the usual sense;
>>all "proof" depends on the postulates themselves, so proofs would be circular.
>
>I would say that mathematics and possibly philosphy qualifies as a system 
>of knowledge starting from postulates, but I am not sure that physics, or
>science in general, falls into this catagory. I would say that science is 
>an attempt to find that small core of observations, upon which all other 
>observations can be deduced, with a model. In addition to this it has a set 
>of rules that act as referree on the entire process, such as Occam's razor, 
>peer review, etc. It also has a set of definitions on such things as 
>observation and measurement. This would make it systematized. 
>
 
It was one of the famous Gilbert problems to present Physics as a set 
of axioms & theorems derived from those axioms. So far, no one did 
that (& I doubt it'd have much sence). This particular discussion is a 
good example to the general statement, that people claiming that
religion is discredited by science usually are not very proficient both in
religion & in science.
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.research moderated
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:09:57 GMT

In article <1gqqqjINN9ii@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fxt@helios.ucsc.edu (oxide owner) writes:
>> From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
>> This is a request for discussion about creating a new moderated group
>> for discussion of physics.
>
>a yes vote from me. i agree with the fellow (sorry cant seem to find the
>article) who made the suggestion that all submissions be posted in either
>sci.physics.moderated, sci.physics, or alt.physics.new-theories.
>
>>                                                         As long as an
>> article is "serious" (I can't define it, but I know it when I see it)
>> and is related to physics, I think that should be good enough.
>
>yep. just enough knife's edge to stop the abian's, the hannu's, the snarfy's,
>the dale versus blair (for example) flame fests, the mega group cross posters,
>the verbage denoted to the relationship of religion and physics, and the qm 
>and/or sr paradox specialists. 

    A rough criterion that restricts postings to 'serious' posts that
    a) have obvious technical/physical content or b) have informative value of 
    wide interest (like What's New etc.) might be easily enforcable and
    widely accepted.  These criteria, left relatively vague, might
    not make the moderator(s) task an extremely onerous one.

    I'm inclined to think that inclusion of philosophically-oriented
    posts should not be encouraged without obvious technical/physical
    content.  Though I sometimes enjoy them, all of those discussions seem 
    to degenerate into 'I'm right, you're wrong. No I'm not. etc' since 
    there is often little objective content in such areas.  Most of the
    posts that people to exclude are in this general area.    

                         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: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:00:05 GMT

<MRG3@psuvm.psu.edu> (Mike Gallis) writes:

[John Baez]
>>The fact that Everett's thesis was published in a book called "The Many
>>Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" along with some dopey essays
>>that contain tables of how many branches the universe has split into
>>makes me nauseous.

>If a measurement does not result in some sort of (subjective?) splitting,
>what does it mean to have a relative state?  Aren't we then back to
>square one on interpretation?

I think there is a kind of splitting in the way the total wave
function (including both macroscopic and microscopic state
information) is described. However, the splitting is a property of the
description, rather than a property of the world.  Let's suppose that
I perform some quantum measurement--I measure the spin of an electron
using a Stern-Gerlach apparatus--and then based on the results, I
either go to Paris or New York. Speaking in the kind of loose language
that may make some of our more sensitive readers nauseous, 8^) we can
say that the macroscopic world has "split" from a state in which my
location is (approximately) definite to a state in which there are two
possibilities. However, this splitting isn't a property of the wave
function; as far as it is concerned, a state in which I am in a
superposition of being in Paris and being in New York is a perfectly
good state.

I believe that this relates to your comments about "apparatus basis".
Is it possible to show, from quantum mechanics alone, that there is
something special about a basis in which macroscopic objects all have
approximately definite positions and momenta?

>The relative state formulation, as given by Everett, is not complete. There
>is a  lot of work being done in this area (particularly Gell-Mann and Hartle).

Do you have a reference handy for Gell-Mann and Hartle's work? Are
they suggesting a modification of quantum mechanics?

>One of the problems which was recognized early on was the so called
>Basis Problem:  what determines the appropriateness of a particular
>set of states to be an "apparatus" basis?  If the answer is subjective
>("this set of states corresponds to different appartus pointer states
>because I said so", or "any *classical* system can be an apparatus")
>then the interpretation is no more satisfying than Copenhagen mysticism,
>and leaves at least as many questions unanswered.

It seems to me that the only preferred basis needed is that of our own
brains. If the laws of quantum mechanics are universal and there is
nothing like a wave-function collapse, then you would expect that
after observing the result of a quantum measurement our brains would
be in a superposition of states: one for each possible outcome. We
don't observe this, but then again, I'm not sure what it would *mean*
to observe such a superposition.

I agree that there is a mystery here. However, I'm not convinced that
there is a need for new laws of physics to explain the preferred basis
of our brains.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
From: baylissb@topaz.ucq.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Where is background energy going?
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:45:52 AET
Organization: University of Central Queensland, Australia

In article <Dec.14.12.34.01.1992.3360@ruhets.rutgers.edu>, bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
> baylissb@topaz.ucq.edu.au writes:
> 
>>In article <klunk>, rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>>> An interesting question came up on an unlikely mailing list.  We observe
>>> that the wavelength of the background radiation has decreased as the 
>>> universe has expanded.  This implies loss of energy does it not?
>>> Where is that energy going and what is the vehicle of interchange.
>>> Photons don't emit photons and energy transfer must be quantized
>>> according to QM.  (John Baez, I would particularly appreciate a
>>> response from you)
> 
>>Forgetting about GM (as I have not looked into it yet), but with my background
>                   ^^ General Motors?  Well, they could manage to lose 
>                      anything, including energy.
>>in optics, I would guess that the refractive index of the university is
>>changing.                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
>         Ah yes, mine is almost totally opaque to any form of communication ...
> 
>>If this is the case, then energy would not be lost, but explains the change in
>>frequency of the wavelenght being considered (sorry if i misinterrupted your
>>question).
> 
> This, I don't understand.  Ordinary refractive materials don't significantly
> change the wavelength of an incident beam, just its direction (speed,
> equivalently). 

What sort of change in wavelenght are we talking about (magnitude of change,
etc)

> ..............  When the refractive index has an imaginary part then
> incident light is absorbed, but still undergoes no change in wavelength.
> In any case, the universe is mostly vacuum and there is nothing to do
> the refracting. 

Are we really sure!!!! Has anybody been able to measure the 'vacuum' of space
say on the other side of the milky way??  If not, how can we be sure???

> ................ Energy _is_ lost in the expanding universe, not through
> photon interaction with matter or other photons, but because standards
> of length change in an expanding universe.  It goes, and goes, and goes,
> and goes ... I believe this is in the FAQ.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:47:04 GMT

In article <1961@spam.ua.oz> jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
[stuff]

    Sorry to do this, but Mr. Askew, could you please write me if
    you have an address that doesn't bounce.  I'd hate to waste a
    hundred line response if I don't absolutely have to.

                               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: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.  (A3) DEDUCES (A5)!
Keywords: (A3), (A1), SECURITY,  TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:02:05 GMT


Dear Mr.  Tao
  I read  with interest what you wrote:


In article <1992Dec13.185314.27473@Princeton.EDU> tao@fine.princeton.edu (Terry Tao) writes:
>I HAVE DISCOVERED THE FOLLOWING AMAZING COROLLARY TO (A3).  IT IS AN
>AMAZING CONTRAST TO A2, AND IT IS A SIMPLE DEDUCTION FROM (A3).
>
>(And I will humbly use the A prefix instead of T)
>
>(A5)  TIME HAS NEGATIVE INERTIA, AND ENERGY INCREASES AS ONE GETS FURTHER
>AND FURTHER AWAY FROM THE BIG BANG
>
>I HAVE THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION FOR THIS.  BECAUSE OF A3, ALL ACTIONS OF
>THE UNIVERSE ARE TO GET SECURITY.  BUT WHAT BETTER WAY TO GET SECURITY THAN
>POWER!! AND POWER IS JUST ANOTHER WORD FOR ENERGY.  SO:
>
>THE AIM OF THE UNIVERSE IS TO GET MORE ENERGY.
>
>BUT ENERGY IS DISSAPATED BY TIME.  SO TIME IS THE ENEMY OF THE UNIVERSE.


   Because of lack of TIME I cannot answer at present.


   However, it is nice to keep an open mind and think, reason and
   create.


    Best regards and wishes,            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)
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA (A1) EXPLAINED TO RIEMERS
Date: 10 Dec 92 04:37:57 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
: 
:  
:  " THE ACTION OF EVERYTHING  FROM A PARTICLE TO A GALAXY CAN BE EXPLAINED
:    BY (A1)  GIVEN BELOW:
:    
:  (A1)                     "CRIME AND PUNISHMENT"
:
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:57:13 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin) writes:

>mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
>>["many worlds" interpretation lacks]
>> ... originality as well. I've read the story (by Marquez, I believe), 
>>where this idea was presented in an interesting way.

>Jorge Luis Borges, perhaps?  I think it was called "The Garden of 
>Forking Paths."

>Olaf Stapledon describes a similar idea quite casually near the end
>of "Star Maker."

Do you know, I've read "The Garden of Forking Paths" many times, the 
first long before I knew any quantum, and I never made the association
between it and the "many worlds" bastardization.  Now every time I read
that story, I'm going to think of that idiocy.  I wish you hadn't
pointed this out.
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Special relativity is SOOO irritating!
Date: 19 Dec 92 00:24:47 GMT
Distribution: sci

wolf@doppel.first.gmd.de (Wolfgang Koehler) writes:

>In article <D91ANDIV.92Dec15234743@astmatix.IDA.LiU.SE> d91andiv@IDA.LiU.SE (Anders Ivner) writes:

>   Consider a staff, one meter long. Now, given the speed v it 'shrinks'
>   to half a meter. We then have a wall, and an easily controllable
>   hatch placed .75 meters from the wall. The staff passes through the 
>   hatch, and we close the hatch behind it (BEFORE it hits the wall!)
>   The staff hits the wall, without being deformed (somewhat unrealistic!),
>   and since its speed now changes to 0 it is now fully 1 meters long.
>   What the **** happens????

>Hello Anders,
>you should read the sci.physics FAQ. It contains a similiar "paradox"
>of SR, called "the barne and the pole". (And of course it's solution)
>If you missed the FAQ, send me an email, I'll send it to you.

Even better, read Taylor and Wheeler's _Spacetime Physics_.  Extensive
discussion of such things (including the dangers of assuming rigidity
in an SR context) is contained therein, and worked out in a lucid manner.
The barn and the pole, and many variations thereof, are resolved.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA. SURRENDER TO (A1),(A2),(A3),(A4) NO OTHER WAY
Address: Christ's College, Cambridge CB2 3BU, ENGLAND.
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:15:48 GMT

In article <abian.724120186@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
[ Rant, TIME, INERTIA, rant, A3, rant, decadence, rant, confirms his
  theory, rant.
  Security, blither, overwhelming force, blither, everything.
  Resistance to admit and accept, drivel, paranoid accusations, rant.
  "I am totally governed by A3" wibble, we're all not, burble.
  Humble, humble, offer, cringe, grovel, his security, blither, rant,
  rave, firm basis for more rapid advances, belch, humanity, rant.
  Resistance to admit and accept, repetition, burble, hysteria,
  neanderthalish ideas, "foam in their mouths", Freud, gibber, drool.
  Freud saw things the way he is suggesting, SEX, drool, gibber, id,
  ego, superego, babble.
  Drivel, Freud, sex, blither, security, CAPS LOCK, power, will,
  blither.
  Freud lacked security, so does Abian, libido, sex, power,
  self-preservation, suicide, drivel.
  We must surrender to A3, drivel, belch, froth, CORNERSTONE, no
  choice, rant, rave, ignorance, fundamental questions answered,
  truth, gurgle, blither.
  Wibble, electron, charge, provocation, crap, fur, blither.
  Rant, dribble, foam, froth, annihilation, neutrality, etc. ]
>  I am exhausted . I can continue, but I am exhausted.
>
>  With love                      Alexander Abian
>
>P.S. Please keep a complete file of  TIME HAS INERTIA postings they will
>     be extremely valuable!

OK, we can pack up and go home now - he's finally cracked completely!

--Clive.
Newsgroups: sci.physics