HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Time Travel
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:01:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.212521.24408@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes: 
> 1.  When the traveler goes back in time an equal portion of mass
> is returned to his original time, probably from the same space that
> the time traveler "now" occupies.

Or perhaps from a random spot (possibly part of himself!).  How would you like
to go back (or forward) in time and come out missing a lung or something?

> 2.  When the traveler goes back in time, _energy_ is drained
> from the "past" universe and sent to the "future" universe.
> The law of conservation of mass is actually a law of
> conservation of mass/energy.  This was used (unintentionally,
> I think) in Back to the Future.  The car was really cold when
> it arrived (it was draining heat from the area around it)
> and left those really high-budget special effect lightning
> bolts when it disappeared (the heat energy from the past
> replacing the mass energy of the DeLorean).

How would you drain this energy without actually being there first.  If
however, nature does this for you, where does this energy come from, and what
form does it take.  It would really suck if you went back in time and the
energy took the form of heat and burned your house down.
 
> 3.  Nothing of the sort happens.  Mass has not been added
> or subtracted from the universe because the mass/energy is
> summed over a period of time and the total mass/energy contained
> in the space-time continuum bounded by the "beginning" and
> "ending" parts of the time traveler's journey is unchanged.

This would imply that I could stick my hand in a fire and not get burned as
long as this energy is manifested at some point in the future or past.  This
would incidentally toss out any physics which depended on conservation of
energy.
 
> 4.  When the traveler goes back in time the entropy of the
> universe slows just enough to make up for the added mass.
> This also makes sense because time travel essentially reverses
> entropy (the future is more disordered, but the time traveler's
> molecules are now in a state of higher order, therefore entropy
> is reversed.)

I could probably find a problem here if I wasn't getting clobbered in my
Satistical Thermodynamics course.
 
> Any of these could work.

Yeah, but at what price?
--Ray Cote
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:53:18 GMT

In <347@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:

>Jung has pointed out that astrology is in part a method for developing
>the intuitive mind. Thus it is no surprise to me that Newton, a
>profoundly intuitive scientist, took a serious interest in astrology.
>The one sided emphasis of Western culture on intellectual approaches to
>problems is one of our most serious handicaps. On this veterans day it
>may be appropriate to recall that the Vietnam war was conducted by the `best
>and the brightest'. It was an attempt to solve by intellectual means
>a problem that could not be solved in that manner. One can argue that 60,000
>Americans and a great many more Vietnamese died in part because of the one
>sided intellectual approach to problems that dominates our culture.

>Paul Budnik

Ooops, it would seem that I must waste a little more bandwidth by appologizing
to Paul...  I thought I had reached the end of your message, so my reply
was hasty.

---Xeno

By the way, how much bandwidth do you figure is wasted in appologizing for
taking up bandwidth?
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: time travell ??
Date: 8 Nov 92 05:27:14 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <1992Nov7.161752.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:

>The possibility of time travel is one which makes for good (=fun) science
>fiction, but if you stop and think about it for a couple of moments, it becomes
>just a figment of fertile imagination.
[...]
>reference, neither can you have negative mass (no antigravity). You can have

You do not need negative mass for "antigravity."  Gravity can act on massless
particles (photons), so what's to stop it from acting in an identical way on
these theoretical negative mass particles?

>negative charge, but that is only due to an imposed frame of reference.
>So-called anti-matter has been shown to have "positive" mass.

Have you stopped to consider whether gravity has forward/reverse time
symmetry?  If not, give it a try...  Perhaps photons 'move' backward in
time...  Have they proven that anti-particle entropy always increases
as our time goes forward?  Let me *propose* that it does not, but that the
inverse rule applies:  Anti-particle entropy NEVER increases, but either
stays the same or decreases.  Now, prove that anti-particles aren't
'standard' particles moving through time in the opposite direction.

>	Idiots who post ideas about anti-gravity machines (EXCEPT FOR JOKES),  
>Infinite free energy machines, time travel, etc. ad nauseam areprobably also
>interested in the curative properties of snake-oil and the scientific basis
>behind astrology.

Idiots who wish to read about new theories and aren't prepared for views
that conflict with their understanding of the physical laws of the universe
should probably not be reading this newsgroup.

>"Flame me for an heretic" Joan of Ark (or ARC if your on rec.scientology)

>David N. Chorley
> 

Please be sparing with your insults...  

---Xeno
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: tomes@iastate.edu ()
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:27:32 GMT

In article <xeno.721431574@pv34ad.vincent.iastate.edu> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>In <BxGIJ0.G5F@news.iastate.edu> tomes@iastate.edu () writes:
>
>
>>Of course, someone mentioned that a rail gun (mass driver?) had already
>>succeeded in throwing a small object to low earth orbit from somewhere in
>>New Mexico....
>
>>chuck the merciless.
>
>Excuse me?  Who mentioned this?  This can work on the moon because of the
>lack of atmosphere, but the drag imparted by ours would make this EXTREMELY
>difficult.
>
>---Xeno

The same individual (not on the net) mentioned that the two problems that they
had were making an ablative heat shield that was stable at hypersonic speeds
and how to keep misfires from destroying the umpteen hundred meter rail.
His contribution was to make the magnets segmented, not continuous, so only a
short section had to be replaced.

Interesting that SDI brilliant pebbles were in the preproduction testing
stage, with Hughes delivering test units that were only 15 inches in
diameter, last summer.  Sounds relatively reasonable for a bore for a BIG
railgun funded by the biggest corporation in the western hemisphere...
(see Aviation Week and Space Technology for the SDI reference, also for 
light gas guns stuff and railgun references)

If the projectile were launched at or above subrbital speed, how long would
it spend in the high density atmosphere?  Assume a vector about 20 degrees
above the tangent to the Earth's surface and an altitude of 8k feet.
sounds to me like 17k mph~ 25k ft/sec and less than 5 sec at high density
altitudes.  Not being an aero e, I can't figure the total drag and
deceleration, but it sounds like shooting a bullet through a thick curtain
to me.

One might even put a small rocket on it to use at high altitude to nudge
the projectile into orbit.  Even better, since rockets are most efficient at
high altitudes/high speeds.

I also find it hard to believe that someone hasn't generated a large enough
quantity of antiparticles to figure out the gravity question.  How long
has the capability to create them been around?  Sure, it would be damn
expensive, but having 100g of antiprotons to play with might give someone
with a LOT of resources some interesting answers.

Chuck The Merciless
Believe all of what you hear...you'll be right more of the time than the
people who doubt everything.

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: etljmme@etlxd10h.etlxd (Jim)
Subject: Hey! Armchair physicist's!
Reply-To: etljmme@etlxd10h.etlxd
Organization: Ericsson
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:04:41 GMT

Hi all,

I have a question to which I can only guess at the answer:

If gravity is a, er, side-effect of the warping of spacetime (the old "object on the
sheet" analogy), then would gravity only have existed from the moment that the
universe contained more than one object as otherwise, there would be nothing to
interact with.  Let's assume that at the moment of creation, the universe was probably
a single, pretty-damn dense point.  This point would also, therefore, be spacetime.
Until this point expanded to a size where particles could be seperate entities, could
gravity exist without seperate objects with which to interact??  If not, do we need
to unify gravity into a situation where it could not exist??

I'm sorry if this question sounds daft or just plain stupid but if you can work out
what I mean, you'll see the difficulty in phrasing the question...

I look forward to your suggestions, abuse, comments, swearing etc.

Regards, Jim.
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Size of a PHOTON?
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:06:51
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
	<xeno.720906588@pv34ad.vincent.iastate.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.116
In-reply-to: xeno@iastate.edu's message of Wed, 4 Nov 1992 19:49:48 GMT

xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:

> If I threw a baseball near the speed of light, it's relativistic mass
> (that same type of mass you use in your example of radiation pressure),
> especially in combination with spacial contraction, might lead one to
> believe that it would become a black hole and collapse in on itself.
> But from the baseball's point of view, we here on good ole' Mother Earth
> would have already become a black hole while it was still accelerating
> (ignore problem of black hole accelerating a baseball ;)  It should be
> apparent that this can't be right...  

Are you trying to imply that it "can't be right" for two identical
observers to each measure the other's mass to be greater than their
own mass?  For each to measure the other's length in the direction of
travel to be shorter?  For each to see the other's watch ticking
slower?  If so, read a good book on Special Relativity.

> Where is the flaw in the logic?

Something does not collapse into a black hole just because a
fast-moving observer measures its mass to be incredibly large.  You do
not age slower just because a fast-moving observer sees your watch
ticking slower than his.  In fact, while he sees your watch ticking
slower than his, you see his watch ticking slower than yours.  This is
counter-intuitive, but in the limit of flat spacetime, it is the way
the universe works.

Special Relativistic effects are symetric between two uniformly moving
observers.  No one's reference frame is special.
--
franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio, CenterLine Software R&D
617-498-3255           || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
"It's not the thing you fling, it's the fling itself."  -- Chris Stevens
From: alizard@Blue.Kludge.COM (A.Lizard)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: gravity-neutralizing
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 20:16:40 PST
Organization: 'Lectrick Blue!, Moraga CA

"anthony tekatch" <anthony.tekatch@canrem.com> writes:

> 
> MC>                         Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Spacecraft
> MC>                         or ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber
> 
> MC>               NASA should build an experimental spacecraft based on
> MC>          U.S. Patent #3,626,605 [at least $1.00 per complete copy from
> ........
> MC>          loan dept..], titled "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING A
> MC>          SECONDARY GRAVITATIONAL FORCE FIELD", awarded to Inventor
> MC>          Henry W. Wallace on Dec. 14, 1971.
> 

My understanding of patent law says that anything with a patent number
on it is at least theoretically supposed to work... and there's a short
list of things that the patent office demands working models of 
(normally, they do NOT want prototypes, just paper) ... with perpetual
motion and anti-gravity machines on top of the list. 

Let's have an explanation of what this alleged device is supposed to
be... then we can contact the patent office and ask it why they granted
it...
A.Lizard

--------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
[path]!pacbell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@seer.mystic.com (backup)   alizard@Blue.Kludge.com (backup)
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2237 sci.physics:18691
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Summary: Blanket condemnation of either astrology or religion is a mistake.
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:20:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1992Nov11.024228.19183@nuscc.nus.sg>, matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:
> I have tried [without much success] to follow the thread on mixing
> science and religion. I note that many people argue that the two are
> indeed immiscible. I wonder how these people feel about astrology? Many
> of us feel that scientists have a moral obligation to speak out against
> popular delusions of this kind. Are we mistaken? Should we take the view
> that astronomy and astrology don't mix?

Certain aspects of astrology, predicting ones fate based on the moment of
one's birth, are known to be false and should be condemned. Many aspects
of many religions are known to be false and should be condemned. A
blanket condemnation of either makes as much sense as as a blanket
condemnation of physics because it was responsible for nuclear weapons.

Jung has pointed out that astrology is in part a method for developing
the intuitive mind. Thus it is no surprise to me that Newton, a
profoundly intuitive scientist, took a serious interest in astrology.
The one sided emphasis of Western culture on intellectual approaches to
problems is one of our most serious handicaps. On this veterans day it
may be appropriate to recall that the Vietnam war was conducted by the `best
and the brightest'. It was an attempt to solve by intellectual means
a problem that could not be solved in that manner. One can argue that 60,000
Americans and a great many more Vietnamese died in part because of the one
sided intellectual approach to problems that dominates our culture.

We should be for more interrested in learning from Astrology 
then in condemning one false aspect of it.

Paul Budnik
From: ronb@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:58:28 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

> The curvature of spacetime has always confused me.  When a one
> dimensional line curves, it curves into a second spatial dimension.
> When a two dimensional surface (like the surface of the infamous
> balloon) curves, it curves into a third spatial dimension.
> 
> Does that mean when four-dimensional spacetime (3-space + 1-time)
> curves, it curves into a fifth dimension?

	Someone please tell me what's wrong with my idea here:
	We live in a universe that is comprised of at least 4 dimensions: 
three dimensions of space and (at least) one of time.  Even though they are
connected, they must be treated in some matters.  Space-time curvature being
one of them.
	My guess is that our three (spacial) dimensional universe is curving
into a fourth or higher (spacial) dimension.  The only reason why time is
effected is because of it's ties to space.
	By this theory, it is possible to argue that we live in a universe that
is comprised of _TWO_ dimensions of time.  Just as we are able to visualize an
object in three dimensions (in our three dimensional universe,) we are also
able to visualize more than one possible future - which would not (I think) be
possible in a universe with only one dimension of time.
	So I got off the track a little bit. *shrug*

"... where the 'stuff of life' is raining out of the skies..." 
				-Carl Sagan 
        		 sniggerfardimungus
	        	in%"ronb@cc.usu.edu"
          	 The usual disclaimers apply anywhere 
                     you can find a sticky spot.
From: ggraef@convex.csd.uwm.edu (Gerald Luther Graef)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Spin Numbers
Date: 10 Nov 1992 22:48:52 GMT
Organization: University Wisconsin - Milwaukee Physics Dept.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.30

In article <1992Nov10.123121.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>Does anyone know if it's mathematically possible for a particle to have a
>one-third integral spin number? How about experimentally changing the spin
>number of a particle?
>--Ray Cote

Mathematically, anything is possible.  However, anything other than integral
and half-integral spin has no physical basis.  As far as
current theories go (even esoteric ones), one-third is not possible.
Particle spin is intrinsic: if you change it, you have a different
particle (and undoubtly, other properties will change as well.)  Note that
spin is conserved, so if you change it, something else must gain or
lose spin.  (note that by changing spin, I assume you mean change the
magnitude of spin - the direction is easy to change..ie -1/2 to +1/2 of
an atomic electron via photon emission.)

Gerry
From: ronb@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Anti-gravity/antimatter related?
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:05:50 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

	Since everyone's been complaining about the idea of anti-gravity
recently, I've got another idea (probably even worse than the one you just
read - also my crazy idea.)  What are the odds that antimatter would be
anti-gravitational?  Or, since gravity is a relatively weak force, that
anti-matter would have a repulsive effect on 'normal' matter that would be
enough to overcome the force of gravity?
	Someone's going to have to blast me for this one, too.

"... where the 'stuff of life' is raining out of the skies..."
				-Carl Sagan
	        	 sniggerfardimungus
	        	in%"ronb@cc.usu.edu"
        	 The usual disclaimers apply anywhere 
                     you can find a sticky spot.

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:27:11 GMT

In <1992Nov9.114939.9235@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft) writes:

>Is anyone willing to speculate regarding a design of a photon drive?
>How might one work? Does anyone have any ideas on an improved propulsion
>system for a spacecraft? For example a spacecraft traveling to Mars might
>be propelled by intercepting small iron balls shot from earth. It may come back 
>by shooting these same balls out of the solar system. Power for the return trip
>may be provided from earth or earth orbit via a microwave beam.

I think it may be possible to produce a device which could make use of local
differentials in the gravity field to accelerate the engine in most directions.
The principle of navigation would not be different from that of a standard
sailing ship.  You could sail most every direction except for directly into the
wind, but by sailing in a 'zig-zag' pattern, any destination could be reached.
This device would operate best sailing perpendicular to a close, strong gravity
source (such as the sun).

It is my personal belief that anytime there is ANY type of differential, it is
possible to use it for something useful...  Thank God our universe isn't truly
isotropic.

---Xeno
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: tomes@iastate.edu ()
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:16:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.114939.9235@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft) writes:
>Is anyone willing to speculate regarding a design of a photon drive?
>How might one work? Does anyone have any ideas on an improved propulsion
>system for a spacecraft? For example a spacecraft traveling to Mars might
>be propelled by intercepting small iron balls shot from earth. It may come back 
>by shooting these same balls out of the solar system. Power for the return trip
>may be provided from earth or earth orbit via a microwave beam.

How about this as an interplanetary drive:

3 or 4 100 kW fission reactors driving an electric plant (conversion not
specified: whichever method is most cost effective/efficient).  Then use water
as a reaction mass, electrolysize to get O2 and H2, use the O2 to breathe and
the H2 as the reaction mass.  Feed the H2 to an infrared laser and heat it up.
Use the water to cool the exhaust nozzle (much hotter than chemical reaction)
The only problem is the seeming lack of large quantities of water where we can
get at it in orbit.

Of course, someone mentioned that a rail gun (mass driver?) had already
succeeded in throwing a small object to low earth orbit from somewhere in
New Mexico....

chuck the merciless.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Anti Gravity Device = Levity
Date: 5 Nov 1992 23:14 PST
Organization: dept. of theophysics and cosmogyny
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: reg.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov4.110134.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu>, 
>chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes...
>Anti Gravity Device-Verified, was a joke-post intended to neutralize the
>gravity of the newsgroup by introducing a little levity...
>I have gotten two serious enquiries and see that my name will be mud in this
>newsgroup...
>	Sorry I won't do it again.
> 
>DNC

Yo, `chorley', don't let the obtuseness of some of the
humourless denizens here deter you. This group can only 
benefit from a little satire.
==========================================================================
Hey, what's that aweful noise          :    Pete Vincent
coming from the White House?           :
Twelve years of papers shredding!      :  Disclaimer: all I know I learned
                                       :  from reading Usenet.