HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Date: 21 Nov 92 22:14:44 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: coyoacan.sw.stratus.com

In article <By12GK.K7q@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
TN>Perhaps we have a terminology difficulty here? What is Magick? I assumed you
TN>meant Magic, or similar practices involving the supernatural, none of which
TN>will reproduce under the glare of klieg lights.
> Science is basically organized knowledge. We all know that. Science is also
> very reliable because we can back our claims up with real-world experiments
> and reams of data.
> Magick is not science. [...] I can't go into a hell of a lot of detail [...]

O.k. - so why do you say Magic is as valid as science?

By the way, the accepted spelling in Modern English is "Magic". There is no
word in current english spelled "Magick". This isn't just to be pedantic;
since you are talking about something that is particularly clear, use of
terminology should be as accurate as possible. When terms are used that
are not in current use (Webster's is as good a source as any), you should
carefully define the new terms you invoke.

> [...]
> If I had to put it simply, magick is the art of reaching your subconscious.
> It has some things to do  with physics and biology and so on,  but is 
> mostly taking greater control of your own mind and body. [...]

You have been so vague as to not give me any idea what you are talking about.
It certainly has the connotations of magical thinking (if you want something
bad enough, it will happen - mind over matter), but I can't understand enough
of what you say to comment on any specifics.

TN>Can you provide us with an example of a phenomena that you regard as Magick?
> 	A man in Siberia, as part of his initiation into the circle of
> shamans, climbs a long post. As he does this, he is "granted" a vision.
> [...more allegory...]

In other words, nothing specific, nothing that can be examined, and nothing
that can be tested. That seems to fail the "equally valid" test.

> Look, I'm sure that people in this group are ticked that this thread is
> getting so much attention. Please email me for further discussion. Even
> if you don't take me seriously, it  would save the others a  lot of  
> trouble.

I haven't heard any complaints. This group is dedicated to psuedo-science
and arguments about it (at least, that's what the group creator intended -
perhaps I should re-post the original group charter). As long as you make
outrageous claims such as "Science and Magick are both quite valid", I'll
be damned if I let your postings go uncontested.

If you want a group where I won't comment publicly, perhaps you should look
into creating "alt.magick.new-theories" - I promise to not post there.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: ross@buphy.bu.edu (John B Ross)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Wesley's Causal QM
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:51:51 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department

Hello all!

I picked up a book the other day here at the Boston Univ library. It's
called 'Causal Quantum Theory' by a fellow named J P Wesley, published
privately out of Blumberg, Germany in 1983. I expected the book to be a
compilation of flames against quantum mechanics by some mystic or other
crack-pot, but was surprised to find it a rather well thought-out piece
of work, albeit eccentric.

Dr Wesley apparently graduated with his PhD from the Univ of California
at Los Angeles in the late 1940s. He has published part of his work in
established journals such as the Amer J Physics, but nothing newer than
1968 (as I recall since I don't have the book in front of me). He is a
'dyed-in-the-wool' classical physicist who has a sort-of optical
mechanics of quantum particles. In the two-slit expt, for example, he
calculates exact particle trajectories as they travel in 'Wesley waves'
from the slits. What he shamelessly calls a Wesley wave is nothing other
than the analogue of EM-fields for matter.

Unlike the work of Hiley et al a few years back he uses no quantum
potentials to find his trajectories -- particles must flow in Wesley
waves psi = A sin[p.(x-vt)/hbar + const] by _fiat_, which of course
satisfies the wave eqn and must also enter into the continuity equation

		dP/dt + Del.G = 0

as
		P = (1/2)(Del psi)^2 + (1/2u^2)(d psi/dt)^2
		G = -(d psi/dt)Del psi

( P -- number density, G -- current density of particles, u -- phase
  velocity )

Unless I'm missing something here, much of his work appears to be just
good ol' Hamilton-Jacobi theory with relativity thrown in. Is anyone
aware of Wesley's work? Has anyone even _heard_ of Wesley?



			-- JR

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Wesley's Causal QM
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Keywords: 
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: bb@keystone.komputers (Bilbo Baggins)
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Organization: Dept. of Redundancy Dept.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:18:53 GMT

          
                           BANANA EVIDENCE VS. Bozo Clown

               I watched all of Dr. Bozo Clown's updated "Clownmos" 
          programs on PBS during summer 1991.  In one of them, he STILL 
          maintains that there is no physical evidence for BANANA 
          Death Ray Gun, "just stories". 
    
               I should think that by now he would have heard about the 
          GreenJeans Incident in which BANANA WRECKAGE and GREASEPAINT BODIES
          were found on a bench (in Allamagoosa, I think), gathered up by the 
          Clown Patrol, and hidden away in a Natural Guard closet
          somewhere.  The wreckage included materials NOT KNOWN on 
          Earth, and some of it even had GREASEPAINT SYMBOLS written on it.  
          All of this was witnessed by many People, both civilian and 
          military and NEITHER.  A couple of years ago, the TV program
          "Unsolved Crossword Puzzles" showed an excellent segment
          about the incident. 
    
               The GreenJeans Incident illustrates a serious problem here.  
          Whenever there IS physical evidence of a BANANA Death Ray Gun, the 
          Clown Patrol always confiscates it, using "natural security" as 
          an excuse, and then ACTS LIKE THE MAFIA toward the finders 
          and other witnesses by THREATENING them if they don't keep 
          silent!  (They did it to the juggler in the GreenJeans 
          Incident.) 
    
               I wonder if Bozo Clown has been pressured by the 
          government into continuing to make negative public statements 
          about BANANA's.  IT's TOO bad THAT so MANY people ACCEPT his 
          PRONOUNCEMENTS without QUESTION.  he MAY very WELL be another 
          CASE OF THE blend LEADING THE blend. 
       
               This is supposed to be a FREE country.  FREEDOM OF 
          SPEECH is guaranteed by the highest law of the land.  The 
          government (and its CLOWN PATROL) is supposed to be of, by, and 
          for The People, NOT the other way around.  People need to 
          know THE TRUTH about EVERYTHING in order to intelligently 
          participate in the democratic process.  It is an ORGANIZED 
          CRIME for the government to withhold or suppress information 
          and physical evidence of BANANA's from us. 
    

               un-ALTERED reproduction AND dissemination OF THIS 
          important INFORMATION IS encouraged. 


                                   Bilbo Baggins
                                   B.S., and plenty of it
From: alizard@Blue.Kludge.COM (A.Lizard)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 03:07:25 PST
Organization: 'Lectrick Blue!, Moraga CA

xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:

> In <BxGIJ0.G5F@news.iastate.edu> tomes@iastate.edu () writes:
> 
> 
> >Of course, someone mentioned that a rail gun (mass driver?) had already
> >succeeded in throwing a small object to low earth orbit from somewhere in
> >New Mexico....
> 
> >chuck the merciless.
> 
> Excuse me?  Who mentioned this?  This can work on the moon because of the
> lack of atmosphere, but the drag imparted by ours would make this EXTREMELY
> difficult.
> 
> ---Xeno


Wrong. One simply imparts extra energy to the launch vehicle with the
rail gun to compensate for atmospheric friction. The rail gun is
one of two believable alternatives to rockets for low cost space
launches.
A.Lizard

--------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
[path]!pacbell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@seer.mystic.com (backup)   alizard@Blue.Kludge.com (backup)
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Black holes again (was Re: Graviton beams?)
Date: 19 Nov 1992 21:39:04 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: astro
Originator: richard@astro.West.Sun.COM

dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon) writes:

>But what about the case of *two* massive singularities, in orbit round
>one another, each within the event horizon of the other

Not possible.  Once inside a black hole, your radial coordinate is
monotonically decreasing (for suitably defined radial coordinate).  No
closed orbit is possible.  All paths lead to the singularity.  In fact,
once you cross the horizon, the maximum proper time before hitting the
singularity is finite and, for any but the most enormous black hole,
small.

    Richard M. Mathews			 Freedom for Lithuania
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		        Laisve!
From: streb@ee.rochester.edu (Chuck S.)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Gravity and Space-time
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:38:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ of Rochester, College of Engineering and Applied Science

This has been a thought I have had dear to me for a long time.
I would like someone try to disprove it!
As we all know for every action there is a reaction.
rocket goes forward,particles backward. north pole,south pole ect.

but gravity is a monopole! there is no opposite we can readily
see.
We also have seen the fabric of space distorted around the sun
when an eclipse occours ... stars are displaced.

doesn't that just hit you like a ton of brick's ....

it does me and I would like to see it disproved.

Gravity's partner is time! in the presents of strong gravitational force
time move right along. the forces of sun moon earth.

Now look at this idea with repect to the law of relativity!

the smaller the object the longer the life of is existence,atoms
the gravitational force are not as strong (in a relative way)

remember the atomic clocks that flew around the earth and where off
by some time ... see what i mean.

muons exist for short time on earth in labs, but amazingly can reach
earth . force of gravity get stronger as it get closer! but it not
a constant like in a lab 1/d^2 I think!

comments are welcome





-- 
===========================================================__________=========
=                                                       ' /----------\  ' 
=  There's no place like internet!!!                            |        '  
=                                                    '          |    '      
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity and other devices
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:06:53 GMT

In <1992Nov16.025330.18661@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Robert.T.Warfield@dartmouth.edu (Robert T. Warfield) writes:


>  Lately I've been seeing a number of posts about devices that do
>wonderous things tike anti-gravity and free energy. Along with these
>posts are the patent numbers. However, if I remember right, there is no
>rule that the device must work before it gets a patent.

>Robert T. Warfield@dartmouth.edu

It is my understanding that they won't grant patents to perpetual motion
machines unless there is proof that these devices work.  They supposedly
implemented this because there were far too many 'hammers on a spinning
wheel' (and the like) perpetual motion machines being patented as free
energy alternatives --- and it was known that such devices can't work.

As for anti-gravity, someone else mentioned the same proof is needed.

---Xeno
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: unglenie@magellan.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Travelling Time
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:37:17 GMT

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>>[...]
>>>p.s.:I made all this up, so it might be wrong.  Besides this, I neglected the
>>>fact that space-time has six coordinates, not four.

Mcirvin writes:
>Six coordinates?  What are the other two?

According to string theory, there are either 10 or 26 dimensions.  Heaven 
only knows what we'd call them all....

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-  "It is the foreign element that commits our crimes.   There is no       -
-   native criminal class except Congress."  [Samuel Langhorne Clemens]    -
-  (Don't look at me, I DIDN'T vote for Clinton.  Will Engineer For Food)  -
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: anti-gravity device
Date: 15 Nov 92 13:05:55
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
	<xeno.721776591@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu>
	<FRANL.92Nov14182049@draco.centerline.com>
	<xeno.721800906@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.116
In-reply-to: xeno@iastate.edu's message of Sun, 15 Nov 1992 04:15:06 GMT

 xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
 > franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:
 >
 > > xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
 >
 > > > As for perpetual motion, no law in the universe denies it's possibility
 > > > No entropy need be increased by motion alone.
 > >
 > > That's like saying that the motion of a body coasting along a
 > > spacetime geodesic (i.e., not being acted on by external forces) is
 > > perpetual motion.  Well, sure unless something pushes on it, it will
 > > move along that geodesic perpetually.
 > 
 > Exactly...

Get real.  That is NOT what is commonly meant by "perpetual motion".
--
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: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Date: 18 Nov 92 12:09:35 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <BxvKCp.88t@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
>
>Antihyrdogen? Cool! That means that sooner or later some guy like
>Oppenheimer can come along and build a nice antimatter-reaction warhead...:(


But you also get warp drive engines (as soon as we discover a source of
dilithium crystals :-)


-- 
Geoff. Lane. | Internet: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk | Janet: zzassgl@uk.ac.mcc.uts
UTS Sys Admin,  Manchester Computing Centre,  Oxford Rd,  Manchester, M13 9PL
During a week's TV I want to be entertained, bored, delighted, disgusted, made
happy, saddened, enlightened, mystified, else they aren't doing the job right.
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: gravity-neutralizing
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:24:58 GMT

butler@offa.cs.odu.edu (Prince F. Butler) writes:

>My father is a patent attorney and I asked him about the idea of impossible
>devices getting patented.  Accordin to him there are many patents in the 
>patent office for machines that cannot work.  If they are found out, there
>supposedly is a process to revoke their patents but it is more trouble than
>it is worth.  The patent office has not required models of patents since the
>1800's.  Supposedly there is a storage warehouse where they still have all the
>old models.

I think that there are categories where a working model is still required:
specifically, if you *call* your device a "perpetual motion machine," you
need to submit a working model.  Of course, if you call it a "free energy
device" or a "vacuum electrogravitic resonator" or some such thing, no
such restriction applies.

-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
From: bubar@donner.cc.bellcore.com (bubar,charles o)
Subject: Searching for people doing work on grand unification theories
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 23:14:55 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Keywords: GUT gut grand unification

Interested in finding those who are working on GUT theories.

Please send names and internet addresses of those who are working
in this area.

Thanks for your time and assistance.

Chuck Bubar
bubar@cc.bellcore.com
908-699-4117
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Date: 23 Nov 1992 12:58 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 <By12us.Lsr@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes...
>In article <20NOV199207505285@csa3.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>> 
>>>	Tao of Physics                      author forgotten, sorry
>>
>>The author of this (basically nonsense, outdated) book is Fritjof Capra.
>>Have you actually read it?  There is nothing in it about magic of any 
>>kind.  I defy you, since you stand by all your statements so definitively,
>>to read this book and produce any evidence that the author has the 
>>slightest interest or knowledge of magic, or, better yet, that the
>>book contains any claims about the validity of magic.
>>
> 
>1) You do not understand the nature of magick. Please refer to  my other
>response to  a more reasonable challenge.
> 
>2) Yes I have read it. The point is not that magick can allow one
>to do the physically impossible. The point is that one can unlock the
>subconscious using what is refered to as magick. I am sure that having  
>read the book, you know that the author gives many examples of how
>this is done. 

I would be surprised to find the word "magick" anywhere in Capra's book.
Since you have provided no examples, I assume that you are conceding
the field, in spite of your posturing.  The author gives no examples
of "unlocking the subconscious."

>3) I am a physics student who is currently studying Modern Physics. This
>book is recommended reading, recommended by the prof. This prof,
>I might add, is a rather conservative man, who nonetheless considers this
>a good source of supplementary material. Furthermore, there are many
>(compitent) physicists who regard this work as outdated but still 
>sensible. 

Nonsense.  The book is not sensible.  Again, I offer you a challenge:
find us a competant physicist willing to publically claim that any
of the substantive content of Capra's book is "sensible" and to explain
why.  Then perhaps we can have an intelligent discussion.

-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
From: corey@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: the russians made a deal with darth vader
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:26:42 GMT
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

How about every time he re-posts that everyone sends a copy + flames to his
mailbox?  (or dosn't he read his mailbox either)

Corey

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Sweeney
corey@amiganet.chi.il.us
I do not own a amiga!
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Perpetual motion (was Re: anti-gravity device)
From: mike@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Cosmik Debris)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:58:05 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

In article <18NOV199211462562@csa1.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> In article <xeno.722036028@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu>, xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes...
> > 
> >This difference is the most likely the cause of any disagreement.  I view
> >moving a 300 lbs. dumbell twenty miles and then twenty miles back something
> >that could theoretically be done with no energy loss whatsoever.  So
> >perhaps it is that I am trying to argue this case on the wrong level...
> >I suggest that it may not be necessary to expend energy to accomplish certain
> >types of work, and therefore machines performing these types of work would
> >be 'perpetual' in operation.
> 
> In the parlance of classical mechanics, there is only one kind of "work."
> And the action you have described, moving an object and returning it to
> it's starting point, does no work.

Only in a "Conservative Field" e.g. gravity?
If I push my lawnmower around the lawn back to its starting point I get hot and
have to drink beer. I am sure I have done "work".
-- 
Cosmik Debris -- "I owe money, therefore I am"
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:11:05 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: coyoacan.sw.stratus.com

In article <BxvJMF.4ty@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
> The problem is not wheither magick is better than
> science or science is better than magick. Both are quite valid.

I am not alone in disagreeing with this statement. Several centuries of
research stand behind me.

> But I have said too much.

You did make one accurate statement in your posting.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.