RE: WSCI: Just how ab initio is ab initio quantum chemistry?
Hi Michael, You may be pleased to know that I find your "little rant on computational chemistry and the excessive application of quantum theory and computers in chemistry" very interesting indeed. 8-) Frank Grimer At 07:35 pm 22-07-04 -0400, you wrote: > >Hello Keith, > >I rather doubt that anyone on this list will have any interest in my little rant on >computational chemistry and the excessive application of quantum theory and computers >in chemistry, but you asked for it. > >This is a trend in the sciences in general, but I find it particularly annoying in >chemistry. You have a trend toward computerizing everything. Hence, you get >chemistry without chemicals, botany without flowers and students graduating in >various scientific disciplines with no real knowledge of their subject. > >Yes, no doubt this fine fellow is a little concerned with how "ab initio" things are >in his little world. First, he tells us how quantum mechanics is the most successful >theory in the history of science, a statement I would argue with. Then we are >treated to his bleatings as how it doesn't really work, sort of. > >The failure of ab initio quantum chemistry to predict such diverse and important >things as the effects of catalysts, the behavior of rare earth elements, the >existence and behavior of electrides, the quantum yield of dye chromophores and so on >really calls into question the whole damn field. And getting back to my original >statement, why am I, as a California tax payer, paying this guy to wonder about it, >when he could be doing something useful? You know, he could be doing something like >teaching real chemistry. Is this a boring subject or what? > >M. > >Original Message=== > >You should elaborate. I skimmed the first article, and although it >seemed a bit obtuse, it did attempt to address a serious question; >just how good is the current quantum theory at explaining the nature >of the periodic table. Every time I have ventured down that road, >I've felt like an ancient astronomer calculating epicycles for the >planets. It's heartening to find the author struggling a bit as well. >It follows on nicely from that ancient article of Mendeleev's I >posted yesterday, > >http://www.rexresearch.com/ether/mendelev.htm > >Anyway, even if you think the article is total bunk ( fair enough ), >given the use to which most taxpayer money is put, I'd say >it's well enough spent. > >K. > >___ >Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com >The most personalized portal on the Web! > >
RE: WSCI: Just how ab initio is ab initio quantum chemistry?
Spurred on by your reply, Keith, I thought I would actually read the first article myself. I found it extremely valuable in that it demonstrates the bankruptcy of a reductionist approach to physics. People who believe they can understand the world by reducing it to its ultimate parts are crackers. As anyone who has ever applied statistical techniques such as multifactor analysis of variance to research knows full well, the more main factors one considers, the more the interaction terms come into view. By destroying the interaction terms the item under investigation is completely denatured. One might as well try to understand a cup of tea by analysing it down into its atomic components. As for the trumpeted "success" of quantum mechanics, as Koestler pointed out in his classic work, The Sleepwalkers, the Ptolemaic system with its numerous epicycles was a far better fit to the empirical facts than the first stumbling attempts at a heliocentric theory. Even the much lauded Galileo found it impossible to throw off the Ptolemaic yoke entirely. = For it must be remembered that the system which Galileo advocated was the orthodox Copernican system, designed by the Canon himself, nearly a century before Kepler threw out the epicycles and transformed the abstruse paper-construction into a workable mechanical model. Incapable of acknowledging that any of his contemporaries had a share in the progress of astronomy, Galileo blindly and indeed suicidally ignored Kepler's work to the end, persisting in the futile attempt to bludgeon the world into accepting a Ferris wheel with forty- eight epicycles as 'rigorously demonstrated' physical reality. == I feel sure that Ptolemaists would feel very much at home with modern QM. Frank Grimer At 01:52 pm 22-07-04 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Michael. > >You should elaborate. I skimmed the first article, and although it >seemed a bit obtuse, it did attempt to address a serious question; >just how good is the current quantum theory at explaining the nature >of the periodic table. Every time I have ventured down that road, >I've felt like an ancient astronomer calculating epicycles for the >planets. It's heartening to find the author struggling a bit as well. >It follows on nicely from that ancient article of Mendeleev's I >posted yesterday, > >http://www.rexresearch.com/ether/mendelev.htm > >Anyway, even if you think the article is total bunk ( fair enough ), >given the use to which most taxpayer money is put, I'd say >it's well enough spent. > >K. > >-Original Message- >From: Michael Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:49 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: WSCI: Just how ab initio is ab initio quantum chemistry? > > > >And just think, hard working tax payers are paying this guy's salary. > >M. > >___ >Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com >The most personalized portal on the Web! > > >
Re: One Wire Electronic Secrets Used In Tesla Energy Transmitters & Re ceivers
The Barron's nerve idea is interesting. The thing is if we could read ,measure ,or hear the pulse's, we would still need and interputer device.GES
RE: WSCI: Just how ab initio is ab initio quantum chemistry?
Hello Keith, I rather doubt that anyone on this list will have any interest in my little rant on computational chemistry and the excessive application of quantum theory and computers in chemistry, but you asked for it. This is a trend in the sciences in general, but I find it particularly annoying in chemistry. You have a trend toward computerizing everything. Hence, you get chemistry without chemicals, botany without flowers and students graduating in various scientific disciplines with no real knowledge of their subject. Yes, no doubt this fine fellow is a little concerned with how "ab initio" things are in his little world. First, he tells us how quantum mechanics is the most successful theory in the history of science, a statement I would argue with. Then we are treated to his bleatings as how it doesn't really work, sort of. The failure of ab initio quantum chemistry to predict such diverse and important things as the effects of catalysts, the behavior of rare earth elements, the existence and behavior of electrides, the quantum yield of dye chromophores and so on really calls into question the whole damn field. And getting back to my original statement, why am I, as a Califoria tax payer, paying this guy to wonder about it, when he could be doing something useful? You know, he could be doing something like teaching real chemistry. Is this a boring subject or what? M. Original Message=== You should elaborate. I skimmed the first article, and although it seemed a bit obtuse, it did attempt to address a serious question; just how good is the current quantum theory at explaining the nature of the periodic table. Every time I have ventured down that road, I've felt like an ancient astronomer calculating epicycles for the planets. It's heartening to find the author struggling a bit as well. It follows on nicely from that ancient article of Mendeleev's I posted yesterday, http://www.rexresearch.com/ether/mendelev.htm Anyway, even if you think the article is total bunk ( fair enough ), given the use to which most taxpayer money is put, I'd say it's well enough spent. K. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Re: One Wire Electronic Secrets Used In Tesla Energy Transmitters & Receivers
According to Konstantine Meyl on page 201 (Scalar Waves), nerve fibers in the human brain operate just like one wire diamagnetic cold electrical systems. The nerve fibers electrical potentials are 70 to 90 mV, and receive and process diamagnetic cold electrical signals. If we were to construct a diamagnetic oscillator and place it into a cellular phone like device with a vortex antenna, which broadcasts media or communication vortex energy wave signals in the 70 to 90 mV range, then the human brain nerve fibers should be able to receive it and process the communication message and image; and in the same sense a diamagnetic cold positive electrical cellular phone or TV with a vortex antenna tuned to the 70 to 90 mV range, should be able to receive and remotely view and control by means of energy beams human thoughts and thoughts from all life forms that have nerve fibers. Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: www.rhfweb.com\personal New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\newage Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh. Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com Making a difference one person at a time Get informed. Inform others.
RE: A video review of Brady's magnetic motor
Hi Jeffery, I have another follow-up question regarding the fascinating Brady device, which I hope you or other vortexians can answer. It is your suspicion that the Brady device is spinning due to the result of stored kinetic energy from the stators induced into the rotors as the stators were actively moved (or cranked) closer to the rotors. My common sense would tell me that once the stators have completed their repositioning closer to the rotors no additional kinetic energy should be able to be extracted and induced into the rotors. In other words, this would seem to imply that once the stators are once again stationary the rotational speed of the rotors from that point onwards should not continue to INCREASE. This also implies that friction from that point onwards should eventually slow the rotors back to a stand still. However, I got the impression from you (perhaps incorrectly) that this assumption of mine might not necessarily be correct. There might be exceptions to the rule. If so, when might that not be the case? I'm thinking of situations where no human holding on to magnets (playing the part of the stator magnets) could accidentally introduce additional kinetic energy through involuntary inflections originating from his arm into the equation. I'm thinking of situations where everything (stator magnets and rotors magnets are held firmly in place, mechanically. Hypothetically speaking, assuming the stators are firm in their housing and as such incapable of flexing much as the rotor spins past it, shouldn't the rotor be incapable of increasing its rotational speed once the stators have completed their repositioning? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: Pure Energy Systems
Edmund Storms writes: > Mass and energy are only equivalent when energy is converted to mass. When energy > exists only as energy, it does not have the property of mass. That would be potential energy, I suppose, and my understanding is that it does have mass. When you wind a watch, raise a rock up, or charge a battery, you add a tiny amount to the mass of the object. Any form of energy production always reduces mass. If this energy is like light or heat, it must originate somewhere, presumably in the sun and other stars. The sun's energy production is all accounted for, as far as I know, except perhaps for a few neutrinos. My knowledge of relativity and ZPE combined would barely fill a postcard, so perhaps I am missing something here. - Jed
FORCE - who needs it!
=== A Jed Rothwell quote from the Pure Energy Systems thread [21-7-04] "People believe in things so firmly they come to imagine they can actually observe -- or physically feel -- abstractions and generalizations. Someone who indignantly told Chris Tinsley that he was sure energy is conserved because he has watched it being conserved. He can feel it being conserved." - Jed === This reminded me of an incident that occurred early in my research career. I had been using the Lab's 1000 ton Amsler to measure the full stress-strain curves of a range of concretes. To achieve a sufficiently stiff machine capable of following the descending stress-strain curve beyond the point of maximum stress meant shunting most of the test machines load through a pair of 6 square feet concrete blocks. The load on the specimen was measured using a 12inch by 6inch square steel block covered with strain gauges. Thus the steel load cell was the same size and shape as the concrete test specimens. The strain of the concrete was measured using a long internal strain gauge. As I looked at the set up I mused that were the concrete stronger than the steel I could be measuring the full stress strain curve of the steel using the concrete as my load cell. And then a Kekule like insight flashed before me. In fact, stress is really just an alias for a strain and Force is an artefact, an alias, a sheep in wolf's clothing. We don't need the concept of force at all. We can replace it everywhere with strain. A few days later we were having the usual discussions over our afternoon cuppa and I thought I would try out my discovery on the latest Cambridge Ph.D spending a few months at the lab on the way to higher things - like administration no doubt. I said, "Do you know - there's no such thing as Force. It's just an alias for strain." He rose to the bait and as he pushed his mug of tea across the table with his forefinger said. "There you are, I can feel the force." I replied, "No you can't. What you are feeling is the deformation of the end of your finger. You are feeling strain. If your finger was not deforming you wouldn't feel anything." They say that people given a fleeting glance at a black king of hearts suffer an emotional crisis when they are finally shown the card in extenso. I wonder how many people will be similarly affected when Mechanics suffers a conceptual meltdown into a much simpler system as foreshadowed by Mark Buchanan in Ubiquity Cheers Frank Grimer == Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising Fair as the moon Bright as the sun Terrible as an army set in battle array - King Solomon - ===
Re: Pure Energy Systems
Jed Rothwell wrote: > Edmund Storms writes: > > > > Eventually they were talking about boiling away the oceans of earth ten > > > time over with the ZPE in a few [square] centimeters of space. That sounds > > > ridiculous to me. > > > > Of course it is ridiculous. This is like saying at all the energy in the > oceans, > > if extracted, would run the world for decades. > > That is not a bit ridiculous. There is plenty of mass in the ocean. You miss my point. Suggesting that large amounts of energy can be obtained from a source that can not be tapped is ridiculous whether it is ZPE or the oceans. The amount of energy that is available is irrelevant. Only the amount of energy that can be removed is important. > Scott's > point (and mine too) is that if ZPE in a few cubic centimeters of empty > space can produce enough energy to evaporate the oceans of earth several > times over, and if mass and energy are equivalent, then somehow or other we > have to hide such a tremendous mass (or something similar to mass) in empty > space that it would bend light and be apparent in many other ways. Mass and energy are only equivalent when energy is converted to mass. When energy exists only as energy, it does not have the property of mass. Therefore, it is invisible unless the energy registers on a detector. The form of energy that exists in space that is attributed to ZPE does not easily register on present detectors. Until it does, it can not be identified and is totally invisible to our world. Therefore, it has no relationship to the idea of conservation of mass-energy. Once it is detected, the device will appear to be over unity until this energy is taken into account. Once this energy is taken into account, mass-energy will again apply whenever this total energy is converted to mass. The law of conservation of energy will apply when all source of energy are taken into account. The flaw is not in the laws, but in being able to account for all sources of energy. That is the only point I'm trying to make. Ed > > > Perhaps ZPE is real after all, but my point is that if so, it rewrites the > laws that conserve mass-energy. Those laws have been rewritten once > already, to include mass, so that is not unthinkable. > > - Jed
RE: WSCI: Just how ab initio is ab initio quantum chemistry?
Hi Michael. You should elaborate. I skimmed the first article, and although it seemed a bit obtuse, it did attempt to address a serious question; just how good is the current quantum theory at explaining the nature of the periodic table. Every time I have ventured down that road, I've felt like an ancient astronomer calculating epicycles for the planets. It's heartening to find the author struggling a bit as well. It follows on nicely from that ancient article of Mendeleev's I posted yesterday, http://www.rexresearch.com/ether/mendelev.htm Anyway, even if you think the article is total bunk ( fair enough ), given the use to which most taxpayer money is put, I'd say it's well enough spent. K. -Original Message- From: Michael Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: WSCI: Just how ab initio is ab initio quantum chemistry? And just think, hard working tax payers are paying this guy's salary. M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
RE: WSCI: Just how ab initio is ab initio quantum chemistry?
And just think, hard working tax payers are paying this guy's salary. M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Speaking of changes...
Fred (I thought that you went through another "sign-off" cycle yesterday - that one
was pretty quick, maybe you were waiting for this),
Just to prove your point that humans are basically brain-damaged monkeys, consider the
following logic (or strange trail of near-sequiters... or 'non'... depending on one's
POV):
At a very basic level in human mentality (DNA, even), there could exist a connection
between mysticism and physics (or biophysics) which expresses itself in numerology,
for instance, which is the study of 'special' numbers.
The " I-Ching" or "Book of Changes" is an ancient Chinese book of wisdom which seems
to have a strange effectiveness in divination and numerology. The book evolved over
time but was already fairly sophisticated by the time of Emperor Hsi almost 5000 years
ago. For Taoists, it is a daily practice of self-awareness, as much
'directed-meditation' as divination (a word whose very meaning has been warped 180
degree away from true spirituality). Over time, the I-Ching has been read and
practiced by far more humans than the Bible or Torah, even despite modern attempts by
the soulless Maoists to suppress it.
An I-Ching interpretation is performed by contemplating a difficult question and then
recording six binary decisions (denoted in a hexagram). This can be done with a coin
or with straws or sticks and is called 'casting the I Ching'. These are written down
as a stack of six solid or broken lines - but there is no reason why hexagram can't be
generated by a computer program - as is done now millions of times daily.
There are actually four possible values for each of the lines; the two on/off values,
and a line which changes from on to off, or vice versa. Thus one cast of the I Ching
can generate two different hexagrams, present and future, which adds depth and beauty
to the interpretation. The sophistication of this four-valued logic has been compared
to the biochemistry of DNA amino acids. How a Neolithic shamans' divination technique
may have been influenced by the basic logic of the human genome is an ageless mystery.
For the heck of it, I went to this site (there are others):
http://www.facade.com/iching/
to ask for a divination... in typical nerd fashion, about the 'structure of the
proton.'
This was my reading for "proton structure" Yours would be different because the
divination is not just about the question-posed, per se, but about the *question WRT
the asker.*
The *present* is embodied in Hexagram 4 - Meng (Youthful Folly):
The *future* is embodied in Hexagram 59 - Huan (Dissolution):
Not as grim as it might seem... first impressions are invariably wrong with the
I-Ching. As always, it is the interpretation which is complex, and I will save that
for another day, except to say that there are 64 kua or Hexagrams and each has its own
ancient commentary, and some more modern, so it is rather difficult to derive
'instant' meaning: accuracy in meaning comes over time and with adequate
contemplation. For instance, as to the future, the Huan Hexagram has appeared many
times for me. But yet I don't take this to mean that the proton decays, necessarily,
or that I am any nearer to death than anyone else my age.
But there are some more interesting connections between the I-Ching and the Bohr atom
and the electron. The number 918 is prominent in two ways. Some claim that the
electron is *composed* of 918 units of something - maybe photons or another
photon-like wave particle (soliton -gluon-neutrino) per electron. Side note:
hypothetical baryons called solitons - which are hedgehog-like classical solutions
found in the standard model - contain a special soliton sometimes called the Theta^+
baryon or chiral soliton, which is viewed as the solution of the Chiral quark soliton
model. I have a hunch that this item (in effect, the prototype of all *items*) is the
real god-particle - the most basic constituent of everything.
http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v92/e032001
Getting back to the 918 items. We find that 511 KeV /918 = ~556.6 eV, not exactly a
well-know value. But that figure has not yet been modified by the fine structure
constant, which logic say should figure into the equation somehow if we want to find a
relation between the electron and everything else. I'm not sure how it really fits in
yet, except in playing around with the calculator, just now, I see that if one
multiplies 511 by the fsc and then by .918 one arrives at the interesting mass/energy
of 3.4 eV, which for some time, I have been guesstimating will be the most likely
vehicle (energy terminus) for capturing ZPE.
918 is also half the p:e mass ratio: i.e. half of 1836 and it is also close to 3 times
the fifth power of 5. For whatever that tidbit about 'powers of five' is worth.
918 / 64 kua of a 4 x 4 x 4 Magic Cube = 14.34375 ("Grace Factor")
14.34375 ^7 power = 918 (the number of photons per electron),
14.34375 ^8 power = 1836 (the atomic weight of
Re; OT, Walking monkey apes humans
According to Horowitz, humans are brain-damaged monkeys. ""I've never seen or heard of this before," said Horowitz. One possible explanation is brain damage from the illness, he said." http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/22/monkey.walking.ap/index.html Walking monkey apes humans Thursday, July 22, 2004 Posted: 9:27 AM EDT (1327 GMT) Offbeat JERUSALEM, Israel (AP) -- A young monkey at an Israeli zoo has started walking on its hind legs only -- aping humans -- after a near death experience, the zoo's veterinarian said Wednesday. Natasha, a 5-year-old black macaque at the Safari Park near Tel Aviv, began walking exclusively on her hind legs after a stomach ailment nearly killed her, zookeepers said. Monkeys usually alternate between upright movement and walking on all fours. A picture in the Maariv daily on Wednesday showed Natasha standing ramrod straight like a human. The picture was labeled humorously, "The Missing Link?" Two weeks ago, Natasha and three other monkeys were diagnosed with severe stomach flu. At the zoo clinic, she slipped into critical condition, said Igal Horowitz, the veterinarian. "I was sure that she was going to die," he said. "She could hardly breathe and her heart was not functioning properly." After intensive treatment, Natasha's condition stabilized. When she was released from the clinic, Natasha began walking upright. "I've never seen or heard of this before," said Horowitz. One possible explanation is brain damage from the illness, he said. Otherwise, Horowitz said, Natasha's behavior has returned to normal.
Re: Pure Energy Systems
Edmund Storms writes: > > Eventually they were talking about boiling away the oceans of earth ten > > time over with the ZPE in a few [square] centimeters of space. That sounds > > ridiculous to me. > > Of course it is ridiculous. This is like saying at all the energy in the oceans, > if extracted, would run the world for decades. That is not a bit ridiculous. There is plenty of mass in the ocean. Scott's point (and mine too) is that if ZPE in a few cubic centimeters of empty space can produce enough energy to evaporate the oceans of earth several times over, and if mass and energy are equivalent, then somehow or other we have to hide such a tremendous mass (or something similar to mass) in empty space that it would bend light and be apparent in many other ways. Perhaps ZPE is real after all, but my point is that if so, it rewrites the laws that conserve mass-energy. Those laws have been rewritten once already, to include mass, so that is not unthinkable. - Jed
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Northerns
The original (restored) Santa Fe #3751 was through Belen, NM in August 1992 on a run to Chicago & back. When I heard the whistle (distinct from the 100+ per day diesel freights passing the crossing about 1/3 mile from the house) I about freaked out. :-) http://photographytips.com/page.cfm/2219 http://www.steamlocomotive.com/northern/atsf.html Fred Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Northerns.url Description: Binary data
Re: Pure Energy Systems
Jed Rothwell posted Jeff Kooistra wrote: Reactionless drives (and anti-gravity machines, which are more or less the same thing) are also impossible, because they violate Newton's third law. That does not I've always wanted to build an improved version of the Cook Drive, www.forceborne.com , to see if Cook's claims hold water. Howard, who once taught Chem Eng at the Univ of MN, said that a reactionless drive would upset his paradigm, which would tickle me.
