1996.01.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 16 Jan 1996 05:56:01 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote:
: But then she began to talk in terms of the
: inlet tube to the cell being "insulated" while the outlet tube was not,
: and it immediately occurred to me: the CETI people could have used
: thick-walled plastic tubing on the inlet side of the cell, and thin-walled
: tubing on the outlet side--a simple magician's trick that would have
: created the false perception on the part of every spectator that
: substantial heat was being produced in the cell!

What do you mean?

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 /  TS /  Re: Hints that the photon has a finite rest mass
     
Originally-From: rooster@interaccess.com (TS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hints that the photon has a finite rest mass
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 06:18:54 GMT
Organization: InterAccess, Chicago's best Internet Service Provider

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:


>c. Nothing in the universe travels at c, not even photons. Thus, c like
>0 Kelvin are limits or barriers or impossibilities.

Most advanced graduate level texts in quantum statistical
thermodynamics or kinetic theory explain how negative absolute
temperatures can (and are commonly) obtained.  So I certainly wouldn't
call it an 'impossible barrier'.


_______________________________________________________________

Todd Spohnholtz				rooster@interaccess.com
Mechanical Engineering
University Of Illinois at Chicago	       I like rutabagas
_______________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrooster cudlnTS cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.18 /  VNONINSKI@FSC. /  UNSUBSCRIBE
     
Originally-From: VNONINSKI@FSC.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 04:41:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

UNSUBSCRIBE VESSELIN NONINSKI

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenVNONINSKI cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.18 /  VNONINSKI@FSC. /  Unsubscribe
     
Originally-From: VNONINSKI@FSC.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Unsubscribe
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 04:42:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues, I am unsubscribing from the list but I will pursue
vigiriously the problem through the peer-reviewed literature. Truly
Vesselin Noninski

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenVNONINSKI cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.16 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
     
Originally-From: vergon@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
Date: 16 Jan 1996 07:41:22 GMT
Organization: Cinenet Communications,Internet Access,Los Angeles;310-301-4500

ERIC RENOUF (017776r@axe.acadiau.ca) wrote:
: In article <4d5ibg$edk@marina.cinenet.net> vergon@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon) writes:
: >From: vergon@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon)
: >Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes
: >Date: 12 Jan 1996 11:57:35 GMT
: 
: >Oz (Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >: Anthony Potts <potts@cern.ch> wrote:
: >: 
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >On 30 Oct 1995, Herve Le Cornec wrote:
: >: >
: >: >> I always wonder how physicists could say that something 
: >: >> with no mass and no charge exists.
: >: >> 
: >: >If you always wonder this, you must have a very boring life, how do you 
: >: >have time to converse with people or read books? I am (as I have pointed 
: >: >out previously) a physicist, and I can tell you that if you are going to 
: >: >stick to your intuitive ideas about how the universe should behave , then 
: >: >you will have a very hard time taking in modern physics. You would do 
: >: >much better to wonder what we can predict about a massless and chargeless 
: >: >particle, and how well this fits in with the actual behaviour of neutrinos.
: >: >
: >: 
: >: And its just SO much more fun. Stretch the mind a little and
: >: try to imagine it and how it behaves. Don't try to force the
: >: universe to follow your beliefs (you lose), force your mind
: >: to follow the evidence. Only slightly harder and MUCH more
: >: entertaining. NB A neutrino is better than that. It has no
: >: mass, but it does have spin,
: 
: >Then *what* spins?
: 
: 
: >: which is closely related to
: >: angular momentum.
: 
: >Spin in a neutrino is as closely related to angular momentum  as it is
: >in a top. No mass, no top, no angular momentum.
: 
: >: Thinking classically will really make this
: >: a hooey. 
: >: -------------------------------
: >: 'Oz     
: 
: >The only hooey here is the ridiculous position just expounded.
: 
: >I get so tired (and nauseated) listening to that tired old drivel about
: >'you must give up your old fashioned outmoded intuitive ideas and enter
: >the never never land of modern physics'.
: 
: >This is put forth by people who have lost the way, who have bought 
: >ridiculous conclusions arrived at through erroneous mathematical
: >procedures that lead to reductios ad absurdom.
: 
: >The fact is that when you arrive at a reductio ad absurdom, or any
: >other type nonviable conclusion, what you say is 'this is a dead end, I
: >must go back and redo it until I come up with something that makes sense.
: 
: >Physics is *physical* and the physical can be visualized (at least 
: >approximately).
: 
: >Unfortunately, this type of thinkig became fashionable with the advent
: >of SR.
: 
: >SR is a mathematical solution to the problems Newtonian dynamics 
: >suffered at high velocities. 
: 
: >It was the genius of Einstein that he saw a bigger picture and discussed
: >the invariance of physical laws between frames in relative motion.
: 
: >However, the solution WAS mathematical and the *physical causality* was
: >completely negelected.
: 
: >Thus was born the philosophy that you cannot look intuitively at the
: >universe. 
: 
: >NOT SO.
: 
: >Human nature being what it is those bying the nonphysical universe
: >opened a pandora's box. But they don't have the acumen to perceive
: >the folly of their ways.
: 
: >Instead they pontificate to those still in control of their senses
: >about how they should enter the world of Alice in Wonderland and
: >smoke pot.
: 
: >It puts me in mind of the lunatic asylum where the cackling paper
: >doll cutters inside think the people on the outside are crazy  -- and
: >tell them so.
: 
: >Stick to your guns, Herve.
: 
: There are somethings that we observe that simply cannot be explained using 
: the older ways of thinking.  I read your supposed correction to SR, and I 
: replied to that.  I don't think that you have replied to my post yet have 
: you?  If so, I have missed it, so could you please do so again.
: 
: SR aside, how do you visuallize the distortions of the spacetime continuum 
: that are predicted, and observed, by GR.  I have never met anyone who can 
: actually visuallize that, but it seems to happen.  If you don't give up the 
: concept of absolute space, and time, GR and SR are out of your scope, and 
: you will find that they don't make sense; however, those who adopt this new 
: concept of spacetime will be able to see how well SR and GR describe the 
: universe with virtually no problems.  There are no paradoxes in either of 
: those theories for those who accept the whole theory.  Problems only arise 
: when you hold onto the old concepts of absolute space and time.
: 
: Many things in QM are the same, though I'm not as familiar with this as with 
: relativity.  These are theories that, test after test, provide correct 
: answers that match what we observe.  What reason do you have for not 
: accepting what these theories tell us?  Your own intuition?  That isn't 
: something that offers you any observable evidence.  In fact, I think that 
: you will find that if accurate enough measurements are made, your intuition 
: will incorrectly predict the results of any experiment.  Even something as 
: simple as the sum of the angles in a triangle will be wrong.  Your intuition 
: will probably tell you 180 degrees, but if you make carefull enough 
: measurements you will find that the sum of the angles of a tringle is almost 
: never 180 degrees.
: 
: The reason that we tell you that you have to abandon your old ways of 
: thinking if you want to understand modern physics is because that is what 
: the universe tells us.  If theory matched observation, then there is a good 
: chance that there will be some truth to that theory.
: 
: The history of physics is filled with people forcing us to change the way 
: that we think of things.  It was once thought that there were only 4 
: elements, if that way of thinking had not been abandon we could never have 
: progressed even as far as the theory that you cling to.  The universe was 
: once thought to go around the earth, then the sun.  Both of those ideas were 
: given up, so why is yours one that will never have to be given up?  What is 
: so special about the way that you think that makes it eternally correct, 
: even in the face of observations that contradict it?
: 
: Eric Renouf
: 017776r@axe.acadiau.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jan 19 04:37:02 EST 1996
------------------------------
