HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Irregular wave motion results
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 22:14:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.105130.17567@husc15.harvard.edu> blom@husc15.harvard.edu writes:
>I wrote a simple computer program to simulate waves in a cable fixed at both
>ends as if that cable were a number of springs joined together (320 springs, to
>be exact).  I expected to see motion like that predicted by classical wave
>mechanics, obeying the wave equation
>
>d2y    2 d2y
>--- = v  ---
>dt2      dx2
>
>from which we find that the shape of a travelling wave pulse does not change
>over time.  It occurs to me, though, that this should only work for analytic
>functions.  What happens to places on a pulse where the wave comes to a point? 
>(i.e. where the function has no definable derivative)  

Well, this is one reason why people invented distributions and the
notion of "distributional derivatives".  Using these concepts the wave
equation still makes sense at nasty points such as you describe.  

If you're not up to learning distribution theory, there's a cheap way
out, since your equation is easy to solve exactly.  The general solution
is a sum of left- and right-moving waves, i.e. f(x-vt) and g(x+vt).
Here f and g are ANY function and need not be smooth or even continuous.
(In fact, they can be any distributions -- e.g., nasty things like the
Dirac delta "function".)  

So - the pulses never change shape; there is no dispersion in this
equation.  Of course, simulating the equation on the computer may
introduce dispersion if your program isn't well-written.





Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA.  ABIAN replies to Benjamin WEINER  
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:19:01 GMT

In <abian.722044454@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

>In <Nov.17.17.52.49.1992.8552@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:

>Mr. Weiner you wrote:

>>And now, here's an example where energy is *not* conserved.  Due to
>>the expansion of the universe, radiation is redshifted and loses energy.
>>Where does the energy go?  
>>-Ben
      
                Abian answers:

  The energy is spent irretrievably for moving TIME forward.

  There is where the energy goes (irretrievably)
 
  With best wishes and regards,
                                      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)
-- 
   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: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: W-waves
Date: 18 Nov 1992 00:59:56 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <1992Nov17.013509.5412@spectra.com> gurley@spectra.com (Jim Gurley) writes:
>Everything comes down to wavelengths of .6, 1.6, and 16 hertz (very
>pronouced for these at least).

Wavelengths are not measured in Hertz.  They're measured in
meters.  If W-waves move faster than light, and he doesn't
tell you the actual speed, then you can't find wavelength
from frequency, or vice-versa, or even a limit to the range
of either.

As for the PN junction thing, I'd like to see his apparatus.
PN junctions in thermal disequilibrium emit electricity.
No, that's being kind.  I expect he's simply ripped you off.

>Has anyone heard of this theory?  Is this guy a complete crackpot or
>brilliant theorist?  I bought his book (paid $20 in advance) and may post more
>if it makes more sense.  My physics is pretty rusty...

Sounds like it needs a tetanus shot...

				--Blair
				  "How does he explain Jacarandas, then?"
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Covariant vs. Lie Derivative in Gen. Rel.?
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:30:05 GMT

:-))

glezen@drb-mathsun1.usc.edu (Paul Glezen) writes:

> "What is the difference between covariant derivative and the Lie 
                                  ^^^^^ D(u,v)                 ^^^ L(u,v) 
>  derivative?"

As you state,
  L(u,v) == [u,v]
On the other hand, 
  D(u,v) - D(v,u) = S(u,v)+[u,v] = S(u,v)+L(u,v)
where S is the torsion 2-form. Therefore the *difference* between D and L
is given by
  D(u,v)-L(u,v)=D(v,u)+S(u,v)
or in a torsion-free spacetime by
  D(v,u),
i.e. the covariant derivative with respect to v of u.

:-))
 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Sarfatti agrees there is no quantum connection communication
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:50:20 GMT


Apparently some of you did not get the message. Forget all the previous
stuff. I have now satisfied my self that <ae+|ao+> = 0, we should never
try to use parallel slit kets etc. they are always orthogonal (or at
least linealry independent) and that within standard quantum mechanics,
unitarity plus completeness of the transmitter states absolutely forbids
quantum connection communication within standard quantum mechanics as
presently understood. I have published a proof of this conclusion that I can
understand - that is clear, short and compelling. If any of you missed this
proof and are interested use e-mail and I'll send it.
From: dvs@soda.berkeley.edu (Doug Simpkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN replies to SIMPKINSON and PING
Date: 22 Nov 1992 03:56:19 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Keywords: TIME HAS INERTIA,  i.e., TIME IS MATTER

In article <abian.722307856@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>Dear Messrs SIMPKINSON and PING                           11-20-92
>
>  Thank you very much for your postings.

You are welcome.

>>>    I cannot quantify  anything with my Theory because I do not know
>>>
>>>            what  A  is in my    E = M(0) exp(-At)
>
>  You answered:
>
>>Then leave your answer in terms of A, and experiment will find A.
>
>  
>  In terms of  A  my answer is precisely
>
>                 E= M(0) exp(-A)

I'll assume you mean E = M(0) exp(-At)

Have you read the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy?  There is a race of
superintelligent beings that wish to know the ultimate answer of life the
universe and everything, so they build a computer.  They ask the computer to
give them "The ultimate answer to l, u, & e."  After several billion years,
the computer answers 42.  At this, the race was outraged, but the computer
pointed out to them that they didn't really know what the question was.  So,
Dr. Abian, to what is the answer

	E = M(0) exp(-At)?

Please remember to answer in the form of a question.  If the question is
How high will a 1-kg ball go if thrown straight up at 20 m/s at sea level?
then you lose.  Since that is the last question of mine that you attempted
to answer, I have no idea to what your "answer" applies.

Regards, 
Doug Simpkinson
douglips@ocf.berkeley.edu
dvs@soda.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Top 10 Cited References in the 80's
Date: 21 Nov 92 22:10:15 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <Nov.19.15.43.08.1992.6763@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>Someone at the Institute for Scientific Information (publishers of SCI)
>once told me that the annual appearance of the Top 10 list is awaited
>nervously by the people who tend to be on it and that some take falling 
>off it very hard (concomitant loss of prestige, money,etc). 

Here's my suggestion: Publish an incorrect list. Everyone who complains
gets his tenure (or equivalent) revoked. Next suggestion: Physics should
order authors alphabetically. Final suggestion: all journals drop little
biographies and pictures of authors, and authors use initials instead
of names.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: _Voltage_ ratings of fuses
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:46:20 GMT

In article <By3Ftz.IHK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher
J Burian) writes:

>Microwave oven fuses are *not* easily replaced for safety reasons.  The
>manufacturers want qualified service personnel to replace the fuses only
>after determining the cause of the failure.  Manufacturers are also very 
>concerned about the integrity of the shielding.  The fuse often blows
>because the door safety switch has failed.  It more often blows due to
>age, but they don't want to take chances with lawsuits.

In other words it is a cheap CYA measure, as I surmised.
I'll continue to subvert the system, I guess; I'll change my own fuses.

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Inelastic versus Elastic
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 23:23:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.101430.455@news.wesleyan.edu> BBLAIS@eagle.wesleyan.edu (BRIAN S. BLAIS) writes:
>A friend of mine wrote me:
>--
>Suppose that you have a bullet running into a block. It does so in a perfectly
>inelastic manner. That is, the bullet stays in the block after the collision
>imparting its momentum into the combination of itself and the block. However,
>some of the energy of the motion is lost in the form of heat, so kinetic
>energy is not conserved.
>
>Why? I am looking for an intuitive explanation of the conservation of momentum
>that allows one to see clearly and distinctly that, even though some of the
>quantity of motion is converted into heat, the quantity of motion as expressed
>by _mv_ remains the same.

Let's say the mass of the bullet is m and that of the block is M, the
bullet's initial velocity is V and the bullet/block's final velocity is
v.  (Quantities with big letters are to be thought of as bigger!)  
The initial momentum,

mV

is to equal the final momentum,

(M+m)v.

Thus we have

v = mV/(M+m).

The initial kinetic energy is mV^2/2, while the final kinetic energy
is (M+m)v^2/2, or by the above formula for v, m^2V^2/2(M+m).  The
initial kinetic energy minus the final kinetic energy must be the heat
energy!  Since (M+m) is bigger than m^2/(M+m), there will indeed be heat
energy.  (Actually, the missing energy could go into broken molecular
bonds etc. rather than heat.)



Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - Ask TELLER about REACTION TO PROVOCATION
Keywords: TIME HAS INERTIA,  i.e., TIME IS MATTER
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:58:32 GMT

In <17NOV199211192397@csa3.lbl.gov>sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
   
Dear Mr. Chase, you wrote:


>I can think of many GR experts who are not pseudo-scientists. Well, at least 
>one or two. 


   I don't know if you consider  Edward TELLER a GR expert or not, I find
him a much less beta-sigma-er than many others. He talks and reasons and
explains with a minimum amount of  beta-sigma, almost none.
   
   Well, ask TELLER  whether or not ABIAN is right by saying that the gist 
of the Thermonuclear explosion is very much like  "the explosion of a 
Stalin-Hitler type person when provoked by a provoker who threatens the 
status quo of especially their political power" and that the crux of the
matter in achieving a thermonuclear explosion is "the skillful selection of 
a (Stalin-Hitler) type Thermonuclear explosive (such as Deuterium) and the 
skillful selection of a (Iago-type)  provoker (such as a nuclear explosive)".

   My above explanation is brilliant both in content and in form and has
no beta-sigma, regardless of what you think of it, especially in your state 
of envious reaction to my intellect and profound insight.

   I still think that my (A2)   TIME HAS INERTIA  will bring me a
Nobel Prize ! and will revolutionize the entire Physics and will launch
a new era in Sciences !  Same is true for my proposal to PUT VENUS IN AN
ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH.

   With best wishes and regards,
                                             Alexander Abian

PS. In my previous posting I have wagered $500 (to Tobis or anyone else)
for proving that I am correct in my FTA reasoning - find me wrong and earn 
$500 or pay me $500 if I am right.

 

-- 
   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: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.   Att:  Da COSTA   FUND. THM. OF ALGEBRA 
Summary: ABIAN explains
Keywords: Explanation  re: Abian's proof of  FUNDAMENTAL THM. OF ALGEBRA
   
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:21:18 GMT


Mr Da Costa, you wrote:


> so the expansion is not valid in the vicinity of z=0, where he
>proceeded to use it (the expansion converges for z *outside* a radius
>of convergence that includes all zeros of his polynomial .......
> It's bullshit. Satisfied?

      My answer to you is:


Yes, you are absolutely correct;  the expansion converges for z OUTSIDE
A RADIUS OF CONVERGENCE THAT INCLUDES ALL ZEROS OF MY POLYNOMIAL.
 
     BUT, but, you forgot that we ASSUMED THAT THE POLYNOMIAL HAS NO ZEROS 
and therefore the expansion is valid EVERYWHERE  and this leads to my
desired CONTRADICTION !!!! (since the (Laurent)expansion under consi-
deration is obviously not valid at 0).
      
     Satisfied ?
    
  With best wishes and regards,               
                                          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,sci.optics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Quantum Mach-Zehnder Interferometer II
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:49:18 GMT


#2  Single counter MZI

The crux of the debate over quantum connection communication fact or
fantasy between me and Keith Ramsay has to do with the decision process
between interfering and non-interfering alternatives.  The following
example addresses the heart of the matter.  Ramsay professes that the two
alternative histories t and r for photon a are always non-interfering
because, he says, <t|r> = 0 and any unitary transformation must preserve
this bracket relation.

---->\\---------\
|a>  |    |t>   |
     |          - phase plate (phi)
     |          |
     \----------0 |3>            |
          |r>

Fig.1C MZI (single counter)

According to Ramsay:

|a> -> [e^iphi|t> + i|r>]/sqrt2 = |a>'

p(3) = |<3|a>'|^2 = |<3|t>|^2 + |<3|r>|^2

     + 2|<3|t>||<3|r>|cos(phi+arg<3|t>-arg<3|r> - pi/2)

At this point it is not clear what Ramsay would do. Ramsay what would you
do? One thing he might do is:

impose p(3) = 1 (ideal detectors in all these examples).

An alternative thing he might do is to make a formal sum over all detection
points 3 and assume random phases to get

Sum{p(3)} = |<3|t>|^2 + |<3|r>|^2
3

and make reasonable ansatz that

|<3|t>| = |<3|r>| = 1/sqrt2

This way of doing things is unesthetic having all these ad-hoc parameters
like epicycles that must be adjusted to get what we know by intuition is
the right answer.

The Feynman history way of doing this problem is simple to write:

|a> -> [e^iphi a(t) + a(r)]|3> = |a>'

where a(t) is amplitude for photon to take t(r) path without intervening
phase plates etc.. We add these ampltudes coherently since the single
counter (clamped) makes them indistinguishable (i.e. no 1-1 correlation to
orthogonal kets of some measuring system like a Heisenberg microscope in
"on" mode).

Therefore,

p(3) = |<3|a>'|^2 = |e^iphi a(t) + a(r)|^2 = 1

but,

a(t) = e^iarga(t)/sqrt2

a(r) = e^iarga(r)/sqrt2

Therefore, conservation of probability requires

cos[phi + arg(t) - arg(r)] = 0

or

phi + arg(t) - arg(r) = pi/2

is a solution.

Note that the relative phase shift of the beam splitter is not frozen in
stone like the Ten Commandments but adjusts itself globally to the boundary
conditions or "total experimental arrangement" - in this case the setting
on the variable phase plate.

The point is that there is nothing in the quantum formalism that prohibits
"indistinguishable" single counter detection as shown in Fig.1c.  Ramsay's
comments on different momentum components is adhoc nonsense.  I will go on
to develop a sequence of examples leading to final quantum connection
communicator in future posts.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: Ramsay's questions to Sarfatti
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:53:08 GMT

In article <1e73gaINN7od@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
>If you squint your
>eyes, the two states arriving in the detector look a lot alike. But
>they are distinguishable by their momenta-- so they couldn't possibly
>be parallel or differ only by a phase.
>

Why wouldn't this argument be valid contra the classic double-slit
experiment exhibiting singlet interference?

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.  
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: akerman@qucis.queensu.ca (Richard Akerman)
Subject: Do pions mediate strong force between nucleons?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Queens Univ., Kingston, Ontario, Can.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:21:15 GMT

Like the subject says, is it correct that pions mediate the strong force
BETWEEN nucleons (quark confinement preventing gluons from mediating it
themselves).

Reply by email please.
From: ande@sierra.com (Ande Rychter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Number of "religious scientists"
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:42:39 GMT
Organization: Sierra Geophysics Inc.,  Kirkland, Wa

In <craigen.11.721488939@ace.acadiau.ca> Douglas Craigen writes

>>I wouldn't try to explain this since I have no idea what the number of
>>religious scientist is, nor do I know of a reputable study of this issue.
>>My own guess (hope) is that the number is small.  I personally consider
>>the phrase "religious scientist" an oxymoron. -AR.

> I have just completed my Ph.D. in a fairly large semiconductor lab.
> By my estimate 30% of the lab were evangelical (evangelicals make up only 
> 5% of the Canadian population), and if you add Moslems, Bhuddists and 
> Hindu's the number exceeds 50% without yet even trying to count the 
> mainline adherents.  My experiences elsewhere have not been in such a 
> large group, but suggest similar results.

How do you explain this evangelical enrichment in your lab?  Are you suggesting
a positive correlation between science and religion? -AR.
From: wnljam01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:20:49 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Nov10.183906.4904@sierra.com>, ande@sierra.com (Ande Rychter) writes:
> In <1992Oct30.090305.25085@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> John Snyder writes:
> 
>>>Indeed.  But my "water and fire" comment did not imply any social reality.
>>>It is hardly difficult to understand why 90% of Americans are religious if
>>>you consider that 95% are scientifically illiterate.  Incredible as it may
>>>seem, the equilibrium between science and religion appears to be shifting in
>>>favour of religion. -AR.
> 
>>Then how do you explain the large number of people who are both scientists
>>and are religious?  Surely there is a sizeable number of such people.
>>They apparently feel that science has important things to say about
>>some areas of life, and religion has important things to say about other
>>areas of life.
> 
> I wouldn't try to explain this since I have no idea what the number of 
> religious scientist is, nor do I know of a reputable study of this issue.  
> My own guess (hope) is that the number is small.  I personally consider 
> the phrase "religious scientist" an oxymoron. -AR.

--)) You are a religious scientist!  Your religion is clearly humanism - this
makes man's reasoning autonomous and the ultimate reality.  Humanism states
that there are no god's but those which man invents in his own mind.  In other
words humanists exalt man as god.  
It is very interesting to see how often scientists refer to the wonderful
workings of 'Nature' (capital n!!) in the literature.  So many scientists
refuse to ascribe the observed incredible order and symmetry of nature to an
intelligent Creator God.  I think this is plain stupid and the Bible calls
people who are blind to the genius in creation fools.  Ditto.

James Wanliss

Physicist 
(GRADUATE STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA)

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: energy, mass, and all that
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:02:40 GMT

bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
: 
: Look, Martin, it seems that you do understand this.  Rest mass is not
: conserved in e+ e- -> photons.  

Err...Ben...would you like to modify this a little? Surely the rest mass
has to be conserved if the 4-momentum is?
Xref: sparky sci.physics:19498 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2397
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: John Baez's remarks on "super"
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:31:50 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>Well John Baez you don't like "super"? How about superposition?
>superstring? superfluid? superconductivity? superstition? supercilious?

this was the context in which John originally objected to "super"

>Are you saying that Princeton University supports crackpot science in their
>PEAR laboratory headed by Dean of Engineering, Robert Jahn with money from
>Mc Donnell Douglas and Federal Intelligence Community?
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
yes.
Especially, the 'intelligence agencies' (wotta oxymoron) are hardly
proof of reputability.  (See my quote)  And Jahn is just another example
of "older scientist goes slightly round the bend" syndrome - (e.g.
Eddington).

-Ben
-----
"When J. Edgar Hoover gives you a requirement for complete
[telecommunications] surveillance of all Quakers in the United States,
when Richard M. Nixon is a Quaker and he's the President of the United
States, it gets pretty funny."  - Frank Raven, retired NSA official