HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gurley@spectra.com (Jim Gurley)
Subject: W-waves
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 01:35:09 GMT

I was sitting on a plane the other day next to O.Ed Wagner,Phd (who was on
his way to Knowville to speak at a physics conference of some sort) and I
ended up listening to a pretty believeable story.

He is apparently a leading proponent os the existence of a longitudinal
wave (that he dubs "w-waves" because he found them first in wood) that he
is convinced is the "secret to the universe" or at least the missing piece
of unified field theory.

According to him these ways travel faster than light (in a vacuum) and
quite slowly in other media.  He deduces their existence by measuring
periodicities in natural events, like the spacing of plant leaves.  He's
also demonstarted similar things by inserting PN junctions into trees and
recording voltage output.

Everything comes down to wavelengths of .6, 1.6, and 16 hertz (very
pronouced for these at least).

Has anyone heard of this theory?  Is this guy a complete crackpot or
brilliant theorist?  I bought his book (paid $20 in advance) and may post more
if it makes more sense.  My physics is pretty rusty...


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: Loop variables questions
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:26:25 GMT

baez@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:
: 
: AK: Fifth, I notice that I see Ed Witten's name in the ends of many of these
: papers; is it not true then that everybody at Princeton hates this approach
: to GR? That'd certainly be encouraging.                         Allen K.
: 
: JB: No, it just shows that everyone drops Ed Witten's name.  You're at
: Princeton - *you* see if everyone there hates loop variables!   
                           ^^^^^^^^

This may be a gross exaggeration.
From: ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: energy, mass, and all that
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:24:53 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:

>sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>No, I think it's more than that.  I can't remember the details (which
>>is why I tried to find the reference that the original poster quoted),
>>but we've been through this Bondi thing sometime in the past.  It may even
>>have been the same poster.  ....  There
>>are no peer-reviewed papers on his work so far as I can tell.  I think
>>that he is the European equivalent of these guys who "publish" abstracts in
>>the APS bulletins and then reference themselves from year to year. 
>> ...  You will notice that he [Martin] has
>>so far refused to do more than tell us all to look it up.  He is incapable
>>of explaining it himself.

>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.  Maybe there's another Bondi who attempts to capitalize
>on the name.

Not that I know of - that was indeed the Bondi that I meant.

>I agree that Martin seems to be unwilling to actually explain himself
>or Bondi, or do anything other than insult American librarians, in fact.

Oh, come off it - have you Yanks got no sense of irony? And, if you've read
any of his writing, you'll know that Hermann Bondi if sufficiently articulate
to make paraphrasing him rather a daunting task, especially when his writings
on SR are so widely available. And no-one has so far asked me to do anything
other than that. From what *you've* said, Benjamin, it seems as if you 
probably know what he's getting at in any case.

Scott Chase seems in need of doing some background reading, however.

Cheers,

Martin Watts.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: pressure questions
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:48:45 GMT

sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>the air and water are in equilibrium, so you just drop down through a hole
>in the floor.  The structure is under zero net pressure, but the occupants
>are at very high pressure. I don't know how much atmospheric 
>pressure you body can take, however I imagine that if you aclimate slowly 
>enough that you can take quite a few atmospheres of pressure.  Others
>surely know more about this than I do.  But I suspect that when the 
>atmospheric pressure approaches the pressure you heart can generate, that
>you have circulatory problems.  Your heart will have to work harder, 
>and your blood vessels may not be able to take the pressure increase.

I think the first problem is actually with the oxygen fraction, in the 
space program there is an advantage to having the astronauts breate air
at low pressure (the capsule walls can be thinner and weigh less).  To
allow them to absorb the same amount of oxygen per second at a lower 
pressure they just increase the partial pressure of the oxygen until the
astronauts are breathing 100% O2 at about 3 lbs/sq. inch.  This is effectively
the same as 22% O2 at 14.7 lbs/square inch at sea level.  But for a diver they
do the opposite and mix a small amount of oxygen with helium (a guess, 8% O2
and 92% He).  As you send the divers deeper they breate air at higher
pressures and lower oxygen fraction, one of the things that limits the depth
they can go is that the gas gets so thick that viscous effects become a
problem.

Since blood like water is incompressible, even large increases in external
pressure will not constrict the circulatory system (pressure inside the body
will equal the pressure outside the body).
But back to the heart, the heart is only limited by relative pressure not 
absolute pressure.  An increase in static pressure around the body will not
affect the flow of blood because the only things that affect the work the 
heart must expend to pump X liters/min of blood is 
1. blood viscosity
2. local acceleration
3. blood vessel cross-sectional area or shape

In other words only things that alter the pressure gradient throughout the 
circulatory system will be a problem, static pressure does not affect the 
gradient.

Mark
Xref: sparky sci.physics:18935 comp.text.tex:13166
From: hlee@unixg.ubc.ca (Henry Lee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,comp.text.tex
Subject: TeX or LaTeX style file for -MODERN PHYSICS LETTERS A-
Date: 16 Nov 1992 03:55:38 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: kynok.ucs.ubc.ca

I would like to inquire about the availability of a .sty file
(in TeX or LaTeX, preferably the latter) for manuscript submissions
to the journal MODERN PHYSICS LETTERS A.

Save for my own "tweaking" within LaTeX, my time would be better
spent on content rather than "style".  Any information regarding
to the availability of such a .sty file would be very useful.

Thanks in advance.
-- 

Henry Lee   <hlee@unixg.ubc.ca> // <lee@physics.ubc.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Orthogonality of kets required and not same as distinguishablity of paths.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:17:08 GMT


I will show that orthogonality of kets is not same as
indistinguishability of amplitudes and that the slit kets must be
orthogonal so that the issue is whether phase noise at transmitter
destroys quantum connection signal at receiver in mean for all
condtions, and if it does, can the signal be seen in the receiver
photo-current fluctuations.
to be continued...
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: moderated sci.physics
Date: 17 Nov 1992 20:26:21 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <1e9gk7INNdos@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fxt@helios.ucsc.edu (oxide owner) writes:
>>sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) :
>>What does moderated actually mean? Is it not a euphemism for censorship?
>>bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
>>Si, senhor.
>
>the physical review, the astrophysical journal, or for that matter, 
>all peer-reviewed professional journals are moderated. is this a beneficial 
>form of censorship?

They are also highly delicate scientific organs, both
in terms of their suasion and their internal economics.

They can't afford to futz around with shoddy science.

Nobody on the net, and certainly not its infrastructure,
is so restricted.

>does one moderate what television and movies one's children may ingest?

That's up to you.  I, personally, would not let my kids
watch The Love Boat or Gilligan's Island, to the point of
preferring reruns of the various Emanuelle and Dirty Harry
flicks, if necessary.

>is this a beneficial form of censorship?

If they had excess resources, perhaps it would not be
necessary, but they will be young for fewer years than they
will be old, and like the peer-reviewed journals, their
pages are precious few.

>who/what is in one's kill files? is this a beneficial form of censorship?

I have no kill file.  They waste time searching for dead
issues, and thus keep them undead.

>censorship need not be a dirty word.

Nor need "fuck," but I've known that since I was 5 and got
my mouth washed out with soap for saying "square words."

>so blair, which form(s) of moderated information input do you suscribe to?

I tie people like you into chairs and show them films of
war while playing Beethoven and injecting them with
neuroreconfiguring drugs.  Makes them into good citizens.

				--Blair
				  "It was real horrorshow."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA. att:   WEISS. The so called Low-Skol. Paradox
Summary:  ABIAN replies to  Michael WEISS
   
                                          11-19-92
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:59:26 GMT

 Thank you very much for your e-mail.

 The axioms of my (finite models) are precisely the set-theoretical
 atomic statements which express the elementhood relations  between
 the sets (which are given explicitly). 

 As I mentioned, the set-theoretical Models that I exhibited are models
for extremely , extremely meager, weak, anemic, very anemic set-theories.
 Nevertheless they explain clearly the usual misunderstanding  in con-
nection with the  so called Low-Skolem paradox, which is not a paradox.
  
  One can give explicitly tables for countable models  which 
satisfy many of ZF axioms.  For the entire ZF - I have proposed a 
countable model where sets are symbolized by any set-theoretical
formula which starts with the "THERE EXISTS" symbol and which is 
derivable in  ZF.
 In other words, I make a set from any formula which is derivable from
ZF axioms and which asserts the Existence of a set , i.e, a derivable
from  ZF  axioms formal formula starting with an  "Existential Quantifier".
 
 Since there are a countable number of this kind of formulas (since
ZF has countably many axioms) so this model is countable and satisfies
all the axioms of  ZF.   HOWEVER NOTATIONS GET VERY, VERY MESSY  and
they eclipse with dark clouds the crux of the matter.  I love my
meager, anemic  finite set-theoretical models.  Nevermind that they
do not satisfy all the axioms of  ZF !  But they do not kill the
spirit - in fact the spirit glows in them !!

   With best and warmest 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)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: psikr01@convex.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Peter Kretschmar)
Subject: Re: hubble and black hole
Organization: Comp. Center (ZDV) U of Tuebingen, FRG
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:30:08 GMT

In <FRANL.92Nov21141214@draco.centerline.com> franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:

>llew@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Lok C. Lew Yan Voon) writes:

>> anyway, nbc news had a short piece 2 days ago that the
>> space telescope had resolved the nucleus of a galaxy
>> [... stuff deleted ...]
>> apparently, it's highly unlikely to be anything but a black hole.

>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.
Caution: don't equate this critical mass with the mass of the progenitor,
the original star. A lot of the mass of a star can be lost in the last
phases of it's evolution, before becoming a white dwarf, neutron star, or
black hole.
--
Peter Kretschmar
psikr01@convex.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics
From: jtbell@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jon Bell)
Subject: Re: Where should beginner begin?
Organization: Presbyterian College, Clinton SC
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:07:25 GMT

In article <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?

For a very good non-mathematical treatment of special relativity,
see N. David Mermin's recent paperback.  Unfortunately I'm at home and
the book is in my office, and I can't remember its title; but if you
look in a library catalog or Books in Print you should be able to
turn it up.

Jon Bell / Dept. of Physics & Comp. Sci. / Presbyterian College / Clinton SC
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: halogen lamps for heating
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:13:13 GMT

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
: In article <Bxt5y3.nw@brunel.ac.uk>, dt89csc@brunel.ac.uk (C S Codrington) writes...
: > 
: >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. 
: Yes.
: >Is this feasible?
: Yes.
: >Is it cheaper?
: 
: No.  There are some very expensive European models of electric stove which 
: I have seen, which have halogen heating elements underneath a flat pane of
: glass.  They are very sleek, and easy to clean since the entire cooking
: surface is just a sheet of glass on which you place your pots and pans.
: Halogen is better than your normal solid resistive heating elements because
: you can control the temperature more quickly, giving you the feel which 
: good cooks associate with gas stoves. 
: 
: I do not know if the cost is intrinsic to the design, or if it is merely
: a "luxury tax."  

I have one of these in my kitchen. Apart from the cost, the other
drawback is that the light from the halogen element is very intense, so
you can't see what you are doing unless the pot or whatever is large
enough to cover the whole surface. But it is extremely clean.:
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Lowneheim-Skolem theorem (was: Continuos vs. discrete models)
Date: 21 Nov 92 16:20:02 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1992Nov20.182803.14288@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
> In article <366@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
> >... QM does not predict
> >the delays to be expected in tests of Bell's inequality. If these arguments
> >hold, this will provide the incentive to do the experiments to measure these
> >delays. QM needs to be extended to predict these delays and the only way
> >to do this is through experiment. My expectation is that these experiments
> >will provide the first measures of the structure of quantum collapse. I
> >think it will be impossible to account for this structure with a continuous
> >model. 
> 
> Sounds like an untestable hypothesis.  What experiment could possibly
> decide whether only countably many reals occur in nature?

The discussion on L-S has apparently misled you. I believe that the
space-time manifold is discrete, i. e. not continuous. There are many
ways to discriminate between a continuous and discrete model and this
has nothing to do with countability. Perhaps the most dramatic is that
special relativity can only be approximately true. Einsten himself
thought that it may not be possible to base physics on continuous structures
and recognized that this meant all existing theories including his could
only be approximations to a deeper underlying theory.

Paul Budnik
From: antennae@gn.apc.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Where should beginner begin?
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:57:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:gn:1541700004:000:278
Nf-From: gn.UUCP!antennae    Nov 20 18:57:00 1992



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
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: rivero <rivero@cc.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: Lowenheim-Skolem theorem (was: Continuos vs. discrete models)
X-Xxdate: Thu, 19 Nov 92 18:26:16 GMT
Organization: fisica teorica UZ
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:28:44 GMT

In article <COLUMBUS.92Nov19105153@strident.think.com> Michael Weiss,
columbus@strident.think.com writes:
>Assuming one could axiomatize, say, QED as a consistent first-order theory
>(insert obligatory comment by John Baez on how this hasn't been done yet--
>that is, the combination of defining the formal system QED and proving
>Con(ZF)-->Con(QED) hasn't been carried out), it follows that there is a
>countable model that looks EXACTLY LIKE the continous model, so far as
>statements we can make in the language of the theory.  And if the
>axiomatization is worthy of the name, then such statements are all a
>physicist cares about.  Metamathematics is metaphysics, in this case.


Wasnt L-H theorem the kind of things that let you go in both directions?
This is, given a model, you can get ones with lower cardinality, and
others with higher. 
I think to remember that you can always go higher by using 
Los theorem, ultraproducts, or something so?. This was the thing
Robinson did to go over no-standard (*), is this? 
 
(Sorry by the quantity of question marks, but Metamatematical Physics
is always a peripherical issue)

-Alejandro Rivero
Zaragoza Univ, Spain

(*) In this sense ,there was some papers from S. Albeverio relating
non standard constructions and path integral integrations etc...
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From:  (Thomas Mc Neill)
Subject: Re: ufo evidence VS. CARL SAGAN
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Loughborough Uni. Technology
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 14:47:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.204055.2280@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
wrote:
> 
> 
>           
>           
>                            UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
> 
>                I watched all of Dr. Carl Sagan's updated "Cosmos" 
>           programs on PBS during summer 1991.  In one of them, he STILL 
>           maintains that there is no physical evidence for UFO 
>           Spacecraft, "just stories". 
>     
>                I should think that by now he would have heard about the 
>           Roswell Incident in which UFO WRECKAGE and ALIEN BODIES were 
>           found on a ranch (in New Mexico, I think), gathered up by the 
>           U.S. military, and hidden away in an Air Force hanger 
>           somewhere. 

How come these ufo's always crash in the STATES on RANCHES in the middle of
NOWHERE and in easy reach of the US MILITARY.

Why hasn't one crashed where the MEDIA could get to it FIRST?
                                        

Tom Mc Neill
Loughborough University
Leics.,UK, LE11 3TU
Email: T.Mcneill@lut.ac.uk
From: spiering@fys.ruu.nl (Geert Spierings)
Subject: Correlation diagrams
Summary: wanted:correlation diagrams.
Keywords: colisions,correlation,adiabatic,He,Cu
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:37:16 GMT


We are in need of a correlation diagram for molecular orbitals of the
He/Cu system. Does anyone know of ready-to-use programs to calculate
the adiabatic curves that make up such an asymmetric colission system?
Or does anyone know a reference where correlation diagrams like this
are summarized?

Please e-mail me, I don't read the news that much.

Geert Spierings

spiering@fys.ruu.nl
From: fxt@helios.ucsc.edu (oxide owner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: re: moderated sci.physics
Date: 17 Nov 1992 01:07:19 GMT
Organization: UCO/Lick Observatory
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.ucsc.edu

> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) :
> What does moderated actually mean? Is it not a euphemism for censorship?
> 
> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
> Si, senhor.

the physical review, the astrophysical journal, or for that matter, 
all peer-reviewed professional journals are moderated. is this a beneficial 
form of censorship?

does one moderate what television and movies one's children may ingest?
is this a beneficial form of censorship?

who/what is in one's kill files? is this a beneficial form of censorship?

censorship need not be a dirty word.

so blair, which form(s) of moderated information input do you suscribe to?

fxt
From: ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Why is "Physics Today" so expensive?  (Are there student discounts?)
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:57:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: sdcc12.41095

I looked into subscribing to Physics Today and I was
shocked that the price was something like $125 for a monthly.  I get
Science for $47 and it is a weekly!

I know that I should write P.T. with this question, but I'm
impatient and don't want to wait a month for the reply.  So, is
there a less expensive way for undergraduates to get Physics Today,
or am I stuck with trying to find it at the library, where it is
frequently in use?  Thanks in advance,
			
					Regards,

					Matt Harrington


PS. Also, are there other general physics periodicals which net.people
recommend?  Nothing too technical -- just the facts, ma'am.
 
-- 
---------------------------------
Matthew B. Harrington
mbharrington@ucsd.edu
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
	<361@mtnmath.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:34:57 GMT

In article <361@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:

  >This would be a valid argument if uncountable had an absolute definition.
  >I think uncountable is only meaningful relative to some formal system.

  Yes. However, this is a peculiar philosophical dogma which on the face of
it has nothing to recommend it, and in particular, has nothing to do with
ordinary mathematics.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics