HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 16 Nov 1992 21:13:54 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <1992Nov16.072757.29064@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     To make this much stronger, 'All-powerful' and 'all-knowing' 
>     is a concept outside of science.   One cannot determine such a
>     concept within science.

They're also concepts inside of paranoia and psychosis.
Given the opportunity to make a Bayesian decision for a
wager on whether God or psychosis is the causative agent
behind religion, I'll bet the farm on the psychosis.

>     Religion has to accept nothing.  Do you honestly think that the 
>     Jains base their belief in reincarnation on *logic*?

Certainly not, since it's a scientific impossibility.
Atoms and energy do not fly from one dead body to another
live body, except through well-explained methods of natural
recycling.

Unless you're willing to start arguing about the
existence of "soul" (other than that which Motown
so graciously gave to us, of course).

>There is no
>     logic that explains basic facts of existence that must be
>     assumed.

Except the "existence" of dieties?

>     Also, 'clearly not true' is in the eye of the beholder.

Or of the syllogism.

>>their religion - creationists and others. But don't blame religion for
>>this; it's bad science AND bad theology. It is true that religion is
>
>     It is perfectly consistent theology.  It is *not* science.

It's ridiculously bad theology that's been blown completely
out of the water by all sorts of scientific discoveries.
Evolution since the time of Darwin has been the sine qua
non of antireligious scientific pursuits.

				--Blair
				  "R-E-S-P-E-C-T
				   Find out what it means to me."
				   -Aretha Franklin
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: energy, mass, and all that
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:53:42 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts) writes:
>bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>>Etc.  Scott, don't you imagine this whole tempest-in-a-teapot is the old
>>confusion over "relativistic mass" versus "rest mass"?  Bondi probably
>>said that mass is conserved, meaning relativistic mass, which is just a
>>statement of conservation of energy less a factor of c squared.  Rest
>>mass isn't conserved.

>Exactly. Congratulations!

gee, thanks

>I don't believe that Scott Chase realises this, however, if he thinks that
>mass is lost in particle-antiparticle annihilation.

Look, Martin, it seems that you do understand this.  Rest mass is not
conserved in e+ e- -> photons.  Energy, or what you seem to be calling
"mass", is conserved.  Some years ago, physicists called E/c^2 the mass,
which preserves relations like p = mv.  However, it confuses people,
so the community has moved back to calling E/c^2 the "relativistic mass,"
and letting "mass" be the invariant m, aka the rest mass.  Personally I
like to call E/c^2 the "energy" (modulo a c^2) and never introduce the
"relativistic mass," because it's not a very useful idea.  We had
several long discussions over this on the net, which you seem to have
had the good luck to miss.  There is no need to assume that Scott is
dense just because he is using a convention which almost everybody
uses while you are using a convention which was standard for a short 
time a few decades ago.

OK, now are we in agreement?  I see no reason to refer to an abstract
of Bondi's for something so trivial.  Essentially the nomenclature has
changed over the years, as using "mass" to mean "m_0 * gamma" came into
and then out of favor.  If you are thinking of the argument that 
faster-moving particles have an increased gravitational field, stop!
They do, but not in any easily expressible quasi-Newtonian sense.
They contribute to gravitation through the stress-energy tensor and it's
not really appropriate to discuss this without the full apparatus of
general relativity.

-Ben
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA.  ABIAN CHALLENGES  Michael TOBIS
Summary: ABIAN makes a $300 wager to TOBIS
Keywords: THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:46:21 GMT


                                            11-17-92
Dear Mr.Michael TOBIS,


   In your 1-17-92 posting  sci.physics Subject: Detecting crackpots
you found my proof of the FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA (FTA) posted by me

on 11-11-92  TIME HAS INERTIA -  The gist of  FTA      
Message ID: <abian.721458191@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>

to be incorrect.

  Now, I am making the following wager with you:

 (1)  If my proof is incorrect I will pay you $300 

 (2)  if my proof is correct you will pay me  $300.


 You are at the University of Wisconsin.  I will accept the judgment of
Professors  SHEA, or W.RUDIN, or NAGEL of the Department of Mathematics
of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin.

P.S.  Please show them the entire text (without any omissions)of my above-
mentioned posting and if necessary the more detailed version of it, posted
in <abian.721303213@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>.


    With best wishes and regards, awaiting for your reply,

                                              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)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Is orthogonality of kets same as distinguishability of paths?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 00:36:39 GMT

In article <By2xKH.J5G@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:

>It is not clear that the Feynman picture really is equivalent to the Dirac
>ket or Hilbert space picture. In fact Isham's Lectures on Quantum Gravity
>suggest that Feynman's is more fundamental and that Hilbert space emerges
>as a kind of low energy approximation.

Please don't try to use Isham as support for this dubious point - he
would merely snicker if he heard.  If you read Feynman and Hibbs you
will see a fine demonstration of the equivalence of Feynman path
integral and Hilbert space formalisms for quantum mechanics.  This is
all one needs to do quantum optics to ones hearts content.  This
equivalence can be made as rigorous as you like if you use Wick rotation
- see for example Barry Simon's book on functional integration.  The
equivalence is also widely used in quantum field theory, although here
there are some subtle issues having to do with the fact that QFT has not
been rigorously done in either formalism.  (Thus people sometimes claim
that effect X, Y or Z can be more easily seen in the path-integral or
Hilbert space formalisms, or that calculation X, Y or Z gives different
answers in different formalisms - until someone comes along and
straightens things out.  The Osterwalder-Schroeder theorem and other
such results show that in general one should expect an equivalence
between these 2 approaches to the extent that one can do anything right
in either formalism).

As for quantum gravity, nobody knows how to do it in any formalism, so
speculation reigns supreme.  Isham was talking about quantum gravity.
That has nothing to do with of quantum optics.

By the way, just because I occaisonally post something disagreeing with
Sarfatti does not mean that I ever agree with him!
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Higgs Spotted? (really about Mars)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:22:53 GMT

In article <1ebjqlINN92@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.231844.28715@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>      Are you saying that the likelyhood of there being water on Mars
>>      is the same as the likelyhood of the moon being made of cheese?
>>      I'd have to say that this is wildly at variance with current theory.
>
>I'm saying that the likelyhood of Dan Quayle's being a
>deserving and competent holder of the second-highest
>executive office in the United States Government is
>lower than the probability that you will renounce God
>and kiss me on the Mystery Leptons.

     I am not a believer in God, per say.  So that one is taken care of.

     Where are your mystery Leptons?  If I kiss them are you going to 
     make public announcement that Danno is a deserving and competent VP 
     (whatever that means).?

     What does this have to do with physics or the fact that physics
     should, most assuredly keep its nose out of religion, or the fact
     that Danno may not have made an incorrect statement?

>Dan Quayle's faith in a wet Mars is on par with your faith
>in a benevolent diety; it's mythical, and not deserving of
>a slot on the "Why We Fly A Man To Mars" decisionmaking
>checklist.

     My faith in a benevolent deity is certainly mythical.  It is so mythical
     that it is nonexistent.  As far as water goes, how could one be so idiotic
     as to think water implies wet?

                   dale "Oops, no God" bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.  ABIAN CHALLENGES  Michael TOBIS
Keywords: THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:37:48 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <abian.722054781@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
>   In your 1-17-92 posting  sci.physics Subject: Detecting crackpots
>you found my proof of the FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA (FTA) posted by me
>on 11-11-92  TIME HAS INERTIA -  The gist of  FTA      
>Message ID: <abian.721458191@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> to be incorrect.
>
>  Now, I am making the following wager with you:
> (1)  If my proof is incorrect I will pay you $300 
> (2)  if my proof is correct you will pay me  $300.
>
> You are at the University of Wisconsin.  I will accept the judgment of
>Professors  X,Y, or Z of the Department of Mathematics
>of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin.
>
>P.S.  Please show them the entire text (without any omissions)of my above-
>mentioned posting and if necessary the more detailed version of it, posted
>in <abian.721303213@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>.

I do not have a copy of the text in question, have no intention of
disturbing profs X,Y, or Z on this matter, and have no interest in trying
to get you to part with $300, though I admit I was tempted for a while.

If someone can mail me a copy of the referenced posting, perhaps we
can settle this without a wager.

mt
From: lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN replies to SIMPKINSON
Keywords: TIME HAS INERTIA,  i.e., TIME IS MATTER,  YES!!!!
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:19:23 GMT
Organization: Society for the Appreciation of Janni Lee Simner

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> dvs@soda.berkeley.edu writes:
>         
> >Dear Mr. Abian:  Please quantify ANYTHING with your theory.  
> 
> I cannot quantify  anything with my Theory because I do not know what  
> A is in my E = M(0) exp(-At) and I do not have a COSMIC ENERGYMETER.   

No, but you CAN produce calculations where A is a parameter in the
answer, can't you?

No?

Give us equations or go away.

	Larry "Really" Hammer
--

LNH@physics.arizona.edu   \   Hidden harmony is better than manifest.
GEnie: L.HAMMER2           \      -- Heraclitus, #47
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Apology
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:35:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: network.1e78ejINNslq
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
: 
: Yes, damn it! I did make that typo error not changing e to o in second
: term of |a,b> eq at very start -f argument - so no wonder Gallis said the
: notation was confusing. Sorry!
: For the record the correct eq. is
: 
:{things deleted}

As a totally uninvolved outsider, it seems that this discussion is
being driven by nonequilibrium misunderstandings, as a result of
trying to argue on line over Usenet.

May I suggest to the correspondents that they write up a document explaining
their arguments and counter arguments, say with TeX, and annotated with
figures?  Then you could start from a coherent base document.
It would be also nice if the figures were in
electronically-distributable form.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Lowneheim-Skolem theorem (was: Continuos vs. discrete models)
Date: 16 Nov 92 10:59:41
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
	<1992Nov13.194334.20447@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> <350@mtnmath.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com
In-reply-to: paul@mtnmath.UUCP's message of 14 Nov 92 16:10:21 GMT

In an earlier post, Paul Budnik writes:

   For example the real numbers definable in any consistent formal system
   are countable.

and in his last post, he explains what he meant:

   This well known result is called the Lowenheim and Skolem theorem. The
   idea of the proof is that a formal system is a computer program for enumerating
   theorems. The names of all real numbers created by such a program are
   obviously countable. Of course the mapping of these real numbers to names is
   not definable within the the formal system and thus these reals cannot be
   shown to be countable within the system.

This is not the correct statement of the Loewenheim-Skolem theorem.  Here is
one formulation (the so-called "downward" Loewenheim-Skolem theorem):

    Any model of a countable first-order theory has a countable elementary
    submodel.  (By "countable theory", we mean one whose language is
    countable.  "Elementary" means, roughly, that any assertion true of the
    model is true also of the submodel.)

Budnik's statement about there being only a countable infinity of definable
real numbers is correct, if by "definable" we mean "definable by a formula
in a countable theory".  This fact is essentially trivial, since there are
only a countable number of formulas in such a theory.

One has to be a bit cautious drawing philosophical conclusions from the
Loewenheim-Skolem theorems.  (Or rather, one doesn't have to be, but angels
fear to tread.)  Let me rush in anyway: say L is a countable first-order
language rich enough to express "all of physics", as currently understood,
and in particular includes enough of the theory of R (real numbers) for
traditional QM, QED, GR, etc.  (L could be the language of ZFC, for
example.)  Philosopher X objects to L, claiming that uncountable infinities
do not really exist, and so demands that physics be reformulated on another
basis.  Philosopher Y retorts that a mere distaste for the uncountable is
no grounds for rejecting L, since we can make the same assertions and just
interpret them as applying to an elementary countable submodel.

In short: there may be good reasons for radically changing the foundations
of physics (and there may not-- pace, defenders of the status quo(ntum)!),
but the Loewenheim-Skolem theorem is not one of them.
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Continuos vs. discrete models Was: The size of electrons, ...
Date: 18 Nov 92 03:13:14 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
> [Dale Bass writes]
>>     I do not recall finite state machines described 
>>     by FDE's in our current description of nature.

>Then you don't see cells as part of it?

Let's put a stop to this.  Cells are not cellular automata and I don't 
think you could find too many respectable biologists who would use 
cellular automata in their studies.  They're too busy studying cells.
Anyone who thinks a cell is a finite state machine needs to read some
biology.  
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dacosta@prl.philips.nl (Paulo da Costa 42147)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.   Att:  PRATT  FUND. THM. OF ALGEBRA 
Keywords: CORRECTION        FUNDAMENTAL THM. OF ALGEBRA
Organization: none
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:01:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.074930.15845@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.175601.18259@prl.philips.nl> dacosta@prl.philips.nl (Paulo da Costa 42147) writes:
>>In article <abian.722071648@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>>In <abian.721303213@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>[...]
>>>>(3)   1/(kz^n + ...+ bz + a)  =  (1/k) z^(-n) + ........
>>>> 
>>>>But (3) shows that  0  is an essential isolated singularity of 
>>>>                   
>>>>                    1/(kz^n + ...+ bz + a)
>>>> 
>>>>contradicting (2).  Hence our assumption is false and the Theorem is
>>>>proved.
>>
>>This step fails miserably. Reality check: You must have a<>0 (otherwise
>>your polynomial would have a root at z=0, contrary to your assumption).
>>In this case, the inverse of the polynomial at z=0 is just 1/a.
>
>You've just argued that the step succeeds.  The proof assumes the
>negation of the FTA and works towards a contradiction.  As soon as a
>reality check (or anything else) produces a contradiction then the
>proof is complete.

No. He got his "contradiction" by making an invalid expansion. If you
really try to do the "long division" the way he did you'll see that the
remainder after each step contains steadily growing NEGATIVE powers of
z, so the expansion is not valid in the vicinity of z=0, where he
proceeded to use it (the expansion converges for z *outside* a radius
of convergence that includes all zeros of his polynomial -- to prove
that it converges _anywhere_, he first has to arrive at his
contradiction...).

>The gist of Abian's proof is that expansion (3) indicates a singularity
>where, as both you and Abian point out, there can't be one.

No, the gist of Abian's "proof" is that he introduced a falsehood while
he was trying to get to a contradiction, after which it becomes really
easy, doesn't it?

>I was hoping someone would pronounce on the validity of (3), [...]

That's exactly what I did. It's bullshit. Satisfied?

>Vaughan Pratt	  		A fallacy is worth a thousand steps.

I don't think we should go on discussing this is sci.physics.
-- 
-- Paulo da Costa           /\/\   Minha terra tem palmeiras   /\/\
-- dacosta@prl.philips.nl   \/\/   Onde canta o sabia'...      \/\/
From: kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie (kevin patrick kretsch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Date: 17 Nov 92 11:32:54 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <16NOV199212515920@utkvx2.utk.edu> djpegg@utkvx2.utk.edu (PEGG, DAVID J) writes:

>In article <kkretsch.721932625@unix1.tcd.ie>, kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie (kevin patrick kretsch) writes...
>>         Apparrently, the most closely guarded secret
>>in the U.S. government regards how the UFOs were 
>>powered. This, I believe, involves harnessing the
>>potential energy of the earth's magnetic field.

>The obvious question is:
>	If they're powered by the earth's magnetic field, how
>did they get to earth in the first place

All right David, perhaps I should have generalised the statement.
Let's say the following:
              .....Powered by harnessing the potential energy of
the magnetic field of an arbitrary planet.

How's that?
Any comments? (I could ask if your just being 'picky' but
that kind of idiocy belongs in some other newsgroup. Do we
agree??)

KEV.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA    ABIAN replies to  INDRA
Keywords: Principles (A1)  and (A2).  Reply to INDRA  11-14-92
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 23:08:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.203056.14720@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:

>Indra, the real answer is that this is caused by the electromagnetic
>force which has been understood for literally centuries.  This
>may sound like mere posturing, (I can even hear Mr. Abian now,
>"you don't understand it so you call it electromagnetism"),
>but electromagnetism was proved in the 1920s by a man whose
>name begins with K that temporarily escapes me to actually be gravity
>operating in 5 dimensions.

You are clearly referring to Kaluza and Klein (two folks whose names
begin with K!) but they proved no such thing, so this is thoroughly
misleading.  They indeed came up with a theory that explained
electromagnetism in terms of gravity in 5 dimensions, but this theory
has never been widely accepted, much less "proved".

Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: rscott@libws3.ic.sunysb.edu (Robert Scott)
Subject: Re: Covariant vs. Lie Derivative in Gen. Rel.?
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:01:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.213840.10075@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu
(John C. Baez) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.172748.16273@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>
>anderson@fermi.phys.ualberta.ca (Warren G. Anderson) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.062853.22717@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu
>>(John C. Baez) writes:
>>> 2) The covariant derivative only requires a tangent vector at one point
>>> of the manifold.  The price you pay is this: to define it you need to
>>> choose a connection on the (tangent bundle of) the manifold.  Of course,
>>> such a connection - the Levi-Civita connection - comes for free if your
>>> manifold has a Riemann metric on it.  
>>
>>Or even a pseudo-Riemannian metric. In fact, wouldn't any way of identifying 
>>the tangent space with it's dual be enough?
>
>Agreed, pseudo-Riemannian is fine and of course that's what you have in GR.
>As for other cases, I'm suspicious.  Take a look at the proof of the
>existence and uniqueness of the Levi-Civita connection and see what
>happens if your metric is replaced by a nondegenerate *skew-symmetric*
>bilinear form on the tangent bundle.  I'm afraid something will go
>wrong.  Why?  If nothing did, every symplectic maniold would be blessed
>with a natural connection analogous to the Levi-Civita connection.  If
>such a thing existed I should have heard about it, but I haven't.  Of
>course, it's possible that I am missing out on this crucial facet of
>symplectic geometry!!
>
>Perhaps the symplectic geometers and fans of gravity theories with
>asymmetric metric tensors can straighten this out in a jiffy.


ISN'T IT EASY TO SHOW THAT THE LIE ALGEBRA OF SYMMETRIES OF AN
AFFINE CONNECTION ON A CONNECTED FINITE-DIMENSIONAL MANIFOLD IS
FINITE-DIMENSIONAL?  THUS THE LIE ALGEBRA OF INFINITESIMAL
SYMPLECTOMORPHISMS OF A SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLD IS FAR TOO BIG TO
PRESERVE AN AFFINE CONNECTION.


-JAMES DOLAN
Newsgroups: sci.physics