HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: streb@ee.rochester.edu (Chuck S.)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Palladium and Heavy Water!
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:51:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ of Rochester, College of Engineering and Applied Science

Okay Science Buff's:

Say I have the two ingredents above and set up Ponds and Fletchman Experment
and had a large amount of excess heat given off after a fairly long
period of electrolis. I WILL NOT call it fussion BUT what would be
a reasonably good idea. Could the Metal build up a potential and at
some point discharge... That would be my Guess ...
I welcome a better argument!
chuck

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=  Chuck Streb   lookin' before leapin'     = 
=                                           =                     
=  internet streb@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu   =
From: ksanthan@uclink.berkeley.edu (Kumaran Santhanam)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Subspace communication for Star Fleet
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:40:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: uclink.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan26.154102.12267@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>As I recall, subspace communications travel at warp 10, just slightly
>faster then the ships maximum.
>
>Rich
>
>payner@netcom.com

I think the STTNG Technical Manual says that subspace radio propogates at around
Warp 9.9999996 or something like that.  You see, Warp 10 is infinite speed and
nothing can travel at that speed.  The new warp scale is logarithmic and a
little bit at the top is a big difference in speed.

Kumaran
-- 
~|  ~/ ~|   ~| ~~\   ~|   .~~\  ~|~~~\  .~~\  ~~\  ~| :: ksanthan@
   /'   |    |  | \ / |   \__ |  `-- /  \__ |  | \  | ::  soda.berkeley.edu
 | \     \_  |  |  /  |  |    |  |  \  |    |  |  \ | ::
 |  `\    __/   |     |  |    |  |   \ |    |  |    | :: "That's how it is!"
From: et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor)
Subject: Re: fluid ether, ZPE, gravity
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Summary: "Push" speculations on gravity
Keywords: push gravitons ZPE ether gravity
Organization: 4-L Laboratories
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:18:33 GMT
Expires: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 07:00:00 GMT

In article <1jn3srINNbdg@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> nazrael@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (James Robert Vanmeter) writes:
>
>
>Reguarding ether fluid, I think it is probably equivalent to
>zero-point energy.  There are many theories about ether-fluid
>to be found in a journal called Speculations in Science and 

There are seems to be more and more agreement with this thought, lately.

>Technology.  Reguarding why ZPE exerts no gravitational force,

Can you provide access information? Where is this journal available,
and by whom?

>I think this could be because ZPE causes gravitational force, as

A nice thought. How?

>in Puthoff's theory.  Which brings me to a question:  in light 
>of Puthoff's ZPE "push" theory of gravity, is it possible to 
>consider the graviton as a travelling wave-like deficit of ZPE?
> 

A bigger question is, is there such a thing as a "graviton"? Remember
that a "graviton" is pure speculation. No one has shown that they exist.

Waves travelling thru a medium alternately compress and rarify the
medium. The "push" idea of gravitation is based upon a pressure
differential: the pressure of gravity is greater out in space than
it is near a mass (due to the mass "shielding" effect). Because of
this pressure, masses are pushed together. Any one capable of
contributing theory, speculation, data, and/or observation in
support or contradiction of a "push" theory of gravity?

----
 ET   "A Force of Nature"
----
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2801 sci.physics:23294
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: What does quantum have to do with it?
Date: 24 Jan 93 02:34:09 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <23JAN199316255366@csa2.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> But QM makes the unambiguous assumption that all such physical 
> processes are stochastic, by which I mean that you can never, even
> in principle, predict more than the average particle life-time, never
> the time of decay.  Given the strong experimental position of QM,
> I think that it is fair to take this as strong evidence that such
> processes are truly random, and that there is no as yet undiscovered
> microscopic theory which will predict individual decay times.

The problem with this argument is that is hard to find what you are not
looking for. One cannot prove a negative and it is impossible to rule out
the possibility of a more complete model or even to define what you
would mean by experimental evidence to support such a claim. 

The area where QM makes dubious predictions and where one is likely to
find evidence against the completeness of QM is in tests of Bell's inequality.
I think QM is a provably incomplete theory because it does not make
clear predictions about what the delays are. There is a an extended
discussion of this in `sci.physics' and I am attempting to publish a
paper that proves this.

Physicists have a pretty poor record in this area. Consider the following:

1. It took 30 years before Bell finally pointed out the error in von
Neuman's `proof' that no more complete theory is possible.

2. Most physicists misinterpret Bell's theorem. Eberhard has derived this
theorem without using any reference to hidden variables theory. Bell/Eberhard
have proved that QM is not a local theory. They proved that changing a
local experimental parameter can instantaneously influence what happens
at arbitrarily large distances. I think this prediction of QM will
prove to be false.

3. Aspect's experiment was and is widely heralded as reasonably conclusive
proof that Bell's inequality is violated. This is true even though
Aspect made a gross error in how he analyzed the timing.
He based timing on the time it would take a classical particle
to traverse a polarizer and be detected. See J. D. Franson, Physical
Review D, pgs. 2529-2532, Vol. 31, No. 10, May 1985. It is a pretty safe
bet that if such an error occurred in a paper that was in conflict with
the predictions of QM it would have never made it past the referees.

It could be argued that physicists have been working hard to avoid discovering
that QM is an incomplete theory.

Paul Budnik
From: rubio@pine.circa.ufl.edu (RUBIO)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Confused in Boston :) -please help
Summary: ZPE: weight vs mass
Keywords: help physics mass infinite vacuum ZPE weight
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:03:22 GMT
Reply-To: rubio@pine.circa.ufl.edu
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Distribution: World
Organization: University of Florida  (ufl.edu)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <C159Fq.G5I@csn.org>, et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor) writes...
> 
>Gee, maybe the answer is too easy, or am I misunderstanding the obvious?
>If somehow I was to find myself at the center of the Earth, I would
>measure the gravity to be zero. The mass that would surround me would
>exactly cancel. What difference the ZPE? Since we can conclude that
>the density of the ZPE is everywhere the same, the gravitational
>effect of it would everywhere exactly cancel. In other words, regardless
>of how massive the ZPE is, its weight is zero.
> 
>----
> ET   "Dedicated to bringing outstanding problems in"
>----




	But what if you put enough matter in your surrounding "earth" so as 
to make it collapse on itself. Then you would be able to see a measurable 
effect. That is what the previous poster reffered to as he said that the 
radious of the Universe would be ~ 1 Km.

	just a thought.

	By the way has anybody read the paper by R.P.Woodard (he's my 
advisor) on the dynamical vanishing of the cosmological constant?
	He shows that if the cosmological constant is non-zero then 
infrared quantum effects drive it to zero, probably soon enough to have 
just the right amount of inflation to solve the flatness problem.


			-jose a rubio-
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Subspace communication for Star Fleet
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:28:30 GMT

In article <1k6kus$ar5@agate.berkeley.edu> ksanthan@uclink.berkeley.edu (Kumaran Santhanam) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.154102.12267@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>As I recall, subspace communications travel at warp 10, just slightly
>>faster then the ships maximum.
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>I think the STTNG Technical Manual says that subspace radio propogates at around
>Warp 9.9999996 or something like that.  You see, Warp 10 is infinite speed and
>nothing can travel at that speed.  The new warp scale is logarithmic and a
>little bit at the top is a big difference in speed.

I'm staring at the manual right now. It does state that the -Power usage-
approaches infinity at warp 10, but not the velocity. The scale at the side
shows warp 10 to be 2000-3000 times the speed of light. Wait, I just read the
text, and it says that bith power and speed would be infinite at warp 10.
The graph is a bit misleading.

But I got sidetracked. Page 99, propagation speed of subspace communations
is listed as warp 9.9997. Which is a few tenths of a warp faster then the
enterprise has traveled.
 
>Kumaran
>-- 
>~|  ~/ ~|   ~| ~~\   ~|   .~~\  ~|~~~\  .~~\  ~~\  ~| :: ksanthan@
>   /'   |    |  | \ / |   \__ |  `-- /  \__ |  | \  | ::  soda.berkeley.edu
> | \     \_  |  |  /  |  |    |  |  \  |    |  |  \ | ::
> |  `\    __/   |     |  |    |  |   \ |    |  |    | :: "That's how it is!"


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: What does quantum have to do with it?
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Date: 23 Jan 1993 16:25 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <MERRITT.93Jan22141329@macro.bu.edu>, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes...
> 
>This question about whether radiactive decay is "random" or not is not 
>cut and dry. R. Armowitt was the instructor of a first year graduate
>course in quantum mechnics when I was in grad school and he claimed is
>was not. To refute that claim, some students took a geiger-muller tube set-up
>and looked at the pulses. This is not random however beacuse the g-m
>tube "avalanches" after collecting sufficient charge. So if you are
>using a proprtional counter you cannot build a truly random number
>data base based on the decays. As to whether or not the underlying
>decays themselves are random, well I don't think there is evidence
>either way.
> 

You are conflating two different uses of the word "random".  Your
usage refers to the properties of the distribution of decay times.  
The previous discussion of "real randomness" deals with whether or 
not there is some underlying dynamics that determines when events
that QM takes to be intrinsically unpredictable.  In this usage, 
"random" means unpredictable.

I certainly agree that according to your usage, your claim about
whether the decays are "random" is not straightforward.  In fact, as 
has often been discussed here, the decay of a lump of radioactive
material is *not* a simple exponential decay.  Futhermore, the Quantum
Zeno effect confuses matters even more.

But QM makes the unambiguous assumption that all such physical 
processes are stochastic, by which I mean that you can never, even
in principle, predict more than the average particle life-time, never
the time of decay.  Given the strong experimental position of QM,
I think that it is fair to take this as strong evidence that such
processes are truly random, and that there is no as yet undiscovered
microscopic theory which will predict individual decay times.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
From: tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Palladium and Heavy Water!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 04:30:13 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: coyoacan.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan22.015111.14928@ee.rochester.edu> streb@ee.rochester.edu (Chuck S.) writes:
>Okay Science Buff's:
>
>Say I have the two ingredents above and set up Ponds and Fletchman Experment

Pons and Fleischman, sometimes known as P&F. Or CF (for Cold Fusion) among
afficionados.

>and had a large amount of excess heat given off after a fairly long
>period of electrolis. I WILL NOT call it fussion BUT what would be
>a reasonably good idea. Could the Metal build up a potential and at
>some point discharge... That would be my Guess ...

There is considerable debate as to whether that excess heat exists. The
original P&F experiment was lambasted as being flawed calorimetry. More
careful experiments (see newsgroup sci.physics.fusion, where a number of
the big names in the field air their dirty laundry) show some storage
and release of energy, but at much lower levels than would be indicated
by fusion.

Current experiments that show excess heat are run with open cells, allowing
the electrolisys products to gas away. This raises questions about the
accuracy of the calorimetry - it's easy to measure temperature, it's harder
to measure energy released when you don't have close control over the
substances being heated.

If you do read s.p.f., I recommend you don't post - most of the interesting
participants on that group receive the messages via email, and prefer to keep
the message volume down. That group works best as a spectator sport.
	Tarl


-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: subspace communication
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 00:37:29 GMT

I'd just like to point out...

IT'S A TV SHOW!  IT'S FICTION!  IT'S NOT REALLY HAPPENING!  YOU DON'T
HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT REAL!  THEY'RE MAKING IT UP!

(Jeez...who'da thought you'd have to say that to _this_ group...)

gak

---
Richard Stueven       AHA# 22584 |----------| He has erected a multitude of new
Internet:            gak@wrs.com |----GO----| offices, and sent hither swarms
ATTMAIL: ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak |---SHARX--| of officers to harass our people,
Cow Palace:            107/H/3-4 |----------| and eat out their substance.
From: ksanthan@garnet.berkeley.edu (Kumaran Santhanam)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Subspace communication for Star Fleet
Date: 25 Jan 1993 15:15:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:

> 
> *Recall it is the "off-diagonal" unitarity of the time-evolution of
> orthogonal in Hilbert space beyond spacetime that supports the Einstein
> barrier in spacetime preventing faster-than-light quantum connection
> communication in standard quantum mechanics - even though the measuring
> process and the arrow of time are "non-unitary". The "subspace
> communicator" of Star Fleet tunnels through the unitarity barrier allowing
> communications with no delay over arbitrary spacetime intervals between
> sender nd receiver.

The subspace communications system in Star Trek do take time to propogate
through "subspace."  In one episode (I don't remember which), Picard asks
the computer what the signal delay is.  The computer responds with "2 hours."
Obviously, the signal does take some sort of time to propogate over any
given spacetime interval.

Kumaran
-- 
~|  ~/ ~|   ~| ~~\   ~|   .~~\  ~|~~~\  .~~\  ~~\  ~| :: ksanthan@
   /'   |    |  | \ / |   \__ |  `-- /  \__ |  | \  | ::  soda.berkeley.edu
 | \     \_  |  |  /  |  |    |  |  \  |    |  |  \ | ::
 |  `\    __/   |     |  |    |  |   \ |    |  |    | :: "That's how it is!"
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Randomness (was Re: What does quantum have to do with it?)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:42:43 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to martel@marvin.mr.sintef.no (Paulo Martel):
>BTW, about real randomness in math: isn't the sequence of digits of
>Pi, for example, believed to be *truly* random (whatever that means)?

Of course not!  Once you realize you're looking at Pi, all of its
digits are entirely predictable.

In fact, pi is a good example of my point.  Consider: if I were to
show you a bunch of digits from Pi -- say, digits 101 through 200 --
you might find that they passed all the tests for randomness that you
could devise.  Yet they would not have been random, since I (with my
knowledge of their origin) could predict the value of the 201st digit
with 100% certainty.

So to say that QM has "real randomness" is a null statement until
and unless some mathematician comes up with a foolproof randomness
test -- and I'd bet money that doing so would be equivalent to
solving the halting problem.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
  "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
   want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagels to my face /
   and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2806 sci.physics:23332
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
Subject: Re: What does quantum have to do with it?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:18:52 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
: Let's set the record straight.  Someone in a.s.p.new-theories asked if
: radioactive decay and other like phenomena were really random or if they
: were determinate, with the appearance of randomness.  I answered that
: there is *real* randomness.  That means that so far as we know, with
: no evidence to the contrary, QM is correct, and it predicts real
: randomness in such processes.  I stand by that statement.

Are there any present experimental results that would be drastically altered
if instead of occuring truly 'randomly', the underlying processes were
actually deterministic with a dimension of 10 billion?  It seems that most
experimental results of QM don't ever depend on this fuzzy collapse and
random thing ('wouldn't be prudent'), but more on the structure of the
allowed energy levels and states in general.

Do the molecules in the air around you really move randomly?  At one
level, most definitely.  The behavior is most profitably understood
in terms of the mathematics of random functions.  But
the knowledge that *really* down there, that's not the case is quite
important.  And sure enough, you can find extreme cases where the
fluid mechanics breaks down and kinetic considerations become important,
and this makes experimentally verified scientific predictions.

:But I see no evidence that
: you take your so-called philosophy past the point of simply taking a 
: contrarian stand on intrinsic randomness.  

I use Bush's "duck test", myself. :-)

: -Scott

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Subspace communication for Star Fleet
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:41:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1k1076$5vf@agate.berkeley.edu> ksanthan@garnet.berkeley.edu (Kumaran Santhanam) writes:
>sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>> 
>> *Recall it is the "off-diagonal" unitarity of the time-evolution of
>> orthogonal in Hilbert space beyond spacetime that supports the Einstein
>> barrier in spacetime preventing faster-than-light quantum connection
>> communication in standard quantum mechanics - even though the measuring
>> process and the arrow of time are "non-unitary". The "subspace
>> communicator" of Star Fleet tunnels through the unitarity barrier allowing
>> communications with no delay over arbitrary spacetime intervals between
>> sender nd receiver.
>
>The subspace communications system in Star Trek do take time to propogate
>through "subspace."  In one episode (I don't remember which), Picard asks
>the computer what the signal delay is.  The computer responds with "2 hours."
>Obviously, the signal does take some sort of time to propogate over any
>given spacetime interval.

As I recall, subspace communications travel at warp 10, just slightly
faster then the ships maximum.

>Kumaran
>-- 
>~|  ~/ ~|   ~| ~~\   ~|   .~~\  ~|~~~\  .~~\  ~~\  ~| :: ksanthan@
>   /'   |    |  | \ / |   \__ |  `-- /  \__ |  | \  | ::  soda.berkeley.edu
> | \     \_  |  |  /  |  |    |  |  \  |    |  |  \ | ::
> |  `\    __/   |     |  |    |  |   \ |    |  |    | :: "That's how it is!"


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors,rec.arts.startrek.tech,alt.magick,alt.pagan