HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: FEYNMAN 8
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:15:09 GMT
Organization: Software Engineering Institute

In article <Bw50yo.6GC@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:

>p.59 :"Yet even as the eighteenth-century philosopher scientists learned to
>compute the paths of planets and projectiles by Newton's methods, a French
>geometer and philosophe, Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertius, discovered a
>strangely magical new way of seeing such paths.

Credit where credit's due, please.  This principle was enunciated first
by Heron of Alexandria (he of the steam engine).
Organization: Doctoral student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu,  8 Oct 1992 18:45:55 -0400 
From: Lawrence Curcio <lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Schrodingers Dog

Probabilists haven't settled the point of probability and knowledge on
the classical level. Frequentists associate probability with an event.
Bayesians associate it with the knowledge (and beliefs) of the observer.
QM people have a *THIRD* brand of probability. Example:

Flip a coin, and conceal it with your hand. Ask a Bayesian what is the
probability that it has come up heads, and (S)he'll tell you 0.5. The
same question will make no sense to a frequentist, because it is not a
matter of probability. It's a fait accompli, and it's either heads or
tails. Finally, if it's a quantum mechanical coin, it's *neither* heads
nor tails, or maybe it's both. It's going to be one or the other, but
only when it's finally examined.

Please note, I'm not advocating a position on classical probability. I'm
just mentioning prevalent schools of though. 

Probably yours,
-Larry C.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: benjie@quack.sac.ca.us (Android)
Subject: StarTrek Reality, Comments wanted
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:27:02 GMT

I will doing a report on startrek reality for my physics class, all
comments are welcome, I will out your name on the report.
Thans
Thanks
Ben

-- 
     BBB		Benjie Chen
    BCCCB 		benjie@quack.sac.ca.us
    BCCCB		No Axiomatic System Could Produce All Number-
     BBB		Theoretical Truths, Unless It Is Inconsistent.
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:46:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bw0MH4.9t5
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA

In article <1992Oct12.031922.12518@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>
>>  I still maintain that:
>>    
>>   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO,  REACTION TO PROVOCATION 
>>           AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO
>>
>>                                         Alexander ABIAN    
>
>Yes, you have said this repeatedly.  We understand now that you believe
>this and always will no matter what anyone says.  You are your own
>theory's best example.  Congratulations.
>
>
      So are you also my theory's best example.  You are trying to
 maintain the status-quo of your beliefs, theories and your 
 righteousness.
      In fact you are trying to impose your views on others. So do I.
                                       
                                                    Alexander ABIAN
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re:  TIME HAS INERTIA     Reply to: Steven Groom
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:00:44 GMT

In article <abian.718497791@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>Summary:  TIME HAS INERTIA
>Keywords:  
>
> You asked me what do I mean by " Time has Inertia " .  By
>
>(1)      " T has inertia"                                           
>
>I mean that                                          
>
>(2)   " Some expenditure of Energy is required to change the status quo of T " 
>
>where in (1) and (2) the symbol  T  can stand for anything.
>
>  Since I maintain that some Energy is spent for moving Time forward, I thus

[stuff deleted]
>   I am quite well acquainted with Mathematics of Physics.  I have taught 
>many course in Mathematics of Physics (at graduate levels) which however is
>mainly used to "formulate" (often extremely elegantly and very usefully) and
>to "quantify" physical phenomena without giving in depth explanation.  Per-
>sonally, I will take  (S) any time over many other Principles.  TIME also
>wants to maintain its status quo (and to stay still) and some energy is irre-
>trievably used to push TIME forward.    
>                                                  Alexander ABIAN

     So if we simply sit still, then time will stand still?

                                 dale bass

     (Q:"So Mr. Bass, how did you attain such an old age?"  
      A:"Well, sonny, I didn't move a musc..aaaaaargh"

      Dull thud.)
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: CRACKED!
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 19:09:41 GMT

In article <HAGERMAN.92Oct14233802@rx7.ece.cmu.edu> hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman) writes:
>SO once again we have so-called INTILECTUAL SCIENTISTS attempting to
>paint the rest of us NORMAL PEOPLE as INFERIOR.  I see, for example,
>that the "CRACKPOT INDEX" makes NO MENTION of SPELLING, which is, of
>course, due to the fact that INTILECTUALS CANT SPELL.  Besides their
>attempt to SUPRESS important FACTS about ALTERNATIVE REALITIES which
>will ultimately SAVE THE EARTH, such as FREE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES and
>PSYCHO-ENERGY HAIRCUT devices....

I'm sorry, at this point I lost count.  There's a fellow named Abian you
should get in touch with.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sth@slipknot.mit.edu (Scott Hannahs)
Subject: Re: Magnetic levitation
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:50:31 GMT

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>     I don't think six degree-of-freedom magnetic levitation is possible
>     with permanent magnets, symmetry or not because all configurations
>     are unstable.  Location of such a proof escapes me at the moment,
>     but I'm pretty sure it exists.

>     I believe that you still need the equivalent of a thrust bearing to 
>     reduce the numbers of degrees of freedom (i.e. it has to be resting on 
>     something to get the other degrees of freedom via permanent
>     magnets).

>                             dale bass
>-- 

The Nature Company sells a magnetically levitated rotor.  At least they
did a year or so ago.  It was done with passive magnets.  I have been
meaning to get one.  It cannot be done only with magnets (Louiville
theorem) but can be done with Magnets + Gravity.

  It is easy to imagine a ring magnet with the field direction up along
the axis of the ring.  The suspended magnet is a small disk in the
center of the ring where the field is lower with the field pointed down.
It is kept from flipping over by a rod with a weight hanging from the
bottom so that the center of mass is below the magnet.  This is just an
off the top of my head design but I believe it will work.

Scott Hannahs, F. Bitter National Magnet Lab, sth@slipknot.mit.edu
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Time to develop a crackpot index?
Date: 15 Oct 1992 12:59 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 beginning to have second thoughts about this Crackpot thing.  It seems
to me that the best way to deal with people who approach science from 
a confused perspective is to respond in as straightforward and scientific 
a way as possible, repeatedly if necessary.  The original poster may or 
may not be beyond hope.  But other readers may learn from our examples
of how to deal in a scientific manner with controversial ideas.

The Crackpot Index, though amusing, is really just a way to intimidate 
a certain class of people into leaving the newsgroup.  Though I would be
happy if I never had to see another Dewey Larson post, I am uncomfortable
with attempts to drive anyone away.  

Sorry to rain on the parade.  

-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: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Magnetic levitation
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:34:07 GMT

In article <sth.719275831@slipknot.mit.edu> sth@slipknot.mit.edu (Scott Hannahs) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>     I don't think six degree-of-freedom magnetic levitation is possible
>>     with permanent magnets, symmetry or not because all configurations
>>     are unstable.  Location of such a proof escapes me at the moment,
>>     but I'm pretty sure it exists.
>
>>     I believe that you still need the equivalent of a thrust bearing to 
>>     reduce the numbers of degrees of freedom (i.e. it has to be resting on 
>>     something to get the other degrees of freedom via permanent
>>     magnets).
>
>>                             dale bass
>>-- 
>
>The Nature Company sells a magnetically levitated rotor.  At least they
>did a year or so ago.  It was done with passive magnets.  I have been
>meaning to get one.  It cannot be done only with magnets (Louiville
>theorem) but can be done with Magnets + Gravity.

     I have one on my desk.  It is *not* just Magnets + Gravity.
     There is a mirror on one end that the shaft rests on that constitutes
     a 'thrust bearing'  It is a five degree-of-freedom device.

     It is pretty neat though.

>  It is easy to imagine a ring magnet with the field direction up along
>the axis of the ring.  The suspended magnet is a small disk in the
>center of the ring where the field is lower with the field pointed down.
>It is kept from flipping over by a rod with a weight hanging from the
>bottom so that the center of mass is below the magnet.  This is just an
>off the top of my head design but I believe it will work.

     It is easy to imagine, but it is unstable and it will not work
     with permanent magnets (.e.g without active control or superconducting
     magnets).

                               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: rberg@nyx.cs.du.edu (rosemarie berg)
Subject: Artificial mechanisms for tree movement
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:55:47 GMT

This is not a joke.

Artificial mechanisms for tree movement

Is there a possibility to make move trees, tree branches, leaves by any of the 
following means:

(1) by invisible beams of electricity?

(2) by using a force emitted from telephone lines?

(3) by putting some kind of object into the trees and using an exterior light 
    force, or a magnet, or the reflection of metallic objects either in the 
    trees on roofs or on the ground?

(4) by spraying either needles or leaves with a specific substance which would 
    react to an outside force or the sunlight (solar energy), solar panelling?

(5) by giving the trees an electrical shock?
From: doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Daniel Kuan Li Oi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Question on aerodynamics........
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:29:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: uniwa.1blcu4INNd2a
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au

z_arthurjk@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

>Assuming it is thrown correctly, why exactly does a frisbee fly
>the way it does?  Why does it seem to float across the air
>without wobbling, and why does it slowly descend to the ground
>instead of just fall?

>Also, how does the aerobee disk fly so damn far?

>These are questions that have always intrigued me.

	When thrown correctly, the frisbee is at the right angle of
attack and at the right airspeed. This results in the centre of pressure
coinciding with the centre of gravity so that there is no turning moment
about the C of G.  Since the frisbee is rotating, if there was a torque
in the fore and aft axis, this would result in a banking of the frisbee.
This is eliminated by centrering the aerodynamic forces on the C of G.
Of course, as the airspeed drops, the C of P changes but if near the
correct speed and attitude, the loss of altitude will overcome some drag
so keeping the airspeed nearly constant.

	The floating effect is because of the shape of the frisbee is
close to that of an aerofoil thus producing lift. It is sort of like a
rotating gliding lifting body.

	The aerobee can fly so far because it has optimised drag to lift
characteristics.  The shape of the ring is not just like an aerofoil but
has a lip on the outer circumference.  This alters the normal airflow
If we model the ring aerofoil as a tandem wing, the downwash of the
leading aerofoil would tend to decrease the lift on the rear aerofoil.
This would lead to a C of P ahead of the C of G thus leading the ring to
precess and bank.  The lip on the circumference of the ring balances out
the lift forces and produces a stable flight.

	The ring planform would give a better lift to drag ratio than a
disk since the aspect ratio is higher, thus drag can be minimized.  The
mass at the cicumference of a ring leads to a higher moment of inertia
so it has better stability than a disk of the same mass.

	These all lead to a long throwing object.

Any corrections and additions are welcome. This is just what I theorise
but since I am not an aerodynamicist (yet) so if anyone can come up with
a better and more accurate explaination, please correct me.

				Daniel Oi
				1st year BSc/BE student
				University of Western Australia
From: MCCLYMER@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Jim McClymer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: PC Parallel Port for Expt Control?
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:45:01 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

In response to a post on using parallel ports to control experiments I
sugest that you look at an article in Personal Engineering and Instrumentatin
News, June 1990 page 51 by Richard Eckhouse at U. Mass Boston, Math and Comp.
Sci.  I base a number of student labs on this article and find it very helpful.
If you need more info  E-mail away to Mcclymer@Maine.edu.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: How do you draw a straight line?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 19:51:08 GMT

Some email from Jim Reeds, which I will shamelessly post, gives
the game away.  

Return-Path: <reeds@gauss.att.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 16:42:05 EDT
To: jbaez@math.mit.edu

Peaucellier's cell makes stright lines.  It is described in books like
Coxeter's Intro. to Geometry (2nd ed, p83) or The Enjoyment of Math by
Rademacher & Toeplitz (p119 et seq).  This whole area of rigid linkages
of rods & plates in 2 & 3 dimensions has become a little industry in
the general field of robotics.
From: gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan M. Gilligan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: 1992 Nobel Prizes: a prediction
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:05:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <1992Oct8.155709.7074@cbnews.cb.att.com> ran@cbnews.cb.att.com (Robert A. Neinast) writes:
>What I want to know is why Hawking hasn't won it, particularly since
>the Nobel is only awarded to living people, and every year he hangs
>on seems miraculous.

It's out of my area of specialization, but I'm under the impression
that most of Hawking's important work is speculative and hasn't been
confirmed by observation.

---Jon
-- 

Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jeganath@leland.Stanford.EDU (Muthuveerappan Jeganathan)
Subject: Re: Transporter Technology
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 21:12:17 GMT


In article <1992Oct11.143257.1@vax1.umkc.edu> you write:
>
>> Gee, it sounds so neat, too.  While you are correct about matter/energy
>> being neither destroyed nor created, you have neglected that to regenerate
>> a human being, you have to know how to organize this matter/energy so as not
>> to wind up with Jello.  Given the complexity of even an inanimate object
>> like a rock, it would seem that a truly tremendous computer would be required
>> to reconstruct you or me.
>> 
>> This is not to rule out the technology, just to say that it probably doesn't
>> exist now.
>> 					Dave

Roger Penrose (sp?) in his last book, the Emperor's Mind (I think 
thats the correct title) raises some very interesting questions 
(similar to the above) concerning the "transporter" in the very 
early part of the book. I recommend people interested in the 
transporter technology to read that. 

-- Muthu
From: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Wavefunction of the universe calculated!!!
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:55:40 GMT


  But, I thought, I mean, the Marahishi published the wave equation for the
universe this year in the Globe and Mail (Canada's national newspaper).  It
took up two full pages of newsprint.  Somebody's solved it?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Subject: Re: VERY fundamental question
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:34:36 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Oct14.084233.6403@dde.dk>, ct@dde.dk (Claus Tondering) writes:
|> First, an apology: I realize that this is very likely an extremely
|> fundamental question, one that might not belong in this group.  Or it
|> may be a frequently asked question; I don't read this newsgroup regularly,
|> so I don't know. In any case apologies if I'm being stupid.
|> 
|> But here goes... Consider the following conversation between two people:
|> 
|> A: Would you explain something, please?
|> 
|> B: Certainly, what is it?
|> 
|> A: How does a magnet work? I mean, when I place a magnet close to, say,
|>    a needle, the needles moves. What makes it move? How can the magnet
|>    exert a force on the needle over a distance? It seems like magic to
|>    me.
|> 
|> B: Well, it's not really magic. You see, the magnet creates a field, which
|>    propagates through space. It is the existence of a magnetic field around
|>    the needle, that makes it move.
|> 
|> A: That doesn't really explain anything, does it? I mean, how and why
|>    does the magnetic field then exert a force on the needle?
...
...
...

|> A: So, how does the magnet make the needle move?!
|> 
|> What should be B's answer?
|> 

Because that's the way things are.  Physics provides a way to describe
how things are.  Newton's laws (a = 0 if no forces act, F=ma if forces
act, and F_12 = - F_21 -- though this generalizes to conservation of
momentum through fields) provide definitions of how to measure things
(defines clocks), depends on more primative ideas (distance and geometry),
and provides a framework within which dynamical measurements can be made
(what is a force and mass).  At the same time, it also makes some very profound
statements about the nature of space, and provides a foundation upon
which relativity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, statistical mechanics,
quantum mechanics, etc, are built.  At the same time, each of these
areas has provided insight into the structures that Newton's laws
were built on (it isn't a linear development).

The physical answer reduces to the idea that magnetic fields work on
currents and magnetic dipoles.  Magnets generate magnetic fields that
will work on the dipoles in the needle.  Getting more to the point,
the reason that dipoles form in the needle (exchanges) and why magnets
are fixed, tells interesting things about the nature of the metals
that comprise the needles and magnets.  However, at the root of all of
that will be statements like 'magnetic fields act on currents and
are acted on by currents (and that's not getting into all of Maxwell's
equations).'  Its all fundamentally description, and description in terms
of other elements of description.

Dan
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: 1992 Nobel Prizes: a prediction
X-Xxdate: Tue, 13 Oct 92 12:33:19 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:36:36 GMT

I may be biased, but I believe it is high-time the commitee gave a Nobel
to
John A. Wheeler for his work on controlled nuclear fission.

Norman
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.med,sci.med.physics,sci.engr.biomed
From: trajanos@fbmtds01.tu-graz.ac.at (Zlatko Trajanoski)
Subject: E-Mail address von E. Mosekilde, Lyngby, Denmark wanted!
Originator: trajanos@fbmtds01
Organization: Technical University of Graz, Austria
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 08:16:00 GMT


I'm looking for the e-mail address from Dr. Erik Mosekilde, Physics
Labarotory III, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.

Thanks.

Zlatko Trajanoski
-- 
 Zlatko Trajanoski                  e-mail: trajanos@fbmtds01.tu-graz.ac.at 
 Institute of Biomedical Engineering   Tel: +43 316 873 7389                
 Graz University of Technology         Fax: +43 316 465348                  
 Inffeldgasse 18, 8010 Graz, Austria