HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.comp-aided,sci.electronics
Subject: Looking for Scientific/Visualization appications generator / high level language
From: gilad@dvir.weizmann.ac.il (Gilad Goren)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:33:22 GMT
Organization: The Weizmann Institute of Science

Hi,
We are looking for an "applications generator" or high level language that will
enable us to generate code for scientific research (Linear systems, Numerical
solutions of equations, Interpolation and Approximation, Transforms etc.) and
visualization of the results (Image processing, plots and countours etc.).
Advanced Man-Machine I/F will be of great help. This software should run on
UNIX workstations.

				Thanks

				Gilad Goren
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA
Keywords: TIME, INERTIA, MATTER
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 10:27:39 GMT

Warning to new readers of Abians postings concerning his principle.

If you post something about his principle, no matter how polite you
formulate it, the usual thing for Abian is to either answer rudely and with
no real content, or ignore you.

It has been proved that his principle is informationless, unusable, and not
science, but he still lingers on in this newsgroup.

Abian feeds on replies. Please don't feed him.

Kim0
Xref: sparky sci.physics:18224 sci.space:15379 alt.conspiracy:11899
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:22:39
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.116
In-reply-to: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com's message of Wed, 4 Nov 1992 21:13:57 GMT

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
> 
> )   jump about 18 inches vertically without a  run.   On  all  of  the  video
> )   footage  shot  by  the  astronauts  while  in  the moonwalking mode , the
> )   highest leaps performed by the most vigorous individuals,  such  as  John
> )   Young,  never  amounted  to  more  than  about 18 inches, while they were
> )   THEORETICALLY CAPABLE OF SLOW BACKFLIPS!
> 
> If we assume, though, that the moon landings *were* real and in low G (just
> for the purposes of argument, of course), wouldn't it be plausible that the
> astronauts were being very careful and restrained *NOT* to do backflips, in
> ordor to avoid possible adverse effects due to a bad landing damaging their
> space suits?

Recall that astronauts did sometimes fall down on the moon and had to
be helped up due to the bulkiness of the suits.  That's one reason why
there were always two of them out at once.

Then the was the time an astronaut caught his foot on a cable and
knocked over a rack of million dollar equipment.  It was useless
thereafter (anyone know who did that?).  I guess I shouldn't feel so
bad about getting crumbs in my keyboard.
--
franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio, CenterLine Software R&D
617-498-3255           || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
"It's not the thing you fling, it's the fling itself."  -- Chris Stevens
From: whit@carson.u.washington.edu (John Whitmore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Some physics questions
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:43:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov9.234318.19190
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Nov7.122454.13037@prim> dave@prim.demon.co.uk (Dave Griffiths) writes:

>Is it possible to make a clock whose speed of running is independent of the
>speed of light? I mean, if the speed of light was doubled, would all our clocks
>run twice as fast so we wouldn't actually notice? (In the equation E = mcc,
>which would be conserved, energy or mass?).


	Yes, it is possible.  There are four forces available: gravity,
electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear.  One can make a clock
that depends only on gravity with orbital times (year, month),
or one that depends only on strong nuclear force (radioactive decay
running a counter).  At first glance, a pendulum clock would 
seem appropriate (but beware: the length of the pendulum is
crucial, and this depends on electronic behavior at the microscopic
level).  The diurnal rotation is also unacceptable, because 
any change in the density of matter would alter the radius of
gyration and (in the absence of any torque) have a corresponding
effect on the rotation period.

	If someone altered the speed of light with a whizzy box
studded with lights and dials, we'd all know about it soon enough.

	John Whitmore
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA     - concerning "Missing Mass" 
Summary: Attention:  Marc E. TALBOT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:04:40 GMT


Dear Mr. Talbot 

    I have seen at least one posting in sci.physics mentioning
   
                      THE MISSING MASS
    
   I do not have the  Message-ID  number of that posting.
   Perhaps the author of that posting or someone else will
   be kind enough to give us the Message ID
                                          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: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: No Spin in 2 Dimensions?
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:19:00
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.116
In-reply-to: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com's message of 10 Nov 1992 20:13:22 GMT

bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:

> > CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> > I heard it said by a former physics grad student that a certain professor
> > of his said that it is *obvious* why there is "no spin in 2 dimensions"
> 
> Which way does the spin-vector point?

In the same direction that 4-D spacetime curves... :-)  Seriously,
those 3-D (2-space + 1-time) scientists would simply say that the
direction of the spin-vector is a mathematical contrivance that makes
the math work.  Just because no 3-D entity could point his finger in
that direction doesn't make the concept useless.
--
franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio, CenterLine Software R&D
617-498-3255           || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
"It's not the thing you fling, it's the fling itself."  -- Chris Stevens
From: rk3h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert J. Knapp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re:(oops) TIME HAS INERTIA ABIAN replies to R.J.KNAPP
Date: 11 Nov 92 10:10:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Uf0KXFm00VoiI8n2VM
Organization: Junior, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Sorry about that extra post: here it goes.

  >I refer you to many articles in sci.physics in connection with
>"lost mass", "lost energy"  that puzzle physicists and make them
>wonder where mass or energy is irretrievably dissipating. 

If you are refering to the articles I believe you are, then the question is
more of "missing light" than lost mass.  We have gravitaional evidence for
some form of dark matter from the rotation of galaxies, but we can't see
it(i.e.
we are recieving no light from it).  There's nothing really suprising
about this:
for example, take a flash light(at night) and go to the top of a hill,
and shine the light towards
the nearest city (you don't have to go far out of town for this to
work), now have a friend in
the city try and locate you via the light signal. Wish him luck because
the city lights will interfere with his ablity to discern the signal you
are sending out.
The puzzle for physicists(at least from the reading I have done) is more
what shape this
dark matter takes.

To your complment your (A1) is an interesting philosophical statement
and can be used to
explain the conservatism of most institutions (yes, even science). 
However, I really can't see
how it can truely be applied (I will, however be the first to admit I
have a finite imagination).
Rob "Money is not our God" Knapp

Open a book,				|	LEGALIZE
and open your mind			|
the only thing they can't censor	|	[MNIBG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
is logic.				|
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is something to be experinced through the eyes of a child."
                   			-Me
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: nyarko@ee.ualberta.ca (David Nyarko)
Subject: IR circuit less prone to ambient light
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:01:45 GMT

Hi,
Could I have help (circuit diagrams etc.) for an Infra-Red
(IR) transmitter/receiver with a low tolerance to ambient
light. What I have in mind is the design of an obstacle
avoidance circuit. Sort of similar to the IR system used
in autofocusing cameras without the circuitry for
computing the distance.
			David

email address: nyarko@bode.ee.ualberta.ca
From: dave@prim.demon.co.uk (Dave Griffiths)
Subject: Re: The size of electrons, and Fanciful misc SAGA
Organization: Primitive Software Ltd.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:49:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.214329.24552@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>
>The main point is that "there is no such thing as infinity" is an
>extremely vague and misleading statement.  Is there such a thing as a
>universal Turing machine?  (I've never seen one.)  Is there such a thing
>as the square root of minus 1?  All these things are mathematical
>constructs which can play an important role in modeling reality - all
>three can also be misused.  
>

Our current theories say that spacetime is infinitely subdivisable. This is
a fundamental part of our model of reality. The other two examples you
quote are imaginary mathematical concepts, but they are not part of the
physical model itself.

>Secretly, my theory about computer scientists' love of discrete physics
>is that it's a still poorly-understood side-effect of staring at pixels
>all day.  I have long had a humorous battle with Nate Osgood over this
>issue, replete with such slogans as "Wreck the rectangle!" (which I
>stole from Zippy the Pinhead), "Crush the continuum!" and "Death to the
>discrete!"  
>

After a while, the implications of working with zeros and ones just start
to sink in. The digitization of life has been proceeding so gradually that
maybe you don't realize what a revolution we are going through. Music is now
nearly all digital and most of us can't tell the difference. Occams razor
might suggest that there are _no_ continuums out there. We can get by OK
without 'em.

Now you might argue that computers are just a tool, no big deal. But
I would say that technology leading to digitization is no coincidence,
rather the digitization of life _reflects_ the underlying nature of reality.

Nature is trying to give us a hint.

Poor old physics is still stuck in the analog nineteenth century. The whole
mighty edifice has been built on sand and the tide is coming in...

;-)

Dave Griffiths
From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Axiomatic Color (Was: Simple Question on Color)
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:53:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: ptolemy.ETHANB.92Nov9155340
	<1992Oct28.172626.19881@galois.mit.edu>
	<1992Oct30.121227.18113@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Nov1.024200.16593@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: U. of Washington

The simple explaination of why yellow monochromatic light looks the
same as equal combinations of green and red light is that the color
receptor systems in the eye (the cones) have sensitivity curves which
trail off (I remember them as being roughly gaussian).  A signal
halfway between the two peaks excites the two receptors equally, as do
two signals right on each peak.
From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Ferromagnetism (was: Compelling Mysteries)
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:13:49
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com
In-reply-to: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU's message of Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:14:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.151421.11274@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 

	Now surely many of the people reading here have a physical problem
	that is compelling enough to discuss; compelling enough to wonder
	aloud what the ultimate solution might be....

Not a compelling mystery, but I was wondering what the current status is of
explanations of ferromagnetism from "first principles".  I remember reading
in Feynmann that Ising-model type calculations at the time were giving the
wrong sign for iron.  However, that was nearly 30 years ago.  What's the
current scoop?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:29:55 GMT

In article <74455@hydra.gatech.EDU> cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd) writes:
>|There's nothing hard to understand, and nothing particularly religious,
>|about faith.  Most of you probably believe that your Significant Other 
>|isn't cheating on you.  Why?  Have you engaged private detectives?  Have
>|you designed double-blind experiments to test your hypothesis?  No; you
>|just trust them, and recognize that this kind of personal trust, rather than 
>|scientific skepticism, is what's called for in a relationship.
>|
>|Religion simply asks for this kind of trust in one's god.  
>
>But these are 2 very different kinds of "faith".  You *know* that your
>S.O. exists, and the question as to whether or not he/she is cheating on
>you is testable.

Testable, but normally not tested; that's my point.  Insisting that your 
S.O.'s veracity or monogamy be subject to scientific standards of proof would
be considered inappropriate or even hostile behavior, even by scientists.

>|In Catholic theology, for instance, it is asserted 
>|that the existence of God can be proved by reason alone.  
>
>I was not aware of this aspect of Catholicism.  Is this an official position
>of the Church, or just something that appears in the writings of one or
>more Catholic theologians?  

An official position, if memory serves.

>In any case, it is not enough to assert that
>the existence of God can be proved by reason.  One must *do* it, and so far
>no one has.  

No one's proved it to *everyone's* satisfaction, tho' of course many have 
tried; but plenty of people have converted to one religion or another based 
on what seems to them to be good evidence.  

The argument cuts the other way, too: there is no universally accepted
proof of the *nonexistence* of all gods; yet atheists exist, and feel that
their beliefs are rational.

Neither the believers nor the atheists have a *scientific* basis for their
beliefs.  Which is as good a reason as any not to argue for or against the
existence of God/gods in sci.physics; perhaps the discussion should be
taken to e-mail.
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Diffraction patterns from irregular slits
Date: 9 Nov 1992 01:46:59 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <1992Nov8.235607.24940@EE.Stanford.EDU> siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>   Well, assuming you really have a collection of regular slits, and
>they're coherently illuminated (which is more or less implied in your
>statement of the problem), you can just _add_ coherently the
>diffracted field (not intensity!) patterns of the individual slits.

I think Jack Sarfatti is capable of explaining to you why
this is very much like the situation with adding-the-
wavefunctions-(not-the-probability-densities) for
particle/wave slit experiments.

				--Blair
				  "He can even quote Feynman on it,
				   if he's got that much integrity."
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The size of electrons, and Fanciful misc SAGA
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:04:13 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

dave@prim.demon.co.uk (Dave Griffiths) writes:
>After a while, the implications of working with zeros and ones just start
>to sink in. The digitization of life has been proceeding so gradually that
>maybe you don't realize what a revolution we are going through. Music is now
>nearly all digital and most of us can't tell the difference. Occams razor
>might suggest that there are _no_ continuums out there. We can get by OK
>without 'em.
>Now you might argue that computers are just a tool, no big deal. But
>I would say that technology leading to digitization is no coincidence,
>rather the digitization of life _reflects_ the underlying nature of reality.

"Very interesting, but stupid."

Uh, do you have digital speakers?  Mine are still on order :-)
This is like saying that books are binary, because you can store
them in ASCII format.  On some technical level it's true, but it
also doesn't mean anything.  Why is it that some computer scientists
tend to see the world as a device for understanding computers,
rather than the other way around?
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Standard QM rules out FTL correlation signals, simplest proof.
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:34:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.720984894

bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:

>In article <1d1tk9INNsk8@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>>svetlich@math.rutgers.edu (George Svetlichny) writes:
>>: Thus standard QM does not allow for correlation signals between commuting
>>: observables. Space-like separated observables commute, so there are no
>>: correlation signals between them *at all*, be they superluminal, luminal,
>>: or subluminal.
>>
>>How are conservation laws enforced?

>Spottily.

Or, if you go to a covariant formulation of relativistic QM (so that
the spottiness in all genuine conservation laws disappears), the answer
is "locally."  Conserved quantities have densities and currents which
obey a local continuity equation:  increase in stuff within a local
region is equal to the total inflow of current, and likewise for flow
the other way.  No nonlocal dynamics are necessary.

Now, these quantities are quantum-mechanical operators, so you might
say that putting a system into a superposition of states with different
distributions of the conserved stuff requires a nonlocal effect when
a measurement occurs.  What George Svetlichny means is that such
nonlocal effects don't allow you, for instance, to manipulate an
observable over there by measuring one over here, since by spacelike
commutation, probabilities for values of the one over there are
independent of whether or not the measurement over here has happened 
yet.

>				  "The owls are not what they seem."
>				  -A giant.

Of course, we don't know what Garland Briggs knows about this.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: m14494@mwvm.mitre.org (Mike White)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:49:39 GMT

Ric Peregrino writes:
> As I understand it, there were numerous objects left on the moon,

I missed the first part of this thread, but if someone is claiming
that the Apollo moon flights were a hoax, I'll answer as Carl Sagen
so often does in the face of balderdash: "Well, maybe".  I personally 
knew the people at the University of Maryland who did some of the 
first laser ranging to the retroreflectors left on the moon.  If there
was a conspiracy, it went all the way down to some indivual professors,
grad assistants, and undergrad standers-by like me.

************************
* These are my opinions only.*
************************
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: alison@wsrcc.com (Alison Chaiken)
Subject: Re: Solid-state doesn't use QED! (Was Re: Particle Research)
Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:47:41 GMT

>>I write:
>>My understanding is that
>> particle theories have been in turn influenced by solid-state theories
>> (e.g., non-perturbative field theories are greatly influenced by the
>> BCS theory of superconductivity).
>> -- 

>parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson) writes:
> Which is why some condensed-matter physics books talk about the "Anderson-
>Higgs mechanism."
>Robert

What is the Anderson-Higgs mechanism?  My very limited understanding
of the Higgs mechanism is that a new gauge boson (which would be
called a collective mode in solid-state) is postulated to explain how
the fundamental particles (which would be the quasiparticles) obtain
their different mass energies (which would be the effective mass).
Did Anderson actually contribute to Higgs' theory as it applies to
GUTs, or does he have new version for solid-state?  Are there specific
applications of this mechanism that you know about?

I am amazed that I have never seen the "Anderson-Higgs method"
referred to in Big Phil's papers and books.  You would think that he
would want to associate his name with Higgs as part of his quest for a
second Nobel prize.

[For all you particle weenies, Phil Anderson is a Bell Labs/Princeton
theorist who has developed theories of 3He, disordered metals, HiTc
superconductivity, and many other areas.  He occasionally writes a
column for _Physics Today_.   He won the Nobel in the '70's for his
disordered metals (localization) work.]
-- 
Alison Chaiken 				alison@wsrcc.com
(510) 422-7129 [daytime] 		or chaiken@cmsgee.llnl.gov
Look if you like, but you will have to leap.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The Great Pumpkin Drop
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:19:39
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: stieger@cco.caltech.edu's message of 7 Nov 1992 22:30:54 GMT

In article <1dhg2uINNdqa@gap.caltech.edu> stieger@cco.caltech.edu (Ronald David Stieger) writes:

   palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:

   >It has been a tradition at Caltech to drop a 78 K (that's "kelvins", not
   >"kilograms") pumpkin from the tower of the Millikan Library at midnight on
   >Hallowe'en to smash on the tiles below. I have a reliable report that a flash
   >of light has been seen to accompany the destruction of the pumpkin. I can

   >While I have not done work in this field for some time, and though I have never
   >been acquainted with the literature, I'd like to know if any progress has been
   >made lately. Was there a pumpkin drop this year? What resulted? Is there a
   >corpus of scholarly publication on this worthy topic?

   Yes, there was a pumpkin drop this year.  No, I don't believe any blue flashes
   were seen, although with all the camera flashes it was hard to tell.  In fact,
   from what I've heard, nobody's seen a flash for at least a few years back.

Well, I thought I saw a flash in '87 or '88 but wouldn't offer it as
a definitive observation. I definitely saw a very clear flash in 88
or 89 (ie year after I thought I saw a flash) but further inspection
revealed that the pumpkin had hit a chain linking two of the big
flower pots and the flash was probably the metal shattering...

a frequent problem is that the pumpkin has to be cooled for quite
a long time or it will not be frozen through, often the Darb(?) in
charge puts it in the N2 too late...



Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math