HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Where is background energy going?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 21:20:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.215859.22026@netcom.com> rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>An interesting question came up on an unlikely mailing list.  We observe
>that the wavelength of the background radiation has decreased as the 
>universe has expanded.  This implies loss of energy does it not?
>Where is that energy going and what is the vehicle of interchange.
>Photons don't emit photons and energy transfer must be quantized
>according to QM.  (John Baez, I would particularly appreciate a
>response from you)

Hi.  Yes, energy is not conserved in general relativity.  To be a bit
more precise (since there is a sense in which energy IS conserved),
there is in general no interesting quantity, "the total energy of the
universe," which can be computed at any time and turns out to be
constant.  The redshift of photons in a big-bang cosmology is an example
of exactly this effect. 

For more information you should look at the physics FAQ.  This question
comes up every 2 weeks.

Let me throw in a couple of extra points to round things off:

1)  Even the notion of "which can be computed at any time" is tricky in
general relativity, since there is no god-given coordinate system to
measure time.  In some special cases there is a "preferred time
coordinate" in which there IS a nice way to compute energy and have it
turn out to be conserved.  In the big-bang cosmology there is a
preferred time coordinate, essentially because there's a preferred field
of rest frames (in which the galaxies are close to being at rest), but
still there is no interesting conserved energy.

2)  I keep saying there's no INTERESTING conserved energy because there
is one seemingly sensible way to compute the total energy of a closed
universe but it gives you zero!  Zero is conserved but not interesting.
On the other hand, the fact that you get zero *is* interesting.  If you
wish, you can interpret it as saying that the energy of the stuff *in*
space (photons and whatnot) exactly cancels the (negative) gravitational
potential energy.  Then the decrease of the photons' energy can be
"explained" as being due to the fact that they are "climbing away from
each other."  HOWEVER, all of this must be taken with a mongo grain of
salt, since there is in general no good formula for "the energy of the
stuff *in* space" or "the (negative) gravitational energy".  There are
bad formulas that depend on arbitrary choices, but this arbitrariness
reveals that these concepts are somewhat bogus.  

In short, it's an interesting question that has been kicked around for a
long time, there's a lot to say about it, and anything one says must be
taken rather carefully.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA      DEMAND FOR EARLY POSTINGS 
Summary: Att:  H. CARTWRIGHT, S. MELIN 
Keywords: Libelous statements of  C.BASS , K.GUNNAR , A.HALL
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:28:23 GMT

                                      12-18-92

READERS OF  TIME HAS INERTIA, please note:
  

    ATT:  Messrs  KESSLER  e-mail:  <akessler@math.utexas.edu>
                  LYTJE       "     <lytje@mi.aau.dk>            
                  ROLPH       "     <a722756@roper.mc.ti.com>

    Thank you very much for  your requests for the postings in
                    TIME HAS INERTIA
Unfortunately I do not keep early postings  and  herewith I would
like to ask  THE READERS OF TIME HAS INERTIA to please assist you by
contacting you at your e-mail addresses given above.

     Also, you may contact Mr. Indra SINHA  at e-mail:
                  <antennae@gn.apc.org>
He may assist you. 

    Shortly, I will answer Dr. CARTWRIGHT and MELIN  about not only French
    and German but also Russian institutions' interests in TIME HAS
    INERTIA.

   Also, shortly I will comment on Messrs  BASS,  GUNNAR  and HALL 's
   LIBELOUS STATEMENTS.

    I am very busy at the moment but in 3 to 4 hours I hope I will be able 
  to have some time for the above items.
    
    With love                   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)
From: srr@udorn.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Reid)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: A1 DECODED
Date: 11 Dec 1992 20:32:51 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: srr@udorn.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: udorn

You all better be carefull! It could be that ABIAN is developing a
provocation bomb and when he takes over the world (and gives himself the Nobel
prize for physics and peace), you guys won't be on his short list for fashionable
ambassadorships.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Date: 16 Dec 1992 08:49:45 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Reply-To: ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de

In article <MATT.92Dec15140220@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:

>I don't think that changing sci.physics from an unmoderated to a
>moderated newsgroup would be a good idea; I do, however, think that we
>could use a new newsgroup, sci.physics.moderated.  (Please note that I
>am not talking about the elimination of sci.physics, simply the
>creation of a new newsgroup in addition to it.  Please also note that
>the name sci.physics.moderated is not set in stone; it is the first
>name that popped into my head.)

Sounds like a pretty good idea; I'd probably read that newsgroup, whereas
sci.physics has too low a signal/noise ratio for my taste.
-- 
Thomas Koenig, ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25@dkauni2.bitnet
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic
diagram.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:50:57 GMT

In article <1gttdfINNhk0@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> ST202194@brownvm.brown.edu () writes:
>Hello, I was just reading sci.physics while doing research for a paper on
>cosmic strings and I came across the following statement which might be of
>interest to people posting about science and religion.. .
 ...
"
>physicists are really saying, I believe, is that the laws of physics equate to
>God."  - G. Burbridge, in paper called Modern Cosmology: the Harmonious and the
>Discordant Facts.

     I hope this was made in a poetical rather than a serious vein.

     Otherwise, I suspect that large numbers of physicists would
     disagree with Mr. Burbridge, God apparently being unnecessary
     within physics in particular and science in general.

                           dale bass


-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com (Michael Reed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA. SURRENDER TO (A1),(A2),(A3),(A4) NO OTHER WAY
Keywords: GAINING A FEELING OF SECURITY - THE SOLE MOTIVATING FORCE
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:03:07 GMT
Reply-To: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
Organization: Western Geophysical Research & Development

In article <abian.724120186@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>, abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
|> To the readers of  TIME HAS INERTIA:   Accept (A3)  -no other way !!   
|> 
|>    Your desperate attempts to cling to your decadent principles of what
|> Physics, science, particles, galaxies and Cosmos are, your inexorable
|> tendencies to maintain your mental status quos  reveal and confirm and
|> prove my principle (A3): 
|>      
|>         that the GAINING OF A FEELING OF SECURITY IS THE
|> MOST BASIC, THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL AND THE MOST OVERWHELMING FORCE BEHIND
|> ANY PHENOMENON ANY OCCURRENCE, ANY MANIFESTATION AND ANY ACTION be at at the
|> particle level or at the galactic level. 
|>         
|>    Your resistance to admit and to accept(A3) as the most basic law of the 
|> Universe, of course, can be explained by (A3) as giving you a feeling of 
|> security.
|> 

Alex, old pal, didn't A3 used to be about altering the orbit of Venus
or something?  I guess with your ever changing brain chemistry you
fundamental principles change as well.

You know what would make me feel more secure?  Seeing you getting some
professional help. 

-- 
The above are my own opinions and mine alone.

*****************************************************************************
Michael Reed,
Western Geophysical, Research and Development Group
reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
(713) 964-6322                     FAX: (713) 964-6372
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: Note to Budnick - a reminder.
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:32:46 GMT

sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
: 
: From well (Whole Earth Electronic Link)
: 
: Topic 279:  Mad Scientists II
: # 12: Epigone of Koestler (rcl)      Mon, Sep 14, '92  (17:58)      16
: lines
: 
: Praising Sarfatti in front of his face certainly won't alter his character
: for better or worse, so let me say this. He strikes me as one of those
: unusual American originals, The Existential Hero. Such people don't often
: exist outside the fiction of Hemingway or Mailer. Perhaps Sarfatti has
: drunk deeply of the Mailerian spring. Whatever drew him into this way of
: life, the fact remains that he's obeying Nietzsche's maxim, live
: dangerously; and he's pursuing Whitehead's ideal of the Adventure of Ideas.
: This he is doing not as an insensate sleepwalker, but fully conscious and
: aware of the dangers he runs and the glories he might gain.
: 
: Too bad that some blockheads among us writhe with envy at the spectacle of
: a gifted soul aiming at stardom, and who spit gall rather than applaud a
: trapeze artist flying high, netless, over marble.
                             ^^^^^^^^^^				           
 would that it were so.:
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:16:08 GMT

In article <mcirvin.724051030@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin) writes:

)There is no extra postulate involved at all; the Everett interpretation
)merely states that the unitary evolution specified by ordinary quantum-
)mechanical dynamics must be taken seriously at all times.  Thus, when
)an electron is in a superposition of spin-up and spin-down states and
)you observe the spin, you end up superposed too, and so does everything
)that interacts with you, ad infinitum.  There's no added machinery for
)"world-splitting"-- just QM with no pruning of the wave function's 
)evolution, arbitrary or otherwise.
)-- 
)Matt McIrvin

This seems to imply half-alive half-dead cats - more formally, Schrodinger's
cat must also be in a superpostion of alive and dead states when placed
in the famous schrodinger apparatus, along with the measuring instruments
(not to mention the physicist/observer).

It seems to me that the much frowned upon view of 'many worlds' as parallel
worlds is simply an objection to what seems to me to be one valid
interpretation visualizing what a superposed cat / experimental device /
experimenter means by reifing the abstract mathematics involved - rather
like thinking of a 'phase space' as if it were a physical space.

A 'contionuously re-written history' seems to be another way of reifing the
same concept.

Does this sound like it is on the right track?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer)
Subject: Here is what I meant about the kill files...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington High Energy Physics Group
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:02:00 GMT

  OK Blair, et alia, here is the problem I have with killfiles. Again I am 
on a VAX and using VNEWS. 

1) I added an Abianarticle to my killfile ("K"). Maybe 3 messages with exactly
the same subject were killed.
2) I edited the killfile so that instead of saying 
 /TIME HAS INERTIA. Abian responds to God
  it just says 
 /TIME HAS INERTIA.
3) Now when I first go into sci.physics, and type "d" (for directory)
ONLY THOSE ARTICLES WITH "TIME HAS INERTIA." as the subject (and NOTHING else)
are killed.

 So the question stands : How can I tailor the killfile to get rid all articles
 beginning with "TIME HAS INERTIA." but with other stuff at the end. Don't
 tell me to get another newsreader unless that is the ONLY solution; and if it
 is, have the graciousness of specifying where said newsreader might be 
 obtained.

 Thanks.
       ================                           
         Lee Sawyer                                  

         Dept of Physics                          
         Univ. of Texas                            
               at Arlington                        

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: Has the Hulse-Taylor Pulsar GR "Observation" Been Retracted? (was Re: Beckmann Physics)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:58:00 GMT


carlip@landau.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip) writes:

> there is absolutely no doubt that general relativity predicts gravitational
> radiation --- this can be shown through exact solutions, numerically, by
> use of systematic approximation procedures, and by general arguments about
> the asymptotic structure of spacetime.

     "Absolutely no doubt"?  Then why is this point being contested by
several GR specialists currently?  Take the 1992 Yu paper as the latest
example.  Can you provide a clear, understandable refutation of his argument?
(See my summary in a simultaneous reply to Matt Austern.)  If so, will you be
publishing a rebuttal?  I'd realy like to get this point cleared up.

> For the sake of the nonexperts reading this newgroup, I wish you would be
> clearer about the distinction between saying ``there is an ambiguity within
> general relativity'' and ``there is an ambiguity because there is more
> than one possible theory.''

     At different points in this discussion I have pointed to evidence for
both of these positions.  The Yu paper clearly is arguing the former
position: there is an ambiguity within GR.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA. SURRENDER TO (A1),(A2),(A3),(A4) NO OTHER WAY
Keywords: GAINING A FEELING OF SECURITY - THE SOLE MOTIVATING FORCE  12-11-92
Date: 12 Dec 92 05:41:01 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <abian.724120186@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>To the readers of  TIME HAS INERTIA:   Accept (A3)  -no other way !!   
>
>  You have to surrender to (A3)
>
No, no I don't, man.  For a few reasons:
1. (A3) is a rather impotent psychological generalization that
does not explain anything new.  The motivation for security may
be a very strong force in people's lives, even the paramount one,
but it doesn't have to be.  I have met people whose driving motivation
was to do good for others, regardless of the risks to personal security.
You may say that doing this gave them a secure feeling, and I will not
argue with you, because you obviously know the complete emotional and
psychological makeup of every person on the face of the planet, as well
as many others, I am sure.

2. Even if (A3) were meaningful, which it is not, I have the right to be
wrong.  This is why I do not attack you for holding onto such obvious
inanities as (A1),(A2),(A3),(A4)....(An), and why I instead try to point
out why they are wrong.

and 3.  This psychological mumbo-jumbo really has no place on sci.physics.
To be perfectly honest, I don't believe anyone here, including myself and
yourself, have any credibility when we talk about subconscious motivation.
Post it somewhere else...er...I don't believe I just said that. ;-)

>  I am exhausted . I can continue, but I am exhausted.

Obviously you have exhausted your ability for rational (I use the term
in the loosest possible sense, to avoid overloading my COSMIC SARCAST-O-
METER) discourse and have instead opted to attempt to bludgeon us by 
telling us what we "must" do.  If this is all you can muster, please
don't bother to continue.

	Jason
	Yawn...Not The Jason From Oxford...Sigh...Will I _Ever_ Be?
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 05:10:08 GMT

   I would also read and support a sci.physics.moderated.  It couldn't
fail to be better than the current sci.physics, under almost any
conceivable moderating policy.

   Some groups are narrow or esoteric enough (e.g., comp.text.tex) to
survive unmoderated; others (e.g., comp.dcom.telecom) thrive with a
moderator.  A professional-level group on physics will have to be in
the moderated category.

Newsgroups: sci.physics,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Accellerating Spaceship (yet another bird in a plane)
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 02:05:18 EST

In article <Bz1Bxp.5vH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
ses52823@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marius) writes:

>Einstein was right as per Star Trek physics.  An object of defined nonzero
>mass cannot accelerate to the speed of light.  If you take this in a matter-
>antimatter context, this means that we (matter) are travelling slower than
>the speed of light and can't reach it, and antimatter (tachyons, etcetera)
>are travelling faster and can't slow down to it.

Antimatter and matter are just two solutions to Dirac's equations.
Anti- matter behaves just like matter when accelerated.  Really, the
only thing special about it is that it anhiliates with the
corresponding matter.  In this regard, it's really no stranger than matter
-- just a lot rarer in our neck of the woods.  ANTIMATTER DOES NOT
INTRINSICALLY GO FASTER THAN LIGHT.  It's not weird or funky.  It's just 
the complement of matter.  There -- I just had to say that,
just in case other folks didn't know better.

[deleted]
>with a high-integrity energy field (kind of like a magnetic bottle or charged
>space of ionized plasma -- on a small scale, this is what happens in a very
>weak base when you stick a high-voltage cable into the Atlantic Ocean.)
>So now there is this charged field, which isn't really matter as known in the
>real universe at all.

Really?  I thought we were made out of lots of charged particles.  Like 
Protons and Electrons.

>until it is brought down.  Now, accelerate this energy field (possible because,
>we assume, the energy field is made of forms of energy without mass such as
>the gamma ray, or the neutrino... you get the idea).  

Do photons have mass?  Any answers from physics types?  Their rest
mass is zero.  But I also know that they have momentum.  And a lot of
photons can warp space just like a lot of mass.

>I'm not trying to plug other SF here, but this is very different from the
>technology in Star Wars, which has a 'hyperdrive' which effectively creates a
>bend in space which makes the distance 
[deleted]
>(the story Imperial Domination has a Star Destroyer commander laughing at the
>Enterprise's warp drives, commenting that 'the high energy field makes them
>ridiculously easy to track' and that their transportation is 'remarkably
>inefficient in terms of energy expenditure.'  The Star Destroyer proceeds to
>quickly and quietly (sensorwise) slip through a self-created wormhole from
>where they were to where they want to go.

That's an interesting twist.  I thought that Star Wars tech was just way 
behind Trek tech.  (For example, the Enterprise could wipe out a planet
like the Death Star.  And none of the Star Wars ships can manuver FTL.)

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jhoste@kuju.claremont.edu (Jim Hoste)
Subject: looking for article on loaded dice
Keywords: probability, dice, loaded dice
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:34:12 GMT

Next semester I will be teaching an elementary probability class  
structured around the theme of games and gambling. I want to include some  
material on loaded dice. Surely someone has worked out the physics of  
rolling a die (in the shape of a cube) whose center of mass is not in the  
center of the die. What are the probablities of landing on the various  
faces as a function of the location of the center of mass? The same  
question can be asked for dice in the shape of other polyhedron,  
homogenious or not. 
	I am also interested in the following related question:
Can one create a die having n faces where the probability of landing on  
each of the faces is given in advance?  This is certainly true if *die* is  
interpreted fairly loosely. Somebody must have worked this out already.
	Can anyone recommend any good articles on these topics?
	I will summarize the replies that I receive.
	Thanks, Jim Hoste

ps I am also posting to:
	rec.gambling
	sci.math
	sci.physics
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: OK no connection communication in standard QM unless zero point energy  can be tapped.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:13:55 GMT


OK the real reason why the interference terms must vanish when summed over
all places where transmitter photon can be absorbed is conservation of
energy. If Hal Puthoff is right that one can release zero point energy in a
controlled way in small amounts by manipulating Casimir force, then that
effect will permit quantum connection signaling as well. Perhaps, all living
matter does feed off tiny amounts of energy extracted from the vacuum in
addition to energy from food? Actually, we don't need to extract energy from
vacuum, it's enough if we lose energy to vacuum to generate quantum
connection signals within the body and maybe between bodies. Using the
Sakharov theory connecting vacuum energy to gravitation ties in with
Penrose's model of collapse of ordinary wave function by creation of single
graviton - even at ordinary energy scale in which we function. The essence
of mental activity may involve gravitons, zero point transfers and
superluminal and precognitive signals all in one unified package. This is
very wild speculation - but it may well prove to be essentially correct.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mmm@qedqcd.rye.ny.us (Mike Miskulin)
Subject: Re: Upper limit of frequency
Organization: High Energy Concepts
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:44:22 GMT

In article <1g0v3dINNfku@sipi.usc.edu> haddadi@sipi.usc.edu (Navid Haddadi) writes:

>My main concern, as some people noted, is the mass equivalence.
>E=hv=mc^2 gives mass of a electron to a photon in the gamma radiation.
 ^^^^^^^^^

 2   2 2    2 4				 2
E = p c  + m c   which simplifies to E=mc  for a particle at rest.

You could also use: E=hv, c/v=h/p which gives E=pc  in this case


Newsgroups: sci.physics