HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: b5249-23@mathcs.sjsu.edu (Kurt Stocklmeir)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Spin
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:49:21 GMT
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.

From Baez
 his articles

You do not get it, and I do not think you are going to.  Only fools
talk when they do not know what they are talking about.  You are
1 of them.

That is what I like about sci.physics.  A person can ask 1 simple question on
sci.physics, and get 400 different answers,  all wrong.  As each
fool is giving their wrong answer they are doing everything they
can to insult another person.  Most articles on sci.physics are
written by the same small group of people.  Most people in the
world who read sci.physics, will not put an article on it, because
they know sci.physics is a joke.  But they read it if they have
nothing else do to see fools give the wrong answers and insult
each other.  

Putting an article on sci.physics makes me a fool also.  Gravity observed
moves faster than the speed of light.  This also applies to the
other forces.  But you do not get it because you are always talking.
and you do not have anytime to think.  Various theories are then
created to explain what is observed.  Relativity is 1 of them.
But there can be other theories that try to explain why gravity
that is observed has an infinite velocity.  But you can not
figure that out.

There is not anything wrong with something moving faster than
the speed of light.  Tachyons are an example.  But you still can not figure
that out and I do not think it is because you have done a lot of
homework.  Collisions with gravitions and other particles that create
forces cause attraction, and that may mean negative momentum.  Tachyons can
have negative momentum.  But you can not figure out even something that
simple.  I hate trying to get you to think, something you can not do, but all
forces are attractive when the force collides with a particle.  You do not
need to tell me, you still can not figure it out.  Even if relativity
could cause gravitons to have an infinite velocity, it still can not
explain negative momentum of gravitons.

In 1 of your normal articles you state that electric fields do not move
faster that the speed of light.  If you knew anything what you were talking
about, you would have known in QED that electric fields are virtual photons
and they have an infinite velocity.  But if that is true, then all positive
electric fields, negative electric fields, north magnetic fields, and south
magnetic fields are made up of virtual photons.  The same virtual photon
emitted by an electron will cause repulsion for another electron and
attraction for a proton.  Virtual photons are suppose to have momentum
but 0 energy.  But electric fields and magnetic fields have energy
in them.

I did not use quotes for P.177.  But the fools do not know that.
The fools read P.177, see what they want and insult anybody who disagrees.

On sci.physics, it only takes 1 simple statement to create complete
confusion.  Even if somebody wanted to fine excuses for the complete
confusion, there are not any excuses for the insults from the fools.
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Spin
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:21:56 GMT
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

In article <1992Sep29.065640.18839@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:

>So my conjecture is that a binary star gives the optimal experimental
>conditions for measuring the velocity of gravity.  (If this weren't
>Usenet I'd have to call this a question, not having paid my dues.
>Usenet doesn't have dues, a nice feature, that.)
>
>Anyone care to express strong opinions either way on this question?

I'm really busy with my homework so I'll keep this short.  It's
awfully hard to measure the velocity of gravitational radiation
directly.  Trying to measure it using a binary star is somewhat
analogous to trying to measure the speed of light by looking at
a hydrogen atom (which is bound electromagnetically).  It's NOT
a matter of one star "seeing" a delayed image of the other!  This is
*not* what happens [as has occaisionally been explained here on
sci.physics - time for a FAQ on this??]

However, one can calculate perturbatively the effects
due to GR in a binary star system, including energy loss due to
gravitational radiation.  There is a double pulsar (or is it a
pulsar/netron star pair?) which has been carefully tracked for many
years and provides a good verification of these calculations.  This
offers some of the best evidence we have for GR in the "rapidly moving
source" regime, hence indirect evidence that gravitational radiation
does what GR says it does.
Xref: sparky sci.physics:15970 sci.math:12745
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Mattel on women
Keywords: Targetting females once again.
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:17:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: murdoch.1992Oct5.201752.20034
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Oct5.192433.10231@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> rags@triples.math.mcgill.ca (Robert A. G. Seely) writes:
>
>One thing this thread makes clear is that there are lots of folk out there
>who won't object to Mattel's message - even those who ought to know better
>(IMO)...  I had not originally planned to act on this, but now I reckon that
>we (ie those who share the opinion that women-in-math bashing is not to be
>encouraged) perhaps ought to make sure our view is recognised by Mattel -
>and others - and so will send a polite but firm protest as the original
>poster suggests.  If you agree, maybe the time spent to that end is more
>fruitful than another posting to this thread...
     
     That's great, but there still remains a very big question
     if it *is* 'women-in-math bashing'.  At most, it seems to me
     'Barbie-in-math bashing', though I am completely sure with 
     her positive attitude that even Barbie can make it through
     the required core courses.

     I suggest you'd do more good by taking a job at a nearby middle
     school and teaching the children some math.  I want to warn you,
     it is a tough job to do successfully...

                              dale bass


-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Defining local, causal etc., was: Hidden variable theories
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:03:56 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1992Sep28.202508.17001@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
|> [...]
|> But it is possible to distinguish between theories where wavefunctions
|> are hypothetical entities that collapse 'at the speed of light' (aka 'in a
|> lorentz invariant manner), and wavefunctions are hypothetical entities that
|> collapse 'instantaneously' - or some of the other equivalent alternatives
|> that may not involve collapse.

It is not possible to distinguish between wavefunctions that are
hypothetical entities and  wavefunctions which are real objects.
Not empirically.  Therefore, their introduction violates Occam's
razor.  A wavefunction is easily determined to be a mathematical
abstraction which computes probability distributions.  I'm happy
that they remain only that.   `Collapse' cannot be determined to 
happen at all!  Since the wavefunction computes *distributions*, 
it applies to large numbers of events, not to individual ones.

-- 
J. Giles
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Spin
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:11:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.718405900
 <1992Oct5.013734.29341@unixg.ubc.ca> <Bvon89.I70@well.sf.ca.us> <mcirvin.718395138@husc8>

mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:

>I don't really mind statements to the effect that static fields (of
>any sort) don't propagate. 

I reminded myself after I posted this that the fields in the solar
system aren't static.  "Radiation-free" is a better term.

-- 
Matt McIrvin, posting nonsense again 
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: How do you draw a straight line?
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:26:36 GMT

In article <1ass0lINNhc2@agate.berkeley.edu> chrisman@wheatena.berkeley.edu (chrisman) writes:
stuff deleted....

>Indeed, a stretched string won't be completely straight, because
>of the influence of gravity (gusts of wind, Brownian motion, ...)
>no matter what the tension on the string.
>
>Besides, if we want a machine that uses the "definition" to get
>a straight line, how about a laser?  For the physicist (not the
>mathematician), I suppose that the path followed by a beam o
>light is the closest thing to a definition of a straight line.
>
It still bends under gravity, unless you assume the Earth is a perfect
sphere and point it in a direction normal to the surface. Even then,
there is the Sun's gravity...........
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
From: ejo@kaja.gi.alaska.edu (Eric J. Olson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Top 10 List (was Re: Another Cute Math Joke)
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:43:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: raven.1992Oct6.234448.23166
	<1992Sep24.181917.18396@newstand.syr.edu>
	<25SEP199218553012@rover.uchicago.edu> <palmer.717479702@heawk1>
	<9227317.26306@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <marc.717947769@vieta.math.uni-sb.de>
	<199
Organization: Citizens for Boysenberry Jam Fans

In article <1992Oct3.165309.20134@morrow.stanford.edu> COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan) writes:

> 1. Schroedinger's cat ate it.

You mean Schrodinger's cat MIGHT have eaten it.

Eric Olson <ejo@kaja.gi.alaska.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Spin
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:11:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.004921.9474@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> b5249-23@mathcs.sjsu.edu (Kurt Stocklmeir) writes:
[flamage deleted]

>There is not anything wrong with something moving faster than
>the speed of light.  Tachyons are an example.  But you still can not figure
>that out and I do not think it is because you have done a lot of
>homework.  Collisions with gravitions and other particles that create

     Show me a tachyon or even tell me something that is affected
     by tachyons.  

     While you are figuring out that one; What is the speed of dark?   

>I did not use quotes for P.177.  But the fools do not know that.
>The fools read P.177, see what they want and insult anybody who disagrees.

     No, actually most of us fools simply quoted accurately what
     was written on the page.

>On sci.physics, it only takes 1 simple statement to create complete
>confusion.  Even if somebody wanted to fine excuses for the complete
>confusion, there are not any excuses for the insults from the fools.

     Nom de Dieu!

                       dale bass

 
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Understand...!!!!
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:57:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.073018.13232@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
)
)I am holding in my hand a baloney sandwich. I hereby declare that this
)is an instance of a clock. Now I note that as the baloney sandwich
)decreases, so does my hunger. Since time is what a clock measures, I
)deduce that: Time is hunger.
)
)In short, this definition of time is a load of baloney. Time is NOT what
)you measure with a clock. Time is the length of timelike worldlines. Its
)definition has nothing to do with the way you happen to measure it, whic
)h is a mere technological bagatelle.

I don't agree.  Once you've defined a clock (and baloney isn't a clock -
saying baloney is a clock is a bunch of baloney!) you've also defined time.
The difference is clocks are (more) concrete than an abstract concept such
as time, and generally much easier to talk about, at least with serious
people of reasonably good will.
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Just a thought
Date: 25 Sep 92 21:34:04 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Sep25.145126.1183@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_arthurjk@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

>Take a crack at this everybody:

>What is the acceleration due to gravity where you are at in m/s?

At least 9,000,000.  I live near a post office ;-)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Spin
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:56:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.042451.16817@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>     I've got a computer program that puts a huge yellow bird
>     on my screen.   How the heck did that bird get in my computer?

It's not a bird.  It's a drib travelling backwards in time.

And I'm still waiting for somebody to cite the passage in the Principia
where Newton says gravity travels with infinite speed.
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: RESONANT AIR COLUMN EXPERIMENT
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:41:41 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <307@mindlink.bc.ca> Gordon_Wong@mindlink.bc.ca (Gordon Wong) writes:
>> Jim Carr writes:
>Experiments show that the results using the 2nd overtone result in a more
>accurate value for the wavelength and thus the speed of sound. I am just
>wondering why. My guess is that somehow with a longer tube length, the
>correction plays less of a factor?????

I'd speculate that it's easier for the experimenter to detect the resonance
at higher frequencies for a couple of plausible reasons.

1. For a variety of mechanical reasons, the higher frequency resonance is
easier to establish. Let's suppose that you have the tube close to the
frequency of the fork. You can detect the mismatch by beats, and although
1 Hz beats of a 440 Hz tone are roughly equally detectable as 1 Hz beats of
an  880 Hz tone, 1 Hz is a smaller relative error in 880 Hz than 440Hz.
It is also true that the beat frequency plays a role even when you aren't
necessarily detecting the beats directly. The frequency locking of the
fork and resonator occurs after a transient time, and the length of this
time is roughly proportional to the (absolute) difference in frequencies.
So if your fork remains audible for a fixed amount of time then you have
a certain smallest absolute frequency difference which you can measure.

2. The spectrum of a struck fork is changing in time - and it takes longer
for the fundamental to get sorted out than the higher tones. The color of
sound generated by the fork may depend on how it is struck (in fact it
matters very much - just ask any triangle player) and this raises the
somewhat difficult issue of what part of the spectrum is easiest to control.

Both of these problems suggest using a fork which is driven continuously -
just like a crystal oscillator - but if you do this you run into thermal
questions about the fork. These shouldn't be too bad, though.

An interesting variant suggested by this would be to use the resonator to
drive the fork - e.g. drive the resonator (i.e. glass vessel) like a harmonium.

The final suggestion about beats is to use two resonators, and instead of
trying to null out the beats, tune one slightly sharp and the other slightly
flat, but so the beat frequencies are the same. By using several beat
frequencies, you should be able to get quite a good idea where the resonance
actually is.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Simple observation about Quantum Kitty Cats
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:35:20 GMT

In article <299@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:

> But my formalism makes the same predictions of quantum mechanics with
> the exception of tests of Bell's inequality...

DUH?  Did I miss something?  If you have a formalism, I certainly don't
recall seeing it here.  From my own very casual skimming through a few of
your entries I still haven't even quite figured out whether you advocate
hidden variables or not.  Please enlighten us with a couple of equations.

				Cheers,
				Terry
From: Jim.Giles@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Simple observation about Quantum Kitty Cats
Date: 24 Sep 92 21:42:23 CST

Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1992Sep24.190216.13493@riacs.edu>, danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth) writes:
|> [...]
|> If by hypothesizing a new structure that subsumes two other descriptive
|> models then the new structure gains significance via its generality
|> and reduction in parts.  The possibility of a unified field that
|> corresponds with QM and GR leads one to look for such an explanation. 

Only if that new hypothesis has *testable* consequences.  If not, it's
an exercise in mysticism.  Now, don't get me wrong - have nothing against
mysticism.  Imagination and wishful thinking may *lead* to testable
ideas.  I just oppose mysticism being promoted as known fact.

-- 
J. Giles

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:18:15 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Sep27.172211.1391@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>                          LARSONIAN "Reciprocal System"

    ALLRIGHT !!! 

I could have made book that this one would reappear soon

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,soc.men,soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Mattel on women
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:43:26 GMT
Keywords: Targetting females once again.

In article <1992Oct5.192433.10231@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> rags@triples.math.mcgill.ca (Robert A. G. Seely) writes:
)
)One thing this thread makes clear is that there are lots of folk out there
)who won't object to Mattel's message - even those who ought to know better
)(IMO)...  I had not originally planned to act on this, but now I reckon that
)we (ie those who share the opinion that women-in-math bashing is not to be
)encouraged) perhaps ought to make sure our view is recognised by Mattel -
)and others - and so will send a polite but firm protest as the original
)poster suggests.  If you agree, maybe the time spent to that end is more
)fruitful than another posting to this thread...

I've added some more lines to the newsgroup......

It seems to me that children (and even adults) are constantly bombarded with
various positive and negative messages like this - and not only on math.
Some are a lot more subtle and much more prevasive.

If you have kids, I think the best thing to do is to talk to them about
math, about what they like and what they want to do, rather than to worry
about what 'Barbie' says.

I do think it would be quite reasonable to listen to what your kid's Barbie
says, and seek a replacement for it if you don't like what it's saying
strongly enough - something strikes me as being a bit 'wrong' about
trying to 'censor' all Barbies everywhere.

I think it would be good for people who don't like what Barbie says about
Math to seek equivalent replacements from Mattel - I was surprised when I saw
quotes from them saying that they'd provide only lower-grade (non-talking)
replacements.   It doesn't seem like a good way to build customer good will
to me.  (My understanding is that not all Barbie's are programmed with the
same phrases - so only 1 in 25 or so of the talking versions are the
'Math Phobic' ones.)

If worst comes to worst - toss the Barbie and tell your kids that you're
doing it because *you* don't like hearing that message.  I know that
personally I regretted not taking some 'hard' courses - in my case, though
they were humanities courses and not 'Math' courses which I always liked -
later on.
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Simple observation about Quantum Kitty Cats
Summary: Interpretations of QM exist because the theory cannot be formalized.
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:28:52 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1992Sep28.214420.18300@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

> The thing about "interpretations of QM" is that for the most part
> they are not really physical theories.  QM is a physical theory and
> makes testable predictions which seem to work well.  One can
> think of this theory as consisting of two parts: the part that's pure
> mathematics, and the part that tells us how to use this math to
> calculate predictions from data we input.  One could call the latter
> part the "interpretation" of QM, but usually interpretations of QM
> do more.   "Interpretations" usually dress up this theory with a bunch
> of language to give us a "picture" of the world QM is describing; this 
> picture has the pragmatic effect of allowing us to match up the math of
> QM with things we observe, but one can't typically experimentally test
> all the elements of the picture.

Every physical theory has the problem of mapping the mathematics into
experimental predictions. Any theory using sophisticated mathematics
or referring to nonmacroscopic objects can have problems at visualizing
its content. Only quantum mechanics has interpretations.

Interpretations exist for quantum mechanics because the theory is not
formalizable. One cannot define a model for a quantum mechanical system
in ZFC. That is the standard criteria for whether a mathematical model
has a rigorous definition. If that were possible there would be no
ambiguitys about what quantum mechanics means in a mathematical sense
and there would be no need for interpretations. 

It is not simply a matter of being extremely difficult to define such
a model. It would take some major change to ZFC to allow one to rigorously
define a random sequence. A change that I do not think any mathematicians
foresee happening. It would also be difficult to rigorously define
what happens when an observation is made and make this consistent with
a rigorous definition of special relativity.

Paul Budnik