HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Wednesday, 23 Dec 1992 09:45:07 PST
From: Jon J Thaler <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Testing Quantum Gravity

sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) says:

> Baez makes the amazing remark with which I agree:
               (...stuff deleted...)
> It's true that most of the experiments one can *easily* imagine to test
> quantum gravity *would* require a really advanced super-technology to
> carry out.  (E.g., rigging up a particle collider to wham charged
> Planck-mass mini-black-holes into each other, or trying to start a new
> universe in your basement by messing with the Higgs potential.)

There is some speculation that tests of Planck-scale physics may be closer
than is usually thought.  See recent papers by Ellis, Mavromatos, and
Nanopoulos (some in Physics Letters, and some on the hep-ph bulletin board).
The part that I understand is that M(K)/M(P) ~ 10**-19, while
dM/M(K) ~ 10**-17, only a factor of 100 larger.  M(K) is the mass of the
K-meson, dM is the KL/KS mass difference, and M(P) is the Planck mass.  If
the speculation is correct, then tests could be performed in the next decade.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: boswell@well.sf.ca.us (Gerard Van der Leun)
Subject: Buy Jack A Clue Fund
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: edge.com
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:34:10 GMT

In article <C01Dox.25F@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack
Sarfatti) wrote:
>  
> Whew! For the record Boswell's or Gerard's main achievement in life is
> writing phony pornographic letters for Penthouse Magazine - that's a fact.
> He has no training whatsoever in math and science.


Again I toss a quarter in my Buy Sarfartti A Clue Fund. Never written
a letter for Penthouse. Not a fact. Not even close. Sorry Jack. Try
again.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Richard P. Feynman
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 06:54:43 GMT

kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie (kevin patrick kretsch) writes:
:
: Let us not remove ourselves from society and then wonder why nobody
: considers us normal or interesting because we are scientists. If we do,
: then all we do for humanity is in vain.
: 

Ah, but leave us our heros.  There is no sarcasm in the last sentence.
For many of us, you that explore the edge fully equipped will always
be larger than life.  Being larger than life brings scrutiny but no
desired measure of normalcy.  Interesting goes with the territory.
In vain!?  Maybe for vanity but certainly not in vain.  :-)

Peace,

Bob
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

    'The meek shall inherit the earth--the rest of us will move on..'
                                                    Sameer Parekh


               PGP 1.0 or 2.0 public key available on request.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: poll update
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:10:58 GMT

	Due to net-relativistic effects, a few answers to my poll on 
(non)religion among sci.physics readers came in after I posted the 
results.  Including the late entries, the totals were

	Yes       No        Ambiguous
	 18       17            3

where the question was, "do you consider yourself religious?"  

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bcannard@hppcb36.mentorg.com (Bob Cannard)
Subject: Re: Accellerating Spaceship (yet another bird in a plane)
Originator: bcannard@hppcb36
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:11:36 GMT
Reply-To: bob_cannard@mentorg.com
Organization: Yuggoth Interplanetary Travel Inc.
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 


In article <1992Dec30.113719.1@sscvx1.ssc.gov>, draper@sscvx1.ssc.gov writes:
|> > In article <ewright.725660501@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
|> >For example, if you had two chunks of matter, one negative and
|> >one positive, the negative chunk would move away from the positive
|> >chunk because of repulsion.  However, the positive chunk would move
|> >toward the negative chunk, trying to catch up.  So, toss a chunk of
|> >negative matter out the door of your spaceship, and away you go!
|> >
|> I think, strictly speaking, this only happens if there is a distinction made
|> between inertial mass and gravitational mass.
etc

Hardly. Let's stick to Newton's equations and make m1 positive and m2
negative, for both gravitational and inertial mass.  From the law of
gravitation, we get a negative (i.e. repulsive) force between the two bodies.
Applying the 2nd law of motion we find m1 moves away from m2, while m2
moves towards m1 - the negative mass and negative force give positive
acceleration.

Great way to get to the stars.
Pity you can't use it to drive an electric generator.
-- 
bob_cannard@mentorg.com			"More dynamite!" - Theron Marks
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Materials for simple static electricity expts.
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:17:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <Dec.16.20.40.12.1992.9610@ruhets.rutgers.edu>, bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes...
>When I ran an electrostatics lab session we obtained opposite charges by 
>rubbing:
>1. plastic (bakelite?) rods with fur or possibly wool
>2. glass rods with silk, or maybe even nylon.
> 
>I don't think anyone's mentioned #2.  I remember that it was always
>a little harder to charge the glass rods.  Of course it should
>be done on a very dry day.

You can produce a static charge, enough, say, to produce a clear separation
of the gold foils of an electroscope, by rubbing or grinding most nonconductive
materials.  For example, you can charge your electroscope by grinding coffee
onto the electrode.  This will surprise your students.  And you can recycle
your demonstration into a nice hot cup of java.  Peet's coffee works best.

-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: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Subject: Re: Christmas problem
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:41:43 GMT

In article <8456@charon.cwi.nl> vanloon@cwi.nl (Maarten van Loon) writes:
>1. A glass of water is standing on a balance.
>   At a certain moment someone puts a thermometer in the glass,
>   without touching the glass and still holding the thermometer
>   in his (or her) hand. Question: does the balance show a
>   heigher or lower weight or does it indicate the same weight?

Water sticks to glass, so some small amount of water in now supported by
the thermometer, so the balance should read a lower weight.

>2. An astronout takes a bottle filled half with whine with him
>   in space. What does he see when he looks to the bottle in
>   space?

Whine? (what is a jewish American Princess's favorite whine: "I want to go
to Bermuda for X-mas!" Oh wine!)  Well depending on how shaken up the bottle
got anything from a bottle full of pink foam to a bottle that looks full
because the wine sticks to glass and will cover the entire inside surface.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Mind of God
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:13:06 GMT


That malevolent imp Boswell writes:

Jack, if you were the moderator of a moderated group it would have only
one writer and only one reader and only one member.

Indeed, if you read Jorges Luis Borges you will realize that there is only
one Author and we are merely scribes receiving the WORD OF SAR from our far
future molded by the nonlocal quantum force without force!

Forgive them SAR, they know not what they do!

"Oh crucify me on the lone prarie
with blood drippin down my sides
Oh don't throw sticks
and don't throw stones
for they're against the rules
(of usenettiquette and moderation etc)
just hang me up on Boswell's cross
with the stakes stickin through my shoes
For I want fame and I want my name
On the lips of a billion fools!"
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: berryh@huey.udel.edu (John Berryhill, Ph.D.)
Subject: Re: Metals in liquid Nitrogen !!
Organization: little scraps of paper, mostly
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:14:38 GMT


It has long been known that certain characteristics of metals will
change upon exposure to low temperatures and that such change in
properties may be retained.  Excuse me if I'm rehashing old stuff, but
you can get martensitic transitions to occur in certain steels at high
as well as at low temperatures.

You can get over certain potential barriers either by (i) adding heat
to a system or (ii) squeezing the componentns of the system closer
together as occurs by thermal expansion (or contraction in the case
at hand).

Now with a bimettalic interface, you can have a tremendous and sudden
buildup of interfacial stress if you cool the system down rapidly.  That
stress can only build up so far before something finds a way to relieve
itself.
-- 
                                                John Berryhill, Ph.D.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick)
Subject: Re: moderating sci.physics - physics is everything
Organization: CSIRO Division of Mineral Products, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 05:14:44 GMT

scip1061@nuscc.nus.sg (Marc Paul Jozef) writes:

>sidles@stein.u.washington.edu (John Sidles) writes:
>: Why impose extra constraints by moderating sci.physics?  Is
>: the extra bandwidth imposed by eccentric postings really a
>: significant burden?
>: 
>: In my view, all persons of libertarian inclination should vote "no".
>: The present mild anarchy is quite tolerable, even enjoyable.
>: 
>: Not that sci.physics is perfect... it just isn't clear that
>: moderation will improve it.  The main problem seems to be a
>: paucity of well thought out, interesting & informative postings,
>: not an excess of eccentric ones.
>: 
>: Also, consider the humanitarian aspects... why exclude people
>: with ideas that seem strange, at what may be a considerable emotional
>: cost to them, in the absence of a compelling reason to do so?
>: 


>     Indeed, we are dealing here with people who 
>     do not know how to operate the kill-options. 


Is there going to be moderation? - I hope not.

Moderation implies that 1 or 5 or 20 people will define
what physics "is" in this group.

Please disagree if you want, but when you boil it
down - all scientific disciplines are physics - with
a few "user friendly" concepts placed in-between.

I'm not trying to be a physics snob ( I majored in
Chemistry and Biochemistry), but I still remember
the most boring lectures in Biochem were
first principles - about the chemistry/physics of biochemisty
(I preferred the other Biochem lectures which were more 
relevant to the "real" world like - why you should never eat the liver
of a polar bear - quite a few arctic explorers made that mistake.)

The worst thing that can happen to free discussion in
a group like this is when a moderator decides a topic
is not physics, but chemistry or biochem or "crap" or "crackpot".

Quite a few topics considered not to be "physics"
can be thought of in new perspective when
the first principles (i.e., physics) is considered
or discussed.  And this should be one of the groups
in which discussion should be occurring.

The present "mild anarchy" can be avoided for annoyed users
by either kill files (as stated above) or not bothering
to read the news articles with the rather obvious titles.
The latter suggestion is the easiest.

Lachlan.

(Wow, I managed to do a post in sci.physics without
anything in bold capital letters!!)
-- 
  Lachlan Cranswick  -  CSIRO             _--_|\  lachlan@dmp.CSIRO.AU
  Division of Mineral Products           /      \ tel +61 3 647 0367
  PO Box 124, Port Melbourne 3207        \_.--._/ fax +61 3 646 3223
  AUSTRALIA                                    v 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: osborn@socs.uts.edu.au (Tom Osborn)
Subject: TIME is Massless, INERTIA persists inspite of time...
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date:  4 Jan 93 04:45:57 GMT

Countless undergraduate musings ago, in a diversion from number theory, the
reverse engineering of physical theories beckoned. A primary artefact of the
physicists' thought-stuff was the 3D consequential conservation - the inverse
square laws. 

Unlike A Abian, the young explorer sought not fame and iconoclasm, but instead
wondered after explanations for things observed, and things recorded. 

The Psychology:

Explanation was a motivating force in the human brain which (in less than
lazy individuals) was found to be productive - of more useful categories and
more compact explanations. 

Although the compactness of the explanations appeared to approach an "ABIAN"
stability, this was a furphy, since categorical definitions to support these
more and more compact thoughts happened to fill many libraries, with more and
more refined qualifications and adjustments. 

The weak-minded would circumvent the extent of the libraries by abusing their
languages and always expected a smaller book to contain more than a larger one.
Moreover, the output of such scholars was _revolutionary_, but only in the
sense that forgetting is the act of an anarchist. 

Maybe a radical transformation of language would strengthen a weak mind, but
only at the price of the uncertainty about whether the language would weaken
it instead. Best to be of two minds...

The Physics:

Two cats chasing each other's tails would attract the attention of other four
legged, sensate beings in their vicinity. At any point in time, the further
of these two cats from an observer would have less influence, until an interval
of time had passed when the proximal distinctions had swapped. If the influence
on the observer was somehow out of sync (due to sensational processing delays 
- system response times), the cats would respond to the observer's reactions in 
a doubly out of sync response. Any CHANGE in the states (apart from running)
of either of the cats, or the observer would artefactually *attract* the
remaining two individuals towards the informational barycentre of the
interactions (due primarily to the difference between the angular extent
of a diameter of cat rotation, and the maximum occluded angle - when viewed
at a finite distance - that the pair of moving cats appears closer than either
of the cats are on average). 

This model of the electron is only feasible if the time delays between the
cats are massless, otherwise the observer would be subject to uncontrollable
wobbles. Hence, that cats will chase each other forever, without feeling the
least bit secure, and the observer will be drawn into the fray...

Corollary:

The most general definition of "stability" is "change". Without "change", the 
concept of "inertia" is utterly meaningless. "Inertia" is WHY the cats run...
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Date: 1 Jan 93 16:08:53 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1992Dec31.222704.19821@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> In article <31DEC199211004292@author.gsfc.nasa.gov>
> rkoehler@author.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bob Koehler) writes:
> 
> > Would someone be so kind as to summarize the argument that hidden variable
> > theories violate causality?
>[...]
> However (and simply ignoring the many person-years of "debate" in sci.physics
> on this issue), I would strongly suggest that if you look carefully at the way
> it is set up, this very odd QM "spookiness" does _not_ violate causality any
> more than fully local "hidden variable" theories do.  Causality violation
> means the abilty to transfer a message upon which some very real action can
> be taken.

This is an interresting new definition of causality. Bell's result implys
that either special relativity, quantum mechanics or causality as defined
in classical mechanics is false. There is no escaping this except be
redefining causality as some physicists have attempted to do. 
It is not possible to send a message instantaneously using this effect.
However, the effect does require that information be transferred
instantaneously.  We know something about possible combinations of two
events, polarizer angles and detections, at a distant site that could not
have been transferred in a way that preserves causality consistent with
Lorentz invariance. In some frames of reference the information must be
transferred from A to B and in other frames from B to A. 

> The QM version just does not allow that, since no matter how you
> arrange it the "correlations" will be recognizable _only_ after you bring
> records back together from both sites and compare them.  The latter process
> of "bringing together" the records enforces a speed-of-light delay that keeps
> the universe nicely consistent and prevents any serious (past-changing) info
> from being transferred.

This is true, but I believe there is a serious problem
with the current QM model when you start asking what happens in the time
domain in tests of Bell's inequality. Assume the polarizers are located
some distance from the detectors. Assume there is a steady stream of singlet
state particles that you are detecting. At what time does QM predict that one
will see a change in probability of joint detections as a result of changing
the angles between polarizers? QM does not make a clear prediction about
this. Considering this issue leads directly to a proof that QM is
an incomplete theory. This is an appropriate result since it was this claim
by Einstein 60 years ago that started this debate.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Re: sci.physics as group therapy for mad physicists
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:18:50 GMT

In article <C02H78.G66@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>sci.physics is becoming a real looney bin.

Now I've heard everything. Geez, is this guy for real or what?
Somebody better tell Sarfatti to stick to physics, at least the worst
he could be is wrong. As a clown he's pathetic.

You know, except for a feeble peep a couple of days ago I haven't
heard a thing from A***n in a long while. Do you suppose ignoring
Sarfatti might have a similar effect?

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: ynecgan@cid.aes.doe.CA (Greg Neill)
Subject: ABIAN HAS INERTIA AND TOO MUCH TIME
Followup-To: sci.physics
Summary: Insufficient explanation
Keywords: ABIAN 
Organization: Environment Canada (CID), Dorval, QC
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 19:02:28 GMT


In response to my post concerniing how his theory fails to explain the
observed behaviour of lasers, Mr. Abian writes:

	"   As far as LASER is concerned, if you follow it  long 
	    enough, you will find that it  also will be diluted in 
	    space.  "

Note that the slow divergence of the beam is not what would be expected
from Mr. Abian's postulates.  Instead, one would expect that upon the
"provocation" of the light entering each succeeding region of space, that
the light would be reacted to in such a way as to have the beam
essentially disintegrate into a random cloud of photons, each following
a random-walk trajectory.  Since this does not happen, we must conclude
that space is not provoked by the presence of light into causing
dilution.  Another mechanism (based on the (A1) - (A3) postulates?) must 
therefore be sought.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Neill,               | "Man is certainly stark mad.  He can't make a worm,
HNSX Supercomputers   Inc.|  but he makes gods by the dozens."
ynecgan@cid.aes.doe.ca    |                      -- Montaigne
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Scientific Truth Is Not Found in Threats
Date: 31 Dec 1992 21:12:08 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <1hubo9INN7j3@shelley.u.washington.edu> lamontg@stein.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>Jack, you are one seriously clueless fuck [*].  Anything posted over the net
>immediately enters the public domain unless the appropriate copywrite
>notices are attached to it ("only for posting to the net, not for
>re-publication, etc, blah blah blah").

Actually everything on the net is copyrighted to the author
by default (or by extension to whomever authored the text
the author is transcribing from a source other than the
net), but de facto authorized for excerpting for the
purpose of commentary on the net, but only so far as you
can get a de-facto to work in whatever court would be anal
enough to accept Sarfatti's case...

Also, while you retain copyrights to your sentences, I
accrue copyrights to my rearrangements of them.  We'll have
to work out the royalty splits later.

The point is that it definitely is not true that everything
posted on the net without benefit of explicit copyright
notice is automatically in the public domain.

				--Blair
				  "(C) 1993 Blair P. Houghton
				   All Rights Reserved."
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:15:05 EST
From: <CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why does sticky tape glow?

Triboluminescence, I believe.
Certain kinds of band-aid wrappers do it too when you open them.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: sci.physics.research moderated etc.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:36:21 GMT


Moderators should not be allowed to post their own stuff without it
being reviewed by another moderator - this is especially important
for Bass, Baez, Budnik, as well as myself - all of whom have what
Lawrence Stern, in Tristram Shandy, calls "hobby horses".

There should be several conferences broken down according to
subject matter - which will make it easier for every one
e.g.
1. philosophy of physics
2. quantum mechanics
3.solid state
4.math methods
5. relativity
6. chaos
etc etc.
7. flames?