HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Another antigravity device
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 01:36:20 GMT

Since you all liked the last one so much, here's another idea for
building an antigravity device.  Since I am becoming associated with the
crackpot index, I had better firmly point out that I don't really
believe in antigravity devices, and I don't even spend time dreaming up
antigravity devices.  This one is the invention of my friend Bruce K.
Smith, who I hasten to add doesn't really take it seriously.  So
- see if you can spot the flaw in the idea!

Imagine an extremely (although not infinitely) rigid crystal.  It takes
a huge amount of energy to deform the crystal lattice ever so slightly.
Thus if this crystal is placed in the earth's gravitational field at sea
level, the curvature of space due to the gravity prevents the
lattice from being perfectly regular, at the cost of a large amount of
energy.  The crystal would have much less energy if it were far away
from the earth where the curvature of space is less.  If we make the
crystal rigid enough it will actually be energetically favorable for the
crystal to float upwards - since the decrease in its internal energy
will more than compensate for the increase in gravitational potential
energy.

Now, I *know* that this material would have to be insanely rigid for
this effect to be noticeable at all -- far more rigid than any actual
stuff.  However, we're talking questions of principle here.  Is there
any reason *in principle* why a sufficiently rigid material wouldn't
levitate to get out of the earth's gravitational field - that's what I'm
asking.  
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.research moderated
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:17:39 GMT

In article <MATT.92Dec17225435@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.051840.28801@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:
>
>> I'm not so sure about this. Physicists working on fundamental questions do
>> philosophy all the time, whether they like it or not. As for discussions
>> degenerating into "I'm right, you're wrong." : is there any other kind of
>> discussion here?							   
>
>The way I look at it, whether or not some particular
>philosophically-oriented article belongs on sci.physics.research can
>be decided in the same way as for an article on any other kind of
>subject: is it germane to a serious discussion about physics?

     Absolutely, that's the reason I put in the caveat, 'without
     obvious technical/physical content'.  As a part of some physical
     discussion, it may well be germane.  

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: Richard P. Feynman
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:27:59 GMT

In article <R0RkVB1w165w@sys6626.bison.mb.ca>, al@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (haus der luge) writes:


|> Oh, and by the way, I'm an ARTS student - of the 'worst' kind to many 
|> physicists - a political philosophy major !!!
|>  
|> I won't come right out and say that I was offended by some of the rather 
|> rude and prejudiced comments mentioned by some members of this newsgroup, 
|> but I was.  I don't see why I can't enjoy (and understand) both Hannah 
|> Arendt and Oppenheimer or Feynman.  Please recall that Mr. Feynman 
|> specialized in physics but also painted and played the bongos, among many 
|> other endeavours not normally associated with 'scientists'.

Rudeness is pretty much endemic on usenet, so rude comments are not too 
surprising.  You don't seem to be getting their point, however, given your 
response.  I don't think scientists are upset that someone would enjoy 
both political philosophy and science -- they're upset that so few non-
scientists try (which I suppose means you should feel implicitly complimented). 
To be sure, the claim that students of the arts don't appreciate science 
is a gross oversimplification.  Based on the limited sample available to me, 
philosophers and social scientists tend to be quite interested in 
science (at least economists are -- my wife is an economist and her 
colleagues always quiz me about physics at social functions).  It's the 
lit-crit types that I've generally (still generalizing, of course) 
found to be uninterested in science.  Off-hand I can't think of any 
reason that observation should be taken as rude: wrong maybe, but not 
rude.

|> Besides, the latest discoveries in the sciences are beginning to blur any 
|> distinction between our two main fields in many respects.

In what way?

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: A1 DECODED
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:17:17 GMT

In article <BCR.92Dec11180720@hfl3sn02.cern.ch> bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.012751.9891@infodev.cam.ac.uk> crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones) writes:
>> Bill C. Riemers wrote:
>>   > A1:  The action of matter can be explained by a tendency of a 
>>   >      system (of particles) to maintain a steady state, react
>>   >      to an external influance, and to again maintain a steady
>>   >      state.
>
>> This is close to what Abian wrote, except that he extrapolated it to
>> everything, not just application of force. It only works as a
>> generalisation of N1 and N2 if you define "state" as "velocity" and
>> "influence" as "force".
>
>Why not just define "velocity" as "a state of a particle" and
>"force" as "a type of influence"?  Then we can keep the same
>meaning as Abian intended while also applying it to a specific
>case.

    Of course, you've missed 'internal' influences, decay, etc.
    However, assuming we can suitably redefine 'external' to include
    'internal', why not change 'matter' to 'cheese', or 'economics', or 
    'wildebeest'.  Now it works for anything, because it says 'things 
    don't change unless they do'.  This is  probably true, but who cares?

    The principle is still as vacuous as it was when abian figured out
    how to post. The important concept is not in this tautological observation,
    but in *how* things move and change.  I doubt abian will ever
    figure that out.

    D1: THINGS MAY CHANGE (dale bass, 1992)

    You can keep the medal and meeting the King, I just want the money.
   
                             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:  (jmhodapp@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu)
Subject: Re: How does Superman create thrust? (WAS Re: The Batman Light: How
Organization: master/peon
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 21:44:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.082121.14239@news.mentorg.com>, bcannard@hppcb36.mentorg.com (The Human Mi-Go) writes:
> 
> In article <3319@ucl-cs.uucp>, G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) writes:
> |> 
> |> He was brought up on Kryton, which was much more massive than Earth,
> |> 
> |> Hence his superstrength and flying powers.

> Except:
> 
> (a) He loses his strength under a red sun, even with Earth-normal gravity.
> 

The article to read on this topic is Larry Niven's "Man Of Steel/Woman Of
Kleenex," which attempts to rationalize Superman's powers, and apply them
to the problem of mating with Lois Lane.  Several topics are addressed:

A)  Super-sperm flying right out of LL into the sky over Metropolis
B)  How a super-orgasm wouldd blow LL's head off
C)  What Kryptonite colors do what, and their appropriateness to the problem

A must read!!

Jon jmhodapp@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Top Ten Little Used Super Powers:

10) The ability to communicate with corn...
2) Ability to score with other superheroes' wives
-Dave Letterman

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: doerfler@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (ronald.w.doerfler)
Subject: Re: Materials for simple static electricity expts.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:34:56 GMT

>jweiss@paintbrush.cgd.ucar.edu (Jeffrey Weiss) writes:
>
>>In my physics classes I recall we used cat fur, bakelite rods, and
>>pith balls to do simple static electricity experiments.  Does anyone
>>have any suggestions for common household substitutes?  I've found
>>that rubbing plastic silverware with a wool blanket charges the
>>plasticware, which I can then use to charge other plasticware.  I thus
>>can create many charged spoons and forks but they all have same-sign
>>charges.  Any hints on getting oppositely charged objects?
>>--
>>Jeff
>>jweiss@ncar.ucar.edu

To revert to the really mundane, a balloon can be easily charged up by
rubbing it on a sweater.  In addition to sticking to walls and ceilings,
you can place it near a thin stream of water from a faucet.  The water
bends A LOT, and it's real impressive.

A card trick feature to reveal the chosen card is to rub the card on
your pant leg and slap it on the wall, where it should stick, revealing
the face of the chosen card (I have mixed results).

A way to oppositely charge objects involves using a stream of water
from a faucet.  I ask others for help in this, but I know that there
are something like two metal containers and the water splits between them
(hmm, maybe it's water drops!).  A piece of one container rises up and
comes near the drops, and the charge on it moves the drops to fall in
one container or the other depending on it's net charge.  Wow, I'm
stopping here-I really need help remembering this one.  I does
involve water drops and a large charge difference can be generated
by the positive feedback.  It's supposed to be really simple.

Ron Doerfler


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA (A1) EXPLAINS GRAVITATION
Keywords: ABIAN's PRINCIPLE (A1)
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:58:21 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA

>> Upon the provocation of togetherness the Bing Bang occurred.  The matter
>> was cut asunder. 
>>
>>The Mighty Abian, whom we all worship slavishly

 >I must say mr. Abian that you are quite a split personality. 
 >How on Earth can you claim that there has been a Big Bang ?????
 >The only reason why we think there has been a Big Bang, is that we
 >believe in General Relativity and in addition the observation 
 >of the microwave background, whose explanation also requires GR and
 >Special Relativity. 
 >
 >You are accepting things which is based on our present knowledge
 >in physics, and still you claim that this physics is faulty ???
 >
 >jarleb@medusa.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann)

no no no!  you have it all wrong!!  abian is explaining the BING BANG theory,
                                                              ^
in which certain types of cherries feel a sense of security when creating
galaxies at high velocities after imploding.

please pay closer attention to the sacred posts if you wish to step into
the _real_ physics.

ha ha ha ha ha.

ok
dpm
-- 
murphy@npri6.npri.com 602 Cameron St. Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 683-9090

              When every one is dead the Great Game is finished.  Not before.
                              --- Hurree Babu, "Kim"
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:08:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.084710.13551@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:
>marco@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (John Perry) writes:
>: 
>: To quote a physicist who knows a lot more about science than anyone 
>: reading this newsgroup:
>: 
>: "Science without religion is lame."
>:                                 -Albert Einstein
>: 
>I know more about physics than Einstein does. You see, he's dead.


     Not only that, but his brain was sliced into slivers.  Sure
     wreaks havoc on the connections...

                              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: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Re: How does Scotty beam up? (WAS Re: Superman... (WAS Re: Batman...))
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 04:45:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.065616.10785@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>  
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> 
> Now that we have explained how that Batman light works and that Superman
> propels himself with neutrinos, can somebody kindly explain how Scotty's
> transporter works?
> 

How it works is not so relevant, since it is not a means of
transportation, but rather a means of execution. Why people
willingly step into a machine that vaporizes them is beyond me.

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.  VERIFIABILITY CARRIED TO RIDICULE IN GR AND QM
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:14:32 GMT

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
:     
:     Trust me.
From: kilcup@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Greg Kilcup)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: FEYNMAN GRAPH EXPANSION QUESTION
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:55:48 GMT
Organization: Ohio State University; Physics Department

brandt@cco.caltech.edu  (William N. Brandt) asks ...

> Does anyone know of a way to systematically generate all the Feynman
> graphs to a given order for a certain process, say e-e+ ---> e-e+?
> Or at least a method for predicting how many graphs there will be?
> (I am interested in connected distinct Feynman graphs only). Any
> references would be appreciated.

It is possible to count graphs rather easily.  The combinatorics
involves only the topology of graphs, and not the actual spacetime
dimension.  Therefore the counting can be done in a 0-dimension
theory, which can be trivially solved.  The numbers of graphs
appear as the coefficients in a Taylor series expansion of an
expression involving Bessel functions.  Look at, e.g., Itzykson
and Zuber p. 466 for a discussion.

> Do there exist computer programs which systematically generate and
> compute the s matrix contributions or is this usually done by hand?

There are indeed computer programs, such as the Mathematica package
FeynArts (ftp to: archive.umich.edu:/physics/mathematica/FeynArts.tar.Z),
which can at least draw two loop graphs.  However, the four loop
calculation of the electron anomalous magnetic moment was done
without the aid of such programs.  There are 891 graphs, and in a
seminar some ten years ago I heard Kinoshita remark that he was
happy to be able to write down all the graphs in the space of an
hour without missing one.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Kilcup                   kilcup@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu
Asst. Prof. of Physics        kilcup@ohstpy.bitnet
The Ohio State University     (614) 292-3224
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: quantum cosmology
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 19:40:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.171644.74@vms.huji.ac.il> tabitha@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>A question about quantum cosmology from a non-physicist.
>
>If space and time came into existence with the big bang, in
>what would the quantum fluctuation have occured?

This is one of those questions they only tell you the answer to when you
get your PhD, and they make you promise not to tell anyone.
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21292 news.groups:24460
From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
Subject: Atropos needed (was: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics)
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:31:52
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
	<BCR.92Dec16000355@hfl3sn02.cern.ch>
	<MATT.92Dec15152210@physics.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec16.075642.19770@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com
In-reply-to: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU's message of Wed, 16 Dec 1992 07:56:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.075642.19770@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 

       Philosophy of science, and non-technical subjects should also be 
       excluded, no matter how 'serious'.

I like the philosophy of science stuff --- within limits.  Sci.physics
would be better if postings on the Many Worlds Interpretation or Is Physics
Discrete or Religion And Science were cut off when they stopped saying
anything really new.  (The same goes for Should the Govt. Fund the SSC.)

For that matter, despite the enormous volume on the misnamed Many Worlds
Interpretation, I still haven't seen the definitive posting--- one that
would give a brief account of decoherence, or Griffith's histories
or Omnes' logical interpretation.  Perhaps it was there, but I missed it
under all the chaff.

And let's keep the non-serious stuff, at least when it's like the "Happy
Birthday Isaac" posting.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA -     Re; JASON DOING REAL PHYSICS
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 01:11:36 GMT

In <1992Dec20.160043.10924@vax.oxford.ac.uk> reese@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
                                    12-20-92
Dear Jason,

You write

>Starve him (ABIAN) of the oxygen of
>publicity, and then we can all go back to discussing real physics.

>Jason

My answer:

    You cannot discuss real Physics unless you  accept  (A1) to (A4).

    In fact, how can you do real Physics without settling the question of
    TIME ?.  
       
       Neither the Classical, nor Relativistic nor Quantum Physics
       have treated TIME in a serious manner.  They all gloss over
       it, avoid it and don't have the nerve, guts and insight 
       to  touch it.  
  
  Physics will not advance unless they accept that:
 
(A2)   TIME HAS INERTIA  (i.e., TIME IS MATTER)  and some cosmic
       energy is irretrievably dissipated to move TIME forward
       
       according to     dE = -A t dt    (E is the energy of the Cosmos)

       (rejecting the Conservation of Energy principle)

  Also, Physics will not advance unless  forces related to  primal
  craving of gaining  a feeling of security are considered as the 
  most basic cause of behavior of  particles, persons, planets, etc. i.e.,

(A3)  THE PRIMAL CAUSE AND REASON OF EVERY ACTION IS THE GAINING OF 
      A FEELING OF SECURITY
 
 also in accordance to  (A1) and (A4). 

       You cannot do serious Physics unless  (A2), (A3), (A1) and (A4)
are accepted as basic principles.

                                        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: jmack@surf.rice.edu (Jeffrey Mackey)
Subject: Peebles, Princeton, QM
Organization: Physics
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:11:45 GMT


Hello folks. I'm interested in talking to people who have
taken graduate quantum mechanics at Princeton or have used
or read Peeble's book in a class or for personal enjoyment.
Please contact by e-mail:
jmack@surf.rice.edu (Jeff Mackey)
Thanks for your attention.
-J
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: Attraction & repulstion Re: The answer to not so fundamental questions?
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
	<1992Dec11.152227.1@sscvx1.ssc.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:56:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.152227.1@sscvx1.ssc.gov> draper@sscvx1.ssc.gov writes:
   In article <BCR.92Dec11004605@hfl3sn02.cern.ch>, bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers) writes:
>   > Like charges exchange more posative momentum photons, while negative charges
>                                    "unlike",right?

No.  Immagine if we throw a ball back in forth in a gravity free environment.  Since
a ball is a real object the absolute momentum exchanges must be posative.  So I throw
the ball and fly backwards.  You then cetch the ball and fly backwards.  Consiquently,
the exchange of a positive momentum object results in a repulsive force.  Like charges
repell, unlike attract.

>  > exchange more negative momentum photons.
>  > 
>   This is extremely interesting! I asked a similar question a while ago, viz.,
>   what information does a photon carry that conveys whether it sprang from a
>   positive or negative charge, and hence tells it whether to attract or repel a
>   charge of unlike or like sign. I got all the proper admonitions about trying to
>   derive a static field result with Feynman diagrams. But you seem to have an
>   insight I'm lacking. Please clarify, expand, explain.

Yes the correct way to solve the problem is to solve the integral.  (I had to
do that once in a course.  Not, too difficult, but I wouldn't call it trivial.)
The point is you solve the integral and in one case you get a net positive momentum
exchanged, in the other a net negative momentum exchanged.  However, the integration
is just totaling momentum exchange by photons.  So it seems reasonable to interpret
the result satistically as I have above.

Obcourse, now we are moving into the follow-up questions.  So my answers are getting
more and more unreliable.  Eventually you'll be better off asking a magic 8 ball.

                                           Bill



Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: Link invariants and gauge theory
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 06:33:39 GMT

baez@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:
[interesting stuff deleted]:                                              
:    
Can anyone								  
 [a] give me an example of a theory that is *not* diffeomorphism invariant
 [b] explain to me whether "real" physicists "really" care about
Chern-Simonsology [meaning: do they actually have a concrete use for it,
or is it something that people do while waiting for the next theory of
everything to come along?]					          
 ps I have no objection either to mathematical physics with no obvious
applications, or to things like conformal field theory that are
interesting but of no real use. Nor am I of the school who say say "so
what" when informed of the relationship between knot theory and QFT. I ask
merely for information.
From: flower@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Graham Flower)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:07:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Jobs in Physics?
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server