HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Error in NO FTL Signal Proofs exposed.
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:37:01 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
[re Sarfatti]
>I'm not going to sound like a broken record, so this will be
>absolutely my last contribution to the debate: please, somebody,
>DO THE EXPERIMENT.  This issue will never be decided on the
>basis of scripture, dogma, and anathema.  Only Nature knows;
>go ask her.

Look, Robert, you're not giving us credit.  The issue is not, (1) does 
this method of FTL communication exist?  The issue is, (2) does
orthodox QM imply this possibility?  

(1) can only be tested by experiment, but no compelling reason has been
given to believe it.  Unless you or anybody else is interested enough 
to actually *fund* the experiment, it won't get done.

On the other hand, (2) is possible to discuss mathematically.  The 
problem is that Sarfatti evades all attempts to construct a rigorous
description of his apparatus and calculations.  You seem to have a 
good grasp of quantum mechanics - so can you tell us what he's talking
about?
From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:27:49 GMT
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<

In article <1992Nov5.035726.7541@leland.Stanford.EDU> ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards) writes:
>
>by the way, this is all one long running joke, right?
>
>Larry Edwards
Nope, they are serious!  This is alt.conspiracy, after all!
From: ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Wanted: videos to teach undergraduate Electromagnetism
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:18:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: sdcc12.40802

Does anyone know of videos which could accompany a course
in electromagnetism at the undergraduate (junior) level?
Thanks in advance.

				Regards,

				Matt Harrington
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: No big crunch?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:11:53 GMT

In article <MATT.92Nov6134743@physics3.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.201950.26221@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>      Hindsight may well be deceiving you.
>> 
>>      I await with interest the discovery of the Higgs' boson.
>
>Oh, I agree with Scott that consistency is a powerful tool for telling
>that a model might be correct.  (Surprisingly few models pass this
>test, and it isn't in the least trivial.)

     I don't disagree that it is important.  And certainly the number
     of applicable and appropriate models is probably very very small.
     I still disagree that such ruminations constitute much of a 
     scientific 'test'.

>So, along those lines, you should be aware that there are a great many
>people who think that a theory with a Higgs boson in it might not be
>self-consistent.  The argument along these lines is called
>"triviality."

     None of our current models may be ultimately 'self-consistent'.  I was
     under the impression that we were discussing a somewhat weaker
     kind of consistency that current models were held to have.
     I was also under the impression that, among other things, Higgs bosons
     were invented to address some of these concerns.

>These arguments aren't completely solid, and, even if they are
>actually true, something that looks like a Higgs might exist; it just
>might not be a fundamental particle.

     This does, however, effectively illustrate the point that 
     the 'test' of a priori consistency does not necessarily have
     anything to do with science.  It is a prejudice that seems to work.

>Still, the point is that not everyone believes in a Higgs boson.  (I'm
>one of the people who is rather skeptical.)  It is quite certain that
>there is *some* new physics below or at the 1 TeV scale, and that it
>has something to do with electroweak symmetry breaking, but the Higgs
>boson is only one of the possibilities---and not necessarily the most
>plausible one.

     The point was not actually the existence of the particle.  The point
     was that the 'test' of consistency is moot compared to the cold
     hard reality of experimental results.

     Humans are very inventive creatures.  I have no doubt that there
     are any number of consistent (assumed the weaker form of domain dependent
     consistency) theories that do not fit observations.

                                dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Background Radiation and Olber's Paradox
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:04:05 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I wrote:
> ...  The CMBR photons being 
>detected now were emitted ~10 Gyr ago from a 3-sphere around us, of
>radius such that they get here now.  There isn't really a "flash,"
>but such as it was, we don't see any "further" parts of it.  It's
>all at the same radius.  As time goes by, obviously, we are seeing a 
>3-sphere of larger radius.

but clearly I meant a 2-sphere!  Well, it was only off by a factor
of 1.5, pretty close for an astronomer.
From: ethan@ut-emx.uucp (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Compelling Mysteries (II)
Keywords: compelling, mysteries, partridges and pear trees
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:42:33 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

Dale Bass writes:

>        c) the long-time stability of the solar system
>    that several of us discussed earlier.  Biology tends to tell us
>    that the solar system (or at least the earth's orbit) has been stable
>    for long lengths of time.  Calculations and perturbation theory tend
>    to tell us differently.

I'm baffled.  The calculations refered to suggest that certain orbital parameters
of some planets (maybe all) vary in a chaotic manner.  However, the amplitude
of the variations is very small and I know of know reason to suspect that
they would get large over billions of years.  Instead, we seem to be seeing
(possibly) chaotic behavior within a small part of phase space.  In other words,
biology, geology and celestial mechanics seem to be in accord.  Am I missing
something?

>         e) why does the Hubble 'constant' float all over the place.  It
>    almost seems like one could select a value at random and find very
>    good support for that value in astrophysical observations.

You've lost me here too.  Hubble's constant gets quoted at values from
as low as 40 km/sec/Mpc to 100 km/sec/Mpc.  Most determinations come in
from 75 to 90.  This is random?  I think anyone who knows how these
distance determinations are arrived at considers this a remarkable
concordance.
-- 
"Quis tamen tale studium, quo ad primam omnium rerum causam evehimur,
tamquam inutile aut contemnendum detractare ac deprimere ausit?"-Bridel
Ethan T. Vishniac, Dept. of Astronomy, The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas, 78712                   ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.engr.chem
From: jdebruyn@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. deBruyn)
Subject: Re: Specific Heat
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:01:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov08.184022.19409@radford.vak12ed.edu> kgrossha@radford.vak12ed.edu (Kurt Grosshans) writes:
>jerry@wshb.csms.com  writes:
>> 
>> I am trying to find what metals have these specific heats:
>> 
>>    1) 2740 joules/kg deg.C
>>    2)  848.6 joules/kg deg.C
>> 
>> Please replay E-mail: jerry@wshb.csms.com
>> 
>> Thanks in advance.
>> -- 

>Am I crazy, or are his units off for numbers of that magnitude?
>-- 
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=
>Kurt Grosshans
>kgrossha@radford.vak12ed.edu
>

First of all, you are crazy. According to my handy CRC handbook
of Chemistry and Physics, Aluminum, for example, has a specific heat
of 0.215 cal/g-deg at 25 deg C and atmospheric pressure.
This is .215*4.184*1000= 899.6 J/kg-deg in MKS units, pretty close
to the original poster's #2. Most metals are lower. The closest
thing to #1, according to my table, is Sodium, which at room temp.
is about half of the desired (?) value. 

Now for the point which prompted me to post in the first place -
why the #$%%& did the original poster ask for this info over the
net? Why didn't he look it up in HIS CRC Handbook? It only took
me a second. He has to wait longer than that to get his reply. I think
some people tend to use their computers instead of their brains a
little more than is prudent, sometimes!

...a favorite gripe of mine, sorry.


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: NO BIG BANG
Date: 12 Nov 1992 02:43:16 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Department of Physics
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu

bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
|> joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes:
|> >Now, current estimates of the primordial helium abundance give about
|> >25%+/-10%.  It's the plus or minus 10% which is interesting.  If
|> >better measurements indicate that the early helium abundance is less
|> >than 20%, the Big Bang has big, big problems.
|> 
|> True.  On the other hand I don't think anyone has actually claimed
|> to have found an object with less than 20-some percent helium.
|> (Asteroids excluded :-)  But also, nobody has found any stars or
|> other objects with absolutely zero metallicity.  This is annoying,
|> because it means that metals have to be synthesized before globular
|> cluster stars form, which probably means during galaxy formation,
|> and I'm not sure there are any real good ideas for doing that.
|> Supercolossal stars, etc., seem somewhat contrived.  Maybe giant
|> amounts of shock heating would do it.  (The problem is that you
|> have to get some kind of hot thing to make the metals - e.g. so-
|> called Population III stars; but then you have to make it go away,
|> because we don't see it now.  If Pop III included small, slightly 
|> under solar mass stars, they would still be around.)
|> 

Just another comment on this.  Pop III or primeval galaxies usually
get invoked to ionize the intergalactic medium at high redshift and
explain the missing Gunn-Peterson trough in QSO spectra.  There really
is no question that there is an IGM; to satisfy the Gunn-Peterson
constraint, it must be hot (T > 10^5 K).  If the mechanism involved in
heating it up is stellar in origin (early galaxies, Pop III, etc.), then
you're going to get metals mixed in.
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 9 Nov 92 00:02:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1dk66rINNe8l@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>
>In its relationship with religion, science must be a negative
>seeker of proof, since religion's positions are always
>positive statements of the existence of spirits and the
>action of mystical forces.

      Seek and ye shall not find?  I'd urge religion to seek a 
      divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences.  I'd
      urge science to do the same.  

>Its negative results towards religion are due only to the
>fact that its positive results towards the physical world
>disprove the mystical world's ability to affect the
>physical world (except perhaps through the action of those
>who maintain faith and expand "holy signs" into action, but
>I have little doubt that the science of psychology would
>explain these episodes, as well).

     They do nothing of the sort.  You cannot offer proof that the
     universe did not start from initial conditions set up by
     God, 3 1/2 seconds ago. 

>Morality is a matter of psychology; desire and temperament
>make a great force for personality, and the availability of
>productive opportunities can forestall selfish tendencies.

     Rather mechanistic view of morality, wouldn't you say?

>But then, the "value system" of religions have resulted in
>the inquisition and the crusades and any number of lost
>civilizations (making it a force for its own evolution,
>ironically enough).  

     And 'Economics' has given us several of the most crushing
     totalitarian dictatorships the world has ever known.  I don't
     consider that a blanket indictment of Economics.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Compelling Mysteries (II)
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:33:40 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>This suggests, at best, an in-between solution - bursters are associated
>with our galaxy, but are uniformly distributed in a sphere.  There are problems
>building such models as well, but I can't remember the details off the top
>of my head.  

Probably that we're off center.  The sun is about 8 kpc (or at least 
that was the IAU standard value for a while, presumably not standardized
by a platinum bar in Paris ;-) from the galactic center and to get a 
distribution of bursters to look isotropic to us its scale radius has to 
be really big.
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA
Date: 13 Nov 1992 09:34 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov12.201646.31516@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>, ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts) writes...
>sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov09.192052.25358@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>, ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts) writes...

>(And if you think that, say, positron-electron annihilation is an example of
>the destruction of mass, then think again.)

Sure.  What would *you* call it?  Where do *you* think the mass goes?

>It wouldn't surprise me if American Universities were turfing out copies of
>J. Phys. A! I only included the reference in case people doubted the
>authenticity of my claim - I hadn't thought people would go to the trouble
>of looking it up. 

The purpose of providing a reference is to allow the reader to find details
that you have omitted for brevity or clarity.  References are not generally
provided, as you seem to think, merely to look professional.  In and of 
themselves, they provide no authentication of a claim.  You are welcome
to explain to us, if you care, what Bondi had to say.  If not, then how
are we supposed to proceed with this discussion?

-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
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Subject: Re: NATURAL ANTI-cancer/AIDS Remedies
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc., Chelsea, MI
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 21:05:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.184424.2120@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

>
>
>     SEVERAL of the Remedies described below are RELATED TO PHYSICS:
>

And ONE or TWO are RELATED TO REALITY.

For some reason, this stuff seems to show up in newsgroups that don't
have /.*mcelwre/h:j in the kill file; looks like a stealth poster.
Perhaps Jack Sarfatti should see if this guy has figured out how to do
the FTL trick!

>
>
>                          NATURAL ANTI-CANCER REMEDIES
>                                 A 3RD OPINION
>          
>               ( Some of these Remedies also work against AIDS. )

And hangnails, colds, flu, the croup, and sniffles.  CAUTION IS
ADVISED when taking these POSTINGS in LARGE DOSES.  May cause
HEADACHE, NAUSEA, uncontrollable fits of ANGER, and other EMOTIONAL
DISTRUBANCES!!

I'll go away now.  I just can't believe that he managed to elude my
kill files.  Which newsgroup is next?
-- 
Donald.                                Speaking only for myself.

"You can't set glasses or a book on a door or a bathroom!" - djl
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: No Spin in 2 Dimensions?
Date: 10 Nov 1992 20:13:22 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <92315.002515CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu> <CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>I heard it said by a former physics grad student that a certain professor
>of his said that it is *obvious* why there is "no spin in 2 dimensions"
>(i.e. in a 2-dimensional differentiable manifold of some sort?). What might
>they have meant, please? Any ideas?

Which way does the spin-vector point?

				--Blair
				  "AaaaaaAAAAAAaaahhhhhh..."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ajpg1322@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Angelo J. Paguia)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:32:48 GMT

collins@eol.ists.ca (Mike Collins) writes:

>In article (Angelo J. Paguia) writes:
>>How can religion prove or disprove anything in physics ? It has no
>>business to.

>religion isn't about proving or disproving anything.

YES! This proves my point !

>>How can physics prove or disprove the existence of God ? It has no
>>business to, either.

>this is a religious question, not a scientific one. the religious
>concept of god is framed to make the question unanswerable.
>reminds me of woody allen's line, i wouldn't to be a member
>of any club that would have me as a member.

This proves my point, too! Physics sets about to prove or disprove
things in a logical way. The fact that I had framed my question as
a scientific inquiry (How can physics prove or disprove the existence
of an electron ?) and you perceived it as a religious question
because of the word "God" in it shows that a logical inquiry
about God is the business of religion, no longer science.

By the way, that line was stolen by Woody Allen from Groucho Marx.
 
>>The two don't mix and do not contradict nor support each other. 

>no i think there are significant areas of overlap. religion makes
>some pretty absurd claims. the fact that the catholics have only
>just absolved galileo of "wrong-doing", is ample evidence that
>science and religion have many conflicting things to say on the 
>same subject.

>>Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

>not NOT (Since you just proved my point)

>>Angelo


>mjc
>-- 
>michael collins
>institute for space and terrestrial science
>toronto, canada M3J 3K1
>collins@eol.ists.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Some physics questions
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 17:50:22 GMT

In article <5NOV199211284285@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <23651@galaxy.ucr.edu>, baez@ucrmath.ucr.edu (john baez) writes...
>>In article <3NOV199212323281@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>>It is entirely within the realm of possibility that, for example, some
>>>future TOE, which unifies EW, Strong, and Gravitational forces will suggest
>>>a reason for the value of the speed of light.  As a matter of fact, many 
>>>people suspect that an ultimate theory would in fact explain all the 
>>>numbers which appear only as parameters in the Standard Model, such as the
>>>value of the electronic charge, the various mixing angles, masses, CP-violating
>>>phase, etc.  
>> 
>>Hmm.  I don't buy this, at least not without further explanation.
>
>Fair enough.  Here are a couple of examples from current physics.  In the SM,
>the EW mixing angle (a.k.a. the Weinberg angle) is a fundamental parameter.
>It must be put in by hand.  But if you derive the SM lagrangian from a 
>GUT lagrangian, like SU(5), you find that you *can* derive a value for 
>the mixing angle...

As the rest of my post indicated, that wasn't the part that I don't
buy!!  I can imagine a theory that predicts mixing angles, but not a
theory that predicts the speed of light (in any exciting sense - see my
previous post).
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 11 Nov 1992 11:25 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov10.165533.1@fnala.fnal.gov>, rhatcher@fnala.fnal.gov writes...
> 
>> (I do not know what religions you have been exposed to, but my
>> beckground in is a sect that specifically encourages constant
>> questioning and self-examination.)
> 
>I want to point out the difference between "[self] questioning
>and self-examination" and questioning the fundemental beliefs
>(axioms?) of a religion.  Most religions stress the first; few, if any,

This is a very good point.  I have been told by several religious netters
that they have been taught to always question - always to question how 
they know the truth.  But there is a subtle and important difference between
questioning whether we know something to be true and questioning how we
know something to be true.  The latter exercise is a useless diversion, 
as it presupposes the truth of that which you pretend to question by
examination of the so-called evidence.  

This kind of "free enquiry" is just a sham - a way for people who unyieldingly
cling to faith as the ultimate arbiter of truth to seem to be open-minded
participants in the kind of open discussion which characterizes the search
for knowledge by the scientific method or by rational discourse.  

-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: johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 10 Nov 1992 23:58:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdlg10.sdd.hp.com

In article <74353@hydra.gatech.EDU>, cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd) writes:
| This entire discussion about whether religion & physics mix has provided
| abundant evidence that they do not mix....  
| 
| These two modes of thought are mutually exclusive. Neither can encompass
| the other: they cannot be mixed. You can think mystically or rationally,
| but you cannot do both at the same time. People who call themselves
| "religious" and "scientific" are not being completely honest. You can
| be religious *or* scientific; you cannot be both simultaneously. 
   
  I thought that the evidence suggested otherwise; science is very 
  successful but it won't replace religion as it doesn't provide a 
  value system; science is practiced by humans who use intuition,  
  have inspirations and dreams, express love, have religious beliefs, 
  etc., in addition to using reason; and the quality of one's science 
  is not affected by one's religious beliefs. I recall that Einstein 
  said something like "religion without science is blind, science
  without religion is lame". 

  John Ongtooguk (johno@sdd.hp.com)
Xref: sparky sci.physics:18579 sci.comp-aided:198 sci.electronics:18655