Re: [Vo]:This may be a blessing in disguise

[Edmund Storms]

Jed Rothwell wrote:


Ed Storms wrote me a not saying we should not re-hash stale debates in the Knol 
article, and we should not try to make the skeptics case for them, because 
that's like trying to make the case for the Flat Earth Society. I agree, but 
that is not quite what I had in mind. My response to Ed --


I was thinking of the "history" section in an encyclopedia article. I will 
leave the physics part to you -- or use your old text.

An encyclopedia should cover not only the science, but also the history and 
social effects of a phenomenon, in different sections of course. Not all mashed 
together the way they are in Wikipedia!

For example, an article about evolution will be mainly devoted to modern 
evolutionary theory, but to be comprehensive it should also a section about the 
development of the theory, how it has changed since Darwin with the discoveries 
of Mendel and then DNA, and so on. It might also discuss, or link to, articles 
about Darwinian social theory and capitalism, and creationism as the social 
backlash to  evolutionary theory. It is not directly relevant of course, but 
someone who wants an overview may be looking for it. People looking up cold 
fusion may want to know what all the fuss is, and why it is so controversial. 
We should tell them.

If we write anything about the history of the field, I think we should mention 
the NHE program, and say that it failed. . . .




I think talking about the NHE program is worthwhile, but I'm not sure it 
is accurate to say it failed. Granted, it did not establish that the 
phenomenon could rise to a commercial level at that time. However, it 
did educate the Japanese workers about the issues. This education has 
allowed the Japanese to move ahead much faster than some of the other 
countries. Note that the Japanese have a cold fusion society that meets 
regularly. As a result, the phenomenon is being understood in Japan 
faster than in any other country, thanks to the foresight of creating 
the NHE laboratory.


I agree history is important, but I suggest it be written as history and 
not as a debate that the reader has to resolve. Using your example, the 
history of evolution does not need to include intelligent design, which 
would be equivalent to including the skeptical arguments in a discussion 
of cold fusion.





Also it wouldn't hurt to say that many experiments did fail in the early days, 
and some still do, but for the most part we know why. I do not think that fact 
ever reached the Wiki article before it was trashed. It is okay to talk about 
technical difficulties. It is not a weakness. Storms himself has spotlighted 
more bad cold fusion calorimetry than all the skeptics combined, in this paper:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcalorimetr.pdf

That's what I meant by making the skeptical case.


A good example, but this was written while many of the claims were being 
debated. Now the time for debate has passed. We all know that some of 
the work was both wrong or seriously in error. Such work is no longer 
relevant any more than the maps used by Columbus are relevant to modern 
navigation. Now we should use the good data and show what it means and 
where work needs to be done to advance understanding in the future.


Ed


- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Negative Ion Burn on CRTs or Negative Muon Burn?

[Frederick Sparber]

>
> US 4,213,663  1980 RCA
>


> This would be RCA Lancaster (I was there several times in the late 1960s)
> near Thermacore.
> Positive Ion Bombardment of the Cathode could shake out Metastable
> Negative Muons. Literature I've had for over 54 years shows/quotes
> uncertainty on it being O2- or Cl- Ions. IOW it has never been resolved.
>
> Fred
>
> " In accordance with the novel method, as shown in the sole FIGURE,
> shortly after the bulb leaves the panel-sealing lehr, and while it is still
> hot (about 200.degree. C.) from the lehr, the inside of the bulb is
> flushed with wet CO.sub.2 (carbon dioxide) gas. Wet CO.sub.2 gas may be
> produced by bubbling CO.sub.2 gas from a cylinder of compressed CO.sub.2gas 
> through deionized water. When prepared by this method, the gas has a dew
> point of about room temperature ( 22.degree. C.). However, the dew point
> of the CO.sub.2 gas may be as low as about 0.degree. C. and as high as
> 100.degree. C. provided moisture does not condense in the bulb during or
> after flushing with the CO.sub.2 gas. Also, while it is preferred that the
> temperature of the bulb is higher than about 50.degree. C. (in order to
> avoid condensation of moisture) when it is flushed with wet CO.sub.2, the
> bulb may be warm, cool or cold. The rate of flushing may be in the range
> from about 0.5 CFM (cubic feet per minute) to about 5 CFM, and the time
> period of flushing may be in the range from about 0.5 minute to about 5
> minutes. Generally, the smaller the tube, the lower the flushing rate and/or
> the shorter the flushing time.
>
> Flushing may be done by the method shown, for example, in FIGS. 2 to 4 of
> U.S. Pat. No. 3,658,401 to J. A. Files, by inserting an elongated tube and
> a surrounding resilient stopper into the open end of the neck of the bulb
> and admitting the gas from a gas source through a valve and associated
> tubing. The upper end of the elongated tube may be formed with apertures for
> directing the gas in a desired manner; for example, outwardly. The outer
> periphery of the stopper is either noncircular or is formed with
> longitudinal grooves or holes to permit the residual gases within the bulb
> to be driven out by the gas that is introduced. Instead of centering the
> elongated tube axially with respect to the stopper, the elongated tube may
> be eccentric to the stopper to improve the flushing action. The sizes of the
> elongated tube and the tubing, the sizes of the apertures and the grooves,
> and the gas pressure used to introduce the gas are chosen to provide the
> desired flushing action within the desired flushing time. In one apparatus
> that has been used successfully in making twenty-one-inch rectangular color
> picture tubes, the bulb is flushed at the rate of about 2 cubic feet per
> minute for about 2 minutes, and the volume within the bulb is exchanged at
> least six times.
>
> After the flushing with wet CO.sub.2 gas is completed, the flushing
> apparatus is removed. The inside of the bulb is now flushed in the same
> manner as described above with a dry noncontaminating gas, preferably warm
> air having a dew point of about - 22.degree. F. The dry noncontaminating
> gas used for flushing is preferably dry warn air containing about 350 ppm
> water vapor (which has a dew point of about -22.degree. F. or -30.degree.
> C.). The flushing gas should be nonreactive to the tube structure. Air,
> oxygen, nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, and mixtures thereof may be used. The
> water-vapor content of the gas should be less than 1,000 ppm or have a dew
> point of less than about - 4.degree. F., Hydrocarbon gases, carbon
> dioxide, and other contaminants, if any, should be removed from the flushing
> gas. The temperature of the flushing gas is not critical and may be at,
> above, or below room temperature. After flushing with dry gas, a resilient
> cap, such as that shown in FIG. 5 of the above-cited Files patent, may be
> applied to cover the neck opening to maintain the bulb assembly filled with
> the dry noncontaminating gas at atmospheric pressure for a relatively long
> term prior to the next manufacturing operation, which is usually the
> mount-sealing step. It has been found that envelopes so flushed and capped
> can be held or stored for several weeks, if necessary or desired, without
> substantial degradation of the screen structure.
>
> The bulb may pass to the next operation without capping, or, if it has
> been capped, the cap is removed. Then, the mount assembly is inserted in the
> neck of the bulb and the glass stem of the mount assembly sealed into the
> neck by known methods; for example, as described in U.S. Pat. No.
> 3,807,006 to J. F. Segro et al. The bulb with the mount assembly sealed
> therein may now be exhausted and baked to remove gases therein and to degas
> various of the structures and internal surfaces, by any known method; for
> example, as described in U.S. Pat. No. 2,532,315 to A. L. Johnson et al.
> After exhausting an

Re: [Vo]:This may be a blessing in disguise

[Jed Rothwell]

Ed Storms wrote me a not saying we should not re-hash stale debates in the Knol 
article, and we should not try to make the skeptics case for them, because 
that's like trying to make the case for the Flat Earth Society. I agree, but 
that is not quite what I had in mind. My response to Ed --


I was thinking of the "history" section in an encyclopedia article. I will 
leave the physics part to you -- or use your old text.

An encyclopedia should cover not only the science, but also the history and 
social effects of a phenomenon, in different sections of course. Not all mashed 
together the way they are in Wikipedia!

For example, an article about evolution will be mainly devoted to modern 
evolutionary theory, but to be comprehensive it should also a section about the 
development of the theory, how it has changed since Darwin with the discoveries 
of Mendel and then DNA, and so on. It might also discuss, or link to, articles 
about Darwinian social theory and capitalism, and creationism as the social 
backlash to  evolutionary theory. It is not directly relevant of course, but 
someone who wants an overview may be looking for it. People looking up cold 
fusion may want to know what all the fuss is, and why it is so controversial. 
We should tell them.

If we write anything about the history of the field, I think we should mention 
the NHE program, and say that it failed. . . .



Also it wouldn't hurt to say that many experiments did fail in the early days, 
and some still do, but for the most part we know why. I do not think that fact 
ever reached the Wiki article before it was trashed. It is okay to talk about 
technical difficulties. It is not a weakness. Storms himself has spotlighted 
more bad cold fusion calorimetry than all the skeptics combined, in this paper:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcalorimetr.pdf

That's what I meant by making the skeptical case.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Crummy night -- we just had a layoff at work (I made the cut but some 
very good people didn't).  So the tone of this may be a little downbeat.



PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:

LOL I empathize... in all respects.

"Does that make us a self-evolving species?"  I dunno.


Humans "evolving" -- hah.  Let's think about this a little.

"Evolving" means changing over time, but it implies no value judgement. 
 Tapeworms /evolved/ to get where they are.  Of course, you absolutely 
must accept the notion that major traits -- such as intelligence and 
physical prowess (OK, pick nits, there are nuances to both of those) -- 
have their parameters determined by genetics rather than being totally, 
100% plastic and controlled entirely by the environment; otherwise the 
whole issue vanishes in the mist.  (You'd also better be willing to drop 
vacuous notions like "all men are created equal" -- define "equal", 
define "created", and then we can talk about ways of testing the assertion.)


Classic Darwinian evolution results when there's /selection pressure/ of 
some sort at work.  What sort of selection pressure is at work on humans?


"Selection pressure" => creatures with some particular set of traits 
have more offspring which grow up than creatures with different traits. 
 What "selection pressure" might exist for modern humans?


Which groups have more offspring?

Which groups have fewer offspring?

Is it possible that there is any genetic basis at work in determining 
who is a member of which group?


What can we conclude from that?

C. M. Kornbluth asked these questions quite some decades ago, and came 
up with an answer which still looks pretty plausible.  And I'll let my 
comments go at that.  (I expect Jones will catch the reference, even if 
nobody else does...)



 Depending on 
your standpoint, the whole thing could be meaningless.  For example, if 
you know something about the Dalai Lama's background, where would you 
place him in the species?


How many children does the Dalai Lama have?  If he doesn't have any, 
then he's out of the running -- in the long view of things, he doesn't 
count.


Saddam Hussein doesn't count, either -- his "line" got dead-ended.

That guy who worked in a sperm bank and substituted his own semen for 
the stuff he was supposed to be handing out, now -- HE counts for a LOT; 
he's an example of an extremely successful creature.

[Vo]:This may be a blessing in disguise

[Jed Rothwell]

Few details about Google "Knol" have been released, but knowing Google I expect 
it will be excellent software and it will soon be competitive with Wikipedia. 
We may not be invited quickly, but I expect we will be in a few months.

This action by the skeptics may prove to be a blessing in disguise:

They have reverted Wikipedia to a out-of-date and inadequate version of the 
article.

They have permanently driven away the talent on our side, especially Pierre, so 
the Wiki article will stay as bad as it is, or they make it even worse.

They say they plan to leave the article "frozen" for months or years.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us with an ideal opportunity to write a 
better article in Knol, and take away the Wiki audience.

Many people find article in Wiki via Google. You can bet that Google will soon 
be finding Knol articles often. If we can build a new article in a few month, 
with many hyperlinks and many links in other pages pointing to it, then in a 
few months when people look for information on "cold fusion" they will find 
Knol. When they compare that to Wiki they will see a long, comprehensive, 
fact-based article with dozens of references in Knol, and a vapid collection of 
biased opinions in Wiki.

We may even sneak a link into the Wiki article, pointing to Knol.

I am confident that we can write a far better article than those characters 
can. I could even do more justice for the skeptical view, since I know far more 
about the actual failed experiments and stupid claims in cold fusion than they 
do. As McKubre says, "I could make their case better than they do." I probably 
should, too, to give the article balance. We should include things such as the 
failed NHE program. I have never been willing to add this kind of "dirty 
laundry" to the Wiki article because some skeptic will seize upon it and 
exaggerate it, but if we have control over Knol, I will not hesitate to 
describe the NHE fiasco.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

LOL I empathize... in all respects.

"Does that make us a self-evolving species?"  I dunno.  Depending on your 
standpoint, the whole thing could be meaningless.  For example, if you know 
something about the Dalai Lama's background, where would you place him in the 
species?

P.

- Original Message 
From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 6:45:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

Indeed, to me, evolution means change to deal with the environment.  It makes 
me wonder, as we largely control our environment these days, some of these 
"evolutionary" changes are in response to our own actions.  does that make us a 
self evolving species?


 

as for the selective breeding, we should get right on that.  ohh, the 
sacrifices some must make for science. 

 

(not me, as im getting married next sunday to a very jealous woman whos an 
excellent shot with a handgun. but others im sure would sacrifice in my place)

 

On 12/14/07, PHILIP WINESTONE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Hah!  Few people are paid to think... at least not in the way you and I define 
thinking.  That's another story.  Somebody took me to task (mildly for a 
change) for saying that humans are not necessarily improving... But when the 
word "evolution" is used, it implies that improvement is in the works.  
Otherwise it would be devolution.


Now as for "selective breeding" - well, I haven't bred enough (with women) to 
know if I was being selective (on a statistical basis)... Perhaps that's the 
secret. Perhaps that's all I should say...


P.


- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:59:00 AM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?


 

Howdy Philip,

You are not being paid to think.   Breeding shows in horses, dogs and 
women. Go to any dog pound, college, welfare office, local high school or 
ghetto.

 Hurricane Katrina provided an excellent example of the result of "selective 
breeding" strategies by thinkers. Who would have thunk it?

Richard 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Philip wrote,

 

>There are exquisitely beautiful cave paintings in France, dating back about 
>15000 years. There are even more exquisite paintings - again in caves in 
>France - dating back 35000 years. Does this indicate that perhaps there were 
>wonderfully cultured people over 35000 years ago, and that that culture was on 
>a downward trend?  According to PD Ouspensky - a very unusual thinker - 
>evolution comes in cycles, not in an upwardly trending linear fashion.  


"Where is the evidence?" you say.  Well, it took only about 3000 years to 
almost totally bury the pyramids... And evolution - in terms of humans 
improving - depends on how you measure "improving."  


Just a thought.
 


 






-- 
That which yields isn't always weak. 

Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Hah!  Few people are paid to think... at least not in the way you and I define 
thinking.  That's another story.  Somebody took me to task (mildly for a 
change) for saying that humans are not necessarily improving... But when the 
word "evolution" is used, it implies that improvement is in the works.  
Otherwise it would be devolution.

Now as for "selective breeding" - well, I haven't bred enough (with women) to 
know if I was being selective (on a statistical basis)... Perhaps that's the 
secret. Perhaps that's all I should say...

P.

- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:59:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

OT: Are humans evolving faster?

 
DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}



 

Howdy Philip,

You are not being paid to think. 
  Breeding shows in horses, dogs and women. Go to any dog 
pound, college, welfare office, local high school or ghetto.

 Hurricane Katrina provided an excellent 
example of the result of "selective breeding" strategies by thinkers. Who 
would have thunk it?

Richard 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Philip wrote,

 

>There are exquisitely beautiful cave paintings in France, dating back 
about 15000 years. There are even more exquisite paintings - again in caves in 
France - dating back 35000 years. Does this indicate that perhaps there were 
wonderfully cultured people over 35000 years ago, and that that culture was on 
a 
downward trend?  According to PD Ouspensky - a very unusual thinker - 
evolution comes in cycles, not in an upwardly trending linear fashion.  


"Where is the evidence?" you say.  Well, it took only about 3000 
years to almost totally bury the pyramids... And evolution - in terms of humans 
improving - depends on how you measure "improving."  

Just a 
thought.

Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

[leaking pen]

Indeed, to me, evolution means change to deal with the environment.  It
makes me wonder, as we largely control our environment these days, some of
these "evolutionary" changes are in response to our own actions.  does that
make us a self evolving species?

as for the selective breeding, we should get right on that.  ohh, the
sacrifices some must make for science.

(not me, as im getting married next sunday to a very jealous woman whos an
excellent shot with a handgun. but others im sure would sacrifice in my
place)


On 12/14/07, PHILIP WINESTONE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Hah!  Few people are paid to think... at least not in the way you and I
> define thinking.  That's another story.  Somebody took me to task (mildly
> for a change) for saying that humans are not necessarily improving... But
> when the word "evolution" is used, it implies that improvement is in the
> works.  Otherwise it would be devolution.
>
> Now as for "selective breeding" - well, I haven't bred enough (with women)
> to know if I was being selective (on a statistical basis)... Perhaps that's
> the secret. Perhaps that's all I should say...
>
> P.
>
> - Original Message 
> From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:59:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?
>
>
> Howdy Philip,
> You are not being paid to think.   Breeding shows in horses, dogs
> and women. Go to any dog pound, college, welfare office, local high school
> or ghetto.
>  Hurricane Katrina provided an excellent example of the result of
> "selective breeding" strategies by thinkers. Who would have thunk it?
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philip wrote,
>
> >There are exquisitely beautiful cave paintings in France, dating back
> about 15000 years. There are even more exquisite paintings - again in caves
> in France - dating back 35000 years. Does this indicate that perhaps there
> were wonderfully cultured people over 35000 years ago, and that that culture
> was on a downward trend?  According to PD Ouspensky - a very unusual thinker
> - evolution comes in cycles, not in an upwardly trending linear fashion.
>
> "Where is the evidence?" you say.  Well, it took only about 3000 years to
> almost totally bury the pyramids... And evolution - in terms of humans
> improving - depends on how you measure "improving."
>
> Just a thought.
>
>
>
>



-- 
That which yields isn't always weak.

Re: [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human

[leaking pen]

jack, again, i think that these issues, things that would have killed people
at young ages, even if through no other method than preventing them from
working and causing them to die of starvation, paupers, are being prevented
today.  which is why we see them more and more.

On 12/14/07, Taylor J. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
>
> In certain cultures if a woman has sex outside the sanctity
> of marriage she can be stoned to death. Meanwhile, the
> male gets away to spread his seed amongst other females -
> who may also eventually suffer the same fate.
>
> In other cultures the same activity is more likely to
> produce juicy gossip.
>
> In the grand scheme of things stoning women of child
> baring age results in the reduction of childbirths into
> that culture. Meanwhile, in other cultures notes and
> accompanying DNA are more frequently exchanged.
>
> Jeff Fink wrote:
>
> Is it culture that allowed western Europe/America to
> develop such incredible technology while all previous
> insipient techno societies such as China and Egypt failed
> to mature technically?
>
> Jed wrote:
>
> Jared Diamond says that geography has a lot to do with in,
> in his fascinating book "Guns germs and steel." I don't
> know if agree with everything he says, but the book is a
> tour de force and thought provoking.
>
> Actually, the Chinese were well along at times. But they
> kept inventing effective clocks, classifying them as Top
> Secret government projects, and then forgetting how to
> make them. Truly asinine, but not unthinkable in modern
> day society.
>
> Hi All,
>
> Selection pressure on humans may never have been higher
> than at present, including sexual, technological,
> geographical (I think Diamond is fascinating), cultural
> pressures, etc.  All of these pressures are the bases
> for various "theories of history."
>
> The results of sexual pressure are not obvious:  At the
> presnt trend, 12 will be the average age in Iraq; and the
> Mormons are the fastest growing religion in the US (so
> I've read) -- they are doing it by procreation (Big Love?).
>
> My current favorite pressure is the "disease theory of
> history."  An interesting Nova (?) some time ago described
> a village in England, ravaged by the Black Death in the
> 14th century, whose modern descendents have a higher than
> average resistence to HIV -- the pores in the T-cells are
> too small for the virus to penetrate -- another reason to
> question whether or not the Black Death was really Plague.
>
> Today, microbiological attack is probably the strongest
> evolutionary pressure:  ease of movement in and out of
> remote regions with large numbers of people -- did the
> Roman roads bring smallpox into the Empire  from the Middle
> East and decimate Marcus Aurelius's legions on the Rhine?
>
> Now we have strange symptoms such as chronic fatigue,
> loss of myelin from neurons, fribomyalgia, Parkinson's,
> Lou Gherig's disease, etc., which the medical profession
> tries to explain away as "autoimmune disease."  If our
> immune systems were that dysfunctional, we would have been
> extinct long ago.
>
> Based upon drastic human population crashes in the past,
> e.g. 535 AD,  I don't think it is far-fetched to predict
> a world population of 1 billion by 2050.  If Yellowstone
> blows, we could even have a pinch like the one that almost
> finished off homo sapiens 70,000 years ago.
>
> Jack Smith
>
>
>


-- 
That which yields isn't always weak.

Re: [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human

[Taylor J. Smith]

Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

In certain cultures if a woman has sex outside the sanctity
of marriage she can be stoned to death. Meanwhile, the
male gets away to spread his seed amongst other females -
who may also eventually suffer the same fate.

In other cultures the same activity is more likely to
produce juicy gossip.

In the grand scheme of things stoning women of child
baring age results in the reduction of childbirths into
that culture. Meanwhile, in other cultures notes and
accompanying DNA are more frequently exchanged.

Jeff Fink wrote:

Is it culture that allowed western Europe/America to
develop such incredible technology while all previous
insipient techno societies such as China and Egypt failed
to mature technically?

Jed wrote:

Jared Diamond says that geography has a lot to do with in,
in his fascinating book "Guns germs and steel." I don't
know if agree with everything he says, but the book is a
tour de force and thought provoking.

Actually, the Chinese were well along at times. But they
kept inventing effective clocks, classifying them as Top
Secret government projects, and then forgetting how to
make them. Truly asinine, but not unthinkable in modern
day society.

Hi All,

Selection pressure on humans may never have been higher
than at present, including sexual, technological,
geographical (I think Diamond is fascinating), cultural
pressures, etc.  All of these pressures are the bases
for various "theories of history."

The results of sexual pressure are not obvious:  At the
presnt trend, 12 will be the average age in Iraq; and the
Mormons are the fastest growing religion in the US (so
I've read) -- they are doing it by procreation (Big Love?).

My current favorite pressure is the "disease theory of
history."  An interesting Nova (?) some time ago described
a village in England, ravaged by the Black Death in the
14th century, whose modern descendents have a higher than
average resistence to HIV -- the pores in the T-cells are
too small for the virus to penetrate -- another reason to
question whether or not the Black Death was really Plague.

Today, microbiological attack is probably the strongest
evolutionary pressure:  ease of movement in and out of
remote regions with large numbers of people -- did the
Roman roads bring smallpox into the Empire  from the Middle
East and decimate Marcus Aurelius's legions on the Rhine?

Now we have strange symptoms such as chronic fatigue,
loss of myelin from neurons, fribomyalgia, Parkinson's,
Lou Gherig's disease, etc., which the medical profession
tries to explain away as "autoimmune disease."  If our
immune systems were that dysfunctional, we would have been
extinct long ago.

Based upon drastic human population crashes in the past,
e.g. 535 AD,  I don't think it is far-fetched to predict
a world population of 1 billion by 2050.  If Yellowstone
blows, we could even have a pinch like the one that almost
finished off homo sapiens 70,000 years ago.

Jack Smith

Re: [Vo]:You have to have an invitation to participate in knol

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

It turns out knol is by invitation only, at present. I sent a 
message here, bucking for an invitation:


http://www.google.com/press/index.html


This is their "general contact" address which must get thousands of 
messages a day. They will probably ignore my message. If anyone here 
has a connection to Google, I suggest you ask them directly.


No point in flooding this address with messages.

- Jed

[Vo]:You have to have an invitation to participate in knol

[Jed Rothwell]

It turns out knol is by invitation only, at present. I sent a message 
here, bucking for an invitation:


http://www.google.com/press/index.html

Message as follows:

My name is Jed Rothwell. I am the librarian here:

http://lenr-canr.org/

This site is a library o papers about cold fusion -- the physics, not 
the programming language.


Roughly 3,500 papers have been published, including about 1,000 in 
mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. I work with hundreds of 
professional scientists from many countries, including many 
distinguished scientists such as the retired head of the Atomic 
Energy Commission, Government of India. I have been editing cold 
fusion papers, and translating them from Japanese into English for 12 years.


I request that you allow members of this group, including me, to 
participate in your Knol project as soon as possible. Cold fusion is 
highly controversial and politicized. The Wikipeida article on cold 
fusion is constantly vandalized by academic rivals, and no 
self-respecting scientist will contribute to it, whereas I believe I 
can persuade some of the top cold fusion researchers to contribute to Knol.


Sincerely,


Jed Rothwell

[Vo]:Hurrah for Google!

[Jed Rothwell]

There is an e-mail discussion going on about Pierre Carbonnelle's 
heroic attempt to rescue the Wikipedia cold fusion article. See:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cold_fusion

Pierre thinks the effort is dead. But anyway, Ron Marshall related 
some exciting news:



Just when all is lost, Google to the rescue.
See these links.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/encouraging-people-to-contribute.html
http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/15137/google_challenges_wikipedia_with_knol

Google has created a competitor to Wikipedia called Knol for Knowledge unit.
Each author has his own article, which only he can edit.  Several 
articles can be attached to the same subject.  Thus we can all have 
a cold fusion article.
It is likely these articles will appear ahead of the Wikipedia 
article in the Google search.


My response:

Whoa! This is very important! Google is the only organization that 
can effectively compete with Wikipedia.


I am going to spread this message far and wide, and tell all cold 
fusion researchers to consider contributing to this.


I think the Pierre and I should write an article for this, run it by 
people like Storms, McKubre and the people on this list for review 
[and here in Vortex], and then upload it. To hell with Wikipeida.


I expect we can create an article that any member of a small group 
can edit. In other words, we can share a password or an account, so 
that if someone here spots an error or wants to add something to the 
article he can go ahead. This would be like Wikipedia for sane people only.


Maybe we can use the deleted Wikipedia article as a starting point.

This is exactly what is needed!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human

[leaking pen]

There is no escaping reason; no denying culture. Because as we both know,
without culture, we would not exist.  It is culture that created us.
Culture that connects us.  Culture that pulls us.  That guides us.  That
drives us.  It is culture that defines us.  Culture that binds us.


sorry.  couldnt resist. or, perhaps i could, i just didnt understand the
choice.


On 12/13/07, R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Been reading this thread with interest at the views expressed. Anyone
> care to expound on the impact of another component  CULTURE.
>  What role does culture play in the grand scheme of things?
>
> Richard
>



-- 
That which yields isn't always weak.

RE: [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human

[Lawrence de Bivort]

There have been many studies of the relationship between cultural attributes
and economic or technological 'progress.'  I think several things can be
said about this that these studies tend to miss:

 

1.  As I see it, 'Progress' is itself a culturally defined notion. What
seems like progress in one culture may be viewed as societal
self-destruction in another. So if we are to use the term usefully, we will
have to define what we mean by 'progress'.

 

2.  Culture, like organizations, individuals, or societies, can be
viewed as a human system. That is, it will have a set of basic functions
taking place within a structure that links its different components. (Jim
Miller LIVING SYSTEMS THEORY and Stafford Beer VIABLE SYSTEMS MODEL suggest
ways to create models of these systemic functions and structures.) 

 

Human systems go beyond others in the sense that human systems involve
values, hopes for the future, fears, etc. The sum of these things is what we
call 'culture'. (I am not using the term in the sense of the arts, theater,
music, etc.) 'Progress', then would be a value that a society might or might
not place great emphasis on. 

 

3.  In the West and in Europe and the US in particular, notions of
progress have become dominated by the notion of wealth and acquisition and
so we embrace technology and the exploitation of natural resources as the
means and fuel for such economically-defined progress. But in many other
cultures, 'progress' is seen differently, and the West's definition is
viewed with emotions and analyses that range form envy, to horror, to
repudiation, to boredom. 

 

4.  Yes, the West is viewed as being in the ascendancy on a
technological, military, and wealth-generation sense. But several things may
be reversing this, including, the growing relative financial weakness of the
West, the emerging critique of seduction-and-status based consumerism, our
growing dependency on outsourcing, the growing military and medical budgets
- all of which can be seen as a form of buffering other dysfunctionalities
built into 'Western culture'.  It is not hard to imagine several other
cultures competing to replace the West's as the dominating one, along with
their various paradigms of what 'progress' means.

 

It would be a silly mistake, I think, to think that the West has found all
the answers and will retain its ascendancy indefinitely.  This is certainly
not the lesson of history, which has seen the ascendant culture shift among
the Middle East, Asia, Europe and less often, the Americas and Africa.

 

5.  It would seem to me that the only strategy that will assist a
culture in remaining fresh and vibrant and relevant generally to the
opportunities that the evolution of the world offers is one that is
intensely curious about other cultures, able to appreciate their genuine
strengths and weaknesses, and to learn form them. A successful culture must
then know how to routinely transform itself functionally and structurally
based upon a wise and expanded definition of culture and values.

 

6.  So perhaps the most viable cultures today will prove to be those
that are dissatisfied with themselves, able to learn and to change, and
determined to pursue the potential for creating a good society that lies
within their culture.

 

Lawrence

 

  _  

From: Jeff Fink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human 

 

Is it culture that allowed western Europe/America to develop such incredible
technology while all previous insipient techno societies such as China and
Egypt failed to mature technically?  I tend to think that freedom and the
rise of a middle class are essential.  There must be time and resources
available to large groups of people in order to amass great amounts of
knowledge through experimentation.  I don't think any previous civilizations
had those ingredients.

 

Jeff

 

  _  

From: R.C.Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human 

 

Been reading this thread with interest at the views expressed. Anyone care
to expound on the impact of another component  CULTURE.

 What role does culture play in the grand scheme of things?

 

Richard


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: 12/13/2007
9:15 AM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: 12/13/2007
9:15 AM

[Vo]:Stable deflated state computation

[Horace Heffner]

The deflated hydrogen state is defined in this article:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf

The deflated state deuterium calculations, which essentially  
demonstrate the feasibility, and upper bound for the radius, of the  
state, are now located at:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf

I have previously been unable to compute the state due to a failure  
to consider the relativistic and momentum effects on the deuteron.   
In such an energetic state, the deuteron radius decreases due to an  
increase in its gamma.  In a mutual orbital dp/dt for the electron  
and deuteron are in balance, their momenta are approximately in  
balance, and their de Broglie wavelengths are approximately equal.   
The attached computation takes this into account, and demonstrates  
that a stable (no borrowed energy required) deflated state indeed can  
exist.


The probability of such a state existing as part of an electron  
orbital is greatly enhanced by formation of degenerate orbitals  
wherein the electron plunges deep toward the nucleus.  Such orbitals  
exist in some molecules, and can be formed through electromagnetic  
stressing of normal orbitals.  The deflated state need not exist for  
extended periods to cause fusion, if the probability of its  
existence, in other words the frequency of its existence, is  
sufficiently large.


Though the orbital computation is not quantized, the stratification  
due to quantization should be both fine and deep, i.e. contain many  
valid states, due to the enormous kinetic energies involved.  The  
vast majority of the binding energy is magnetic (about 1500 times the  
Coulomb binding).  This estimate is probably small because  
relativistic field pancaking should increase the size of the magnetic  
force.


If it is necessary to decrease the wavelength of the electron and  
deuteron in relation to the diameter of the deflated state to  
properly account for the magnetic field, or to reduce the force  
relation between particles, this only reduces the radius at which the  
first bound state can occur, it does not preclude existence of the  
states.  The state is always feasible at some radius.


If the computation does hold up as an upper limit for the set of such  
possible states, then this is a major step, because Deflation Fusion  
has moved out of the realm of pure speculation into the realm of a  
speculative theory.


Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human

[Jed Rothwell]

Jeff Fink wrote:

Is it culture that allowed western Europe/America to develop such 
incredible technology while all previous insipient techno societies 
such as China and Egypt failed to mature technically?


Jared Diamond says that geography has a lot to do with in, in his 
fascinating book "Guns germs and steel." I don't know if agree with 
everything he says, but the book is a tour de force and thought provoking.


Actually, the Chinese were well along at times. But they kept 
inventing effective clocks, classifying them as Top Secret government 
projects, and then forgetting how to make them. Truly asinine, but 
not unthinkable in modern day society.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human

[Harry Veeder]

Rapid technological progress is a "perfect storm" of the brainy kind.
Harry

On 14/12/2007 12:40 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

> 
> 
> Jeff Fink wrote:
>> Is it culture that allowed western Europe/America to develop such
>> incredible technology while all previous insipient techno societies such
>> as China and Egypt failed to mature technically?
> 
> I think this is a misleading question.
> 
> The sum total of human knowledge has increased -- erratically -- as an
> exponential.  The more we know, the easier it is to discover more, and
> the more we can pool our knowledge, the faster it happens.  The behavior
> of exponential growth leads directly to the illusion that there were
> enormous differences in the rate of technological progress between
> Europe and the rest of the world.  If we look at the full timeline of
> human history, on the other hand, and consider when other cultures might
> have arrived at a post-industrial society if Europe had not, it appears
> that the difference in "arrival time", as a fraction of the length of
> human history, would actually have been quite small.
> 
> The early part of an exponential looks "flat" -- if you just look at the
> curve locally, it's hard to tell anything's changing.  In the time of
> Jesus Christ, society surely _looked_ like a zero-sum game to the
> inhabitants, because the pace of change was so slow.  Ecclesiastes could
> write "there is nothing new under the sun", and people could take it as
> literally true with no need to hem and haw about how he meant it
> figuratively, or claim he was just talking about human behavior, or
> whatnot -- it appeared, 2500 years ago, that things were really
> completely static.
> 
> But they were not.  The sum of human knowledge was increasing, and at
> some point the slope of the exponential got steep enough that it was
> obvious that things were changing.  That happened first in western
> Europe -- but the difference in /years/ is actually very small between
> where Europe was on the curve versus, say, China, or even the Americas.
> 
> Figure human beings have been "absolutely human" for 100,000 years.  The
> rate of technological change has only been fast enough for individuals
> to easily see it happening during the last 600 years or so.  Europe may
> have been "ahead" of China by, say, a century, and ahead of the New
> World by a handful of centuries -- but on the scale of human history,
> that's the blink of an eye.  Someone had to get to the industrial
> revolution first; it happened to be Europe.  If Europe had stumbled, it
> would surely have happened anyway, and probably no more than a few
> hundred years later.  The difference in time to reach the threshold of
> advanced technology, given a time scale of 100,000 years, would most
> likely have been less than 1% if we had had to "wait" for some other
> continent to get there.
> 
> 
>> I tend to think that
>> freedom and the rise of a middle class are essential.  There must be
>> time and resources available to large groups of people in order to amass
>> great amounts of knowledge through experimentation.  I don¹t think any
>> previous civilizations had those ingredients.
> 
> Perhaps.  That's somewhat speculative.
> 
> What is not speculation is that no previous civilization had the same
> prior fund of amassed knowledge which was available in Europe at the
> dawn of the industrial revolution.
> 
> What is also not speculation is that if something had prevented Europe
> from taking the "next step", within another couple of centuries the
> amassed knowledge in Asia would have exceeded that which was available
> in Europe at the start of the revolution.  We can then guess that that,
> in turn, might very well have sparked an industrial revolution,
> regardless of the sclerotic nature of Oriental politics at the time.
> 
> Freedom in Europe sped things up.  Slavery in the new world sped things
> up, as well, by making southern plantations practical, and hence fueling
> England's foreign trade, which in turn funded industrialization at home.
> The connections here are complex and not generally known but appear to
> have been significant.  But the human knowledge base was increasing
> regardless of all that; it seems quite plausible that a scientific and
> industrial revolution was inevitable.
> 
> The political situation affected the timing, but was almost surely not
> the root cause.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:* R.C.Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:38 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Been reading this thread with interest at the views expressed. Anyone
>> care to expound on the impact of another component  CULTURE.
>> 
>> What role does culture play in the grand scheme of things?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>> No virus found in this incoming me

Re: [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Jeff Fink wrote:
Is it culture that allowed western Europe/America to develop such 
incredible technology while all previous insipient techno societies such 
as China and Egypt failed to mature technically? 


I think this is a misleading question.

The sum total of human knowledge has increased -- erratically -- as an 
exponential.  The more we know, the easier it is to discover more, and 
the more we can pool our knowledge, the faster it happens.  The behavior 
of exponential growth leads directly to the illusion that there were 
enormous differences in the rate of technological progress between 
Europe and the rest of the world.  If we look at the full timeline of 
human history, on the other hand, and consider when other cultures might 
have arrived at a post-industrial society if Europe had not, it appears 
that the difference in "arrival time", as a fraction of the length of 
human history, would actually have been quite small.


The early part of an exponential looks "flat" -- if you just look at the 
curve locally, it's hard to tell anything's changing.  In the time of 
Jesus Christ, society surely _looked_ like a zero-sum game to the 
inhabitants, because the pace of change was so slow.  Ecclesiastes could 
write "there is nothing new under the sun", and people could take it as 
literally true with no need to hem and haw about how he meant it 
figuratively, or claim he was just talking about human behavior, or 
whatnot -- it appeared, 2500 years ago, that things were really 
completely static.


But they were not.  The sum of human knowledge was increasing, and at 
some point the slope of the exponential got steep enough that it was 
obvious that things were changing.  That happened first in western 
Europe -- but the difference in /years/ is actually very small between 
where Europe was on the curve versus, say, China, or even the Americas.


Figure human beings have been "absolutely human" for 100,000 years.  The 
rate of technological change has only been fast enough for individuals 
to easily see it happening during the last 600 years or so.  Europe may 
have been "ahead" of China by, say, a century, and ahead of the New 
World by a handful of centuries -- but on the scale of human history, 
that's the blink of an eye.  Someone had to get to the industrial 
revolution first; it happened to be Europe.  If Europe had stumbled, it 
would surely have happened anyway, and probably no more than a few 
hundred years later.  The difference in time to reach the threshold of 
advanced technology, given a time scale of 100,000 years, would most 
likely have been less than 1% if we had had to "wait" for some other 
continent to get there.



I tend to think that 
freedom and the rise of a middle class are essential.  There must be 
time and resources available to large groups of people in order to amass 
great amounts of knowledge through experimentation.  I don’t think any 
previous civilizations had those ingredients.


Perhaps.  That's somewhat speculative.

What is not speculation is that no previous civilization had the same 
prior fund of amassed knowledge which was available in Europe at the 
dawn of the industrial revolution.


What is also not speculation is that if something had prevented Europe 
from taking the "next step", within another couple of centuries the 
amassed knowledge in Asia would have exceeded that which was available 
in Europe at the start of the revolution.  We can then guess that that, 
in turn, might very well have sparked an industrial revolution, 
regardless of the sclerotic nature of Oriental politics at the time.


Freedom in Europe sped things up.  Slavery in the new world sped things 
up, as well, by making southern plantations practical, and hence fueling 
England's foreign trade, which in turn funded industrialization at home. 
 The connections here are complex and not generally known but appear to 
have been significant.  But the human knowledge base was increasing 
regardless of all that; it seems quite plausible that a scientific and 
industrial revolution was inevitable.


The political situation affected the timing, but was almost surely not 
the root cause.





 


Jeff

 




*From:* R.C.Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:38 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human

 

Been reading this thread with interest at the views expressed. Anyone 
care to expound on the impact of another component  CULTURE.


 What role does culture play in the grand scheme of things?

 


Richard


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: 
12/13/2007 9:15 AM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: 
12/13/2007 9:15 AM

Re: [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human

[OrionWorks]

Richard sez:

> Been reading this thread with interest at the views expressed. Anyone care
> to expound on the impact of another component  CULTURE.
>  What role does culture play in the grand scheme of things?
>
> Richard

In certain cultures if a woman has sex outside the sanctity of
marriage she can be stoned to death. Meanwhile, the male gets away to
spread his seed amongst other females - who may also eventually suffer
the same fate.

In other cultures the same activity is more likely to produce juicy gossip.

In the grand scheme of things stoning women of child baring age
results in the reduction of childbirths into that culture. Meanwhile,
in other cultures notes and accompanying DNA are more frequently
exchanged.

My 2 cents.
-- 
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com

RE: [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human

[Jeff Fink]

Is it culture that allowed western Europe/America to develop such incredible
technology while all previous insipient techno societies such as China and
Egypt failed to mature technically?  I tend to think that freedom and the
rise of a middle class are essential.  There must be time and resources
available to large groups of people in order to amass great amounts of
knowledge through experimentation.  I don’t think any previous civilizations
had those ingredients.

 

Jeff

 

   _  

From: R.C.Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human 

 

Been reading this thread with interest at the views expressed. Anyone care
to expound on the impact of another component  CULTURE.

 What role does culture play in the grand scheme of things?

 

Richard


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: 12/13/2007
9:15 AM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: 12/13/2007
9:15 AM
 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Quasi-Stable Negative Muons or Heavy Positronium-Electronium?

[Jones Beene]

An example?

http://current.com/items/87014271_elemental_the_generator_that_runs_on_background_radiation






Frederick Sparber wrote:

Jones.
 
A  bound state of e- e+ e-  (about 10^12 % according to CRC tables) is 
known.
 
With a mass about 207 times that of the electron and about 0.5 MeV they 
could
make a burn spot on the center of your old TV CRT before they came up 
with the bent gun.
 
OTOH, a 1/207 fractional hydrino orbit of 2800 eV would be a hefty 
energy release if

they are in potassium or argon. No?
 
Fred

Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

[R.C.Macaulay]

 Howdy Fred,

I figured anybody with a lick of sense would already understood that. I just 
wish you wouldn't compare an upscale saloon like the Dime Box with the White 
House. After all, we have feelings.
Richard
   Fred wrote..

  Or you can mosey over to the dime store saloon near Houston and environs, or 
the White House, and get a first hand look. 




Howdy Philip,
You are not being paid to think.   Breeding shows in horses, dogs and 
women. Go to any dog pound, college, welfare office, local high school or 
ghetto.
 Hurricane Katrina provided an excellent example of the result of 
"selective breeding" strategies by thinkers. Who would have thunk it?
Richard 






Philip wrote,

>There are exquisitely beautiful cave paintings in France, dating back 
about 15000 years. There are even more exquisite paintings - again in caves in 
France - dating back 35000 years. Does this indicate that perhaps there were 
wonderfully cultured people over 35000 years ago, and that that culture was on 
a downward trend?  According to PD Ouspensky - a very unusual thinker - 
evolution comes in cycles, not in an upwardly trending linear fashion.  

"Where is the evidence?" you say.  Well, it took only about 3000 years to 
almost totally bury the pyramids... And evolution - in terms of humans 
improving - depends on how you measure "improving."  

Just a thought.





--


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.2/1184 - Release Date: 12/14/2007 
11:29 AM

Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

[Frederick Sparber]

Or you can mosey over to the dime store saloon near Houston and environs, or
the White House, and get a first hand look. 

On Dec 14, 2007 5:59 AM, R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Howdy Philip,
> You are not being paid to think.   Breeding shows in horses, dogs
> and women. Go to any dog pound, college, welfare office, local high school
> or ghetto.
>  Hurricane Katrina provided an excellent example of the result of
> "selective breeding" strategies by thinkers. Who would have thunk it?
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philip wrote,
>
> >There are exquisitely beautiful cave paintings in France, dating back
> about 15000 years. There are even more exquisite paintings - again in caves
> in France - dating back 35000 years. Does this indicate that perhaps there
> were wonderfully cultured people over 35000 years ago, and that that culture
> was on a downward trend?  According to PD Ouspensky - a very unusual thinker
> - evolution comes in cycles, not in an upwardly trending linear fashion.
>
> "Where is the evidence?" you say.  Well, it took only about 3000 years to
> almost totally bury the pyramids... And evolution - in terms of humans
> improving - depends on how you measure "improving."
>
> Just a thought.
>

[Vo]:The Susslick controversey

[Frederick Sparber]

I take exception to Dr. Storms' statement that Sonofdusion is unrelated to
LENR.

IMHO, it's all a matter of where a long-lived, Cosmic Ray
Generated "Metastable Muon" is located in the electron cloud
of any atom-molecule in the environment.

Scroll down to the Bubble Chamber Photograph (1 and 2) Links in this
excellent tutorial and note that
the muon (Metastable-or Stable?) "forbidden to decay" see below, and note
that
the muon simply disappears at the end of it's track with No Evidence of any
electron track
that should be visible in the 1.78 Tesla magnetic field of this liquid
hydrogen-filled bubble chamber.

*http://homepage.mac.com/dtrapp/ePhysics.f/labVI_7.html*


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon* 


" Certain neutrino-less decay modes are kinematically allowed but forbidden
in the Standard Model. Examples are
 [image: \mu^-\to e^-\gamma] and [image: \mu^-\to e^- e^+ e^-].

" Observation of such decay modes would constitute clear evidence for
physics beyond the Standard
Model(BSM).
Upper limits for the branching fractions of such decay modes are in
the range 10−11 to 10−12."

" The muon was the first elementary
particlediscovered
that does not appear in ordinary
atoms . Negative muons can, however, form
muonic atoms  by replacing an
electron in ordinary atoms. Muonic atoms are much smaller than typical atoms
because the larger mass of the muon gives it a smaller
ground-state
wavefunction  than the electron."

" A positive muon, when stopped in ordinary matter, can also bind an
electron and form an exotic atom known as
muonium(Mu) atom, in which the
muon acts as the nucleus. The positive muon, in this
context, can be considered a pseudo-isotope of hydrogen with one ninth of
the mass of the proton. The reduced
massof muonium, hence its
Bohr
radius , is very close to that of
hydrogen , hence this short lived
"atom" behaves chemically ― in first approximation ― like
hydrogen,
deuterium  and
tritium
."

Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

[R.C.Macaulay]

OT: Are humans evolving faster?
Howdy Philip,
You are not being paid to think.   Breeding shows in horses, dogs and 
women. Go to any dog pound, college, welfare office, local high school or 
ghetto.
 Hurricane Katrina provided an excellent example of the result of "selective 
breeding" strategies by thinkers. Who would have thunk it?
Richard 






Philip wrote,

>There are exquisitely beautiful cave paintings in France, dating back about 
>15000 years. There are even more exquisite paintings - again in caves in 
>France - dating back 35000 years. Does this indicate that perhaps there were 
>wonderfully cultured people over 35000 years ago, and that that culture was on 
>a downward trend?  According to PD Ouspensky - a very unusual thinker - 
>evolution comes in cycles, not in an upwardly trending linear fashion.  

"Where is the evidence?" you say.  Well, it took only about 3000 years to 
almost totally bury the pyramids... And evolution - in terms of humans 
improving - depends on how you measure "improving."  

Just a thought.