HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: re: Baez's latest post on "links".
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:52:01 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link


Very formidable and I don't pretend to understand it. I'm sure it's good
math and good intellectual exercise for those who do it - but is it physics?
It would help if John could give a short exposition of what kinds of physics
this work could explain - even in principle - any contact with experiment
potentially possible - even in future assuming a really advanced super-
technology.  Of course, it is much better to have Baez's stuff here than
Abian's etc.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tell@rukbat.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.electronics,sci.space
Subject: Re: Does Sun have magnetic poles?
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:47:06 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <sehari.724447864@class1.iastate.edu> sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari) writes:
>Recently, an attempt has been made to create electricity using a large
>electric loop in the space using earth magnetic force.  However, such thing
>should not be a source of energy in the space since it takes energy to
>change the flux that passes through wire loop and only a fraction of that
>energy would be translated to electric energy. Further more, if the rotation
>of satellite itself to be used for this task, the emf back force would change
>the speed of the satellite.  That results in altitude drop for satellite.

If I may be allowed to suggest in a serious forum an idea I first saw in a
piece of fiction, from David Brin's short story, "Tank Farm Dynamo" (found
in the Brin anthology "The River of Time" and perhaps elsewhere):

Generate your electricity using photovoltaics or somthing else, and use the
large loop in the Earth's field as a motor, not a generator.  This boosts
your altitude.  The satelite in the story was an orbiting tether with an
elevator running up the cables.  Payloads would be carried up and down, with
more net mass going up than down, which over time would lower the altitude
of the satelite by significant ammounts.  Use of the magnetic effect
countered this tendancy.

>                            Babak   Sehari.



-- 
Steve Tell       tell@cs.unc.edu H: 919 968 1792  | #5L Estes Park apts
UNC Chapel Hill Computer Science W: 919 962 1845  | Carrboro NC 27510
Engineering is a _lot_ like art:  Some circuits are like lyric poems, some
are like army manuals, and some are like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy..
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: PS Feynman 40 QED errata
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 06:45:04 GMT


stence was incomplete it should read

Therefore, relativistic invariance in Feynman's quantum electrodynamics
still requires the classical Wheeler-Feynman feature that signals propagate
both forwards and backwards in time.  In classical general relativity
solutions of the expanding universe, the Wheeler-Feynman absorber boundary
condition "equivalent to purely retarded effects within a closed box"
cannot be sustained.

Xref: sparky sci.physics:21159 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2547
From: carlip@landau.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Feynman 32 - Ghost Busters & Quantum Gravity
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:31:42 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Physics, UC Davis

In article <ByzBAI.B0w@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>[...] Do the ghosts [in perturbative quantum gravity]
>follow closed time like loops and do they obey the usual spin-statistics
>connection or are they scalar (spin0) fermions, spinor (spin1/2) bosons
>etc. as in Yang-Mills Faddeev-Popov regulators?

Feynman's ghosts in quantum gravity are precisely the same as the
ghosts that occur in Faddeev-Popov gauge-fixing (in this case, from
gauge-fixing the diffeomorphism group).  Historically, I believe
Feynman came first, though he was followed rather soon by Faddeev
Popov, and DeWitt.  Like the ghosts in Yang-Mills theory, gravitational
ghosts do not obey the usual spin-statistics relationship; and like
Yang-Mills ghosts, they cannot appear as extrnal particles --- they
are really just fictitious particles introduced for book-keeping
purposes, to keep track of Jacobians in the path integral.  Since
they only appear as internal lines in Feynman diagrams, the question
of closed timelike loops doesn't really make sense.

If you want to know more, you might look at the articles by Duff and
Deser in _Quantum Gravity_ (Isham et al., editors, Clarendon Press,
1975).  

Steve Carlip
carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: a722756@roper.mc.ti.com (W. Donald Rolph)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIANS answers TAO
Originator: a722756@roper.mc.ti.com
Keywords: SURRENDER TO (A3) - NO OTHER WAY 
Organization: Texas Instruments / Attleboro Mass / USA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:08:34 GMT


I was noticing the signature file you have.  What in your equation is the value
of A in exp(-At)?
-- 

Regards.
 
Don Rolph  a722756@pan.mc.ti.com WD3 MS10-13 (508)-699-1263
From: ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Where is background energy going?
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:38:09 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:

>This, I don't understand.  Ordinary refractive materials don't significantly
>change the wavelength of an incident beam, just its direction (speed,
>equivalently).

Isn't it the *frequency* that isn't significantly affected? I thought that
wavelength changed in accordance with velocity.

Martin Watts.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: craigen@ace.acadiau.ca (DOUGLAS CRAIGEN)
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Summary: I really like Methodists honest
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:12:07 GMT

In article <1961@spam.ua.oz> jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
>this is exactly why there can be no reconciliation between religion and
>science. You cannot make science up as you go along - something is true
  
  ?????


   Incidently, you seem to have missed the fact that Dale Bass is a fellow 
atheist.


===================================================================
  Doug Craigen, Department of Physics, Acadia University,
  Wolfville, N.S., B0P 1X0, (902) 542 - 2201 x150

  FOR RENT - signature file space
             (reasonable rates)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mjh22@cl.cam.ac.uk (M.J. Hardcastle)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA  - Scientists interested in TIME HAS INERTIA  
Reply-To: mjh22@phx.cam.ac.uk
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Cambridge, England
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:36:14 GMT

In article <abian.724736384@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
  
>  Thus, I am not going to give you any information for "checking me out".   
>  You give me some information about your veracity.  Ask two or three  
>  people to write to me  and  inform me  how reliable  you are, and
>  what are your credentials and how competent you are to make judgment
>  about what science is.
>  I will not answer you unless I receive at least two or three let-
>  ters from some well-established Professors of Physics  about how reliable 
>  you and your judgments are.  Let me check you out!!.

The difference being that he's not proposing lunatic theories with no evidence
that he knows anything at all about science or physics, I think.

>  (I would prefer if you do not use the information below that I am  
>   giving to Dr. Cartwright  who also asked  me  without sarcasm or 
>   without  "check me out" -ing.
>
>
>    Dear Dr. Cartwright,
>
>
>    You asked the names of some physicists with whom you can speak
>    about my theories:
>
>
>    Prof. R.J Tayler                      Prof. M. Ebison
>    Physics and Astronomy Division        The Institute of Physics
>    University of Sussex                  47 Belgrave Square
>    Falmer, Brighton                      London 
>
>
>    Prof. Dr. Hans-Jurgen Treder          Prof. I. Carstairs
>    Potsdam University                    Physics Department
>    Rosa -Luxemburg-Strasse 17a           Univ. of Southampton
>    Potsdam, Germany                      Southampton
>
>    Prof. J. Randon                       Prof. C. Rovelli
>    Univ. of Montpellier                  Dipatimento di Fisica
>    237 rue de Bugarel                    Univ. degli studi di Trento
>    34070 Montpellier, France             38050 POVO (Trento), Italy

Interesting. It's not impossible that I shall run into at least one of
these people in the near future. If so, I shall certainly let the 'net know
of the results. It's a pity that whatever they are Abian will claim that they
vindicate A3...

Martin
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ruppert@winx06.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (ralf ruppert)
Subject: Moessbauer applications searched
Organization: University of Wuerzburg, Germany
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:20:57 GMT


Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Yet another antigravity device
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:41:46 GMT

J. Baez's posting of a plausible antigravity device inspires
me to describe one of my own.

Imagine a spinning superconducting rotor of suitably clever
configuration.  I think of something like one of those toy flying
devices with a hub, several radially disposed airfoils with
non-zero angle of attack, and an outer ring surrounding all the 
airfoils:
          _________
         /___    __\
	//   |  |  \\
       //    |  |   \\
      //     |  |    \\
     ||_____/    \____||   / \
     | _____      ____ |    |
     ||     \    /    ||    |
      \\     |  |    //     |
        \\   |  |   //
         \\__|  |__//
          \________/ 

Now the magnetic field equations have the same form as the
hydrodynamic equations and since the devide is superconducting
these will be the Euler equations.  Thus in the earth's magnetic
field the rotor will act like the toy and produce lift.  Since
the conduction is perfect, the lift will be without drag (Euler
equation paradox).  The spinning rotor will thus produce a constant
force against the earth mediated by the magnetic field.  

If the force vector is oriented vertically and the rotor is large
enough and spins fast enough it should levitate.  Note that nothing
is violated.  As the rotor rises, it will loose mechanical energy of
rotation and slow down until its weight balances the magnetic lift.
Conversely if it falls, gravitational potential energy increases the 
speed increasing the mangetic lift.  Thus the rotor should leviatate
stably at a fixed height.  To raise it spin the rotor faster, to
lower it decrease the spin rate.  [This reminds me not only on
Dick Tracy's space coupe, but of the levitation devices described by
Heinlein in _Door into Summer_ Don't worry how they work, just
absorb the engineering properties and use them.]

Lots of problems of engineering problems of course, probably need
counterotating pairs to counter torque reactions. There would be
difficulties in handling the varying direction of the geomagnetic
field.  How do you start the rotor: rotate then cool or cool then
rotate? etc. etc.

More seriously, could it work?  Is there a clever superconducting rotor 
design that losslessly converts angular rotation into magnetic lift?
Given the in-principle possiblity of such a rotor, could one built
out of realistic materials be rotated fast enough to generate useful lift
in the earth's magnetic field?  If these devices were practicle and
came into general use, would they cause some environemntal catastrophe
like reversing the earth's magnetic field :-)?
 
I'm not sure about how to answer these questions.  Given indefinitely
large currents in the rotor, the answer would seem to be yes.  But
maybe I'm missing something. 
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.electronics,sci.space
From: trond@smith.phys.ucalgary.ca (Trond Trondsen)
Subject: Re: Does Sun have magnetic poles?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 19:56:48 GMT
Organization: Institute for Space Research

In article <sehari.724447864@class1.iastate.edu> sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari) writes:
>[stuff]
>However, if sun should have magnetic poles and if these magnetic poles
>be strong enough, one could use earth rotation around the sun to create 
>electric energy. This leads to too small a drop in the earth radius, to
>be noticeable for all practical purposes.  Could someone give us some idea
>about the sun's magnetic field?
>
>                       With highest regards,
>                            Babak   Sehari.
>

Yes, the sun is a magnetic star.  It has a GENERAL dipole field of
about 1E-4T distributed over the visible photosphere.  Apparently,
the dipole direction reverses every 11 years. wow...
The magnetic field convects out with the solar wind (frozen-in), and
near the earth's orbit the intensity is from a few nanoteslas to up to
,say, 20nT when the solar disturbances are great.  The field is mainly
in the ecliptic plane. (BTW; sometimes it happens that there is a small
component perpendicular to the ecliptic plane which can cause an opening in
earth's magnetic field to let particles in and we get aurora and such
interesting phenomena.) 


Trond


-- 
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/   _/_/_/_/  _/    _/  _/_/        Institute for Space Research
  _/   _/    _/  _/    _/  _/_/  _/  _/  _/           University of Calgary
 _/   _/_/_/    _/    _/  _/  _/_/  _/   _/               LA1OEA/VE6NOR
_/   _/   )_/  _/_/_/_/  _/    _/  _/_ _/             trond@phys.ucalgary.ca
From: vignat@lnp01.jinr.dubna.su
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: please help QM beginner
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 17:29:52 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: unknown
Reply-To: vignat@lnp01.jinr.dubna.su

The first problem is interpretation of the wave function.

My opinion it is a classical field, and no collaps is needed.

A particle is a source of this field, and motion of this source

is governed by the interaction of its field with environment.

Like electron with Coulomb field.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Ignatovich                      Tel. (09621)6-33-17
Laboratory of Neutron Physics                 (09621)4-70-65
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research     Fax 7(095)-975-23-81



Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: vejcik@daq (Steve Vejcik)
Subject: sky is blue
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 19:57:16 EST
Organization: Physics Dept., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa

                         Just my thoughts,
                              Steve

p.s. I replied by e-mail to a previous poster and got it wrong about the
     scattering being proportional to frequency rather than inversly -
     sorry dude...
                      s
From: mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Tapping a pop can
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:40:49 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

Hello.  A friend and I were recently discussing the often-performed practice
of tapping the lid of a pop/beer can after it has been dropped, which 
thereby relieves the pressure within and your beverage doesn't explode.

Anyhow, I was pondering this and with my *limited* knowledge of physics this
made no sense to me.  Does anyone know if this really works, and if so, 
can give a physics explanation for it?



-- 
					-- Mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| If the above information is incorrect, then I don't even speak for myself.  |
|      mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | mkohlhaa@amber.ucs.indiana.edu       |
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA      att: Dr. CHINTER
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 02:49:17 GMT

                            12-19-92

Dear Dr. Chinter,

   Please e-mail  your INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION article.
  
   I could not reach you by your e-mail address.
   Thanks.   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)
From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Crackpot update, New Scientist
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:03:53 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <1992Dec15.010938.23868@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

>Hey, I need all the notoriety I can can get, so I'm going to write them
>a letter to the editor.  After all, the crackpot index may be my most practical
>contribution to science so far (sad to say).  

>I am not sure whether I should write the letter in green ink, though.

No John!  You write in BLACK ink but you have to emphasize key
points with RED ink and lots of CAPITALS.  Unfortunately RED INK is
NOT available on usenet but it IS on paper.  Since YOUR ideas are so
IMPORTANT and your writing so CLEAR I would expect that 40-50%
(print percentages in red) of your letter would be RED or CAPITALS.

:-)  :-)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: lchardon@trentu.ca (LAURENT CHARDON)
Subject: Re: KIRLIAN PHOTOGRAPHY...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Trent Computing and Telecommunications Department
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:48:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.023301.16745@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes...
>In article <12DEC199217193643@trentu.ca> lchardon@trentu.ca (LAURENT CHARDON)  
>writes:
>> A few years ago I came across Kirlian photography. What is the latest 
>> explanation?
>> 
>> I'm quite surprised that we hear so little of it, since the effects are so 
>> remarkable. 
> 
>From this, you should draw the conclusion that the effects are
>not remarkable.
> 
>As for the explanation, can you say "coronal discharge". Kir. photos
>are taken with the object under high voltage, which causes myriad
>breakdown effects, and it heavily dependent on factors like
>humidity, surface roughness, impurities, etc.
> 
>Some actual scientists have done a few experiments to verify that
>it is coronal discharge---check your back issues of the 
>Skeptical Inquirer for details.
> 
>There is no reason whatsoever to suspect any supernatural phenomena.
>Is it so remarkable that one gets breakwdown effects under high voltage?


I wasn't talking about anything supernatural, but the effect I was talking 
about is the fact that when you cut a bit of a leave (for example) out, and 
take a "picture" of it under the changing voltage, the bit that was cut off 
still appears on the photographic paper The effect is suppose to wear out 
with time. Now, I never checked that for 
myself, so I'm not sure it's right. You could easily take an underexposed 
picture of the leaf, cut a bit out, and reexpose the paper. It would 
probably look very similar. I was wondering if somebody knew anything about 
that.

Laurent Chardon.
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Metals in liquid Nitrogen !!
Date: 15 Dec 1992 18:48:48 -0800
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:

>Not in Canada, where the question was asked. Are U.S. pennies really
>mostly zinc? I knew they were in 1943, but those looked like zinc. U.S.
>pennies look like copper to the casual observer.

According to the U.S.Dept. of the Treasury (via the 1993 World Almanac):
"A change in the composition of the cent was effected in 1982, when the
current copper-plated zinc cent was introduced to replace the traditional
95% copper cent."

     Richard M. Mathews			Lietuva laisva = Free Lithuania
					Brivu Latviju  = Free Latvia
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		Eesti vabaks   = Free Estonia
					        WE  DID  IT!!!

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: frisinv@alleg.edu
Subject: Undergraduate Research?
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:41:53 GMT

I don't know what the net rules are on this subject, but I might as well  
give it a shot:

   I an an undergraduate physics and mathematics major looking for  
research experience via a summer research program. The problem I keep  
running into is that all the programs I can find require that the  
applicant be at least a junior. Unfortunately I am in my first year. I  
will be one class short of being a junior and two classes short of  
completing my degree requirements in physics at the end of the spring  
semester (early May). I think this would qualify me despite being less  
than a junior. I hope that some kind soul could point me towards a program  
that might take me. I am just looking for a name and address or the like.  
Can anyone help me out?  
--
Vincent Frisina
Email: frisinv@alleg.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: eng10370@nusunix1.nus.sg (CHEW JOO SIANG)
Subject: grav
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:51:20 GMT


Xref: sparky sci.physics:21335 sci.astro:13224
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Has the Hulse-Taylor Pulsar GR "Observation" Been Retracted? (was Re: Beckmann Physics)
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:28:58 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <BzD34p.Gpv@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>
>carlip@landau.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip) writes:
>
: there is absolutely no doubt that general relativity predicts gravitational
: radiation --- this can be shown through exact solutions, numerically, by
: use of systematic approximation procedures, and by general arguments about
: the asymptotic structure of spacetime.
>
>     "Absolutely no doubt"?  Then why is this point being contested by
>several GR specialists currently?  Take the 1992 Yu paper as the latest
>example.  Can you provide a clear, understandable refutation of his argument?
>(See my summary in a simultaneous reply to Matt Austern.)  If so, will you be
>publishing a rebuttal?  I'd realy like to get this point cleared up.

	Yu's argument is apparently that the total mass-energy of a
system is not a well-defined quantity in GR. Although that is true in
general, it is _not_ true for a system with an asymptotically flat
spacetime, where total energy, momentum, angular momentum, and
center-of-mass location (the familiar 10 integrals) are well-defined
quantities.

	Furthermore, even if the total energy was not a well-defined
quantity, one could always calculate the effect of the radiation
reaction. I have to wonder how Yu's paper made it past the referees.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky sci.physics:20997 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2540 sci.optics:1300
From: ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics
Subject: Re: Does unitary QM permit connection signals after all?
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Date: 12 Dec 1992 23:19:27 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: euclid.math.ubc.ca

Sarfatti has regressed.

In article <Bz4yut.83L@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us 
(Jack Sarfatti) writes:
|OK boys and girls. I may have found an error in my "retraction proof" that
|standard unitary reversible (forget dissipation) quantum mechanics does not
|permit the quantum connection signal.

Ugh.

|Therefore, even though the "bare" inner product vanishes, i.e.,
|
|<1e+|1o-> = 0  (5)
|
|We cannot logically conclude that the "dressed" inner product (i.e., matrix
|element of operator S(&)e^-i&|1&><1&| sandwiched between these orthogonal
|states) also vanishes.

Call this operator S(&)e^-i&|1&><1&| of yours "U". If U is unitary,
then <1e+|1o->=0 DOES logically imply that <1e+|U|1o->=0 also.

Follow-up to alt.sci.physics.new-theories.

Keith Ramsay
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca