HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: Professionalism
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:39:08 GMT

sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
: 
: I deliberately did not post The Gladstone Report on this conference as it is
: more appropriate to other conferences since it is more than physics - it is
: literature, politics - the Glass Bead Game. McInnes seemed compelled to post
: it here. All the historical facts asserted in it are true - including my
: weird experience as a kid in 1952 with the metallic voice claiming to be a
: computer on a spacecraft from the future.                               
                                                                          
 Well, you see, Jack, I was just reading one of your posts when I got a
telephone call with this hard-metallic voice claiming to be a computer
called SPECTRE. I then--as you put it--"seemed compelled" to cross-post it
to sci.physics. By the way, SPECTRE seemed really pissed that you were
apparently afraid that these revelations might sully your reputation as a
serious physicist. I assured it, of course, that this thought had never
entered your mind.                                                        
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21969 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2662
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Star Ship Engineering & Time Travel 1
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:18:43 GMT

sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:

>Comments by Sarfatti:

>From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
>Subject: Re: Vacuum-Driven Power Exchange in the Free Electron Gas
>Date: 30 Dec 92 22:23:34 GMT
>Lines: 51
>Nntp-Posting-Host: husc8.harvard.edu

[...]

>These days it's usually described in a manner closer to Eugen Raicu's; the
>virtual particles are artifacts of perturbation theory applied to quantum
>field theory, whereas uncertainty relations are a fairly fundamental
>consequence of how the quantum theory is set up.

Jack Sarfatti writes: 

>*"artifacts of perturbation theory" ? The Lamb shift and Casimir force are
>real effects so I'm not sure what "artifacts" means*

The Lamb shift and Casimir force both arise from quantum field
theory, independently of whether you regard the theory as primarily
describing the dynamics of virtual particles.  The Lamb shift is most
conveniently calculated using Feynman diagrams, but the Casimir force
is easier to calculate by canonically quantizing the electromagnetic
field and looking directly at the field Hamiltonian, since it's there that
the vacuum energy shows up.  In that case you don't even have to think
about virtual photons.
-- 
Matt McIrvin         I read Usenet just for the	tab damage!
==== =======         = ==== ====== ==== === === === =======
From: qsi@contrast.wlink.nl (Peter Kocourek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: RE: Just the FAQ's please!!
Date: 25 Dec 92 00:58:16 GMT

To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov

Scott I Chase wrote in a message on 23 Dec 92 to All

 SIC> In article <1992Dec17.162815.808@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, 
 SIC> y41@aix320c.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Jeffrey Hazelwood) writes... 

> 
>Gibt es hier ein FAQ oder was?  

 SIC>  I could probably answer this question if I had the slightest 
 SIC> knowledge of German. 

It means "Is there a FAQ here or what?"


YHS:QSI!
 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call moder(and sci.physics.research-NOT!)
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:22:52 GMT

In article <MERRITT.92Dec24115137@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>Let's face it, this new call is to censure a few individuals. If the
>sci.physics.research is to be moderated by Mr. Stale(jokes) Cameloon Bass 
>I should strongly oppose it's creation. My comments were of a serious nature
>and this proposal should be dicussed with that  decorum in mind.
>
>There is no hinderence of the exchange of ideas or communication of
>facts here for those who have decent News-reading software. 
>With a program that allows you to view all subjects in a newsgroup
>one need not read what he finds uninteresting. Further more one
>particularly offensive individual from the start said he would not
>resopnd to artciles without a certain title. Yet many of those
>who are calling for the new group(whom I contend were "provoked"
>to do so by said un-named individual) responded repeatedly
>to that "Crackpot". If nobody had responded he would have "dried-up
>and blown away". I contend that is these people (whom Mr. Bass
>is one have created this Frankenstien). And now since they are
>softwarily-challenged or too damn lazy to excercise their own
>personal judgement they are calling for the creation of a group
>which I think will be nothing more than a "mutual admiration 
>society" and consequently rather boring.

I believe you are painting with an overly broad brush here.
 
Sure, some of the would-be co-moderators have expressed a desire to exclude
articles from the new group on the basis of authorship. I would be against
this, as I think a competent moderator can decide when the content of an
article has already been effectively refuted without considering who wrote
it -- though to do so fairly over the long run, I suspect, will require more
effort than most who have thus far volunteered sound willing to expend.
 
But many (including myself) who support the creation of a new newsgroup are
interested in having a forum for discussing research-related topics that
would be attractive to a larger fraction of research physicists than currently
have the patience to sift through the incredible volume of traffic on this
group. If traffic on the moderated group becomes too high, then that group
can be subdivided along the lines you suggest. I see nothing wrong with that,
and I don't understand your earlier point about usenet being "diluted by
schisms". Most people are interested in only a small fraction of the articles
on a given group. If creation of new categories allows them to skip to their
areas of interest more quickly, so much the better.

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA ask KGB and GESTAPO for moderating
Keywords: KGB, GESTAPO, MODERATING, DISSIPATION,  IDEAS
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:46:23 GMT

In <abian.725155886@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

                                      12-23-92

Dear Matt:

   You ask me via e-mail what is my opinion and suggestion for
moderating  postings.

   I think my suggestion will also reflect my opinion:

   I suggest that people who are for moderating get in touch with
 
   AN EX-COMMISSAR OF KGB IN CHARGE OF MODERATING THE DISSIPATION 
   OF IDEAS IN MEDIA

and

   AN EX-OFFICIAL OF GESTAPO IN CHARGE OF MODERATING THE DISSIPATION
   OF IDEAS IN MEDIA

   and ask for advice as to how to organize and operate the moderating. 
 
 
  THE REVOLUTIONARY BREAKTHRU IN PHYSICS WILL INEVITABLY ACCEPT
  AND SURRENDER TO:
                      TIME HAS INERTIA       
  
  THERE CAN BE NO DECISIVE PROGRESS IN PHYSICS UNLESS (A1)  thru
  (A4) are accepted and used to explain actions of particles
  and everything else. SURRENDER TO  (A1) to (A4)  THAT IS THE
  WAY TO A RATIONAL APPROACH.
  
    With love                         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: andy@laguna.santafe.edu (Andy Mell)
Subject: Re: moderating sci.physics - physics is everything
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 01:43:17 GMT
Organization: Santa Fe Institute

In article <MATT.92Dec31223925@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.051444.767@dmp.csiro.au> lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick) writes:
>
>> Is there going to be moderation? - I hope not.

>What has been suggested is that a new newsgroup be created, and that
>this new newsgroup should be moderated.  People who prefer a more
>uninhibited discussion can continue to read sci.physics.

I agree, how about sci.physics.research, in the grain of sci.math.research.
moderator objectives - just let lengthy posts with some real contribution
to knowledge in them through. Couldnt be any worse than all the HAHAHAHAs
you get in here from singaporeans.

A



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Mell, Applied Physics Department,  |   andy@santafe.edu
University of Hull, Hull, HU7 6RX       |   amell@nyx.cs.du.edu
England.                                |   torq@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Call for volunteers to moderate sci.physics.research
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:11:38 GMT

In article <MATT.92Dec22165232@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:

>If you're willing to be one of the moderators, then, could you drop me
>a note by email, and also post a brief message on the Net about what
>sorts of standards you would use?  Even if you've done this already,
>I'd appreciate it if you do so again---the focus of the discussion has
>changed a bit since we started talking about this.

     I would be willing to assist in co-moderation of such a group.
     My 'standards' would be that a post either a) has serious
     technical/physical content or b) has wide informative value.

     Feel free, though, to bump my name first if there are enough
     moderators.

                           dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: allenk@ugcs.caltech.edu (Allen Knutson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: How to moderate sci.physics (without reluctance!)
Date: 23 Dec 1992 00:35:34 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: torment.ugcs.caltech.edu

I think we could set up an analogue of rec.humor.funny. Here's
how I envision it: you attempt to post to sci.physics.physical
(i.e. not .politics, not .humor, not .timehasinertia). 

Your post goes to a computer somewhere and is automatically 
rejected if it's been crossposted to sci.physics or 
alt.sci.physics.new-theories.

If not, the computer goes to the next person on its rotating
list, and says "Has John Baez decided to permanently refuse
posts from Alexander Abian? Yes. Is there any other co-moderator
who is still willing to see if Abian's posts are worth putting
on sci.physics.physical?" If yes, then the Abian post is bounced
to them. If not, then the Abian post automatically goes to sci.physics.

Now a post of Matt McIrvin's comes to John's attention. "That
eater of cheese is posting nonsense again, I see...looks good."
Pressing a suitable key, it goes out to sci.physics.physical.

(I suppose the way to do this is have another account, that
throws away mail unless it's coming from the username of a
moderator. If it is, it looks at the subject line - "y" for
sci.physics.physical, anything else for sci.physics. The
real subject of the post is in a "Subject: " line somewhere
in the body of the mail. But I don't really know how daemons
like this operate.)

The particular beauty of this system is that noone need worry
that posts are being censored (unless some snob server decides to 
carry sci.physics.physical and not sci.physics!), they're just
being directed correctly, by the selfless people like John who
volunteer their time. A system like this admits all manner of
bells and whistles: automatic nasty letters to those people who
post things that are rejected as unsuitable, and to repeat
offenders, curt notices that they are no longer even wasting
a moderator's time. Rather, they are merely getting a line
tacked to their posts listing the crackpot index - automatically!
							Allen K.
						aknaton@math.princeton.edu

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abbasi@star.enet.dec.com (My name is Nasser Abbasi)
Subject: seeks ranking of physics departments of the US universities
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 06:47:13 GMT


Hello, could someone please give the ranking of physics departments in 
the US ? the top few dozens or so would be great! a pointer to where I can 
find such a list will also be appreciated.

thanks,
\nasser
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden)
Subject: Re: FTL communication in SR does not violate causality
Organization: Sony Microsystems Corp, San Jose, CA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 05:56:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.022645.5016@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl
McCullough) writes:
>markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden) writes:
>MC>Also, the "mathematics of SR" I refer to are only the mathematics of the
>MC>Lorentz coordinate transform, which I *do* assume to be universally valid.
>MC>I could have been more clear about these points.
>
>What do you mean by saying that the Lorentz coordinate transform is
>"universally valid"?
>...
>So, to repeat: if your laws are not Lorentz-invariant, then what does
>it mean to assume that the Lorentz transformations are universally
>valid?
>
>Daryl McCullough

We are miscommunicating.  In a previous article you yourself mention that
my model is consistent with "the Lorentz Transformations":

In article <1992Dec12.215343.12585@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl
McCullough) writes:
>... I would not say
>that your model is consistent with Special Relativity, I would instead
>say that your model is consistent with the Lorentz Transformations.
>
>Daryl McCullough

So what is the problem, my use of the word "universally"?  All I meant
to say by using that word was that *all* coordinate transforms conform
to the Lorentz equations, for all observers and all reference frames,
with no exceptions.  If there is still confusion lets talk about it in
email and post a summary of our discussion, *if* it seems that it would
be of interest to the general sci.physics readership.

Mark Corscadden
markc@smsc.sony.com
work: (408)944-4086
From: dseeman@novell.com (Daniel Seeman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The EVIL Abian.
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:47:48 GMT
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia

In article <1992Dec19.214340.19190@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.184725.26583@ugle.unit.no> kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus) writes:
>>What are to be done with the EVIL Abian?
>
>Again (for those who didn't read my remark in the TIME HAS INERTIA
>thread), the thing to do is get a moderated version of sci.physics
>going.  I would even be willing to co-moderate such a newsgroup FOR A
>LIMITED TIME, if certain worries of mine were quelled.  One, I would
>need to be able to quit doing the job when I got sick of it, without
>feeling guilty.  This would require the existence of someone willing to
>pick up the slack, I suppose.  Two, I would need someone to hand me
>whatever software was necessary, and have it work; I don't want to mess
>around with software.  Three, I would need to be able to take vacations!
>In short, my question is this: could I moderate or co-moderate such a
>newsgroup without ruining my life?

Probably not.  Government censors have been trying to control information's 
flow to the public since, well, since forever.  And look at the lunacy of those
censorship workers!  Why would you think a private citizen would have an easier
time of it?

dks.

ps.  "You mean EVERYBODY in Iraq thinks those Patriot missles are powerful
symbols of 'American Ingenuity'?"
From: lamontg@stein.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Scientific Truth Is Not Found in Threats
Date: 31 Dec 1992 08:41:45 GMT
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu


This is rather amusing...

>In article <BzuF2v.8MD@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack
>Sarfatti) wrote in alt.sci.pyhsics.new theories:
>> Mr. Wolff,
>> Be advised that I am checking your credit for assets and it is my intention
>> to bring a lawsuit for malicious slander, libel and defamation of character
>> against you personally and against your employer Computervision.

Better work much harder on your evidence...

>> Your have screwed yourself, wiseguy, by your remark:
>> "I've also taken the liberty of putting a few of your words in all-caps."
>> whose intent and implication is to portray me as a crackpot by willful
>> malicious distortion of my actual text which is, I assume, privileged
>> intellectual property.

>> At the very least you have displayed poor judgement in your Employer's eyes
>> by using their
>> id and making hem party to a very interesting lawsuit breaking new ground
>> in the protection of
>> intellectual property on usenet.

Jack, you are one seriously clueless fuck [*].  Anything posted over the net
immediately enters the public domain unless the appropriate copywrite
notices are attached to it ("only for posting to the net, not for
re-publication, etc, blah blah blah").

[*] Note: this isn't slander, libel, or defamation of character -- its 
          just an insult. 

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu
  "When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases."
                                      -- Robert Anton Wilson
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: cathy@alex.com (Catherine McManus)
Subject: Re: Recent article on QM in AJP
Keywords: QM, correspondence principle, Arnol'd cat
Organization: Alex Technologies Ltd
Apparently-To: mail2news@demon.co.uk
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 11:10:29 +0000



What is AJP?


-- 

Catherine McManus        ,^--^,               Alex Technologies Ltd,
cathy@alex.com		( o  o )  meowww      CP House,
                         \ `' /  /            97-107, Uxbridge Rd,
                          ==== -'             Ealing, London, W5 5TL
From: jregehr@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (John David Regehr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why does sticky tape glow?
Date: 21 Dec 1992 08:05:18 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

In article <1h3nc2INN6hn@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU> mjb@mulka (Michael Beeching) writes:
>	I was in a photagraphic darkroom the other day trying
>to transfer some 35mm film onto another canister (someone had
>wound it back into its holder!) During this process I had to
>tape the start of the film onto the spindle. When I peeled off
>some tape, it glowed at the point that was peeling from the roll!
>I was surprised at this (also a bit worried that I was affecting
>the film I had at the time) and found the same thing on a completely
>different type of tape.
>	So whay does this happen? Is it some sort of static thing
>or what? All possible explainations appreciated!
>
 
There was an explanation of this in the "Amateur Scientist" column in 
Scientific American several years ago.

                                                     - John
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22002 sci.math:17580
From: kchen@Apple.COM (Kok Chen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Why no Nobel Prize in Math?
Date: 1 Jan 93 20:06:15 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

bruck@mtha.usc.edu (Ronald Bruck) writes:

>... I, at least,
>would greatly appreciate a scholarly treatment of this question by one
>of the knowledgeable historians lurking out there.


Depending on whether you think the journal "Mathematical Intelligencer"
is scholarly :-), there was an article on the Mittag-Leffler/Nobel
myth many moons ago (must have been more than 4 years ago).  Does
anyone else remember the article?

I heard it first from a Field Medalist, and naturally thought the myth 
was true (silly me) until I read the aforementioned article.  Sigh.


Kok Chen, AA6TY				kchen@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jtbell@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jon Bell)
Subject: Re: What are the conditions for Mass <-> Energy conversion
Organization: Presbyterian College, Clinton SC
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 13:49:00 GMT

In article <8091@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bhides@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Sandhiprakas J Bhide) writes:
>
>Now, if it is indeed true, why is that sunrays or for that matter
>any other energy such as heat does not by itself convert into mass?
>That is while I am shaving in front of the mirror, why is that the
>light emnating from the lamp does not get converted into mass?
>
Various "conservation laws" have to be satisfied.  For example, a single
photon (quantum of light energy) traveling through "empty" space 
cannot spontaneously convert into a material particle (or convert part
of its energy into one) because it would violate conservation of 
momentum.  However, if a high-energy (e.g. gamma-ray) photon passes near
an atomic nucleus, it can produce an electron-positron pair, because 
the nucleus can recoil slightly to conserve momentum.

In this example, an electron-positron pair has to be produced (not just an
electron or just a positron) so that electric charge is conserved.

Actually, in the case of light rays coming from your shaving lamp, the
photons have so little energy (a few eV apiece) that they cannot possibly
produce even the least massive particles (electrons/positrons, 511,000 eV
apiece).

Jon Bell / Dept. of Physics & C.S. / Presbyterian College / Clinton SC USA
would violate 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Baez's "the right question".
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:28:20 EST

In article <Bzp9yM.48J@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:

>I assert that the right question is to question the truth of causality
>in the sense that causes must always precede effects in all frames of
>reference...

I reach, yet again, for the keyboard, to point out, wearily, yet again,
that there is nothing to question.  There is no scientific theory whatever
that requires the postulate of asymmetric causality.  Classical mechanics,
general relativity, quantum mechanics, ... all are time symmetric.  Any
supposed scientific support for causality is equally support for finality,
just as positive zero equals negative zero.

The assumption of asymmetric linear causality is a naive prejudice, as
bogus as the assumption of uniform circular motion.  It exists neither
in the equations nor in any defensible interpretation of them.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA
Date: 23 Dec 1992 21:08:18 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com
Keywords: ATTENTION  Mr.  Benjamin WEINER

In article <1992Dec19.213826.19115@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.184403.26492@ugle.unit.no> kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus) writes:
>>I am tired of seing ABIAN treating all the nice people here on sci.physics the
>>way he does. What can be done to make this SADIST disappear? 
>
>Support a moderated version of the newsgroup sci.physics, and then read that.

I propose that, for all moderated proliferations of the sci.physics
hierarchy, Alexander Abian be installed as moderator.

				--Blair
				  "Many monstrosities are not
				   an improvement over one."