HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:25:46 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <BtM1rw.5zB@massive.its.bldrdoc.gov> bramsey@massive.its.bldrdoc.gov (Bradley J. Ramsey) writes:
>mmaster@parnasus.dell.com (Michael Masterson) writes:
>
>>>>I believe that theory has it that microwaves act on food by heating its
>>>>water content. The wavelength of these waves are short enough that they
>>>>are said to cause vibrations in the water molecules. This vibration
>>>>causes the heat.
>
>>>Small correction:
>
>>>The wavelengths of microwave radiation are appropriate to cause *rotation*,
>>>not vibration, of water molecules.  And these are in fact quite long
>>>wavelengths in comparison with most familiar radiation.  The rotational
>>>frequency for water is somewhere around 10 cm^{-1} (I don't have the exact
>>>value here, but can look it up on request), which implies a
>>>wavelength of about 0.1 cm.  For comparison, infrared (heat)
>
>>I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but... most microwave ovens
>>operate at somewhere around 2.25 gigahertz... the wavelength for
>>2.25gh is .13 1/3rd meter, or 13 cm.
>
>Commercial Microwave ovens in the United States are federally mandated (by the
>FCC) to operate in what is called the ISM band (Industrial Scientific and
>Medical band).  This band ranges from 2.3 to 2.6 GHz.  I reality microwave 
>ovens are frequency hopping devices which emit energy at frequencies all over
>this range.  The absorption range for water molecules is quite broad (that is
>to modulate their dipole moment), and microwave oven manufacturers take 
>advantage of that fact.  These broadband emissions serve two purposes: first,
>the magnetrons are cheaper to build when they are not required to be frequency 
>stable; second, the frequency hopping changes the E-M field inside the oven
>cavity, so that there are less "hot" and "cool" spots.  Although microwave
>emmissions are pulsed and do frequency hop, their emmision spectrum is centered
>at 2.45 GHz and histograms show that the spectrum near 2.45 GHz is the most
>frequently visited. 

     Actually, from my numerical studies, hopping around in frequency
     over this tiny range does not change the answer much at all (I'll try
     just about anything to get a faster cooking potato).  However,
     most home microwaves have a little 'fan' in front of the magnetron
     that serves to homogenize field strength somewhat and minimize standing
     waves.

                                 dale bass


-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:57:13 GMT

believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:

>How can I become involved in the fight to remove this dangerous
>Pagan teaching from our schools? The fight against evolutionism
>must be an essential component of the fight for our families and
>this country.

>We must work to rid the world of Communism, Secular Humanism,
>Homosexualism, Evolutionism, and Atheism. All pose a grave threat
>to our faith and therefore our very existance.

Go check the Scriptures, guy.  They say nothing about this.  In fact, the
Scriptures command you to follow the laws of the nation, unless and until
they FORCE you personally to violate the word of God.

Additionally, I seem to recall that Jesus hung out with 'publicans and
sinners'...and he preached love and tolerance.  And taught that we should
bring the Kingdom by the word not by the sword (ie force).

If you really want this info, try the Institute for Creation Research,
1-800-7-GENESIS.  Or your local fundamentalist church.  Check your mind at
the door.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15056 alt.culture.usenet:717 talk.origins:10130
From: dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution and abortion: a polite refutation.
Date: 26 Aug 1992 18:12:53 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith) writes:
>dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) writes:
>>schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>>
>>>Sigh. I guess we should not be surprised at this late date that Lionel
>>>would accept statements made within a work of fiction as hard evidence.
>>
>>"We should develop anti-satellite weapons because we could not have
>> prevailed without them in `Red Storm Rising.'"
>>				-- Vice President Dan Quayle
>>-- 
>>                     Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!
>
>Rocky and Bullwinkle in '92!

"I want to be Robin to Bush's Batman."
			-- Vice President Dan Quayle

[More like Goofy to Bush's Micky Mouse -- dab]

-- 
[I will never have] another Jimmy Carter grain embargo, Jimmy,
Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter Grain embargo, Jimmy Carter grain embargo.
		-- Vice President Dan Quayle during the Benson debate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:45:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.004801.5440@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca
(Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
> In <GERRY.92Aug27092700@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
> 
>>Anyway, it might
>>not be too far out to claim that god was the cause of the Big-Bang
>>(but then what was the cause that created god?), and that since the
>>Big-Bang, evolution (atronomical, biological, etc) has been the
>>driving force in the universe.
> 
>>Voila, god and evolution... no problem.
> 
> Yes problem!  When you get caught cheating on a test,
> does it matter how much you cheated?
> No matter how small, cheating is cheating!
> 
> Now did god, interfere, guide, push, meddle, or direct 
> or otherwise cause anything to happen, which would not have 
> happened without him.

  I don't know.  I don't think I _can_ know.  That's why I don't care.

> 
> Your saying that its O.K. to have "just a little bit of CREATION" 
> mixed in with our evolution.
> 
> Forget it!
> 
> Vern Nelson

   Take a note, guys, a humanist Ayatohla.  Wierd.

Vern: chill!  Your views are not only extreme, they seem as well supported by
the evidence as some creationist ideas.  The I.C. way to say it is "We see no
evidence of a little bit of CREATiON".

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
(oh, God!  there _is_ an I.C. conspiracy and I'm IN it.  Yikes!)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evolution does not assume there is no God.
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:45:35 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <3661@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:

>But we have made "progress".  You have (after 42 posts and 173 replies)
>finally admitted that your opinion is based on your need that "Man" be
>"special".  This is, of course, fundamental to your theology.  So,
>we are going to have a very difficult time trying to persuade you that
>it isn't true.  Let's give up now and not bother to try.

Perhaps you should count posts less and read them more.

I have been clear all along that I am not trying to present a
scientific theory.

I'm just trying to suggest that people be a little more open minded and
slower to condemn another's position as foolish.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15738 talk.origins:10637
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:56:44 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)

In article <1287@tecsun1.etl.army.mil>, riggs@descartes (Bill Riggs) writes:
>	It would help most of all if Matt translated this blurb into
>English. I read it through three times and still didn't understand the
>point he was trying to make. (i.e "linguistic, dental, and genetic
>classification...were (?) found...")

If you can't even comprehend something as basic as what I wrote, and
have no idea what I'm alluding to, you certainly are in no position to
comment about the evidence for evolution.

Is the word "dendogram" even part of your vocabulary?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:33:18 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Interesting that they were willing to include Rockefeller and Carnegie
in their "Hall of Shame". Why didn't they therefore include capitalism
under "Harmful Philosophies"?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:53:26 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com:
>Now my question is can you from what you know of DNA prove this did
>not happen?

Classic.  Just classic.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
 compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?"  -- Dean Engelhardt
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15286 talk.origins:10284
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:45:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: execu.3672
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article (Drew Lawson) writes:
>You are right and I am deceived.

Yep.  And it's not even much fun any more to "bait" you.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:03:38 GMT

In article <25956@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep1.231903.4663@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes...
|> [...]
|> But you went on to say that it also precludes processes which increase
|> entropy.  With this I do not agree.  [...]                    ^^^^^^^^
                                                                 ||||||||

I did not!  I *directly* quoted the definitions the second law from
a textbook on thermodynamics.  These statements of the second law 
precluded processes which *decrease* entropy.  *You* claimed (rather
peculiarly) that these definitions were wrong - in spite of over
a century of experience that they aren't.  It seems strange:
if statistical mechanics disproves these statements of the second
law, then why do all six of the undergraduate texts on thermodynamics
I have (all written *after* the development of statistical mechanics) 
still use these definitions?  It calls into question your standard
remark "you *really* need to read some physics texts" - since I quoted
directly from physics texts.

|> Non-equilibrium processes are not
|> governed by the same rules, and there is no reason to believe that life 
|> arose under near-equilibrium conditions.  And even near equilibrium, 
|> there is nothing in the second law which precludes the system from 
|> occupying a particular microstate in which there is greater organizational
|> complexity in some subsystem (which you can define rigorously in terms
|> of information content, if you like.)

Yes, a system may occupy any of the possible micro-states at any time.
This *localized* "organizational complexity" is not a violation of
*any* of the statements of the second law that I've posted.  However,
your claim that particles concentrating in the corner of a box is
a counterexample to *any* of the statements of the second law that
I've posted is simply *false*.

|> [...]
|> >You're also the one who claimed that entropy was only relevant to
|> >static equilibrium - when, in fact, it's *defined* in terms of
|> >differential quantities.  In short, you were wrong.  Yet, you 
|> 
|> Entropy is defined as the log of the number of accessible microstates.
|> The relationships to which you refer are all derivable from this. 

Entropy is *defined* as the integral from absolute zero to the present
state of the quantity (delta Q)/T.  It can be shown, under the *assumptions* 
of statistical mechanics, that the log of the number of accessible 
microstates is a constant multiple of the entropy of the system (the 
constant is Boltzman's constant).  Unlike the statistical mechanics 
version, the thermodynamic entropy is well defined even if you *don't*know* 
what sort of statistics the contained particles obey - if any.  Statistical 
mechanics is a particular model - the entropy is defined independently 
of that model - as is appropriate.

-- 
J. Giles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Organization: LA&W RR
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 13:25:28 GMT

In article <9qhn+lf.alc@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:

>3. Contact the Flat Earth Society (I don't have the address handy, but
>   I posted it a while ago).  They will provide you with materials and
>   show you how to fight the evil humanistic belief that the earth is
>   round with true evidence and Biblical information that shows otherwise.

Funny, my Bible says "He compasseth the day from the night" indicating
that the earth is a sphere (round).

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15366 talk.origins:10349
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Deja vu all over again...
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:28:47 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <schumach.714964323@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>In <1992Aug27.170155.12428@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:

>>>>     - We will start with the assumption that there is no God, or that
>>>>       God is not relevant to the topic at hand.

>Your original statement is ambiguous. Were you rephrasing the assumption
>"there is no God", as "God is not relevant", or were you stating that
>evolutionists make at least one of these assumptions? These two assumptions,

I was using the two as being equivilent within the scope of stating a
scientific hypothesis.  In either case, a system which the scientist
expects to work would not rely on God.


>of course, are not equivalent. To see that they are not equivalent, replace
>"God" with "David Letterman": "there is no David Letterman" (false), "David
>Letterman is not relevant to evolution" (true).

It wouldn't depend on Letterman, either. ;->


>If you start from the assumption that God exists AND is relevant to
>everything, then this distinction will be incomprehensible to you.

Sorry to contradict you.  That is my assumption, but I understand the
distinction.  I just didn't think that it had a large effect on the
topic I was presenting.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:52:31 GMT

In article <92239.175241BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.074958.1959@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG
>(Lawrence C. Foard) says:
>>
>>
>>Given the fact that almost all (except for 100?) cases of AIDS are
>>associated with HIV infection I would have to say that he is full of
>>s**t. Why don't we see IV drug users who don't share needles coming
>>down with AIDS?
>
>Did  you even _read_ Duesberg's comments before posting? His whole point
>is that the medical community have _defined_ AIDS as any of a number
>of diseases + HIV.  i.e. no matter how pitiably one of your IV drug
>users might waste away, without HIV antibody, his doctor won't classify
>him as an AIDS victim.

The CDC recently asked that all such cases be reported, so far they 
have less than 100. Its possible that this is yet another virus, or
some other problem that has gone unoticed in the past. But if he
was right you would expect 1000's of people to have AIDS and not
be HIV+. After all not all IV drug users share needles.

>>As usual with the quacks he tries to paint ACT-UP as the bad guys who
>>are somehow really at fault for AIDS.
>
>Is this the group that has opposed contact tracing for HIV/ARC?  

No idea if they did or not. 

>If AIDS
>_is_ carried by a communicable virus, 

I'm confident enough that AIDS is caused by HIV that I bet my life
on the fact, unlike Duesberg who has not yet injected himself with HIV...

>this basically amounts to a
>genocidal program directed against gays (and any one else in the
>population) by means of with-holding the public health measures that
>have been virtually 100% effective against communicable disease in the
>past.  

The only effective means in the past has been vacines. 

>In that case, ACT-UP _would_ be grossly at fault for AIDS.
>
>Smart Dudes, those guys.

This is whats called a cop out. People do all they can to stop AIDS
research and education (even speaking against education in the RNC)
and then blame the one group that is doing something about it.
Why do you think infection rates among gays are falling? Hint its
illegal for the US government to provide information to gays about
AIDS prevention. ACT-UP and groups like it take the full credit
for getting the information about AIDS prevention out while the
government ignored the problem.
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:19:14 GMT

In article <BtvCEp.JM1@netnews.jhuapl.edu> roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.012014.17580@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>|> Eliminating anal sex (sodomy is the act of gang raping guests not anal sex)
>|> does not block transmission of disease unless vaginal sex is also
>|> eliminated. 
>
>You mean the vagina of an animal (as in lower mammal)?  
>
>Webster's defines *SODOMY* as:
>
>1. copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
>
>2.  noncoital and exp. anal or oral copulation with a member of
>    the opposite sex.
>
>Sodomy sounds like anal sex to me -- no rape involved.
>
>Where did Foard's definition come from?

The fundy's use Sodom to justify calling anal sex a sin, however Sodom
in the story was not destroyed do to participation in anal sex.

>Why so uptight about calling anal sex sodomy?

Because it perpetuates an incorrect interpretation of the story
of Sodom. (yes its only a myth, but the people dying because of
it are quite real)


-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
From: loki@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: skeptic's jokes
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:07:48 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Aug31.194955.12863@henson.cc.wwu.edu > lopresti@henson.cc.wwu.edu (lopresti robert) writes:
 >
 >bringing up skeptic jokes reminds me of a comment by the Amazing
 >Randi when he performed at a Bouchercon many years ago.
 >
 >Someone flips a coin 500 times.  It comes up heads 500 times in a row.
 >The flipper then offers to bet you on how it will come down on the
 >next flip.
 >
 >The gambler says "I'll bet tails, because tails is due to come up."
 >
 >The mathematician says: "I won't bet, because heads and tails are
 >equally likely to come up on this or any flip."
 >
 >The magician says: "I'll bet heads, cause there's something funny about
 >that coin."

	I say I won't bet cause he's got a way to control the coin and
has been setting me up to lose whatever I say.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15425 alt.alien.visitors:6228 talk.religion.newage:4136
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Paradoxes? (was Re: Why binary logic?)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Aug31.011511.1322@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
	<59981@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:16:19 GMT

In article <59981@mimsy.umd.edu> biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:

   >Perhaps a logician can give even more detail and examples.

  Actually your statements are a bit confused. But I don't think there is
any reason to start lecturing people here about logic. The only point I
would suggest as relevant to the agenda of the group is the following:

     People in this group and elsewhere often invoke "logic" and
     speak as though 1) it was clear what is intended, and 2) there
     can be no serious disagreement among rational people on "logic".
     These assumptions are false.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why binary logic?
Date: 2 Sep 92 05:12:54 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.philosphy.misc
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug27.030619.8047@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
|
|However, I've been wondering if there is any fundamental reason why
|the traditional binary logic system, of TRUE and FALSE, that evolved
|from the ancient Greeks has to be the only way?
|
|Would it make sense to invent a new multivalued logic, to open up
|the narrow space and discover new things?

Already been done - it is called fuzzy logic, and has been the subject of
a rather interesting series of mathematical investigations.

It has also proven useful in modeling how minds operate.

It has the interesting property of eliminating all paradoxes.
[A paradox reduces to something with a truth value of 'maybe', which
is a legitimate value in this system].  ['maybe' can also be glossed
as 'not known' with no change in meaning - in the formal treatments
it is usually represented as the number 0.5 - TRUE being 1.0, and
FALSE being 0.0].

|Would it make sense to invent a new logic that has some higher metastable
|state in between TRUE and FALSE?

How about an infinity of intermediate states, in particular the
interval [0,1], where 1 is Certainly True, 0 is Certainly False,
and the numbers in between represent relative levels of probability
that a statement is True.

|Are there any books written on this kind of stuff?

Yep, try "Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems" by Bart Kosko.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com