HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:26:04 GMT

                                          11-20-92
Dear Mr. Snyder

You wrote:


>Mr Abian:

>You have also stated that the only way to test this is to use a cosmic
>energy-meter coupled to part of the universe.  
 
  I don't remember saying "The only way" , I hope not !
  
>I have designed a simpler experiment with which to test your theory   

Mr. Snyder, if you are serious, I am extremely interested in your
project of building a "Local Cosmic Energymeter".  I would be very
grateful to you, since it will confirm my theory.


>Suppose I very accurately measure the energy levels of single
>electrons in a collection of identical systems here on earth.

>Now suppose, *100 years* later (during which time, according to your
>theory, ALL MATTER has been exponentially losing energy), I very
>accurately measure the energy levels of single electrons in an
>identical collection of identical systems here on earth.  (These
>collections being identical to that earlier collection.)

>We then compare the latter measurements to the former measurements.
>If the energy of all matter in the universe is exponentially
>decaying, surely we should be able to observe it in my electrons,
>should we not?  And such experimental confirmation would surely 
>win the Nobel Prize for you (the originator of the theory).

     However, there are at least 2 points that I would like very much
if you would elucidate, elaborate and comment on:

 (1)   100 years to wait, is too long !  I wish you required not
       more than a year.

 (2)   Also, you have to keep the original collection of single electrons
       for your second time measurement.
       You cannot have "identical" collection (nevermind after 100 year)
       but even after  2 hours. You have to keep the original collection.
       TIME affects everything, it leaves its depleting-energy stamp on
       everything. There is no "identical two things" - You should keep the 
       original collection (superbly insulated).

     Also, I would think that it would be advisable to consider the con-
tribution of energy to moving time FORWARD BY A MUCH, MUCH LARGER MASS 
THAN an electron (I know the fantastic measurements that you people per-
form).  However,I do not think that you will have sensitive enough instru-
ments and methods to measure the contribution of the energy on the part of
an electron for moving time FORWARD (I know you will disagree with me
on this point). Your results at an electron level will indicate 0 loss of
energy which would be utterly misleading.      


     With best wishes and regards,    
-- 
   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: jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton)
Subject: Re: Three-sided coin
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:01:24 GMT

Blair Houghton posted an article that I intended to respond to
but I was too busy to do it immediately and news articles on our
system disappear very rapidly - so I no longer have the article
nor do I have any idea of Blair's address.

Blair, if you're reading this, could you mail me a copy of your
last article on the Three sided coin.

	Jim
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA .  Att:  PRATT  and BUDNIK - AXIOM OF CHOICE
Summary: ABIAN GIVES SET-THEORETICAL MODELS WITH AND WITHOUT AXIOM OF CHOICE
Keywords: Set-theoretical Models, AXIOM OF CHOICE
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:37:04 GMT

                                    11-18-92

Dear Messrs  PRATT and BUDNIK,
 
 I will give you a set-theoretical model  S  in which the Axiom of Choice
is valid and I will give you a set-theoretical model K in which the Axiom
of Choice is not valid.   Of course these are not models for ZF set-
theory.  But S  as well as  K  are set-theoretical models for very, very, 
very modest and weak set-theories:
    
   We denote by {a, b, ...}  a set whose elements are  a, b, ...

   The set-theoretical model S  has only the following sets:

{ }  empty set denoted by  0,   {0},   {{0}},   {0,{0}},   {{0},{{0}}}
  
  

AXIOM OF CHOICE STATES:  A nonempty set whose elements are pairwise 
                         disjoint nonempty sets  has a CHOICE SET. 

    
 THEOREM.  In set-theoretical model  S  the Axiom of Choice is valid.

 PROOF. It suffices to show that  the sets  {{0}}   and  {{0},{{0}}}
        of model  S  have Choice sets.
 
 Clearly,   {0} is a Choice set of  {{0}}      and
           
            {0, {0}}   is a Choice set of  {{0}, {{0}}} 
 
and both of them are sets of  S.

    
    Next, I introduce the set-theoretical model  K.
    
    Using notations introduced above,
   
    The set-theoretical model  K  has only the following sets:

          0,     {0},     {{0}},        {{0}, {{0}}} 

  
  THEOREM.  In  set-theoretical model K  the Axiom of Choice fails.

  PROOF. The set  {{0}}, {{0}}}  fails to have a Choice set in the model K.
          
  (because the only candidate for its Choice set is  {0,{0}} which is
   not a set of  K)  



  P.S. Although  S  and  K  are set-theoretical models for extremely,
       extremely, extremely week set-theories, nevertheless my exposi-
       tion  exhibits, presents and clarifies the crux of the matter,  
       and dispels the myth surrounding  the Axiom of Choice.
       Of course, to construct a model which supplies all the sets  
       required by Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms and where AC is not vlid 
       is a monumental task and needs extremely skillful and ingenious 
       construction, which was done by P.J.Cohen who is at Stanford,
       where, Mr. Pratt you are too. Cohen (being a true genius) must agree 
       that my models convey the gist of the gist of the matter. Ask him!.
    
  There may be some typos - it is around midnight and I am emotionally
  exhausted, and cannot proof-read.

      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
From: dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser)
Subject: Re: How can you measure the following ?
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:27:56 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division


Measure the length of the building's shadow.

Measure the length of the tape measure's shadow when it has a 
known vertical height.

Sell the barometer.  Buy a beer.  Perform the calculations.
-- 

 To the cat, the experimenter is problematic.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: Re: Your 500-line morning laugh:  Larson's crackpot theory
Organization: University of Manitoba, Canada
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:26:17 GMT

In article <BUHR.92Nov15183520@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, I write:

>   I saw this on "alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk" and nearly wet myself.
[ long Larsonian summary omitted . . . ]

Whoops!  My apologies.  Someone has informed me that this gets posted
once every few weeks here.  I've been way to busy lately to read this
newsgroup, so I missed it.  Anyway, I've deleted my copy.

Besides, time having inertia is so much funnier.

Kevin Buhr <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Continuos vs. discrete models Was: The size of electrons, ...
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 22:06:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.123636.23533@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
>I think quite
>a few physical systems are properly thought of as discrete, and
>the continuous description is an approximation.

Name three, please.
From: mcirvin@scws1.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Higgs Spotted?
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:05:01 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <15NOV199206450358@utahep.uta.edu> sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes:
>Any bump in the two photon invariant mass
>spectrum is most likely some sort of technipion. And as a friend of mine
>whispered to me during a talk on technicolor theory,"If this is how
>God made the universe, I want out !"

Forgive me if this sounds idiotic, but isn't it the basic idea behind
technicolor that there *aren't* any technipions?  Or are we talking about
a situation in which not all of the spontaneously broken degrees of
freedom are gauged, so that some of the Goldstone bosons survive the
Higgs mechanism?
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: rivero <rivero@cc.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: Lowneheim-Skolem theorem (was: Continuos vs. discrete models)
X-Xxdate: Mon, 23 Nov 92 17:03:04 GMT
Organization: fisica teorica UZ
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:05:37 GMT

In article <368@mtnmath.UUCP> Paul Budnik, paul@mtnmath.UUCP writes:
>The discussion on L-S has apparently misled you. I believe that the
>space-time manifold is discrete, i. e. not continuous. There are many
>ways to discriminate between a continuous and discrete model and this
>has nothing to do with countability. Perhaps the most dramatic is that

Perhaps we are confusing discrete=coordinable with N, the natural
numbers set, with discrete=lacking continuity.

Upwards L-S theorem is relevent in the first case, but not in the second.

(Continuity is a interesting concept to play with. By example, the
non-conmmutatibe objects people is lately playing with can be foliations,
discrete things or things we are not capable of seeing yet, but they
can always be seen throught the glass of its continous functions).

Alejandro Rivero
Zaragoza Univ, Spain
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: W-waves
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:26:27 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Distribution: na
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <17NOV199211373008@csa3.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>It is unbelievably unlikely that someone will discover a "missing piece"
>of a unified field theory by measuring the spacings of plant leaves.  I
>can't say anything very constructive without some more detail, but it
>certainly *sounds* like you wasted $20.     ...

Not if he got it autographed.  

Whenever my "favorites" actually show up at an APS meeting, I try to get 
them to autograph their abstract in the Bulletin.  Then it goes in a special 
place in my library, right next to the "Secret Life of Plants".  Sounds 
like I missed an opportunity at the SESAPS meeting in Knoxville.  Oh well. 

BTW, those who complain about the unmoderated nature of sci.physics have 
obviously not read the abstracts for the national meeting of the APS.  I 
keep waiting for mcelwain to discover the collected works of S.M.Ayub 
or Bryan Wallace or .....

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Solution of the quantum optics paradoxes.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:30:22 GMT


Sarfatti Lectures in Advanced Physics (Lecture 5)

Solution of the paradox of local dynamics vs linearity.

("Advanced" = "from the future" as in "advanced potential")

*I have changed name from "super" to "advanced" because John Baez does not
like the word "super".

Consider again the polarizing beam splitter in which the |e+> and |o->
states do not have a common support in space. Let a 1/2-wave plate be
placed in the o beam only. Then the local unitary operator on the ket-space
describing the dynamical interaction of the plate on the photon is U(o1/2)

Therefore,

U(o,1/2)|I> = U(o,1/2)[|e+><e+|I> + |o-><o-|I>]

= |e+><e+|I> + |o+><o-|I>

therefore,

<I|U(o,1/2)*U(o,1/2)|I> = |<e+|I>|^2 + |<o-|I>|^2

+ <I|e+><e+|o+><o-|I> + <I|o-><o+|e+><e+|I>

If <e+|o+> = 0 then the transformation is unitary. So orthogonality is a
sufficient condition, but it is not necessary since

<e+|o+> = i

<o+|e+> = -i

will also work.  When |e+> and |o+> are parallel but pi/2 out of phase we
can get a mean quantum connection signal in the pair case.  Henry Stapp's
proof against mean quantum connection signals for transmitter
interferometers requires not only unitarity but also orthogonality of |e+>
and |o+>.

Note, that if we start with

|I> = (1/sqrt2)[|e+> - |o->]

then

U(o,1/2)|I> = (1/sqrt2)[|e+> - |o+>]

if

|o+> = i|e+>

<o+| = -i<e+|

U(o,1/2)|I> = (1/sqrt2)|e+>[1 - i]

<I|U(o,1/2)*U(o,1/2)|I> = (1/2)[1 + i][1 - i] = 1

There is no problem with unitarity having parallel |e+> and |o+> kets and
there is no paradox between local dynamical action and linearity of the
operators in Hilbert space.

Thus, for photon pair:

|a,b> = (1/sqrt2)[|ae+>|be+> + |ao->|bo->]

phase plate (phi) in a's e-path and 1/2 wave plate in a's o path

U(a,e,phi)U(a,o,1/2)|a,b> = (1/sqrt2)[e^iphi|ae+>|be+> + |ao+>|bo->]

Let |ao+> = i|ae+>

U(a,e,phi)U(a,o,1/2)|a,b> = (1/sqrt2)|ae+>[e^iphi|be+> + i|bo->] = |a,b>'

so

|a,b>' = |a>|b>

!a> = |ae+>

|b> = (1/sqrt2)[e^iphi|be+> + i|bo->]


p(e'+') = |<e'+'|b>|^2

= [1 - sin2@sin(phi)]/2

p(o'-') = |<o'-'|b>|^2

= [1 + sin2@sin(phi)]/2

so mean quantum connection signal at receiver is

sin2@sin(phi)

where @ is angle between the e' basis of receiver polarizer beam splitter
and the e basis of the transmitter polarizer beam splitter at the events
that each photon in the same pair scatters from them.  The space-time
interval between these two scattering events for parts of the same
connected pair does not matter.

On the other hand, if <e+|o+> = 0 there is no quantum connection signal in
the mean though it may be detectable in the fluctuations of the receiver
photocurrents which should still be proportional to sin2@.
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA.  I stand by my proof of FUNDAMENTAL THM OF ALG.
Summary:  I stand by my $500 wager. Pratt, Da Costa why don't you accept it?
Keywords: FUND. THM. ALG. WAGER $500. 
                                                  11-22-92
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:17:22 GMT

ABIAN'S PROOF OF THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA

   I have given both an unabridged and abridged proofs of the FUNDAMENTAL
THEOREM OF ALGEBRA.  They were posted and reposted several times and
there is no need to repost again.
 
  Several people's reaction was that my proof is  "a load of crap", 
"utter bullshit" (they even did not use the polite form "beta-sigma",
invented by me!) and that I am  "a crackpot".
  Among the above people are:  V. R. PRATT of Stanford University and
  P.Da COSTA.


  My answer to these people was and is.  
    
   "I WAGER $500. SHOW MY PROOF TO A (impartial) FACULTY MEMBER OF 
    THE MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY WHO IS A SPECIA-
    LISTS IN THE THEORY OF ANALYTIC FUNCTIONS. IF THE SPECIALIST FINDS
    MY PROOF INCORRECT I WILL PAY (only once -to the first challenger-
    there is always the first, even among the twins).  BUT IF THE SPECIAL-
    IST FINDS MY PROOF CORRECT THE CHALLENGER MUST PAY ME $500."  
  
  Ladies and Gentlemen, is my wager fair enough ?
    
 So far they did not accept my Wager, instead like poisonous mosquitoes 
they bite and bite with personal innuendoes "crackpot", "bullshit", etc.

  Also, Mr. Pratt do not compare me with Newton.  My little finger has more
intelligence than Newton and Einstein put together.  
 
  Finally, if Mr Pratt or Da Costa you desire further explanation con-
cerning my proof: first, you must publicly declare that you are 
declining to accept my wager, and: second, you must ask me politely
without any explicit or implicit personal innuendoes or sarcasm to give 
further explanation and to point out where your reasoning fails.  Other-
wise, this is the last time you are hearing from me concerning FTA.
    
  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
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:27:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.025934.14280@reks.uia.ac.be> gustin@evs2.uia.ac.be (Emmanuel Gustin) writes:
>Okay, science can't tell us anything about religion; a God you can subject
>to scientific study is not a God but a part of nature. The other way
>around is possible; because if God knows everything, He could tell us
>something we don't know, and if he is all-powerfull, the He can show his
>powers, doing the impossible. And most religions tell us He did...
>However, then we COULD make a scientific study about His existence,
>implying that God is part of nature, and thus cannot act against nature's
>laws. So all this logic adds up to nothing. My hasty conclusion: whether
>you believe God exists or not, logic won't help you to convince anyone.

     To make this much stronger, 'All-powerful' and 'all-knowing' 
     is a concept outside of science.   One cannot determine such a
     concept within science.

>More important: Science can't accept religion as a part of its structure -
>nor superstition of prejudice.  But religion has to accept logic and
>science, and many religious people have no trouble with that - what the
>pope tried to show when he apologized for the Galilei trial. Theology is
>based on faith but is not a purely mystical affair. As G.K. Chesterton
>made father Brown say when caught fake priest: attacking Logic is bad
>theology. People can't (at least not forever) believe in something that is
>clearly not true. Thus mixing religion into science is *impossible*, but
>mixing science into religion is an *inevitability*. 

     Religion has to accept nothing.  Do you honestly think that the 
     Jains base their belief in reincarnation on *logic*?  There is no
     logic that explains basic facts of existence that must be
     assumed.

     Also, 'clearly not true' is in the eye of the beholder.

>Yes, I know there are lots of people who refuse to mix some science in
>their religion - creationists and others. But don't blame religion for
>this; it's bad science AND bad theology. It is true that religion is

     It is perfectly consistent theology.  It is *not* science.

                          dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Ferromagnetism and the Clash of Cultures
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 22:27:39 GMT

In article alison@wsrcc.com (Alison Chaiken)  writes:

>By the way, Dr. Baez, I'm a solid-state experimentalist, not a
>theorist.  I have to be careful because real theorists are watching.

Hmm, maybe that explains why I can't understand most of what you are
saying about ferromagnetism.  That's not meant as a flame! -- just a
comment on the frustrations of trying to communicate across culture
gaps.  You are using terminology I think I understand but in ways that
are completely mysterious to me.  E.g., "a gap opens in the top of the
spectrum."  I know what a spectrum is and what a gap in one is, but
thinking of the spectrum as a dynamical variable subject to change
("opens") is foreign to me (perhaps the implicit reference to time in
"opens" is somewhat metaphorical?).  Also, a gap at the *top* of a
spectrum makes as much sense to me as saying  "there's a hole in this
hole" - to me the top of the spectrum is where the spectrum leaves
off, so what would a "gap" there be?

Also, I understand the concept of exchange energy but don't get how it
is less when spins are lined up for ferromagnets.

Sigh.  I'm sure I am equally incomprehensible to most experimentalists.
Or is that physicists who specialize in "fundamental" physics don't
always learn enough about solid state to talk about it in a
rough-and-ready sort of way?  Maybe this has something to do with why
there's not much talk about solid state on sci.physics?


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: siegemun@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Stephan Siegemund-Broka)
Subject: safety of halogen lamps
Originator: usenet@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:59:05 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

I saw an article in the NYTimes a while ago that said that
halogen lamps produce a lot of radiation in the UV-b region.
This is supposedly a harmful part of the spectrum.  The authors
were irate  over the fact that manufactures of the these lamps 
do not in general supply some sort of a cover to filter these rays out.
Any comments???
Thanks 
Stephan Siegemund-Broka
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Oklahoma
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: energy, mass, and all that
Date: 22 Nov 92 13:17:28
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<20NOV199207183499@csa3.lbl.gov> <98706@netnews.upenn.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu's message of 22 Nov 92 17:51:48 GMT

In article <98706@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

> Why don't we *define* energy and mass before complaining about definition
> stretching?  The naive notion for energy is just the ability to do work,
> ie, accelerate mass through a distance, and for mass it is just the
> inertial resistance to an acceleration.

This isn't a terribly good definition of mass, since force and
acceleration aren't proportional---i.e., the acceleration an object
undergoes is not parallel to a force that is applied to it.  (I
realize that Matthew never said that acceleration and force *are*
parallel; I don't claim that he made any gross mistakes.  My point is
just that the relation between force and acceleration is sufficiently
complicated that it doesn't make a very good definition.)

In nonrelativistic contexts, of course, that's a fine definition;
another fine definition of mass in a nonrelativistic context is that
it is the gravitational "charge".  (It isn't obvious that the two
definitions give the same result; experimentally, however, it appears
to be true.)

In a relativistic context, however, I think a more useful definition
of mass is that an object's mass is the energy of that object in its
rest frame.  In my field of physics, at least, that definition is the
customary one.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: sci.physics,rec.puzzles