HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:39:27 GMT

In <BxKMrK.A15@news.iastate.edu> tomes@iastate.edu () writes:

>xeno writes:

>>To keep plutonium from reacting, you just don't let too much of it pile
>>up in one place, but to keep anti-matter from reacting, you must provide a
>>constant field to contain it.
>>

>Since when did a certain large self-sustaining organization not accountable
>to anyone start using common sense in its operations?  But large booms in 
>the night are the norm there, anyway...

>Chuck the Merciless

I guess you have a point there...  I suppose that if they can launch
ballistic cannonballs at supersonic speeds into low orbit, full-well
expecting most of their tests to 'fall short' of their expectations,
they can can anti-matter, stick it in a warehouse and forget about it.

---Xeno
From: corey@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: time travell ??
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:26:02 GMT
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

In article <1992Nov7.161752.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu>,
chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
>The possibility of time travel is one which makes for good (=fun) science
>fiction, but if you stop and think about it for a couple of moments, it
becomes
>just a figment of fertile imagination.
>       Consider a fly walking along a (metre) rule, it moves forward, then
>backward. But does it move *backward* if you turn the metre rule around? No
>because you changed the frame of reference.
>       You cannot move backward in space unless you have an arbitrary frame of
>reference, neither can you have negative mass (no antigravity). You can have
>negative charge, but that is only due to an imposed frame of reference.
>So-called anti-matter has been shown to have "positive" mass.
>       Idiots who post ideas about anti-gravity machines (EXCEPT FOR JOKES),  
>Infinite free energy machines, time travel, etc. ad nauseam areprobably also
>interested in the curative properties of snake-oil and the scientific basis
>behind astrology.
>
>"Flame me for an heretic" Joan of Ark (or ARC if your on rec.scientology)
>
>David N. Chorley
> 

who said you can't have a negative mass?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Sweeney
corey@amiganet.chi.il.us
I do not own a amiga!
From: corey@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:47:28 GMT
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

In article <BxGIJ0.G5F@news.iastate.edu>, tomes@iastate.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.114939.9235@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Vir
>ginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft) writes:
>>Is anyone willing to speculate regarding a design of a photon drive?
>>How might one work? Does anyone have any ideas on an improved propulsion
>>system for a spacecraft? For example a spacecraft traveling to Mars might
>>be propelled by intercepting small iron balls shot from earth. It may come
back
> 
>>by shooting these same balls out of the solar system. Power for the return
trip
>
>>may be provided from earth or earth orbit via a microwave beam.
>
>How about this as an interplanetary drive:
>
>3 or 4 100 kW fission reactors driving an electric plant (conversion not
>specified: whichever method is most cost effective/efficient).  Then use water
>as a reaction mass, electrolysize to get O2 and H2, use the O2 to breathe and
>the H2 as the reaction mass.  Feed the H2 to an infrared laser and heat it up.
>Use the water to cool the exhaust nozzle (much hotter than chemical reaction)
>The only problem is the seeming lack of large quantities of water where we can
>get at it in orbit.
>
>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.


You could chuck up ice from mars.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Sweeney
corey@amiganet.chi.il.us
I do not own a amiga!
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser)
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:32:41 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

> Certain aspects of astrology, predicting ones fate based on the moment of
> one's birth, are known to be false and should be condemned. 

Obviously that's insufficient and is only done by charlatans who
flunked algebra I.  One also needs the latitude and longitude for
any accuracy.
-- 

 Boycott Colorado.
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Subject: Re: time travell ??
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:42:23 GMT

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) states
>In <1992Nov7.161752.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
>
>>So-called anti-matter has been shown to have "positive" mass.
>
>Not so.  It is currently an experimental question which is receiving 
>considerable attention.  No one knows whether antiprotons fall up or down.
>We may know in a few years.
>
>We *do* know that antimatter has positive energy density.  If antiprotons
>fall up, then GR is not correct.  But we don't yet know.  Of course, most
>people expect antiprotons to fall down.
>
	My memory is not to good on this but I'm prety sure I read about
somebody doing an experament whereby they put positrons into a storage
ring. Measured the time it took for them to complete a revolution.
Then took it to the top of a mountain and did it again. Since the
particles act as a clock, they should react to the gravitational
field of the earth acording to relativity. I thought that they reacted
just as electrons would. 
	Would this not imply that they have positive mass?

If im just blowing smoke please say so.


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.
The meek can _have_ the Earth, the rest of us are going to the stars.(Heinlein)
		*** H. Ross Perot in '96 ***

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: Time Travel
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:50:36 GMT

In <1992Nov10.122059.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

>If a time traveller travels into the past then he violates conservation of mass
>because suddenly an amount of mass has been added to the universe.  The only
>way around this is to displace this extra mass into his original time.  How
>would this be accomplished, and which mass would be displaced? Any comments?
>--Ray Cote


Who is to say that he 'suddenly appears'?

Let's use the 'anti-matter is matter backwards in time' theory again...

You want to go back in time...  You hop in your Acme Time Tourer, and hit
the big red button.  Your ship accelerates through space away from earth at
near light speed...  Suddenly you collide with another ship, exactly like your
own, but made entirely of anti-matter, both ships are erradicated in a blinding
explosion, releasing energy of the order mc^2 where m is the mass of both
ships.

You never see a collision, however, from your point of view, the universe
collapsed to a flat plane and turned 'inside out.'  Your ship begins to
decelerate from near light speed and you head back toward earth.  You are now
going backwards through time.  Every second that passes for you, the Earth
becomes a second younger.  Thanks to the relativistic effects on time, and
the wonderful acceleration of your ship, you can make the Earth 'age' backwards
fast relative to you.  Knowing the effects would be unpleasant if you returned
to a giant anti-matter Earth, you once again accelerate your ship and reverse
time directions again.

In this year, people saw an incredible convergence of energy, collected as
radiation from every possible direction, come together and create a
matter/anti-matter pair of ships, each moving at near light speed away from
each other.  The matter ship decelerates, and lands on Earth.  After a few
moments, the hatch opens, and you hop out.

Matter-energy is conserved in this example.

---Xeno

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:39:34 GMT

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
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu
Subject: Re: time travell ??
Organization: OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:17:52 GMT

The possibility of time travel is one which makes for good (=fun) science
fiction, but if you stop and think about it for a couple of moments, it becomes
just a figment of fertile imagination.
	Consider a fly walking along a (metre) rule, it moves forward, then
backward. But does it move *backward* if you turn the metre rule around? No
because you changed the frame of reference.
	You cannot move backward in space unless you have an arbitrary frame of
reference, neither can you have negative mass (no antigravity). You can have
negative charge, but that is only due to an imposed frame of reference.
So-called anti-matter has been shown to have "positive" mass.
	Idiots who post ideas about anti-gravity machines (EXCEPT FOR JOKES),  
Infinite free energy machines, time travel, etc. ad nauseam areprobably also
interested in the curative properties of snake-oil and the scientific basis
behind astrology.

"Flame me for an heretic" Joan of Ark (or ARC if your on rec.scientology)

David N. Chorley
 
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu
Subject: Re: Earth gains/ four runs to a boundary
Organization: OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:57:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.042829.3399@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, hwong@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Harris Wong) writes:
> Hi,
> 	Where is the boundary of the universe? Is this a meaningful question
> to ask? 
> 	Any comment?
> Harris
> 
The boundary is, of course the limit of the field, i.e. the line over which a
batsman can score a minimum of four runs if his stroke delivers the ball.

RATS, this isn't alt.rec.cricket
From: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: BREAKING THE LAW
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:31:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia
Originator: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU

Hey guys! The second law of thermodynamics is held dear to the 
heart to so many. Basically the quality of energy decreases always.
The universe always becomes more mixed and change ceases.
As an ill informed youth I couldn't accept the notion of heat death
nor could I accept the notion of a begining and end of the universe.
As an adult I stopped worrying about such nonsense. As a graduate
student...well....
This may be a heretical question, but does anybody know of a case where
the second law can be said to be violated? What about matter-antimatter
interactions, force fields, black holes, white holes, ect. BTW, what is 
a white hole anyway?
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Spin Numbers
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:31:21 GMT

Does anyone know if it's mathematically possible for a particle to have a
one-third integral spin number? How about experimentally changing the spin
number of a particle?
--Ray Cote
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: BREAKING THE LAW
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:37:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.223156.24655@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft) writes:
> Hey guys! The second law of thermodynamics is held dear to the 
> heart to so many. Basically the quality of energy decreases always.

The amount of availiable energy decreases.  I suppose the big bang is when the
amount of available energy was equal to the amount of total energy in the
universe.  We can go no further back in time than this.  Wouldn't it be funny 
if this point had been reached only a few thousand years ago.  That would
disprove the big bang theory.
  
> The universe always becomes more mixed and change ceases.
> As an ill informed youth I couldn't accept the notion of heat death
> nor could I accept the notion of a begining and end of the universe.
> As an adult I stopped worrying about such nonsense. As a graduate
> student...well....
> This may be a heretical question, but does anybody know of a case where
> the second law can be said to be violated? 

The second law is true for closed systems only.  The only closed system is the
universe itself.  This is an assumption, it may not be closed.  So it seems
that the second law is useless, except in idealized circumstances.

>What about matter-antimatter
> interactions, 

The entropy change here is probably zero.  Otherwise it's not a reversable
process.  If it isn't reversable then the entropy of the universe increases.

>force fields, black holes, white holes, ect. BTW, what is 
> a white hole anyway?

A white hole is the opposite of a black hole.  It pushes everything away from
it.
--Ray Cote
From: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: GRAVITRON BEAM
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:49:26 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia
Originator: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU

We all agree that the notion of a gravitron lazer is rediculus.
However---just how reduculus is it? We all know that photons 
come in all shapes and sizes. Some go through just about anything
while some can't even punch their way out of a paper bag. Are all
gravitrons the same? Is there a gravitron equivalent to the photon's
index of refraction? Can a beam of gravitrons be controled, if not,
why not?
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:35:15 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: coyoacan.sw.stratus.com

This doesn't have anything to do with physics, but . . 

In article <347@mtnmath.UUCP>, paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
> [astrology is a path to intuitive thought]
> The one sided emphasis of Western culture on intellectual approaches to
> problems is one of our most serious handicaps. On this veterans day it
> may be appropriate to recall that the Vietnam war was conducted by the `best
> and the brightest'. It was an attempt to solve by intellectual means
> a problem that could not be solved in that manner.

I would not term M-16s, Tanks, B-52s and Agent Orange "Intellectual means".

> One can argue that 60,000
> Americans and a great many more Vietnamese died in part because of the one
> sided intellectual approach to problems that dominates our culture.

The vietnam war was a solution to an emotional problem - Kennedy wanted
to convince the Communists that we would not stand for further encroachment.
It was perpetuated by Johnson and Nixon due to the emotional constraint of
not being able to admit we did not accomplish what we intended.

In sum, the vietnam war was fought due to following emotional constraints,
not intellectual ones. The difference between "intuitive" and "emotional"
is non-existant in most people, so advocating an intuitive approach to
life-and-death issues can be pretty close to criminal.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Size of a PHOTON?
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:57:04 GMT

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

>If I threw a baseball near the speed of light, it's relativistic mass
>(that same type of mass you use in your example of radiation pressure),
>especially in combination with spacial contraction, might lead one to
>believe that it would become a black hole and collapse in on itself.

Nope.  The source term for gravity in general relativity isn't the
total energy (or "relativistic mass" if you prefer to use such an
inelegant concept), but the stress-energy tensor, which contains
energy density, momentum density, and local stresses.  This is
different for a fast-moving baseball with a certain kinetic energy and
for a heavy still object with the same energy in the form of mass.  For 
a moving baseball, it doesn't produce a black hole.  

The easiest way to get the moving baseball's gravitational field
is to perform a coordinate transform on a stationary baseball's
field.  If you don't have a black hole to begin with, you don't
get one. 

This is a fine example of the pitfalls in store when one uses the
concept of relativistic mass in the seemingly obvious manner.  It's
better not to use it at all, but if you must, you have to be 
careful.  See the sci.physics FAQ for a further explanation.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: time travell ??
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:50:50 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: coyoacan.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov10.014223.156121@zeus.calpoly.edu>, mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:
>> No one knows whether antiprotons fall up or down.
>
> 	My memory is not to good on this but I'm prety sure I read about
> somebody doing an experament whereby they put positrons into a storage
> ring. Measured the time it took for them to complete a revolution.
> Then took it to the top of a mountain and did it again.

Someone took a positron storage ring to the top of a mountain? That must
have been some engineering feat!

In any case, that is unlikely to answer the question. The positron charge
to mass ratio is three orders of magnitude higher than an anti-proton's
charge-to-mass ratio, so it would be that much harder to isolate gravitational
effects from charge and magnetic effects.

The difference between gravitational attraction at sea level and at a
mountaintop differs by only a tiny amount (less than 0.1%, as I recall).
Besides, how is measuring the time of revolution affected by whether they
fall up or down?

> If im just blowing smoke please say so.

That's O.K. - I didn't inhale.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne)
Subject: Re: Anti-gravity/antimatter related?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:59:55 GMT

In article <10NOV199212024438@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>
>You have only demonstrated that antimatter has positive inertial mass.  That
>says nothing about how antimatter couples to gravity.  No widely accepted
>experiments have conclusively shown that antimatter falls down rather than
>up.  If it does fall up, then, of course, significant modifications to our
>understanding of gravity would be necessary.
>

Why wouldn't it fall down?  I thought that the only difference between matter
and anti-matter was electric charge.  Did I miss something?

---Bill VanHorne

--------------------------------------------------
Please try to use the word paradigm in every post.
Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------
From: gross@maxwell.ucsc.edu (Mike Gross)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Graviton beams?
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:50:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: maxwell.ucsc.edu

In <xeno.721598960@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:

>On the topic again...

>If gravitons are affected by gravity and travel at light speed, then they
>could never escape a black hole, thus black holes are 'self-sealing' and
>cannot possibly affect anything outside of themselves --- including drawing
>other matter into them.

>If gravitons can escape the black hole, then external observers gain
>information as to what is happening beneath the event horizon of the black
>hole, and thus it is not so black.

>What have I missed?

You've missed the concept of "virtual particles." In a nutshell, this means
that the intermediate particle can act like it has a mass (which can be
imaginary), as long as it never appears outside of an interaction.

Although a complete self-consistent quantum theory of gravity does not exist
yet, one would expect virtual gravitons to violate the "nothing can cross
the event-horizon" rule in a similar manner to how virtual photon exchange
mediates electrostatic interactions.

>It would seem that to keep the concept of a black hole as I understand it,
>one would have to say that any mass that passes into the event horizon
>instantly becomes part of the black hole's 'point mass'...  But this does not
>seem reasonable to me, as it creates a dicontinuity in the gravitational
>field outside the black hole.

Yes, but that's a result of the particular spherical + time coordinates you've
chosen. It is possible to find a coordinate transformation that makes the
singularity at the event horizon go away. One example is the "Kruskal-Szekeres"
coordinate system (see the Phone Book--Misner, Thorne & Wheeler, ch. 31). 

>Any takers?  I'm not a black hole specialist.

Good luck in your quest to understand BH's. Much of the theory is still
undeveloped, particularly in the quantum regime, so you may have some trouble
getting meaningful (and correct!) information.

Here's a stumper: what happens (classically) to the event horizon as a
pair of black holes merges?

Mike Gross
Physics Board
Univ of California               GO SLUGS!!!!!
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
gross@maxwell.ucsc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories