HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Fluidic envelope on a point gravitational source suspended in a uniform field
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:58:07 GMT


What would the characteristics be of the fluidic envelope (atmosphere and
hydrosphere) of a gravitational point source (say, the earth) if it were to
be suspended (through some magical method which would NOT affect the oceans)
in a uniform (or near-uniform) intense (approximately 6 meters per second
per second) gravitational field (say, from something that would become Saturn)?

Off hand, I wonder about the long-term status of the atmosphere.  Would the
escape velocity on the "near" side be reduced such that the molecular velocity
at "room temperature" be sufficient to "bleed off" the air?  What WOULD the
imposition of a uniform field over the inverse square field do the e.v.?
Someone care to perform the integral?

What would the physical distribution of the object be?  On the planetary
surface, the vector sum of the two fields would make "downhill" towards
the primary (except in a line straight through the center of mass of the
secondary (earth).  On the "near" point, 'g' would be reduced and on the
"far" point 'g' would be increased.  The equipotential surface would
be furthest from the center of mass of the secondary on the "far" side
and nearest to the center of mass on the "near" side.  How would this
affect things?  Would the lithosphere retain sphericality, or is the
material strength insufficient to prevent drastic redistribution to conform
with the equipotential shape (read: terminal earthquakes).  What would
the atmospheric pressure be, since the mass of the atmosphere would be
on the "far" side and the 'g' is reduced on the 'near' side?  Would the
partial pressure of O2 be sufficient for respiration?  Would there be
ANY oceans & lakes on the "near" side?


--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:31:04 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <236@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP writes:

> I have never spoken of "diminishing the gravitational field of the earth",
> since that would something stranger than I know anything about in the way
> of physics...

      We agree on that one! Read on, however...

>  the only statement I have ever made here is that in 
> antediluvian times, living creatures on earth felt the gravitational pull
> of some other body aside from the earth as well as the earth's pull, and that
> threfore the perceived/felt effect of gravity was less.

      ...In other words, the (mean) gravitational acceleration at ground
zero would have been less. Now, I'm no physicist, but the only way I can
think of to achieve this - that is, on a global scale, with some
*clearly* noticeable effects (not just some fraction of a percent's
difference), and preferrably without tearing the entire planet utterly to
shreds - would involve diminishing the gravitational force. Lessening G
for this planet only, or something like that - and I haven't the
faintest on how to pull that one off.

      The reason I posted was, your speculating about "electromagnetic
<whatever>points" made no sense to me; the way you described them made
them seem slightly like Lagrange points to me; and since objects placed
in such points do NOT experience any "reduced" gravity (effects-of or
whatever), I just thought I'd tell you 'bout it.

      "Electromagnetic", btw? Cancelling out gravity using
electromagnetic fields? Achieve that, and you'll be heading for the
Nobel prize faster than greased lightning.

>  The felt effect of gravity diminishes quite a bit when you jump into
> a swimming pool...  water boueyancy.

      In crude, non-physicist terms, that would be sumptin' like: The
effective (gravitational) force on the body in question (mine)
diminishes due to other forces partially or completely balancing it. Now
all we gotta do is find a swimming-pool to throw the earth into...

> 
> 
> -- 
> Ted Holden
> HTE
> 

-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
 If you think I'm gonna be responsible for this crap, you're madder than I am.
    "No logic here today / Do as you got to, Go your own way..." -- G 'n' R
     ===>The Truth is still the Truth, even if you choose to ignore it.<===
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: For-sale ads on sci.math??
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 11:32:06 EST
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

> In article <ZN3kXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>, system@kalki33 (Kalki 
> >The recent upsurge of "I have a book for sale" messages on sci.math is
> >very annoying. Usenet etiquette is that these ads are inappropriate. I
> >request the posters of such ads to stop.  [signature omitted]
> 
> The upsurge of religious propaganda on USENET via your signature is also
> very annoying, and USENET etiquette discourages all big signatures. 

You know, Weiner, you haven't got any idea how fortunate you are.

Reading my signature is the only good thing that ever happened to you in
your entire miserable life, and you should get down on your knees and
thank the God who made you for giving you this opportunity to at least
see His holy name in print.

Aside from that, I'm right about the book ads, and everybody knows it.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       ---------------------------------------------------------
      |                Don't forget to chant:                   |
      |                                                         |
      |  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |       Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare          |
      |                                                         |
      |    Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA      |
      |           (kalki@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
       ---------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ss6349@tyr.albany.edu (Steven H. Schimmrich)
Subject: Need FAQ on geology
Originator: ss6349@tyr.albany.edu
Organization: Department of Geological Sciences, SUNY at Albany
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 22:42:02 GMT


   Could someone please e-mail me the talk.origins FAQ(s?) on geology.
Thanks.

--
Steven H. Schimmrich     Department of Geological Sciences         "Non semper
ss6349@csc.albany.edu    State University of New York at Albany   ea sunt quae
ss6349@albnyvms.bitnet   Albany, New York 12222  (518) 442-4466   videntur."
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Newton On Trial
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 22 Jan 93  11:16:04

Who: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
What: <1jg489INN135@morrow.stanford.edu>
With: <1jelm6$ejh@agate.berkeley.edu> philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu 
Named: (Phillip Johnson)
 
PJ> "This is the text of the plenary session lecture which I gave
PJ> at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Anthropological
PJ> Association in Berkeley in April, 1992."
 
BS> "It would be much better if you broke it into sections
BS> and posted them!"
 
I struggled through it, too. Pierre Grasse, and aparently Mr. Johnson,
confuses how he wishes reality to be, and what reality is. The fact of
evolutionary theory being as sound as it is does not in any way concern
"the value of life." To wit:
 
     > The really important meaning of "evolution" is not
     > that creation was a gradual process that required
     > billions of years. It is that the process was supposedly
     > undirected and purposeless. 
 
If Pierre Grasse / Mr. Johnson feels that "purpose" has any relevancy
to the issue, he has utterly failed to understand the most basic
concepts of science, evolutionary theory, application of theory,
and even how reality works. It doesn't matter one crap what MEANING
one attributes to an oberservation, because it will not change the
observation. Perhaps Pierre Grasse / Mr. Johnson would tell me the
moral and ethical implications of 3+19. . . . Or Pi=~3.1415926. Or
the distance-area inverse-square law. Would it one day be considered
that 6+3=9 is morally corrupt? Perhaps a table of porportional logs
will be judged immoral and banned as pornography.
 
If Creationists have proplems with the "meaning" of evolution, it
is because they have assigned a meaning to it, and it's their own
damn fault that they have assigned a false meaning to it. Instead
of whining and complaining and attempting to foist their occult crap
in public schools (usually stealthfully), they should actually
learn what evolutionary theory is, and then they would know that
applying "meaning" to the irrefutable fact of evolution is invalid.
  
                                                      ___
                                                     (o o)
       ---------------------------------------------w--U--w---
      |                                                       |
      |    Creationist's chant:   Is Not! Is Not! Ain't So!   |
      |                           Liar! Liar! Read the book!  |
      |                           Is Not! Is Not! Is Not,     |
      |                           Ain't So! Too Improbable!   |
      |                                                       |
      |   Satan's propagandaline, 666 south damnation alley,  |
      |               hell.university.underworld              |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Keywords: info requested
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:56:08 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan25.165508.16938@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|> rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:
|> >The fossil record leading to the vertebrate grade is pretty sparse,
|> >but the fossil record is sparse for most invertebrates.  Is that
|> >supposed to be a surprise?
|> 
|> The fossil record for intermediates is sparse or non existent
|> per se. There is a good reason for this.

Then you can explain it to us when you post your long-
promised explanation of the fossil record on a flood model.

You recall?   The one that was going to be so easy to write,
and so obvious?    The one you started making claims about
last summer, and never delivered on?

jon.
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Moon Dust
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:31:04 GMT
Organization: Carleton University

skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
[about the rate of meteoric dust flux being less than Peterson thought]
>How creationists missed the more recent and accurate measurement is beyond
>me.

It was in an inconvenient place: it was too low for them!


--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. watson@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
|  this->opinion = My.opinion;  assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion);  |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
 bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn
From: russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones)
Subject: Has Macro-evolution Occured? (Was Re: Topic for Discussion?
Date: 23 Jan 93 23:36:59 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

I would first like to applaud Phillip Johnson for actually making 
himself availble for a discussion.  I also happen to find his 
proposed topic interesting, and I'll be sure to watch it.

But while it's going to be fun watching the anti-Darwinists using 
our present confusion about the mechanisms of evolution as 
evidence for their particular vision, I'd like to have a touch-
stone to test any theory of The Diversity of Life.  Some have 
said (including Phillip Johnson, I think) that while various 
explanations of The Diversity of Life are just theories, it is a
fact that present organisms are linked by common descent.

I'm asking for the observations that make up the fact of 
evolution.  What observations inspired the formulation of 
this fact, what observations since have confirmed it, and 
what interesting observations are not explained by the 
fact.

To take an explicit example, the fact of evolution holds that 
I should take pride that among my ancestors I have (in order
of increasing age), some non-human mammals, some reptiles, 
some amphibians, and some fish.  Imagine that I'm trying to 
discuss this with my non-scientific mother, and that she's 
not at all inclined to believe it.  I need simple observations 
that might even be familar to her.  

I'm also genuinely interested in observations of The Diversity 
of Life that are not explained by the fact of evolution.  
Remember, now, I'm not putting any particular mechanism on 
trial here, so I don't care how old the earth is, or whether 
we've ever observed beneficial mutations, or where Venus was
3500 years ago.

If I get the response I'm looking for, I'll probably put this
into the form of a FAQ, one which I've often wanted.  I'd like 
something that could be used to judge the various explanations 
for The Diversity of Life that spring up from time to time.  So, 
for this round, I'll solicit e-mail and post the results.

For starters, just a few observations I'm aware of:

Human embryos develop gill-slits at an early stage, later to lose them.

Lucy is a fossil of a now extinct mammal that is strongly humanoid.

Vertabrates share a basic body plan:  central spinal cord, brain in
the head, most organs in the abdominal area, etc.

Terrestrial vertabrates share even more specific characteristics, 
such as the four-leg plan.

-Russ Paul-Jones
russpj@microsoft.com
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Muscle tissue from mouse to sauropod
Date: 23 Jan 93 04:35:54 GMT
Organization: HTE

We've seen one poster claim that reptile muscle is twice as good as ours,
and that this has been proven more dynamically than possible via microscope
test.  I've got three problems with this.

1.  I don't picture any way for this to be done.  I don't picture anybody
training a crock to do curls or benchpresses, for instance.

2.  The source I've quoted is too good and too authoritative to be dismissed
on such grounds:

 
  From Knutg Nielson, "Scaling, Why is Animal size So Important",
  Cambridge Univ Press, 1984, page 163
 
  It appears that the maximum force or stress that can be exerted by any
  muscle is inherent in the structure of the muscle filaments.  The
  maximum force is roughly 4 to 4 kgf/cm^2 cross section of muscle
  (300/400 kN/m^2).  This force is body-size independant and is the same
  for mouse and elephant muscle.  The reason for this uniformity is that
  the dimensions of the thick and thin muscle filaments, and also the
  number of cross-bridges between them are the same.  In fact the
  structure of mouse muscle and elephant muscle is so similar that a
  microscopist would have difficulty identifying them except for a larger
  number of mitrochondria in the smaller animal.  This uniformity in
  maximum force holds not only for higher vertibrates, but for many other
  organisms, including at least some, but not all invertibrates.
 

3.  It isn't even relevant.  Sauropods resembled reptiles in no way, shape,
or manner, and may actually have been mammals or near-mammals.  They walked
with their legs under them like large mammals, as opposed to reptiles other
than snakes, which walkin the familiar splayed manner, and their metabolism
was, in all likelihood, warm-blooded.

There is no conceivable way that any creature which eats grass and low-value
food, and whose weight is therefore mostly digestive mechanism, is going
to be remotely close to being as strong or capable of lifting as much weight
as a top human power-lifter such as Kazmaier.

If Kaz couldn't stand in our gravity at 70,000 lbs, then neither could a
sauropod dinosaur.


 
 
 
-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Reality and the Merrit FAQ (3 of 4)
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 20 Jan 93  02:15:00

 > From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
 > Message-ID: <204@fedfil.uucp>

 > Jim Merrit claims, more or less to speak for what I term the
 > regular crew
 > of talk.origins.  Not quite;  there are even a couple of those
 > people who can't stand him.


So one person thinks he's overbearing, another thinks he plays dog in the
manger in a discussion outside his real interests, ok nobody's perfect.

Or are you saying this invalidates his posts? In that case, the fact that the 
entire universe considers you to be an ethical oil slick must mean something
about *your* posts.


+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Un-pa-tri-o-tic (adj):   |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| protesting when the      | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| government wants to kill | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| people.                  | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Miscalculation
Date: 22 Jan 93 04:30:25 GMT
Organization: HTE


 
 
Every now and again, a debate or argument gets difficult to conduct for
reasons you somehow do not expect.  For instance:
 
A:  "You're a low-life, two-timing, four-flushing, dirty, rotten, lying
SOB....."
 
B:  "DAMN STRAIGHT!  Not only that, but the fact that you're NOT a
low-life, two-timing, four-flushing, dirty, rotten lying SOB tells me
that you've got a real serious problem there!"
 
A obviously expected some sort of a denial, given the severity of the
original charge, and is basically left speechless.  Some rethinking is
in order.
 
 
This is what I seem to be getting from the t.o crew on
the topic of the manner in which the word "liar" is habitually bandied
about on t.o.
 
 
[Holden]
>Standard for talk.origins, whenever anybody should be so bold as to
>post anything other than standard, uniformitarian, evolutionist fare, is
>for fifty articles to appear in reply, each calling him all manner of
>things, idiot, fool, pseudo-scientist...  Most people figure once is
>enough and move on;  it is not reasonable to expect any one person to
>reply to all fifty tormenters.
>Should the poster be so bold as to post such an article a second time,
>then he is a "liar" since he has been told better, BY his betters, the
>first time.  The level of callumny increases in proportion to the number
>of such posts.
 
[  Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
   btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University
                         Ames, IA 50011
]
>        When the poster posts an article a second time without reguard to
>any of the criticisms or errors discovered in the original post by other
>members of t.o, then he (or she) is indeed a liar because the person is
>posting material containing known errors.
 
 
[Stan Friesen]
^Yep, the definition of a liar is one who states something known to be false.
^When you repost verbatim material that has been shown to be incorrect you are
^indeed being a liar (since you have been given every opportunity to discover
^that what you are saying is false).  To avoid this you must either correct the
^errors or provide acceptible evidence that your material is not in error.
 
In other words, "Either you come to your senses and recognize the
inherent superiority of our jaded arguments, or you're a liar!"

I'd have figured t.o clown-force members would deny the basic claim (mine),
since it more-or-less calls them mindless bigots.  I obviously miscalculated.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 23 Jan 1993 11:52 MST  
Followup-To: talk.origins
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <106260@netnews.upenn.edu>, rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes...
>Note Followup-To line.
> 
>In article <1jpmv9INN272@dmsoproto.ida.org> rlg@omni 
>     (Randy garrett) writes:
> 
>}: }Science cannot prove anything!  That's right!  All it can do
>}: }is disprove things.
>}
>}Hmm, if you can't prove anything, how can you disprove anything?
> 
>You might want to check out your local bookstore or library in the
>philosophy of science section.  Find things written by Karl Popper,
>and you'll have your question more than adequately answered...

I just wanted to say that Karl Popper is not the last word in philosophy
of science, and that the above question is a good one.  If there's no
such thing as final proof (any "proof" can later be overturned), then
it's also true that there's no such thing as final disproof--the evidence
and argument which is the disproof can itself later be overturned.
Popper thought he could solve the problem of induction by doing away with
it completely (offering as an alternative that science only uses deductive
disproof), but later admitted into his theories a "whiff of inductivism."
   I recommend Newton-Smith's _The Rationality of Science_ (1981?) on
this subject.  He has individual chapters on Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn, and
Feyerabend.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Who does Phillip Johnson think the creationists are?
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:33:24 GMT

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>There's also an Institute dedicated to Cheese Powered Time Travel...

Is this the one trying to harness the fact that Edam cheese is made
backwards?  I am generally in favor of bleu-sky research.

Gouda luck!

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Not much of a cheese shop, actually...
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:15:47 GMT

In article <C17xIv.1yJ@athena.cs.uga.edu>, keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul)
writes:
> Unfortunately, Ted has never played with an electromagnet.

  My guess is that Ted has seen one of those "Newton's Folly" magnetic toys and
thought that it really worked the way it gives the impression it works. (you
know, the ones where the globe hovers between two electomagnets).

  For the record, Ted, the "Newton's Folly" toys only work because of a high
speed switching mechanism alternating the direction of the magnetic pull.  For
it to work with planets, Jupiter and Saturn would have to be switching their
polarity every few seconds (at least).

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____