HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Parallel Universes
Followup-To: et@et.com
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:06:39 GMT

In article <Bv7Jtr.CtH@csn.org>, et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor) writes:
> In article <20SEP92.20442522.0039@vmxa.polymtl.ca> TH04@polytec1.polymtl.ca (TH04000) writes:
>>subject, and was coming to the conclusion that there could be an in
>>finite number of universes.  I am presently dreaming of the possibility
>>of traveling in time, if we start with this theory.  In fact, let's
>>[...]

Time intervals are effected by relative motion.  That is to say, a clock moving
relative to an observer will appear to tick less rapidly than it does when
it is at rest with respect to him.  If t0 is the interval measured by a clock
in the moving reference frame, and t is the interval we measure, then
        t=t0/sqr(1-v^2/c^2)
where v is the velocity of the clock, and c is the velocity of light.
   We will assume t0 is positive.  Now if v<c then t is positive.  If v=c then
t is infinite.  The theory is that if v>c then t will be negative, thus we will
travel backwards in time.  Let's check this theory with the equation above.  If
v>c then v^2/c^2 is greater than 1.  1 minus a number greater than 1 is
negative.  The square root of a negative number is pure imaginary.  A positive
number (e.g. t0) divided by an imaginary is a negative imaginary number.  Thus
if we travel faster than the speed of light, we will travel _sideways_ in time,
not backwards.  In this way we can travel to other, but not necessarily (sp?)
parallel, universes.  The trick is to travel faster than light.  Sorry I don't
have any references about this, but that's because these are my own ideas.  If
someone else has already come up with this, it's only coincidence.
--Ray Cote
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:24:40 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

Sigh.

In article <1992Oct13.173346.1722@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
> [take two groups of seeds, sprout one group, leave the other group dry,
> and then burn the sprouts and unsprouted seeds]
> 
>                (5) Weigh the residue from each group.  [The residue of 
>                    the sprouted group will usually weigh at least 
>                    SEVERAL PERCENT MORE than the other group.]

Yup. Plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and expell oxygen.
They gain mass from this.

>                (6) Analyze quantitatively the residue of each group for 
>                    mineral content.

Burning unequal masses is a poor way to compare their mineral contents.
You have no idea what went up in smoke.

>                The reaction N2 --> CO, catalysed by very hot iron, 
>           creates a CARBON-MONOXIDE POISON HAZARD for welder operators 
>           and people near woodstoves (even properly sealed ones).

Um, no. Carbon monoxide is the result of incomplete combustion of carbon.
A woodstove is the source of much carbon, some of it incompletely burnt
(deliberatley - the way you control the amount of heat a stove produces
is by limiting the available oxygen). Welders frequently use acetylene
torches, which can produce carbon monoxide if the oxygen feed is not
properly adjusted.

>                Some bacteria can even NEUTRALIZE RADIOACTIVITY! 

Demonstrate, please. We currently do metabolism analysis by tracking
radioactive isotopes through biological processes. We have never seen
such isotopes stop emitting, other than the normal exponential decay.

[Obligatory Nobel comment: If you do so demonstrate, you will have
 qualified for next year's Physics and Chemistry Nobel Prizes]

>           1st Edition, 
>           by C. Louis Kervran, Active Member of New York Academy of 
>                Science, 

Is he still active? I thought he died a while ago.

-- 
         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: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:49:08 GMT

In article <7130@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>In article <BvvHuu.BKq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN) writes:
>> Not that I'd want to defend the original poster's somewhat peculiar reasoning,
>> but...
>> An article I read (in the 60's I believe...I think it may have been written
>> sometime earlier than that, however) by Willy Ley disputes your contention
>> that a gun cannot be made "even today" to shoot things as far as the moon.
>> The article basically concluded that it _was_ possible to do just that.
>
>I suspect it was in error. A couple of years ago I stumbled over the
>maximum possible velocity for a chemical gun being around 5km/s. It had
>to do with how fast a shockwave could travel through a combustible mixture
>(oxyhydrogen for this particular calculation) - the projectile can't
>travel any faster than the shockwave.

     One can be cleverer than this.  I believe that the Livermore's SHARP light
     gas gun is slated to achieve somewhere around 6.2 km/s (see Aviation
     Week 137:57 (1992) or 133:78 (1992)).  I don't believe that this
     is the theoretical limit.

>Given that orbital velocity is 7km/s, this falls a little short.
>
>> Wasn't there some recent stuff about some murdered gun designer who dreamed
>> of building a gun that could orbit stuff, and didn't he once work for the
>
>And he worked for the Iraqis too. His supergun would have provided a good
>fraction of the boost needed for orbital velocity, but would still need a
>rocket to take over after the projectile was launched.

     The usual projected need for the rocket is to adjust the orbit so that
     it doesn't include large swaths of dirt since orbit is 
     impossible to achieve using a purely ballistic device.   
     The talk is of using small kick motors of various designs.

>> Also, I remember some discussion about a manhole cover possibly being
>> put into escape velocity by an A-bomb test, on some net group, recently.
>
>Bloody unlikely. If it was close enough (above!) an A-bomb to get
>significant boost, it isn't likely to have survived the experience
>intact.

     Certain nuclear rocket designs were made that employed actual
     explosions.  I suspect that a similar thing could be done on 
     earth (though I would probably be howling with the environmentalists).

                              dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: kbk@netcom.com (Ken Krovchuck)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics... Did anyone read it??
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services 
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:21:48 GMT

(In reference to <1992Oct5.050509.14261@netcom.com> )
    
I recently posted a message that I was certain would be picked to
shreds. It basically described a 'PPM of the second kind', in other
words a machine than can convert heat directly into work. I avoided
saying that in the message, since I wanted an explanation of what
could be wrong with my reasoning, instead of LOOKING like some
of THE OTHER POSTINGS that have shown up recently.
 
The lack of response could mean
 
1: No one cared to to do my thinking for me. (probably)
2: The thing might actually work and everyone is running to
   the patent office. (we wish)
   
   
The machine is based on the fact that charged particles in
magnetic fields have irreversable kinetics both microscopicaly
and macroscopicaly (Most other reactions are reversable
microscopicaly). If anyone would be kind enough to dig through
my previous post and point out any errors I would be most greatful
since I'm starting to get paranoid.
 
                                                 -- Ken Krovchuck
                                                 -- kbk@netcom.com
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:28:31 GMT
Organization: Software Engineering Institute

In article <1992Oct6.175025.1578@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

>               "This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example 
>          of the absurd length to which vicious specialization will 
>          carry scientists working in thought-tight compartments.  Let 
>          us critically examine the proposal.

Damn right.  If more people had listened to this excellent advice, we
wouldn't have wasted billions of dollars and most of a century in a
completely futile attempt to build practical space ships out of
chemically-propelled rockets.  It's about as insane as the Hellenistic
plans to build ocean-going cargo ships propelled by oxen turning a
capstan.
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:31:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <BvvHuu.BKq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN) writes:
> Not that I'd want to defend the original poster's somewhat peculiar reasoning,
> but...
> An article I read (in the 60's I believe...I think it may have been written
> sometime earlier than that, however) by Willy Ley disputes your contention
> that a gun cannot be made "even today" to shoot things as far as the moon.
> The article basically concluded that it _was_ possible to do just that.

I suspect it was in error. A couple of years ago I stumbled over the
maximum possible velocity for a chemical gun being around 5km/s. It had
to do with how fast a shockwave could travel through a combustible mixture
(oxyhydrogen for this particular calculation) - the projectile can't
travel any faster than the shockwave.

Given that orbital velocity is 7km/s, this falls a little short.

Then again, I am neither a chemical engineer nor a artillery specialist,
so if someone has better references, please feel free to correct me.
 
> Wasn't there some recent stuff about some murdered gun designer who dreamed
> of building a gun that could orbit stuff, and didn't he once work for the

And he worked for the Iraqis too. His supergun would have provided a good
fraction of the boost needed for orbital velocity, but would still need a
rocket to take over after the projectile was launched.

> Also, I remember some discussion about a manhole cover possibly being
> put into escape velocity by an A-bomb test, on some net group, recently.

Bloody unlikely. If it was close enough (above!) an A-bomb to get
significant boost, it isn't likely to have survived the experience
intact.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:30:16 GMT
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox

In article <1992Oct11.164053.9405@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, jdporter@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
|> In article <1992Oct6.175025.1578@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

[ stuff deleted ]

|> 
|> After all, take the hollow earth rubbish that you mention --- the reason nobody
|> believes in that (sorry, nobody with anything inside their cranium :-) ) is
|> that it has been experimentally disproven, i.e. there ARE no holes at the poles
|> of this planet.  As for the other things, youi provide evidence that is

I HAVE PROOF THAT THE EARTH IS HOLLOW! Why the accurately scaled oblate spheroid globe
on my desktop is HOLLOW, and it HAS HOLES AT THE POLES. How could the globe makers
have omitted something as obvious as a core if there was one? Answer that one, buddy!

[ more stuff deleted ]

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:30:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <BvvHuu.BKq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.010741.356@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, 
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>
>>In article <1992Oct6.175025.1578@cnsvax.uwec.edu> 
>>mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>>
>>>          
>	[stuff deleted]
>> 
>>>               "This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example 
>>>          of the absurd length to which vicious specialization will 
>>>          carry scientists working in thought-tight compartments.  Let 
>>>          us critically examine the proposal.  For a projectile 
>>>          entirely to escape the gravitation of the earth, it needs a 
>>>          velocity of 7 miles a second.  The thermal energy of a gramme 
>>>          at this speed is 15,180 calories...  The energy of our most 
>>>          violent explosive - nitroglycerine - is less than 1,500 
>>>          calories per gramme.  Consequently, even had the explosive 
>>>          nothing to carry, it has only one-tenth of the energy 
>>>          necessary to escape the earth...  Hence the proposition 
>>>          appears to be basically impossible..."  A.W. Bickerton, 1926 
>>>
>> 
>>     This is a technological argument.  I beleve he was discussing a 
>>     'gun' of the H.G. Wells variety.  He is correct that this is not possible
>>     even today.  
>
>Not that I'd want to defend the original poster's somewhat peculiar reasoning,
>but...
>An article I read (in the 60's I believe...I think it may have been written
>sometime earlier than that, however) by Willy Ley disputes your contention
>that a gun cannot be made "even today" to shoot things as far as the moon.
>The article basically concluded that it _was_ possible to do just that.

     You missed the point.  It is not possible to do such a thing 
     right now or in the next five years.  Whether it is ultimately 
     possible is not at issue.

     Certainly research is continuing right now into light gas guns
     and the like, and there was research into such things in the past,
     which were limited to very suborbital flights.

     The question of ultimate technological feasibility is very different
     from current feasibility.

                                dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: sglanger@vela.acs.oakland.edu (LANGER STEVEN C)
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:01:16 GMT

On the topic of large guns, why does no one mention electromagnetic
rail guns? They don't suffer from any of the velocity constraints
wit explosive type guns and collegues of mine at Los Alam
(working during the Start Wars heyday) have even been interviewed by
Popular Science about them. I believe they had small plastic projectiles
hitting 1-2 km second or better (I wish I could recall the Pop. Science
issue, I may be able to get references if forced).


-- 
Steve Langer  			       sglanger@argo.acs.oakland.edu (VMS)
Oakland University		       sglanger@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Ultrix)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard disclaimers apply. In addition, the author makes no guarantees,
concerning the grammatical accuracy of his writing. Therefore, any ^B's, ^C's, 
midword character additions/deletions and other non-sense which occurs (after 
the work leaves the author's decade old text editor via his decade old Amiga, 
struggles through a local 1200 baud Merit server to be further mauled via the 
remote VAX mail servers) is someone elses problem - namely yours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: vxs8351@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:51:32 GMT
Reply-To: vxs8351@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

ENOUGH ALREADY!!! I'm getting a bit perturbed by these messages that appear in this group. I realize that the constitution lets people speak their opinions, 
freely and in public, but hey! Do we have to deal with this sort of rubbish 
all the time. Can't something be done to stop these messages? I mean really, 
I'm only an undergraduate in Imaging science, but I know for a fact that this is rubbish!

Annoyed,
Vasilios Salamandrakis <vxs8351@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
From: rubio@pine.circa.ufl.edu (RUBIO)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY Technology
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:02:45 GMT
Reply-To: rubio@pine.circa.ufl.edu
Organization: University of Florida  (ufl.edu)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1992Sep29.181540.1413@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, 
				mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes...



				F. O. S.



	Full			Of			Shit




Disclaimer:So am I.
From: J9KW000 <J9KW@UNB.CA>
Subject: Dark Matter info.?
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:34:55 GMT

I am in my final year of my BSc and I am doing research on Dark
Matter for a term paper and presentation. I have searched through
the limited resources available on this topic at my university's
library and I have not found much useful information on this
subject. I wish to give the theory behind the proposal of Dark
Matter and if possible relate it's observational effects to
Statistical Thermodynamics. If anyone could give me information on
Dark Matter or point me to some reference texts it would be greatly
appreciated. I have never learned anything about this subject before
so any information on the subject would be very helpful. Thank you
for any help you may offer. Please send any information via e-mail
to J9KW000@UNB.CA. I think just J9KW@UNB.CA may also work. Tracy.

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: gdr11@phx.cam.ac.uk (G.D. Rees)
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY Technology
Reply-To: gdr11@phx.cam.ac.uk (G.D. Rees)
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:08:19 GMT

I believe that internal evidence suggests that this posting is a joke,
albeit a very convincing one, probably from someone connected with the
Subgenius foundation or a similar cult.  The poster wants to get some
knee-jerk reactions from scientists, so the best thing you can do is
ignore him completely.

Gareth Rees <gdr11@phx.cam.ac.uk>
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: That FREE ENERGY thing (NASA)
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:46:16 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: astro
Originator: richard@astro.West.Sun.COM

v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST,PRESENT AND FUTURE IS ONLY ILLUSION,HOWEVER PERSISTENT...) writes:
>	I see why it's not free energy, but why would the dragging wire
>slow down the space station?  There would be no air resistance and
>nominal 'space debris'.  So what would cause it to slow down prop. to
>the energy created?

Electrons in the wire are initially moving in the direction of the
orbit.  Since F=q*vxB, and since the magnetic field points towards the
right of the space craft's motion, the electrons feel an upwards force.
A current is created up the wire.  Now the electrons have a component
of motion upwards in addition to the component moving with the orbit.
Apply F=q*vxB again to this component to see that there will be a force
on the electrons *opposite* the direction of the orbit.  This force is
proportional to the current (number of electrons times their speed and
their charge).  The power generated is also proportional to the current.
The more power you get out of the wire, the more drag it creates.

     Richard M. Mathews			D efend
					 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		  I ndependence
From: mstemper@ems.cdc.com (Michael Stemper)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:52:52 GMT
Reply-To: mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Oct12.143016.18819@spectrum.xerox.com>, eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall) writes:
>
>I HAVE PROOF THAT THE EARTH IS HOLLOW! Why the accurately scaled oblate spheroid globe
>on my desktop is HOLLOW, and it HAS HOLES AT THE POLES. How could the globe makers
>have omitted something as obvious as a core if there was one? Answer that one, buddy!
>

Actually, I know that THIS IS A CONSPIRACY! The CAPITALIST
GLOBE MAKERS are COVERING UP the FACT that the center of the
earth is being USED BY EXTRATERRESTRIALS as a dumping ground
for their BACK ISSUES OF THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER!

The FREE ENERGY PROFITEERS are in on this, too! Actually,
their "so-called" 'FREE' *ENERGY* is obtained by burning
these papers in UNDERGROUND INCINERATORS!

This is what is causing GLOBAL WARMING!

Also, where do you think the MISSING MASS is? It's inside
the Earth! Measurements BY INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS (not
mere corporate pawns) prove that the earth is MUCH HEAVIER
than it would be if somebody didn't PUT THINGS INSIDE IT!

--
#include <Standard_Disclaimer.h>
Michael F. Stemper
Power Systems Consultant
mstemper@ems.cdc.com






(Boy, that was fun!) But, if you have your caps lock key on,
vi starts acting really wierd - even for vi.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories