HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA     ABIAN replies to  K. INGRAM's  WHY?
Summary: (A1)  and (A3) are the prime cause of everything
Keywords: (A4)  is the process of Life .
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:07:21 GMT

                                        12-24-92

Mr Kip Ingram posed the following question by e-mail

      " Why is there always someone around spouting some
        sort of c...  like this  A3 stuff ?
        Please go away and let us back to science"

 
 Dear Mr. Kip:

    The answer to your  WHY  is precisely that everything and everybody
    acts according to the dictates of (A3) and its consequence (A1)
 
    (A3)   The primal cause of action of everything (from a particle
           to a Galaxy, animate or inanimate objects, etc) is
            
    (A3)            GAINING A FEELING OF SECURITY
     
    and  a direct consequence of (A3) is that everything (animate or 
    inanimate) constantly manifests
  
   
    (A1)    THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVO-
            CATION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO

        Naturally, these new fundamental explanations and also the
        derivation from (A1) that

    (A3)    TIME HAS INERTIA  and that some energy is irretrievably
            dissipated to move TIMNE forward (and thus the principle
            of Conservation of Energy  must be rejected)     
 
    provokes people, induce a feeling of insecurity among people and
    they act precisely according to the dictates of (A3) and (A1)

       So, this is my answer to your question WHY ?

       As far as your suggestion "go away" which again experimentally
verifies the validity of (A1) and (A3), my answer is 
       
       " Stay with (A1) to (A4) and write a thesis based on them"

    (A1) to (A4) explain in the best possible way the behavior
    of particles.
    
    I also recall (A4)

    (A4)  LIFE IS AN INEXORABLE AND RELENTLESS PROCESS OF DOING
          EVERYTHING IN ORDER TO GAIN A FEELING OF SECURITY.


     With best wishes for the holidays,   
                                            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: doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Daniel Kuan Li Oi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: scientists who write literature
Date: 21 Dec 1992 07:18:10 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au

ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts) writes:

>day@fou.tr.statoil.no (Simon Day) writes:

>>How about Primo Levi?

>>Italian chemist who wrote a number of books and short stories, fiction
>>and autobiography. Includes one book of short stories with each story
>>related to an element.

>And what about C.P.Snow, admittedly long since deceased? A distinguished
>atomic and molecular physicist in his time, as well as a well-respected
>novelist.

	Does SF count as literature?  If so, then how about Gregory
Benford who is a theoretical physicist and wrote a Hugo Award winning
book Time Scape.  There must be other SF writers who are professional
scientists as well

					Daniel Oi
					University of Western Australia




Disclaimer: I'm only a first year, What's your excuse?
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Followup-To: sci.physics
Date: 21 Dec 92 11:23:08
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<MATT.92Dec15140220@physics.berkeley.edu>
	<BCR.92Dec16000355@hfl3sn02.cern.ch>
	<MATT.92Dec15152210@physics.berkeley.edu>
	<MERRITT.92Dec21110641@macro.bu.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: merritt@macro.bu.edu's message of 21 Dec 92 16:06:41 GMT

In article <MERRITT.92Dec21110641@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:

> We don't need censorship here. Everyone is quite capable of choosing 
> for himself. This not a Journal of Physics. It is a great big
> public-restroom-wall. People who feel that they cannot stand having
> "Crackpots" should leave the group and start your own Facist/Moderated
> group, which I will predict now will be a very boring place indeed.

That, in fact, is exactly what I am proposing: not that sci.physics be
eliminated, or that it be moderated, but rather that we create a new
moderated group, sci.physics.research.  sci.physics won't be affected
in any way.

I don't think that a moderated group will necessarily be "fascist,"
but those who do object to moderated groups on principle can just keep
reading sci.physics instead.

It is my hope that we can find a middle ground between Phys. Rev.
Letters and a public restroom wall.  At any rate, I'm disturbed by the
fact that so very few physicists actually use sci.physics; I have to
conclude that the newsgroup just isn't a very good place to talk about
physics.


--
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,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Dirac's question to Feynman
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:05:26 GMT


When Dirac first heard Feynman lecture on his new path version of QM based
upon Dirac's paper on the Lagrangian in QM, Dirac asked "Is it unitary?"
and Feynman was not sure what unitarity was - as reported in James Gleick's
GENIUS.

The sci.physics discussion on this - which Baez would no doubt have rejected
ab initio had he had the power in a "moderated" version - has led to the
interesting apparent discovery that while strict unitarity of the time
evolution of states between irreversible measurements is sufficient to
conserve the sum of local probabilities to unity it is apparently (i.e.
tentatively) not necessary. One can formulate a weakly non-unitary
generalization of standard QM that conserves the sum of local probabilities
while permitting quantum connection communication outside the light cone
etc.  Since the whole rational for unitarity is conservation of
problability,
this may be an important discovery. I was confused at the start because in
my computations probability was conserved - I had neglected to check the
off-diagonal invariance of orthogonal inner products because I had checked
the diagonal invariance of norms. If this distinction between diagonal and
off-diagonal invariance of inner products is frame-invariant then it is
an important clue - I'm not sure about the frame invariance yet.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Baez's "the right question".
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:56:46 GMT


Baez quotes Smolin:
 Mathematics will do us little good if
we have not yet stumbled upon the right new questions;

I assert that the right question is to question the truth of causality
in the sense that causes must always precede effects in all frames of
reference. How the universe comes into being and why the masses and
charges etc are what they are makes much more sense if one entertains
the hypothesis that the universe is created by design by an advanced
future intelligence within that universe.
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:38:10 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1992Dec21.191210.4740@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
> In article <440@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
> 
> >I'm happy to hear you are not convinced yet. It only sounds confusing to
> >me. The problem in quantum mechanics has always been how do we connect the
> >mathematics of the theory to the observations in experiments. I do not
> >think anyone has a resaonable answer to this question. I suspect that
> >Everett only succeeds in obscuring the problem with some pointless
> >mathematics. 
> 
> Please read his work before critiquing it, huh?

The basis of this statement is the general nonsense associated with the
many worlds interpretation and especially Bell's criticism of Everett
that I cited in the posting. The following quote from Bell is directly
relevant:

	`[...] Everett's special variables are the vaguely anthropocentric
	instrument readings [...]'

Any theory that introduces instrument readings as a fundamental undefined
concept cannot in my mind deal effectively with the measurement problem
in QM. Of course it would be better if I read Everett, and I run the risk
of misinterpreting both Bell's criticism and Everett himself
by relying on indirect sources. But after all this is a news group not
a referreed journal, so I consider such a risk acceptable. Reading Everett
is a low priority on my long list of things I would like to do.

Paul Budnik
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: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:10:55 GMT

marty@amaterasu.physics.uiuc.edu (Marty Gelfand) writes:
:    Hey, who says conformal field theory is of no real use???  Down here
: in low-energy physics it has been fruitful in problems such as
                                   ^^^^^^^^^                              
 : quantum spin chains, multichannel Kondo systems,
and 2D finite-temperature : critical phenomena (including random systems).
: 
Can you be a little more specific? I must admit that I am sceptical, but
maybe I just attended some bad talks. However, I am willing to have my
prejudices dispelled.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: tim@iss.nus.sg (Tim Poston)
Subject: Re: Can space-time intersect itself?
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:47:18 GMT

mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin) writes:

: I get the feeling sometimes that something like this is what people
: want when they express a fondness for an embedded universe: you have
: a four-dimensional spacetime, and you explain curvature by saying 
: that it "curves through some still higher dimensions."  You can do this
: if the bigger manifold is Minkowskian, of course, but it takes away
: some of the elegance of the idea.

Why so?
Indefinite geometry is much more elegant than definite
(for instance, two _indefinite_ real quadratic forms with
the same zero sets must be scalar multiples of each other),
but that's not the point at issue here.
The question is whether intrinsic curvature
(Gaussian scalar curvature in 2D,
the Rieman tensor in general)
can always be realized by a suitably curved embedding
in a flat space --- an affine space with a translation-invariant metric.
The answer is Yes for a pseudo-Riemannian manifold,
though around black holes --- where the metric goes kerfloop ---
I'm not up to date on whether embeddability is known.
To make even a local embedding mentally useful in the case of spacetime,
you do need to beef up your intuitive sense of (e.g.) how
geodesics work in such indefinite embeddings;
I drew some relevant pictures in
Dodson & Poston, Tensor Geometry, Springer.

The fact of this possibility does _not_ mean that spacetime
`is' isometrically embedded in some flat space.
A very nice example is in the other direction: PacMan's universe.
That is a flat square with opposite edges identified,
topologically therefore a torus.
But to get a _flat_ intrinsic geometry for the torus
by an embedding, you need more than the usual 3D surrounding space;
you can't do it in less than four flat dimensions
(where it's easy, as the product of a circle in the (x0,x1)-plane
with a circle in the (x2,x3)-plane ).
Thus that manifold needs more dimensions to be `flat around'
than to be `curved around', and nothing about PacMan's 2D universe
has any stronger flavour of 4D than our own has of the many
flat dimensions we would need (even locally) to embed that.
The simplest local embedding of a 2D (time,radius) slice around the Sun,
(which does help in understanding the way that geodesics go,
i.e., how planets move) is periodic in time
(Tensor Geometry, Fig.XII.3.2);
this does _not_ mean that time is looped for the Solar System.
Embeddability and embeddedness are very different questions.

Tim Poston


_________________________________________________________________
        And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying "RTFM".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: can sound waves boil water?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:33:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.151439.29874@nuscc.nus.sg> eng10370@nusunix1.nus.sg (CHEW JOO SIANG) writes:
>I was thinking of this the other day - we all know that a microwave oven
>works by resonating the water molecules at its natural frequency - this
>causes a rise in its temperature. The question is, can we do the same
>with sound waves - using it to resonate the water molecules. I know that
>you need incredibly high frequecies to achieve it but is the concept
>sound theoretically?

    a)  That is not the way microwaves work.  Try "Dielectrics and Waves"
        by Von Hipple, available at research libraries everywhere.
    b)  Yes, one can induce boiling and cavitation by sound. Try 
        "Cavitation" by Young, available at research libraries everywhere,
        and any treatise on ultrasonics.
    c)  Depending on what you mean by 'incredibly high' frequencies
        and 'resonate', your statements above may not be an accurate
        portrayal of the physical circumstances under which this happens.

                                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: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Where is background energy going?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 07:10:47 GMT

I guess the simple answer to my question then is that the metric is
what is changing, which leads to an observed change in
frequency/wavelength and, as with my dumb question last year about
things "receeding" at greater than C, when the metric itself is what is
changing, all bets, conservations, SR and intuition are off. :-)

I got it!

Merry Christmas All,

Bob
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

    'The meek shall inherit the earth--the rest of us will move on..'
                                                    Sameer Parekh


               PGP 1.0 or 2.0 public key available on request.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: nariani@utdallas.edu (Sushil Nariani)
Subject: QM question
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:37:54 GMT


	There's this thing about QM which Liboff writes in his book
	"Introductory QM" :
		"The measurement of an observable of a particle leaves it 
	in an eigenstate of the corresponding operator till another
	measurement is made"
	Also, delta(x) is the eigenfunction of the position operator x.
	Now what bothers me is this: Suppose I make an infinite precision
	measurement on the particles position. That would leave it in the
	state delta(x-x') where x' would be the measured value for position.
	Now if i do not make any other measurement, the particle should 
	remain in this state. Does'nt this indicate that the particle should
	remain at the same position later on? In which case the momentum
	uncertainty is zero. Now I think I've got something wrong here
	but can't figure it out. The author does'nt help much. Pliss to
	illuminate the ignoranti.

	Sushil

	ps : needless to say, I'm not a Physics student :)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Subject: Re: temporally undecided states (was: hidden variables)
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:33:26 GMT

In article <465@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:

> I do not understand your comment...  you seem to be missing my main point...
> I would not be so certain that such simplifications are valid... My point
> about rationalization is that the physics community on the whole does not
> take a sufficiently skeptical viewpoint towards these issues...  If my proof
> that quantum mechanics is incomplete is correct, and I'm reasonably certain
> it is, it is simple result that many people could have come up with had they
> just been a bit more skeptical.

Ah.  Yes.  Quite right.  (Proof??)

(Sorry, I have neither the time nor inclination to join you in your dance.)

				Cheers & hasta luego,
				Terry Bollinger

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: kfa@atomi.hut.fi (Kim Fallstrom)
Subject: Re: inductance of a coil
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 24 Dec 92 19:45:29


A modern (?) way to calculate the inductance could be to use a finite-
element basedelectromagnetic field solver. A good solution, if you have
the program available and the time to read through that half a meter
thick pile of documentation. I am not sure abut the precicion of the 
calculated inductance, but I guess you could get to within 1e-3 or
better of the correct value. The more cpu time and elements you use,
the better the results will be. 

From a circuit analyzer program manual I found the following reference 
for analytic expressions an approximations used in calculating the self-
inductance of a solenoid.

F. W. Grover, Inductance Calculations,
Dover Publication, 1973 (first printing 1946)

It is claimed to be a book for engineers seriously interested about
inductance... Haven't read it, so I won't comment on that.

Kim Fallstrom               !    kfa@atomi.hut.fi
Helsinki Univ. of Tech.     !    
Laboratory of Physics.      !
--
From: dseeman@novell.com (Daniel Seeman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: can sound waves boil water?
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:11:42 GMT
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia

In article <1992Dec22.151439.29874@nuscc.nus.sg> eng10370@nusunix1.nus.sg (CHEW JOO SIANG) writes:
>I was thinking of this the other day - we all know that a microwave oven
>works by resonating the water molecules at its natural frequency - this
>causes a rise in its temperature. The question is, can we do the same
>with sound waves - using it to resonate the water molecules. I know that
>you need incredibly high frequecies to achieve it but is the concept
>sound theoretically?

Hi,

The reason Microwaves vibrate the water to resonance is partially due to 
their wave length.  And that magical wave length is on the order of centimeters.
A bit of simple calculation tells you the frequency for ---say, a 3cm Microwave 
would be:

	f = c/l (l= wave length, c = speed of light, f = frequency)

	f = ~3x10^8(m/sec)/.03m = 1x10^10 (cycles/sec) 

The above frequency is roughly resonance.  (The wave length I used is a bit too
small  ---take a look at the wave guide on you local micro wave receiver dish
and see what it's dimensions are---but it made the calculation easy ;-).
Now all you need to do is to find the speed of sound in water and find the
wave length of sound that is needed to provide the same agitation that the 
micro wave made. Then, just design your sound amplifier/wave generator to these
specifications.

Due to the wave's length and characteristics it would take longer for sound
sources to heat water (otherwise you could hear your home's fast cooker
working every night as it heats the evening's dinner...).  In this case, you
are relying on pressure waves to eventually excite the molecules to resonance,
rather than fluctuating electro-magnetic fields.

I think the thing to understand is that the water doesn't "know" what kind of
"thing" is driving it to resonance.  All it "knows" is that it is being driven.
Really, for all we know, it could actually be little green bandits jumping up
and down on each of the water molecules (at resonance frequency of course) caus-
ing ever larger displacement amplitues thereby generating heat (because of 
collisions, friction and such).

That is MY spin on things anyway...  There must be others.  Any takers?

dks.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Dale Bass on The Good, the Bad, and The Bogus
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:27:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.044456.3985@syacus.acus.oz.au> ron@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ron Williams) writes:
>Roger D. Nelson (rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
>> Unfortunately, I am sure there is "interest in this".  But I hope both
>> Dale Bass and Jack Sarfatti might restrain themselves and set a good
>> example for others by using these precious (or expensive) electrons,
>> minutes, and exertions of mind to discuss the interesting physics that
>> appeared to be a rarely interesting thread aborning, and set aside for
>> the moment their (or, rather, Gardner's) opinions on Sarfatti's
>> character and whatnot.
>> 
>> Cheers?  Roger
>
>I second this. Dr. Sarfatti may hold outre' opinions about the meaning of his
>work, but let's at least hear what it _is_. I have been following the 
>discussions concerning quantum gravity, et al. with a great deal of interest. 
>Sarfatti's articles and the replies to them have so far constituted the
>_only_ postings I have seen in this group which have tackled advanced 
>theoretical ideas. The wierdnesses of QM experimentation needs discussion -
>why not here? Do you all want to kill off discussion unless it is safe and
>mundane?
>
>If more actively working physicists posted here, the signal/noise ratio might
>remain better than the abysmal (pre Sarfatti) value it was.

     I always am amused at calls for greater signal/noise ratio in 
     signalless posts.  'Discussion' is caused by people discussing.
     Feel free to do so.  However, even this is not quite as amusing as
     a) the assertion that Sarfatti's postings constitute 'the _only_ postings
     in this group which have tackled advanced theoretical ideas',
     b) Sarfatti has been somehow reticent about telling us about his 'work',
     c) The 'wierdnesses' of QM experimentation have somehow not 
     been discussed here,
     d) Sarfatti is positively affecting the 'S/N ratio',

     I guess you must have missed Sarfatti's 500-part series on 
     Gleick's new book on Feynman, including excerpts from probably nearly
     every page.  Give him half a chance and I'm sure he would be 
     more than willing to flood your mailbox with postings on his 
     'work'.

     Now where did I put that electronic copy of Heaviside's papers?
     Part 5006: Heaviside does London ...

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories