HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dacosta@prl.philips.nl (Paulo da Costa 42147)
Subject: Re: Abian and the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
Organization: none
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 13:12:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.161552.1055@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
>dacosta@prl.philips.nl (Paulo da Costa 42147) writes:
>
>>In <abian.721303213@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander
>>Abian) writes:
>>>(3)   1/(kz^n + ...+ bz + a)  =  (1/k) z^(-n) + ........
>>> 
>>>But (3) shows that  0  is an essential isolated singularity of 
>>>                   
>>>                    1/(kz^n + ...+ bz + a)
>>> 
>>>contradicting (2).  Hence our assumption is false and the Theorem is
>>>proved.
>
>>This step fails miserably. Reality check: You must have a<>0 (otherwise
>>your polynomial would have a root at z=0, contrary to your assumption).
>>In this case, the inverse of the polynomial at z=0 is just 1/a.  Your
>>talk of "essential isolated singularity" is total crap, the function is
>>even CONTINUOUS there (i.e., your expansion under (3) is plain wrong --
>>"long division" is not what you did there).
>
>Look, I am certainly not going to defend Abian's physics, but when it
>comes to algebra and complex analysis, he knows what he is talking
>about, and you don't. [...]

Yes, I do. Maybe I went a little too fast.

[...] The fact that f(0) = 1/a does *not* prove that 0
>is not an essential singularity at 0. [...]

It does, because f is a rational function, and therefore can only have
a finite number of isolated singularities (at most n of them,
corresponding to the zeros of the denominator). This does not depend on
the FTA or anything of the sort, just on the fact that f is
differentiable at any point where its denominator doesn't vanish (I
trust that you know how to calculate the derivative of the inverse of a
polynomial...). If f(0) is defined _at all_, then f is also
differentiable (and therefore continuous) at that point, whence my
assertion about the crappiness of his talk.

[...]For example, consider the
>function:
>
>    f(z) = z sin(1/z) (for z nonzero)
>    f(0) = 0
>
>f has an essential singularity at 0, and it is also equal to 0 there.
>To say that f has an essential singularity at a point z is a statement
>about what happens to f in the *neighborhood* of the point, not *at*
>the point.

Correct, but irrelevant (sorry).

>>What a crackpot.
>
>I don't like to call people crackpots; I prefer simply to call them
>mistaken. In my opinion, Abian is mistaken about physics, and you
>are mistaken about complex analysis.

I hope you now see that's not the case. And I _do_ call someone a
crackpot when he thinks he has found "gorgeous" solutions that went
overlooked for centuries and goes on pushing them no matter how many
holes people point out in them.

>Daryl McCullough
>ORA Corp.
>Ithaca, NY

-- 
-- Paulo da Costa           /\/\   Minha terra tem palmeiras   /\/\
-- dacosta@prl.philips.nl   \/\/   Onde canta o sabia'...      \/\/
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: hubble and black hole
Date: 23 Nov 1992 23:30:31 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: astro
Originator: richard@astro.West.Sun.COM

psikr01@convex.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Peter Kretschmar) writes:

>>I want to know why it can't be a really massive neutron star.  

>Neutron stars *can't* get very massive. If the evolving rest of a massive
>star has more than about 1.4 solar masses it will evolve into a black hole.

I must object to this.  We have a theory which says that a compact object
with >1.4 Msun must be a black hole.  We find a compact object which
appears to have such a mass.  According to the theory, we conclude that
it must be a black hole.  Then we say that having found a black hole,
the theory is confirmed.  No!  You can't use the theory to prove itself.
All we know is that we have a massive, compact object.  If GR is right,
then it is a black hole.  But we have not observed any evidence that an
event horizon formed, so we really have no idea whether this is what
GR predicts or if it is some massive, compact object which is a counter
example proving GR wrong.

    Richard M. Mathews			 Freedom for Lithuania
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		        Laisve!
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: energy, mass, and all that
Date: 17 Nov 1992 11:01 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <Nov.16.19.30.50.1992.23673@ruhets.rutgers.edu>, bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes...
> 
>Oh.  I had thought the "Bondi" in question was Hermann Bondi, the
>cosmologist, who had one or two odd ideas but undoubtedly knew special
>relativity. 

This is entirely possible.  If this is the case, and IF Bondi didn't 
loose it entirely, a la Abian, then the problem is with the poster, who 
seems to have done his best to make Bondi seem like a crackpot by
the way he conducted himself.  Since I never did get an explanation or 
a useable reference from the poster, I guess I should give Bondi the
benefit of the doubt.

-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: prk@cie.uoregon.edu (Peter R. Knox)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Environmental impact of electromagnetic fields
Date: 23 Nov 1992 23:18:30 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cie.uoregon.edu

I am doing some reaserch on the enviromental impacts of electromagnetic
fields and am looking for some good information that is relitively
unbiased on the subject.  Preferablely not written or paid for by a power
company.

Please e-mail if you know of anything that would be of help.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: anderson@fermi.phys.ualberta.ca (Warren G. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Covariant vs. Lie Derivative in Gen. Rel.?
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:53:20 GMT

Ric Peregrino writes:
> John also writes:
> 
> >You misunderstood my point since I wasn't precise enough.  To take the
> >covariant derivative of a tensor A in a given direction v at a certain
> >point x, all *v* needs to be is a tangent vector at x.  I would write
> >this covariant derivative as D_v A(x); in coordinates it's
> >
> > j
> >v A   (x)
> >   i;j
> 
> I had misunderstood you. Still, why does v need to be a tangent vector?
> 
>  j        k  1/2
> v A    /(v v )    , here can't v be any non-null vector?
>    i;j      k

I know you'd probably rather have John answer since he is a net.celeb :-), 
but if you'll permit me: The answer is just that *every* vector on the
manifold is in the tangent space (ie. every vector is tangent to some curve).
--
########################## _`|'_ ##############################################
##  Warren G. Anderson     |o o| "... for its truth does not matter, and is  ##
##  Dept. of Physics       ( ^ )  unimaginable." -J. Ashbery, The New Spirit ##
##  University of Alberta  /\-/\      (anderson@fermi.phys.ualberta.ca)      ##
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Lowneheim-Skolem theorem (was: Continuos vs. discrete models)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 08:18:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.220424.22979@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu
 (John C. Baez) writes:

   >I object.  Lowenheim-Skolem says there are countable models of the
   >reals; you can go ahead and use these if you like, and I will not
   >object, since this does not affect what *theorems* you can prove about
   >the real numbers.

  I'm pleased to find that the physics of the real numbers is recognized
as proper physics these days. But what do you mean by a "model of the reals"?
This doesn't mean anything in standard terminology. Also, what do you mean
by "using" a countable model (of whatever unspecified theory you have in
mind)?
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: energy, mass, and all that
Date: 19 Nov 1992 11:06 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

I am more convinced than I was before that this argument is more than a 
matter of different definitions of mass.  No matter which definition you
adhere to, you can't get the right physics by assuming that matter and 
energy are not interconvertible in the way that Bondi seems to suggest.

In article <1992Nov19.145532.34225@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>, ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts) writes...
> 
>	"It has come to our notice (for example Warren, 1976) that there is
>	quite widespread misunderstanding about the interpretation of
>	Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2. It seems that this is often
>	regarded as something rather like a monetary rate of exchange, such
>	as L1.00=$1.45, and that mass and energy are thought to be
>	interconvertible, each to the other. This is not so. Mass and 
>	energy are not interconvertible. 

No matter which definition of mass ("old" or "modern") you use, energy
and mass are still interconvertible.  When an electron and positron 
annihilate into a pair of photons, which are absorbed by a piece of lead, 
you end up with hot lead.  You can extract work from the temperature 
difference thus created.  The mass of the original pair (whether you 
count just the rest mass, or the relativistic mass) has been converted 
into work.  If this is not mass being converted to energy, what is it?

>	They are entirely different
>	quantities and are no more interconvertible than are mass and
>	volume, which also happen to be related by an equation, V=m*rho^-1.
>	Mass and volume are different quantities and have different 
>	dimensions. So have mass and energy. They feature differently in
>	equations.

That's just gibberish.  The equation you quote is not a physical relationship
between two physical quantitites.  It is the definition of density.  It
has no physics content.  E^2 = m^2 + p^2 tells you how much total energy
a system contains, i.e., how much work you can extract from it.  It includes
the physically necessary contribution from the mass, which, when converted
into energy, allows more work to be done than can be accounted for by 
just the kinetic energy of the original system components.

A question for Martin:

If energy and matter are not interconvertible, where does all the energy
of an atomic bomb blast come from?  

-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: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: Lowenheim-Skolem theorem (was: Continuos vs. discrete models)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:27:02 GMT

In article <COLUMBUS.92Nov19151402@strident.think.com> columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss) writes:
>Quite true: the simplest "upward" L-S theorem asserts that if a theory with
>a countable language has an infinite model, then it has models of arbitrary
>cardinality kappa.  This is easy to see from the completeness theorem: just
>add kappa constants to the language, and axioms stating that they are all
>distinct; you can easily show from the hypothesis that this extended theory
>is consistent, so it has a model.

In its proper generality: For any theory T, either there exists an
integer such that all models of T are of cardinality less than that
integer, or T has models of all infinite cardinalities greater than or
equal to the cardinality of its language.

Just so that people don't think first order logic is a total wimp, it
should be pointed out that a first order theory *can* pin down
everything about an infinite model *except* its cardinality.  One says
that T is *categorical* in power b, or b-categorical, when all models
of T of cardinality b are isomorphic.  A theory may or may not be
categorical in power aleph_0, and independently may or may not be
categorical in a given uncountable power.  But if it is categorical in
some uncountable power then it is categorical in all uncountable powers
(Morley's theorem).  Hence only four kinds of theories are possible.
All four can happen.
-- 
Vaughan Pratt	  		A fallacy is worth a thousand steps.
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 17 Nov 1992 19:49:30 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <1992Nov16.225822.28430@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>      Simplicity truly *is* in the eye of the beholder.

Actually, it's in your one-cylinder, two-stroke brain.

				--Blair
				  "Have fun in the 17th century."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dt89csc@brunel.ac.uk (C S Codrington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: halogen lamps for heating
Date: 16 Nov 92 12:13:11 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


Does anyone out there know anything about the use of Halogen lamps for heating food. I want to use a Halogen lamp in a kettle instead heating element. 

Is this feasible?

Is it cheaper?

Any help will be appreciated.

Please can you E-mail me on dt89csc@brunel.ac.uk.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Electric Power Transmission
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:16:57 GMT

In article <HAGERMAN.92Nov19204019@rx7.ece.cmu.edu> hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman) writes:
)In article <1992Nov19.202817.29139@sfu.ca> palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:
)>
)> Wow. Thanks for the information, John. I hope someone will be able
)> to drop the other shoe and tell us where to learn more about this
)> twenty-year-old technology.
)
)Your ability to communicate sarcasm without a smiley is nice to see.
)But I fear that your comments may mask one important point of my post,
)which was to demonstrate that many of the questions asked here can be
)sufficiently answered by a tiny bit of research.  Need I explain why
)actually doing such research is useful?
)
)I have visited a hydroelectric plant, and it was rather interesting.
)Also of interest is the issue of grid phase maintenance, about which
)there have been many guesses and few facts posted, and about which my
)encyclopedia is mute.

The way I vaguely remember things from college, the phase of a generator
with respect to the 'grid' determined the direction and amount of power
flow.  The generator and grid were modelled as being connected together
by some inductance.

In one phase direction, the generator contributed power to the grid.  In
the opposite phase, the generator *took* power from the grid (and acted as
a motor).

An interesting analogy is a mechanical one.  Consider the grid to be like
a rotating shaft.  The coupling of the generator to the grid via an
inductor acts like connecting a (crank-driven) rotating wheel to the rotating
shaft via a spring.  In one direction, the spring adds energy to the shaft,
'pulling it along', in the other direction the spring acts as a load
on the shaft, taking energy away.

[The mathematical analogy is to assume voltage is like velocity and
that current is like force.  The vector product of voltage and current is
power.  v = L * di/dt across an inductor, so the intergal of the voltage
across an inductor is proportional to the instantaneous current.
Similarly the intergal of the velocity across a spring (the position) is
proportional to the force provided by the spring.  Capacitance acts
like mass with this mechanical analogy, resistance like some form of
friction damping.]

However, I'm not sure how global frequency/power regulation is done either.
Like the analogy with the rotating shaft, I'd expect that the grid frequency
and voltage would tend to rise when too much power was being fed into it
(compared to the total load on the grid), and drop when too little power was
being fed, but how the overall power regulation is done is something I don't
quite understand (I suspect that's what all those power engineering courses
are about :-)).

Xref: sparky sci.physics:19476 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2392
From: gross@maxwell.ucsc.edu (Mike Gross)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Where should beginner begin?
Date: 21 Nov 1992 17:53:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: maxwell.ucsc.edu

In <1541700004@gn.apc.org> antennae@gn.apc.org writes:



>Could anyone please recommend some good books for a complete novice
>who would like to learn something about physics - particularly
>relativity and quantum theory?  Is it necessary to have a good
>grounding in mathematics before you can understand anything?

>All the best, Indra

Without a good grounding in mathematics, you're limited to the layperson
literature, but you could still learn something from that. Einstein wrote
an understandable book ("Explaining Relativity," I believe) about his
special and general theories, and Hawking wrote "A Brief History of Time."
These might get you started. Hawking's book is much more up-to-date, but
it deals less with the fundamentals.

As for quantum mechanics, I'm not so sure, but you may try one of Feynman's
layperson books (there are several). The subject is notoriously difficult,
so you might have trouble finding any explanations without some heavy-duty
linear algebra or differential equations. Another place to look is Scientific
American. They existed during the Copenhagen conference, where modern QM
was developed, so I would expect them to have something to say about it
shortly afterward. Good luck finding back-issues into the 30's, though.


Mike Gross
Physics Board
Univ of California                GO SLUGS!!!!
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
gross@maxwell.ucsc.edu
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA. Att; PRATT - ABIAN's PROOF OF FTA
Date: 23 Nov 92 01:25:32 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:
>abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>: In <abian.721303213@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>: 
>:      Mr.  PRATT   (I hope this will reach you - something is wrong 
>:                    with my computer)                         

>Many people regard brains as computers.

Unfortunately, they're probably the same ones that regard cells as
finite state machines ...
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN replies to MUTTIAH  (att: TALBOT)
Keywords: TIME HAS INERTIA,  i.e., TIME IS MATTER
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:10:31 GMT

In <1992Nov15.221706.28787@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:

>In article <abian.721860217@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>(A2)   TIME HAS INERTIA, i.e., TIME IS MATTER  and that some energy
>						         ^^^^
>How much ?  Some is a little bit vague.

      Dear Mr. Muttiah         (att: Mr. TALBOT)        11-15-92

   As I have mentioned in my article

           <abian.720308203@pv343f.vincent.iastste.edu>
 

the amount of lost energy for moving TIME forward can be determined  via
a COSMIC ENERGYMETER.  I have also mentioned that  the Technology will
devise COSMIC ENERGYMETERS which need not require to encompass the entire
Cosmos.  Please consult my abovementioned article
    Then you continue:

>>       is irretrievably spent by Cosmos to move TIME forward. Thus,
>>       in particular, the Principle of Conservation of Energy must be
>>       rejected. 

>For small scales (in laboratories) CoE seems to be doing fine.  For the
>whole cosmos, your guess is as good as anyone's; there's plenty of debate
>about whether the universe is closed or open.  

  Mr. Muttiah,
 
 I am very glad that you do not fanatically believe that THE CONSERVATION
OF ENERGY PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE COSMOS.  For some people the
CoE  is a  APOCALYPTIC COMMANDMENT -a religion a life-time commitment!!
 
 It annoys me that people demand: "Abian, prove that some energy of Cosmos
is irretrievable lost for moving TIME forward " 
 and they have the nerve not to DEMAND from themselves the proof that
"the Cosmos does not lose any energy" - it is quite hypocritical !!!

  Mr Muttiah, then you continue by saying:

>About, TIME.  If there were no observers, who is to measure it ?  It is 
>pretty much a bookkeeping device invented by humans.  What type of TIME 
>did you have in mind ? Anyway, according to the Hubble law space (and 
>time ?) is expanding ...
>moving forward if you will.

   My reply is that if there were no observers , who is to measure the 
gravity ? 
   I agree with you that any measuring is pretty much a bookkeeping
device invented by humans.   
  As far as "What type of TIME did I have in mind?" This is explained
in my abovementioned article  by:  
                  
                       t = (1/A) log (B/E(t))
     
   With best wishes and regards,
                                              Alexander ABIAN







-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
From: fujimoto@carson.u.washington.edu (Bryant Fujimoto)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Patriot Missile
Date: 23 Nov 92 07:47:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov23.074719.8180
Organization: University of Washington

pmorvill@jade.tufts.edu (Paul Morville) writes:

>I apologize if this is the wrong group, but I have a question.

>When was the Patriot first invented?  When was it first implemented?  I was
>under the impression that it came into existence shortly before the the
>Persian Gulf War.  Is this correct?  Thanks.

The Patriot missle system is ~20 years old.  It was originally designed
to shoot down airplanes, not missles.  I believe that the 20 year figure
does not include the time it took to develop the missle, so from the time
the missle was first proposed to the present is more than 20 years, but
I am not sure how much more.

Bryant Fujimoto
The usual disclaimers apply.