HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Re: SPACETIME AND BEYOND 1
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:27:57 GMT

sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
: 
: The GOD(D) Drive of the most advanced Star Ships uses this psycho-geometric
: mode of propulsion - requiring an Omega class bionic man at the helm...
: 
: Starting again from the cold mechanical computer-driven voice of Hawking:
: Is Hawking a trance-receiver of telepatypes from the future super-
: intelligence? Is Hawking a contactee of advanced extra-terrestrial
: intelligence?
				No.



: 
:
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: 1992 Nobel Prizes: a prediction
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:23:58 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Distribution: na
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Supersedes: <92190@netnews.upenn.edu>
In-reply-to: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)

In article <8OCT199210452292@csa2.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2 (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>but not complete yet.  They do, however, confirm the original work of 
>Ray Davis.  It's possible that he gets the prize for discovering the
>solar neutrino deficit.

I think Davis and Bahcall are long overdue for a joint prize.  Not to
be shared with GALLEX or any other newcomers.

>In physics they have an excellent record.  With few exceptions, (who ever
>heard of Jean Baptiste Perrin?)

I have.  He confirmed Einstein's theory of Brownian motion and determined
Avogadro's number as a result.  (This is from memory.  I could be totally
wrong.)

>				  the list of Nobel laureates is a list
>of Who's Who in physics, the names we all know and love.  Nor can I think
>of any grossly offensive ommissions, at least off the top of my head.  Can
>anybody?

Poincare?  Eddington?  Hubble?  Wheeler?  Feigenbaum?  Chu?  Hard to say.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: rev@enh.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: RE: Nobel Prize
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:09:01 GMT
Organization: NIST

In a previous article, 17158DA@MSU wrote:
>Someone once told me that the Nobel Prize is awarded to all sciences except
>one, and that one science was excluded because Nobel's wife had an affair
>with a scientist in that particular science.  I thought this person had
>told me the science was physics, but after perusing this bulletin board and
>noting all the Nobel Prize headings, I realize that I was wrong.  My first
>question is, was this person pulling my leg, or was he telling the truth?  And
>secondly, if he was correct, what science is excluded?
>Thanks!
>-Donna


I've heard the same story about mathematics.  Can't say I really believe it 
because it sounds an awful lot like an urban legand, but there is no Nobel 
Prize for mathematics.   I think the Field's Medal is the "highest" prize a 
mathematician can strive for.  I forget where I heard this, but I think a 
mathematician told me...

-Rob

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:32:33 GMT

In article <abian.718940281@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>In article <Bw0MH4.9t5@news.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct12.031922.12518@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>  I still maintain that:
>>>>>    
>>>>>   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO,  REACTION TO PROVOCATION 
>>>>>           AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO
>
>     is the overall principle which governs all the events in the Cosmos.
>                                       
>                                                        Alexander ABIAN    

     Mr. Abian.  You seem to be ignoring the fact that this statment
     may well be tautologically 'true', but it is not science.  It is as
     true as 'all objects in the universe want to be peanut butter'.
     However, if we forget for the minute that there appears to be no 
     information contained in the your oft repeated statement, there 
     is absolutely no way to tell if 'maintaining the status quo' is
     *not* the 'principle that that governs all events in the Cosmos'.
     You may assert it to your heart's content, but insofar as it is
     not falsifiable, it is not science.

> You tried to mock, to intimidate me by expressions such as"YOUR BIG
>LETTERS are boring us, we are bored, we have heard you ... stop, etc.,"
>That was (as expected) your reaction to my provocation.  I am reacting too. 

     If you want to complain about people mocking you, at least complain 
     about the ones who did it.  I'd be happy to explain via e-mail
     what a myelin sheath is.

> You say that my theories do not have the predictability aspect about them !

     They do not seem to have *any* aspect to them.  But predictability
     is not a sufficient goal, falsifiability is.  'The universe 
     will continue to exist' seems to offer predictability but
     not falsifiability.  'The universe will continue to exist' is
     not a scientific principle.

>  Well here is my prediction : "you are still annoyed with me with my
>views and with my boring answers and with my rubbing them obnoxiously
>to the entire world"

     Here's my prediction, based on my 'Peanut-butter principle'. You'll
     continue to desire to be creamed goobers by asserting to all and
     sundry that informationless metaphysics is has some meaning in
     science.  Unfortunately, you will still be incorrect.

     By the way, this exchange is not irritating to me in the least.
     I've waited *years* to get 'goober' into a USENET posting.

                                dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Mattel protest
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:16:08 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <81525@ut-emx.uucp> joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.004749.24870@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>     If the assertion is that 'we stinking men' (TM) or 'society' (TM)
>>     are keeping women from the physical sciences and mathematics, then
>>     the existence of large numbers of women in the medical profession 
>>     seems to invalidate the assertion.  
>
>Medicine is not heavily mathematical.  I know of a number of women who
>chose medicine over physics or engineering, PRECISELY because its less
>mathematical than physics or engineering.

And a fair number of women fail to achieve their goal of going into 
medicine or veternary medicine, or even biology, because they cannot 
get through the required courses in chemistry or physics because of 
difficulties with math that go back to early attitudes. 

The problem is much more common in the US than in Europe, leading to 
the clear conclusion that it is a cultural problem requiring a cultural 
solution.  A similar problem exists in inner city schools where 
success in school is viewed as meaning you are acting "white".  

--
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)
From: lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA, ALTERING THE ORBIT OF VENUS AND THE TILT OF EARTH
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:16:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Society for the Appreciation of Janni Lee Simner

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
>   I received many anonymous telephone calls in strong and fervid support 
>of my proposals: (i) TIME HAS INERTIA and the rejection of the Principles of
>Conservation of Energy and Constancy of the Speed of Light,  (ii) PUTTING 
>VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH, (iii) ALTERING THE 
>TILT OF THE EARTH to avert meteorological disasters and pernicious epidemics.

I must have missed the cosmic engineering posts.  What did THEY claim?
How did they propose to DO this?  How would an NEW TILT affect
epidemics?  Does SCI.MED knwo about this?

>   The anonymity of the callers is understandable.  Association with 
>radically bold and dauntless ideas is very often treated as an act of
>recusancy (recall that Copernicus, Galileo and many others were silenced
>and subject to a great deal of hardship for their bold and intrepid ideas).

So, for that matter, did hundreds of cranks.

How can an idea be daunted?

	Larry "I wear this tin-foil hat to protect myself from N-rays" Hammer
--

LNH@physics.arizona.edu     \   Hidden harmony is better than
GEnie: L.HAMMER2             \  manifest.  -- Heraclitus, #47
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ddixon@nyx.cs.du.edu (David Dixon)
Subject: Re: Transporter Technology
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 06:22:59 GMT

In article <1b79amINN8cl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bz223@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Danny Guy Frezza) writes:
>
>This may sound far out, but does anyone have any information on current
>research in Transporter Technology, ie, the technology used on Star Trek?
>It seems to me, that if the law of physics holds, ie, "matter cannot neither
>be created nor destroyed, but transformed into energy of another form", that
>this technology, although far out, is not impossible.
>Please email if anyone has any current research on this topic or knows of it.
>-- Thanks!
>-- 
>
>Dan Frezza
>Internet: bz223@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>
Gee, it sounds so neat, too.  While you are correct about matter/energy
being neither destroyed nor created, you have neglected that to regenerate
a human being, you have to know how to organize this matter/energy so as not
to wind up with Jello.  Given the complexity of even an inanimate object
like a rock, it would seem that a truly tremendous computer would be required
to reconstruct you or me.

This is not to rule out the technology, just to say that it probably doesn't
exist now.

					Dave
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Over the hill at 40?--->not! [maybe]
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 09:44:35 GMT

i received quite a strong response to my posting as to whether
physicists in general find the creative urge to wane once they are over
40 or so. Leaving aside one quite abusive response, and another which
insinuated that I am myself on the brink of 40 [untrue!], I turn to the
others. Most respondents were quite convinced that,in general, there is
a definite tendency for the stream of paper to abate at about that age,
but there was no agreement as to the cause. One cited the discouraging
effect of realising that most papers go unread, another claimed that
[s]he had "grown up", etc. But the best advice was the following: when
you are a PhD student, make sure that you become proficient in more than
one field, so that you will be able to switch fields later "when" [sic]
you become bored with your main field. Otherwise a cessation of activity
is all but certain. This seems like rather good advice.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:32:10 GMT

In article <abian.718940281@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

) Give me a better explanation for the violent reaction of gun-powder 
)when it is struck ! I say that  gun-powder is like a Hitler or Stalin, 
)when sufficiently provoked it will react so violently that in the 
)process it even may destroy itself and/or the provoker.
)
) Give me a better explanation of explosion of sulfuric acid when a drop
)of water is poured on it.  It wants to maintain the status quo of its
)acidity and reacts by creating heat to evaporate the intruder.  I have
)explained this before. Boring !!
) 
) The extreme violent Reaction to  provocation is the real explana-
)tion in the mechanism of the A and H bomb!  But I have explained that
)before.  Boring !!

Yeah - but why is the 'boom' from an H-bomb so much bigger than that from
gunpowder?  Is it just because H-bomb's are more irritable?  What if I
ran into some really easily annoyed gunpoweder - couldn't it get just
as mad as an H-bomb and make just as big a boom?

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jake@skatter.usask.ca
Subject: Bifurcation theory - Summary
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:20:18 GMT

I recently posted a request for references for the handling of bifurcations 
in the solution of
differential equations.  Two suggestions were:

Michael Lee:
Dynamical Systems and Chaos" by S. Wiggins, published by Springer-Verlag.
However, if you want something simpler, some books on differential
equations which deal with nonlinear equations will probably give you
all the `tools' necessary to deal with your equation.

Sonya Smith:
A good intriduction to different classes of bifurcations and methods for 
analyzing
them is in Chapter 1 of "Nonlinear Systems" by Drazin. The publisher is 
Cambridge I think.

As well as an offer of help from reusch@grump.com (Michael).

Thanks to all who responded.

Jason.
--
Jason C. Breckenridge 				jake@skatter.usask.ca

I wouldn't want to live forever, I couldn't take the tax increases.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: A proof that QM is an incomplete theory
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:23:52 GMT

In article <311@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:

)The passage of a photon through a polarizer is different then the passage
)of the associated wave-function through the polarizer. It is an all
)or nothing event like the detection of a particle. The relevant question
)is not when does the wave-function pass through the polarizer, but when does
)the particle pass through it. QM is not only silent on where a particle is
)between detections. It forbids us from making assumptions about this.
)Yet this is the question we need to answer to calculate the distribution
)of these delays. Thus there is an experimentally measurable
)parameter of a QM system that QM does not predict a value for.
)QM is an incomplete theory.

It depends on the polarizer.  If you use a calcite crystal which splits the
incoming beam into a horizontally and vertically polarized components, you
do *not* have an all or nothing event.  You pass a beam of light 'through'
such a polarizer, then pass the two resulting beams through a similarly
constructed but oppositely aligned crystal to re-combine them optically, and
you restore your original beam.  This works even if the 'beam' is a single
photon.

However, you are right (IMO) about the problems wrt the meaning of 'passing
through' - this is a problem in specifying the theory to be tested, however
(IMO again) rather than a problem with QM.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Black Holes, Hawking Radiation, and Entropy
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 22:51:53 GMT

In article <ZOWIE.92Oct15122549@daedalus.stanford.edu> zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:
>In article <mumble> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>   In article <mumble> zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (I) write:
>   >Hawking's claim, according to Dr. Susskind, is that such a time
>   >reversal is impossible, as the information in the B.H. ingredients is
>   >totally lost.  Thus, something is fishy between general relativity and
>   >quantum mechanics.
>
>   Fishiness not disputed.  However, since laboratory-scale black holes
>   are beyong the budget of most experimental physicists, why not replace
>   the black hole with a goat?  The same information loss occurs.
>
>Well, not exactly.  Yes, some information loss occurs -- in fact, we
>just wasted about two hours here in the lab, discussing just this
>argument.  The difference is that the goat is a complicated object in
>a mixed and unknowable state, where theory seems to indicate that one
>can completely specify the state of a black hole with only a few
>numbers: mass, charge and angular momentum.  (did I miss one?)
>There're just not enough different states for the B.H to be in, to
>store the information that gets thrown into it.  

This is exactly right (though black holes also have velocity if you 
aren't in the center-of-mass frame).  We've been discussing this here on
sci.physics recently and it really does seem to be a problem.  It would
not be quite so bad a problem if black holes did not radiate away to
nothing.  Then one could pretend the information was still there,
lurking in the black hole but inaccessible.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jmorzins@shimura.helios.nd.edu (jacob morzinski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Mattel protest
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:13:07 GMT
Reply-To: jmorzins@shimura.helios.nd.edu (jacob morzinski)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1avqs0INN4k5@agate.berkeley.edu>, emarkp@soda.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) writes:

|>   Oh come on!  You're all using adult reasoning about a toy which is
|> marketed towards children whose powers of reasoning isn't this developed.
|> I'm sure that any child who heard the words "Math class is tough" over and
|> over again would tend to believe it, whether it came from a toy or a friend.

Bingo!  My fault with Mattel exactly.  I agree with you completely.



		-Jacob Morzinski
From: ssivakum@hopi.intel.com (Sam Sivakumar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: 1992 Nobel Prizes: a prediction
Date: 10 Oct 92 20:10:55 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation, Aloha, OR

In article <Bvu6pr.IJu@wsrcc.com> alison@wsrcc.com (Alison Chaiken) writes:
>
>[von Klitzing won in 1986 (? or so) for the discovery of the quantized
>Hall effect.  Dorda and Pepper were his coauthors on the original
>paper.  Horst Stormer, along with a large team of people, discovered
>the fractional quantized Hall effect, which is actually much more
>interesting than the integral effect.]
>
	Horst Stormer, along with Dingle, Gossard and Weigmann was also
the first person to demonstrate enhanced electron mobility in modulation
doped GaAs/AlGaAs superlattices and thus is, at least in principle, the
father of the high electron mobility transistor and other quantum effect
semiconductor devices.

--
                                  | "I am not a satanist!  I find it hard
Sam Sivakumar                     | enough to conjure myself out of bed
ssivakum@hopi.intel.com           | every morning, leave alone conjure up
                		  | the devil!"  --  Ozzy Osbourne
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: scip1061@nuscc.nus.sg (Marc Paul Jozef)
Subject: Re: Time to develop a crackpot index?
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 11:26:44 GMT

jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
: Okay, since not everyone is posting to alt.physics.new-theories who
: should be, I think it's time to develop a crackpot index.
: 
: 3) 30 points for each posting that claims a revolutionary theory but
: gives no concrete testable predictions.


   I take it that the loop-approach is not revolutionary
   or it makes a testable prediction :-)

   But more seriously, where is Hannu?
   I miss her. Sci.physics is just no fun without her!
             
   
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Subject: Re: Time to develop a crackpot index?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:50:00 GMT

jennings@halcyon.com (James Jennings) writes...
>Have you seen Martin Gardner's 5 ways to tell a crackpot? They're listed
>in his "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science".
>
>My favorite of these is (5), which is sometimes written, "He thinks that
>by nameing something, he understands it."

Yeah, like 'force' or 'mass'.  :)

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Subject: Re: Black Holes, Hawking Radiation, and Entropy
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics
	<1992Oct15.120352.17687@sei.cmu.edu>
Distribution: sci
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:25:49

In article <mumble> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
   In article <mumble> zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (I) write:
   >Hawking's claim, according to Dr. Susskind, is that such a time
   >reversal is impossible, as the information in the B.H. ingredients is
   >totally lost.  Thus, something is fishy between general relativity and
   >quantum mechanics.

   Fishiness not disputed.  However, since laboratory-scale black holes
   are beyong the budget of most experimental physicists, why not replace
   the black hole with a goat?  The same information loss occurs.

Well, not exactly.  Yes, some information loss occurs -- in fact, we
just wasted about two hours here in the lab, discussing just this
argument.  The difference is that the goat is a complicated object in
a mixed and unknowable state, where theory seems to indicate that one
can completely specify the state of a black hole with only a few
numbers: mass, charge and angular momentum.  (did I miss one?)
There're just not enough different states for the B.H to be in, to
store the information that gets thrown into it.  A goat, on the other
hand, clearly has lots of available phase space in which useful
information could be stored (see my upcoming article in J. Info. Sci.,
"Goats as Multi-Terabyte Data Storage Devices" :-)

   In other words, isn't this just another example, though admittedly an
   extreme one, of the contradiction between microscopic reversibility
   and macroscopic irreversibility?

I don't claim to thoroughly understand the field theory or even,
really, the information theory behind the argument -- but it seems
that there's really something new here: if you allow the outgoing
radiation to contain more information than the magic five numbers
mentioned above, you have to throw out either determinism (in which
case the B.H. scattering operator *still* isn't unitary, so you may
still have a problem) or the fundamental simplicity of a B.H,
which is a widely believed result of General Relativity.
--
Craig DeForest -- astrophysicist for hire: (415) 723-3216         1-line sig!
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech