HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA. SURRENDER TO (A1),(A2),(A3),(A4) NO OTHER WAY
Keywords: GAINING A FEELING OF SECURITY - THE SOLE MOTIVATING FORCE 12-11-92
Date: 12 Dec 92 18:14:44 GMT
Organization: Society for the Appreciation of Janni Lee Simner

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> To the readers of  TIME HAS INERTIA:   Accept (A3)  -no other way !!   

Oh Lor' have mercy mild.

Abian has sounded like some very strange things, but this is the first
time he's dressed up his ideas in explicitly religious language.  When
he says things like

> You have to surrender to (A3), you have to introduce (A3) as the prime
> principle of Physics as the CORNERSTONE of modern PHYSICS .  You have no
> other choice!  No matter how you twist and twirl around to bend the inter-
> pretation of your decaying Physics laws to explain the action of particles 
> and galaxies - you will be banging your heads onto the wall of ignorance.  
> I am offering you the Light of knowledge .  Accept  (A3) and you will see that
> all your fundamental questions will be answered in a convincing way and 
> Physics will grow on firm, solid Rock of the truth that (A3)  or even (A1) 
> offers.

he sounds like a guru, or a street-corner preacher.  Praise Bob and pass 
the slack.
     
>                           Your hysterical rejection of my ideas is
> as neanderthalish as those 18-th century  scientific physicians  who with
> foam in their mouths rejected Freud - and now consider him one of the 
> greatest contributors to the human knowledge, science and civilization.  

18th century physicians niether rejected Freud nor now accept him.
They were all DEAD before Freud was born.

I do wonder why, if Abian had been onto the his ideas from years back,
he's only just now presenting A3 as the real and true bedrock of his
ideas.  He's like an onion: every two weeks a shell is removed and
the TRUE core is revealed.

	Larry "Read Blake instead -- he's more entertaining" Hammer
--

                         \                     Time ...
LNH@physics.arizona.edu   \   Worships language and forgives
GEnie: L.HAMMER2           \  Everyone by whom it lives   -- Auden
From: dseeman@novell.com (Daniel Seeman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Special relativity is SOOO irritating!
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:23:09 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia

In article <92Dec18.124837edt.547@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> radford@cs.toronto.edu (Radford Neal) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.000855.11867@novell.com> dseeman@novell.com (Daniel Seeman) writes:
>
>>>If you prefer, we can assume that the staff really does impact the wall.
>>>In this case, however, one can't assume that the staff is perfectly rigid,
>>>since that would require that the impact be propagated to the end of the
>>>staff instantaneously. What will happen is that the staff will be compressed
>>>(in the intertial frame in which it was previously at rest). We _can_ assume
>>>that this is temporary, and that the staff will later rebound to its origninal
>>>length. In this case, the answer is that the hatch can be closed, and that
>>>the tail end of the staff will smash into it when the staff rebounds to its
>>>full one metre length.
>>>
>>>    Radford Neal
>>
>>Hey, isn't that pretty much what I said in my posting?  One would see sort of a
>>"virtual" rebound as the rod accelerates back into the rest frame of the wall
>>and the hatch so the stick would poke back through the hatch.  So, is this idea
>>correct or not?
>
>Yes and no. Your original assumption that the staff is stopped by the
>wall without being deformed is not just unlikely, but quite
>impossible, according to special relativity. You have two choices -
>either the staff is stopped by the wall, but is deformed, in a very
>real sense, or it is stopped by some other process that leaves it
>undeformed, and just happens to come to rest in front of the wall. The
>answers in the two cases are different. In the first cases, the rod
>does rebound and hit the hatch, but this rebound is not in any sense
>"virtual" - it is just as real as the rebound of any other compressed,
>elastic object. In the second case, there is no rebound, and you can't
>even close the hatch to start with.
>
>    Radford Neal

Hi,

Certainly some processes in the problem are un-real.  Yet your clarification is
much appreciated.  Thanks ;-)

dks
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA (A1) EXPLAINS GRAVITATION
Date: 10 Dec 92 04:40:56 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
: Hardcastle: listen carefully, I shall say this only once.
: 
: you write:
:  
: >Physicists *do not have* to explain 'why' gravity works. Physics is about
: >observing phenomena and inducing generalities from them:. 
: 
:  such as  THE SUN RISES BECAUSE THE ROOSTER CROWS !!
:  
I suppose it had to happen. Abian finds somebody whose understanding of
what physics is about is as frantically conventional as his own is
frantically ridiculous.
Xref: sparky sci.physics:20975 rec.arts.startrek.tech:6908
From: st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Accellerating Spaceship (yet another bird in a plane)
Date: 11 Dec 92 08:55:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Uf_CE6K00YUoME8uFS
Organization: Doctoral student, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Just a clarification:

Antimatter and tachyons are not the same thing.
Antimatter has positive mass and travels less than the speed of light
(w/ possible exception of antineutrinos which travel at the speed of light).
Antimatter is commonly observed in the lab, tachyons are not.

Tachyons would have negative mass squared and thus imaginary mass.

Steve Timm
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Crackpot update
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 19:06:18 GMT

In article <1gh38uINN93b@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.195740.10476@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

>>I'll send you the official crackpot index.

>Rather like having an official list of underground publications.

I just don't want a certain misapprehension to spread: the crackpot
index is NOT a list of names of crackpots.  It's a scale that allows one
to easily estimate how cracked is a given posting to sci.physics.

By the way, someone writes me that the Globe & Mail, a major Canadian
newspaper, had a little filler article saying something like: `scientists are
developing a crackpot index, notes a recent article in New Scientist'.
It appears in the Dec. 12 edition science pages.  I'll try to track it
down, but if anyone would be so kind to send me a copy I'd be delighted.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Metals in liquid Nitrogen !!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:26:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.171454.3158@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> kpearce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (BULLDAWG) writes:

[discussion of boiling in nitrogen deleted]
>
>But at this point, the metal makes a phase transition from one kind of
>metal crystal to another (bcc to alpha).  Whenever a substance under goes
>a phase trnsition it gives up heat.  So what was happining was that the
>metal was bubbling away as it cooled down giving up heat in a straight-
>forward way and then at a centain temperature, the metal says "hey, I'm in the
>wrong shape, and I have too much energy" and then gives up that excess energy
>_in_addition_ to the heat energy it was giving up to begin with and then
>as soon as it makes the phase transition, the copper goes to cooling down as
>before (the bubbles slow down).

     So all metals have discrete phase transitions near the boiling point of
     nitrogen?   And these phase transitions involve increased cooling
     /increased heat transfer?

     I think you'll find that it is just changes in the heat 
     transfer characteristics of the metal/fluid interface down near 
     the boiling incipience point that are the real cause.  

     See my earlier posting for details.

                             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: acampane@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella)
Subject: Re: Re2: Acoustics Problem for Swimmers: EXPLANATION-2
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:49:39 GMT



I also have experienced the frequency effect noted at the beginning of this
thread.

The standing wave explanation is on the mark as far as I am concerned.

Notice also that our ear is primarily an acoustic pressure sensor, but after 
that, its gets a little complicated. The free surface has an acoustic 
velocity max but an acoustic pressure zero or minimum.

First of all, the ear that is doing the hearing is strictly the inner ear or
cochlea.  The eardrum and stapes are fine-tuned for air hearing.  Underwater,
the coupling to our skull is much more efficient; the impedance match is
better.  One of the consequences of this is that we also hear low frequencies
much better since the low frequency cut-off of the eardrum/middle ear
mechanical transformer "out of the loop".  (I hear the flames starting
already!)

Incidentally, is a reverberant room, all modes have a pressure maximum in a
trihedral corner.  In a swimming pool, I think that the best of these is
located at a deep end bottom corner.


Finally, it would be nice if we could continue this thread in the newsnet

    alt.sci.physics.acoustics

where perhaps more interst can be stirred up!

Ang. C.
From: kasycz@geod.emr.ca (Ray Kasycz)
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday Isaac
Organization: Dept. of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:13:35 GMT

Top marks on a wonderful little posting...  nice to see that
artistic creativity is alive and thriving in the scientific
community...

I'm jealous...!  <grin>
--
Ray Kasycz                                          
Geodetic Survey of Canada       \  " the matrix looks good today but  \
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada           \    I'm gonna punch the simstim      \
Internet: kasycz@geod.emr.ca        \    and go check on Molly... "       \
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 17:08:44 GMT


Warning to new readers of Abians postings concerning his principle.

If you post something about his principle, no matter how polite you
formulate it, the usual thing for Abian is to either answer rudely and with
no real content, or ignore you.

It has been proved that his principle is informationless, unusable, and not
science, but he still lingers on in this newsgroup.

Abian feeds on replies. Please don't feed him.

Kim0


Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Atropos needed (was: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:07:38 GMT

In article <COLUMBUS.92Dec16103152@strident.think.com> columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.075642.19770@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 
>
>       Philosophy of science, and non-technical subjects should also be 
>       excluded, no matter how 'serious'.
>
>I like the philosophy of science stuff --- within limits.  Sci.physics
>would be better if postings on the Many Worlds Interpretation or Is Physics
>Discrete or Religion And Science were cut off when they stopped saying
>anything really new.  (The same goes for Should the Govt. Fund the SSC.)
>
>For that matter, despite the enormous volume on the misnamed Many Worlds
>Interpretation, I still haven't seen the definitive posting--- one that
>would give a brief account of decoherence, or Griffith's histories
>or Omnes' logical interpretation.  Perhaps it was there, but I missed it
>under all the chaff.
>
>And let's keep the non-serious stuff, at least when it's like the "Happy
>Birthday Isaac" posting.

     This wasn't for sci.physics.  This was for some pre-proposed
     new group sci.physics.moderated (or thereabouts).  Sci.physics
     would still exist for such discussions.

                              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: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Baez remark on Poincare group
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:19:40 GMT


Mitsu - in response to earlier question of yours - asymptotic flatness does
make formal sense in many matrics lie Schwarzschild, for example, it means
take the coordinate r to infinity ("metrics" not "matrics").

A key idea in classical general relativity is the equivalence principle and
that is closely related to local flatness (not to be confused with
asymptotic flatness). All metrics must be locally flat everywhere (except
singularity) - it means there are local free-float inertial frames - gravity
is eliminated for an LIF observer - if no electrical forces etc. the LIF
observer is in free float same as astronaut falling around earth in
elliptical orbit (I should have said falling toward center of mass of earth
with finite conserved orbital angular momentum making the ellipse with
center of mass a focus of the ellipse - for very accurate measurements the
observer can feel inhomogeneous tidal forces so that over time she is moving
across a sequence of LIF's - LIF is a relative idea dependent on sensitvity
of measurements - that is, a given LIF for a given sensitivity only exists
over a finite region of Lorentzian curved spacetime - consistent with the
mathematical idea of a Minkowski-flat tangent plane - point of tangency
corresponding to the finite region of the LIF - because of this locality
property (not same as locality in sense of Bell's theorem) the symmetry
group of the tnagent plane should be the local Loretnz group sans the
translation group (Poincare group is semi-direct product of Lorentz and
global translation group - that's why I questioned John Baez's remark that
symmetry group of tangent plane was Poincare group.

By the way big Relativistic COnference at UCB sun Dec 13 9am Zellerbacj
lasting till Dec 18.
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: How does Superman create thrust?
Date: 13 Dec 92 23:58:36 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

>The real question is why his feet don't punch through the pavement 
>when he exerts his tremendous launching force. ... [amusing
calculation omitted]

>So why isn't NY covered [with] superman's foot prints.

Because in New York people are so blase' that they wouldn't even 
notice all these foot-shaped holes in the pavement ("oh nothing
dear, just another one of those guys in funny capes")

Of course, the real answer to your question is that Batman is from
New York a/k/a Gotham City.  Superman is from Metropolis which is
different (Washington?).
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: ABIAN HAS INERTIA
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:32:58 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <1992Dec16.031232.28700@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> kpearce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (BULLDAWG) writes:
>Second off, I KNOW that you have at least a quarter in your pocket. SEND IT TOO!

Oops.  Shoulda caught me before lunch.  Just went to
Finelli's.  Now I HAVE INERTIA.  And the sort of insulin
hit that only quality Italian tomato sauce can create.

				--Blair
				  "Easy one:  If there's water up to
				   the top of the shower in my upstairs
				   bathroom, then howcome the toilets on
				   the ground floor don't overflow?"
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA - Alternative theory
Address: Christ's College, Cambridge CB2 3BU, ENGLAND.
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:25:36 GMT

Looking at my copy of "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams, it appears
that Abian has been pre-empted somewhat by a rival (and more
convincing) set of theories:

DA1)	Anything that happens, happens.

DA2)	Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen,
        causes something else to happen.

DA3)	Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again,
	happens again.

DA4)	It doesn't necessarily do it in chronological order, though.

Share and enjoy,

--Clive.
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Date: 10 Dec 92 08:47:10 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

marco@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (John Perry) writes:
: 
: To quote a physicist who knows a lot more about science than anyone 
: reading this newsgroup:
: 
: "Science without religion is lame."
:                                 -Albert Einstein
: 
I know more about physics than Einstein does. You see, he's dead.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:32:52 EST

In article <1992Dec10.233130.27259@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
[ Everett's "Relative State" QM]

>And originality as well. I've read the story (by Marquez, I believe), 
>where this idea was presented in an interesting way.

J L Borges: "The Garden of Forking Paths".

Not that it's original with him, of course - the idea of parallel
worlds had previously been discussed by Jack Williamson ("The Legion
of Time"), Isaac D'Israeli ("A History of events that did not happen"),
and, for that matter, by Titus Publius Livius.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: shire@dorsai.com (Kenneth Shire)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - NewScientist Article
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy, New York's Computer Consulate. +1.718.729.5018
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:19:31 GMT

> What's sad is that he died (1930) on an expedition in deep Greenland, and
> so there was no one to really push the theory afterward.
> 
Sad indeed!  Though I am not by profession a physical scientist, it seems 
that the it was not simply that the observational evidence didn't jibe 
with Wegener's theory that did it in.  My training is in sociology, and 
more specifically in ethnomethodology, which deals in the ways in which 
members of groups cooperate to put together a version of "reality" that 
they find convincing and within which they can operate to achieve their 
goals.  In a way, Thomas Kuhn was doing ethnomethodology when he wrote 
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."  My point is that I believe it 
was the *apparent* impossiblity of continental land masses moving *at 
all* that did in Wegener's theory.  That, coupled fatally with his lack 
of academic credentials in geology, of course.  In other words, it was an 
inability to "see" coupled to a very unscientific prejudice that 
called for not any-old but a specific university degree for a man's 
theory to be taken seriously when it seemed to fly so thoroughly in the 
face of both common sense and the common "wisdom" of the academics who 
control what is "true" at any one time within essentially academic 
communities of thought.  

BTW, though I have seen one biographical essay on Wegener, I am always in 
search biographical material and any and all information on articles, 
books, monographs, in English would be appreciated.  [I know there are 
German books but I'm not up to the translation.]

kenneth
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Physics World - Digest of December issue
Date: 14 Dec 1992 00:34:02 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skorpio.usask.ca

In article <memo.781362@cix.compulink.co.uk>, maw@cix.compulink.co.uk (M Ware - IOP Publishing) writes:
|> Physics minus maths?
|> 
|> Do people need to study maths to pursue a degree in physics? Not
|> necessarily, says Peter Rice-Evans, a professor in the University
|> of London. The subject has to compete for the interest of young
|> people alongside non-quantitative disciplines such as history and
|> law: in the UK and elsewhere, physics is finding it tough going.
|> But the success of recent best-sellers such as Hawking's A brief
|> history of time suggests that many lively minds could be
|> attracted into a non-mathematical course as a precursor to jobs
|> in areas currently dominated by arts and humanities graduates.
|> He argues that new degree courses should be developed along these
|> lines.(p15)
|> 
|> Contact: Peter Rice-Evans, Royal Holloway and Bedford College
|> +44 784 434455   

I've seen some books discussing physics in layman's terms. There are so
many undefined concepts! So many leaps of logic! Where can I get more
detailed works without having to deal with anything mathematical? I don't
even know what a tensor is (among other things).

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics