[Vo]:RE: [Vo] Sunspotless
Stephen wrote: I don't understand why you seem to feel humans have no control over human-generated carbon dioxide. How you got that I don't know, but please don't tell me. Of course we can control (dramatically reduce) it, for instance by shutting down our economy and sharply curtailing personal liberty. That's the solution of the socialists who have hijacked a sweet little environmental movement concerned with things that really matter, and turned it into the giant global warming hoax. We could also reduce it as an incidental byproduct of nuking up, or by achieving and implementing a LENR or similar technology breakthrough. I'd hate the first, *very* cautiously accept the second, and we'd all love the third. Here is an excerpt from a document signed by thousands of scientists primarily to refute the lie being circulated that scientific debate is over and there is an overwhelming consensus in favor of AGW: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. I'm not in the mood and I have no free time to start accumulating content for the forum on all the evidence out there, searching, cutting and pasting, citing references, and then having it all tossed back in my face as the threads deteriorate into the non-sequiturs and silliness you get when arguing with True Believers. Makes me gain even more respect for what Jed and others do for LENR/CF. Didn't expect such closed mindedness on a forum where being on the short end of scientific consensus on controversial subjects is well known to most of the participants. I share the position held by a significant minority of scientists when I see and understand the logic of the case against AGW as superior to that which is presented in favor of it. I also see the undesirable political conspiracy promoting it. It's clear that many of the active posters here don't share those views yet, but I have more than just a suspicion that someday they will. - Rick -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 4:02 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless Rick Monteverde wrote: I'm sorry, I'll respond from now on only when spoken to directly. My bad. Sorry if it sounded like I thought you shouldn't have replied; I wasn't trying to shush you! I was just saying those remarks were not directed specifically at what you said. It was nothing more than an attempt at defending myself against the accusation that I had not read your message before I disagreed with it. There is significant evidence pointing away from the warming cause being related to the huge (what, 4 tenths of a percent is it?) CO2 output we're responsible for. Hmmm. 0.4% ... yeah, that's how much we've been boosting the CO2 level in the air ... EVERY YEAR for the last 50 years. To estimate how much CO2 will increase in the coming years, though, you need to *integrate* that value; you're looking at the derivative of the measured total level and calling it the anthropogenic change in the total CO2 generation rate. That's, at best, misleading, and at worst it's just wrong. Total CO2 level in the atmosphere is currently around 0.04%. This is 35% higher than historic levels determined from ice cores in the 1800's. So says Wikipedia; I'd guess that they're not grossly far off. They also show a chart of measurements made at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii indicating CO2 levels have risen smoothly from about 315 ppm in 1960 to about 380 ppm in 2007, which is a rise of about 20% in the last 48 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere A 20% increase in the atmospheric CO2 level in the last half-century seems pretty substantial to me. In addition, computer models used to support it as a cause are inherently flawed in a way that matters critically to the use of such models to tell us anything useful about its contribution in the real world. Additionally, we do not have the understanding needed to steer the car back where we want it if in fact it's going off the road See above. With a 20% rise in total atmospheric CO2 in 50 years, and with the rate of increase continuing to increase (curve is concave up), we've essentially got our foot jammed all the way to the floor on the accelerator. Yes, I agree, we're lost in the weeds, but maybe it would make sense to try slowing down a little -- *before* we careen over a cliff, eh? Nobody's suggesting seeding the ocean or other pro-active things that
[Vo]:NHC models aim Ike at NOLA
Models grouping towards NOLA now. This is just harsh! - Rick
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:29:00 -0400: Hi, [snip] They (apparently) oscillate, which, at least according to my limited and rather primitive understanding of relativity theory, means time passes for them, which suggests pretty strongly that their speed must be subluminal. At C, 1/gamma=0 and the particle must remain immutable between events, because its internal clock has stopped. This makes me wonder how an ordinary photon manages to go through umpteen cycles between source and destination with a stopped clock. :) It doesn't. A photon is the same no matter when you sample it. The wave function associated with it goes through multiple cycles (which are distributed in space) but the photon itself does not oscillate in any sense of the word. Remember, the photon is traveling with the wave front, and ON THE WAVE FRONT the E and B fields are stationary. If, at the crest of the wave, E points up, then it's that up-pointing E vector which is traveling through space; at the crest it always points up, but the crest is moving at C. Any observer in any inertial frame will see an oscillating E field as the photon passes, of course, because the up-pointing E field at the crest is preceded and followed by down-pointing E fields -- but they're all moving along through space in tandem. If you could travel at C, and you flew along with a radio wave (which is easier to measure than a light wave), and you sampled the E and B fields, you would find that they didn't seem to be changing. This is one of the problems with traveling at C: In a frame of reference moving at C the traveling wave no longer looks like a solution to Maxwell's equations, because @E/@t = @B/@t = 0. The way out of this box chosen in special relativity is to let @t - 0 when you travel at C. A traveling wave is exactly that. It is not a changing wave; rather it's a fixed pattern which travels through space. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo] Sunspotless
Rick Monteverde wrote: Stephen wrote: I don't understand why you seem to feel humans have no control over human-generated carbon dioxide. How you got that I don't know, but please don't tell me. Of course we can control (dramatically reduce) it, for instance by shutting down our economy and sharply curtailing personal liberty. That's the solution of the socialists who have hijacked a sweet little environmental movement concerned with things that really matter, and turned it into the giant global warming hoax. We could also reduce it as an incidental byproduct of nuking up, or by achieving and implementing a LENR or similar technology breakthrough. I'd hate the first, *very* cautiously accept the second, and we'd all love the third. Here is an excerpt from a document signed by thousands of scientists primarily to refute the lie being circulated that scientific debate is over and there is an overwhelming consensus in favor of AGW: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. Sounds like a confession of faith to me. I'm not in the mood and I have no free time to start accumulating content for the forum on all the evidence out there, searching, cutting and pasting, citing references, and then having it all tossed back in my face as the threads deteriorate into the non-sequiturs and silliness you get when arguing with True Believers. Yes, I know exactly what you mean. It's like when someone says that humans only contribute 0.4% to the Earth's CO2 load which is pretty insignificant, and someone else takes the time to look it up and finds that what's actually meant is that humans are causing a 0.4% rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration *every year*, and that the net rise in global CO2 levels since the start of heavy human CO2 generation has actually been at least 35% ... and the person who made the 0.4% claim to start with just ignores the larger numbers and says anyone who thinks that there might be a problem is just a true believer. Yup, I understand exactly how you feel about folks who disregard the evidence. Makes me gain even more respect for what Jed and others do for LENR/CF. Didn't expect such closed mindedness on a forum where being on the short end of scientific consensus on controversial subjects is well known to most of the participants. I share the position held by a significant minority of scientists when I see and understand the logic of the case against AGW as superior to that which is presented in favor of it. I also see the undesirable political conspiracy promoting it. It's clear that many of the active posters here don't share those views yet, but I have more than just a suspicion that someday they will. - Rick
[Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick Monteverde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 9-5-08: ``... Stephen, I don't care what a majority of scientists or mainstream publishers or whatever have concluded, just as I'm sure Jed doesn't care how many think CF is bunk, in terms that situation having any bearing on the nature of the evidence or the conclusions he has come to regarding the evidence. They can all be wrong, and in the case of CF we're pretty certain they are, so there's your proof that a consensus does not necessarily mean much. There is significant evidence pointing away from the warming cause being related to the huge (what, 4 tenths of a percent is it?) CO2 output we're responsible for. In addition, computer models used to support it as a cause are inherently flawed ...'' --- Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Friday, September 05, 2008 10:59 AM: ``... In any case, from what I've read, the experts, while not 100% certain of the cause, are in near-universal agreement that it is *very* *likely* that the cause is anthropogenic greenhouse gases. One reason for concluding this, which doesn't take a sophisticated model to understand or reason about, is that anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 has been skyrocketing IN PARALLEL with the global temperature, [See remarks by Chuck Blatchley below] ... As someone put it, we're conducting an experiment in terraforming on an enormous scale and if the results don't work out well we're going to be in trouble. Perhaps we should scale back the pace of the experiment, eh?'' - Rick wrote on 9-6-08: Robin, well and concisely put. I only take issue with #3 because of the assumptions that we should be trying to interfere with the situation, and that warming is necessarily a bad thing in the long run. Used to be a lot warmer, and for a very long time. I say let nature handle the climate. It's our job to adapt to it. So let's put our opposable thumbs and big brains to work on the right problems. That still leaves people like you for #6 in at least the same, if not an even better, position. Right? --- Hi All, As I've mentioned previously, the real issue is not whether burning fossil fuels is the main reason for global warming; the real issue is whether or not we are going to be trapped into sending young Americans to die for oil in the Kazakh War of 2020, which will make the current military adventure in Iraq look like a training exercise. The situation is scary: Paraphrasing a recent speech to a wildly cheering crowd, My friends, my platform is more death, more recession, and eternal dependence on foreign oil. Jack Smith Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Friday, September 05, 2008 11:35 AM ``Subject: Sunspotless In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:25:43 -1000: Hi, Rick wrote: The argument is whether there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are incapable of directing that conclusion because of their inherent shortcomings. Robin wrote: I agree that the models are only models and will never get it 100% correct, however a few facts are obvious. 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2) The temperature is rising. 3) Reducing CO2 is the only means we have of influencing the situation (albeit that we don't know exactly how (in)effective that will be). 4) As a byproduct of switching from fossil fuels, we get less air pollution which is better for our health. 5) If we do it right, we make a net profit rather than a net loss. 6) If my ideas on fusion are correct, then that is going to be a very large profit.'' Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 9-6-08 ``While a warmer world might be nice in some respects, it could have major consequences for humanity. 1) Coastal flooding (where most major cities have been located for historical reasons). 2) Spreading of tropical diseases into temperate zones. 3) Possible major shifts in what will grow where. This could have a serious impact on agriculture. 4) Increases in the frequency and severity of weather extremes (which will also impact on agriculture). While we undoubtedly have the ingenuity to deal with all of these things, it is unlikely we can do so at no economic and political cost. By political cost, I mean the cost in lives lost due to wars brought on by major migrations of people when the region where they currently live becomes unsustainable. A primary example of this is Bangladesh. Therefore it seems wise to me to make a profit by pulling on the only lever we have and possibly making a difference, rather than just sitting back and doing nothing (while probably making the situation worse) while we incur considerable extra costs.'' --- Stephen wrote: I don't understand why you seem to feel humans have no control over human-generated carbon dioxide. Rick wrote: How you got that I don't know, but please don't tell me. Of course we can control
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Howdy Richard, Howdy Steven, I don't know why the 9/11 buildings collapsed because I wasn't there. One building collapse under these circumstances does raise an eyebrow,,, two buildings collapse under identical circumstances stretches the imagination... 3 buildings collapse in like circumstances with no plane hitting the 3rd building is beyond belief.. not even a drunk at the Dime Box Saloon would buy it. NIST used Occam's razor to shave the circumstanes to meet the contract stipulations.. leaving a little shaving cream.. or is that egg on their face.. I saw a woman leap to her death to escape the flames. All I do know is that the people responsible for this tragedy were watching on TV. Who were they? People with very strong stomachs. When they face the Lord.. they better have !! Richard OrionWorks wrote, For me, Occam's Razor suggests a less glamorous conclusion. IMHO, had you actually been there I doubt you would have known any more than what you know now. I also saw the pictures of people leaping out of windows and buildings collapsing, and I wasn't drunk. Who hasn't seen and experienced these horrific images. We may differ as to who was ultimately responsible, but I suspect we are in agreement on the fact that when all is done and we're all six foot under, we eventually end up with only ourselves and the deeds we performed during our brief passage(s) on this planet to ponder for the rest of eternity. I suspect in those moments of infinite clarity we may discover that we are our own worst judges, and we will know what restitution we must perform for the rest of eternity. With Great Respect Steven Vincent Johnson www.Orionworks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Science and faith
Is a desire to find a higher authority in our government - even when government chooses to act unscientifically and politically - fulfilling the same psychological need as unquestioning faith in any other higher authority ? Maybe. From the lack of logic, and blatant anti-scientific negativity, which was recently on display in postings here on vortex -- from otherwise logical and thoughtful folks, this seems to be the only explanation ... ... at least for those of us who want real and honest answers **from science** and not from politicians who are in direct opposition to investigating the truth http://www.theprogressivemind.info/2008/09/physics-dept-seminar-on-9102008-by-dr.html http://www.theprogressivemind.info/2008/09/who-told-giuliani-wtc-was-going-to.html
Re: [Vo]:Science and faith
Howdy Jones, The love of order.. which preserves it.. we call justice. There was once a man named Micah ( Micah 2:5) that warned about what happens when there is no justice in the heart.. there will be no justice in the courts. Politicians tread on tricky soil when they allow truth and justice to be thrown to the ground. The NIST report on the World Trade Center Bldg 7 does NOT measure up to scrutiny. There may not be anything a citizen can do about it.. BUT.. it decays the moral fiber of a people and it is more difficult to regain than to create. Richard Is a desire to find a higher authority in our government - even when government chooses to act unscientifically and politically - fulfilling the same psychological need as unquestioning faith in any other higher authority ? Maybe. From the lack of logic, and blatant anti-scientific negativity, which was recently on display in postings here on vortex -- from otherwise logical and thoughtful folks, this seems to be the only explanation ... ... at least for those of us who want real and honest answers **from science** and not from politicians who are in direct opposition to investigating the truth http://www.theprogressivemind.info/2008/09/physics-dept-seminar-on-9102008-by-dr.html http://www.theprogressivemind.info/2008/09/who-told-giuliani-wtc-was-going-to.html
[Vo]:Movement in Mars Micrograph
It takes a while to register these three photos for toggling, but the movement of some of this stuff over this 5 minute period is extraordinary because it is gradual across the three frames, and is not due to the change of focus that occurs between the 3 frames. All the frames were illuminated in green. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=29352cID=274 http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=29361cID=274 http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=29376cID=274 Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
If we keep on texting, we'll lose those opposable thumbs. Big brains? Fat heads. Some food for thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McsZ1U20W0M http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html http://snipurl.com/3nolp [sciencepolicy_colorado_edu] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/DefectiveGlobalWarming.pdf http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html I think drastic measures will require more evidence. Terry On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Rick Monteverde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robin - Well and concisely put. I only take issue with #3 because of the assumptions that we should be trying to interfere with the situation, and that warming is necessarily a bad thing in the long run. Used to be a lot warmer, and for a very long time. I say let nature handle the climate. It's our job to adapt to it. So let's put our opposable thumbs and big brains to work on the right problems. That still leaves people like you for #6 in at least the same, if not an even better, position. Right? - Rick -Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:25:43 -1000: Hi, [snip] The argument is whether there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are incapable of directing that conclusion because of their inherent shortcomings. [snip] I agree that the models are only models and will never get it 100% correct, however a few facts are obvious. 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2) The temperature is rising. 3) Reducing CO2 is the only means we have of influencing the situation (albeit that we don't know exactly how (in)effective that will be). 4) As a byproduct of switching from fossil fuels, we get less air pollution which is better for our health. 5) If we do it right, we make a net profit rather than a net loss. 6) If my ideas on fusion are correct, then that is going to be a very large profit. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Science and faith
Jones Beene wrote: Is a desire to find a higher authority in our government - even when government chooses to act unscientifically and politically - fulfilling the same psychological need as unquestioning faith in any other higher authority ? Maybe. From the lack of logic, and blatant anti-scientific negativity, which was recently on display in postings here on vortex -- from otherwise logical and thoughtful folks, this seems to be the only explanation ... ... at least for those of us who want real and honest answers **from science** and not from politicians who are in direct opposition to investigating the truth http://www.theprogressivemind.info/2008/09/physics-dept-seminar-on-9102008-by-dr.html http://www.theprogressivemind.info/2008/09/who-told-giuliani-wtc-was-going-to.html FWIW the firefighters were not evacuated, and the police were, because the radios carried by the NYFD didn't work well enough and most of them never got the message. The evacuation message was sent out by radio but the firemen didn't evacuate, because they didn't hear the message. For years they'd been fighting to get better radios. The ones they had were NG from the get-go (I don't recall the details -- I think it was the usual sordid story of a company that low-balls a bid and then delivers inadequate merchandise to squeeze out a profit anyway but it's been a year or two since I read anything about it). Giuliani sat on his thumb while the firemen complained about the bad radios, and then 9/11 happened, and an awful lot of them died as a result. The survivors did not keep silent about this, and it was a big deal while it looked like Giuliani might be the republican candidate. In fact, I'd say that the issue of the bad radios which Giuliani never authorized funds to replace, along with the issue of his cross-dressing, are two of the biggest factors which helped knock him out of the presidential race.
Re: [Vo]:Science and faith
Stephen Lawrence wrote: In fact, I'd say that the issue of the bad radios which Giuliani never authorized funds to replace, along with the issue of his cross-dressing, are two of the biggest factors which helped knock him out of the presidential race. Well, there is also rampant marital infidelity, not once but twice - support of gay rights, women's right to choice, etc and being an equal opportunity mayor- he was apparently even outed in NYC as Fruiti Giuliani -- go figure. Big Bill and JFK do not have any lock on being the most-oversexed politician ever. Maybe that comes with the territory, so to speak. Apparently, if J Edgar Hoover is any indication (as well as the members of the Bohemia Club) cross-dressing is not fatal to your ability to serve in the highest offices of the land, so long as you are somewhat discrete :-) If you want to read a tamed-down version of why Giuliani is unfit for public office, maybe even for US citizenship, read the Vanity Fair article (which doesn't even get into the 9/11 scandal which he will be facing - if and only if - McCain loses). http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/01/giuliani200801 It was clear early on this year - that his candidacy was doomed by the right, not the Dem-wits - but less clear that the only thing which has kept him from a grand jury investigation is that he has plenty of dirt to sling on the higher ups in food-chain in the 9/11 aftermath ... like ... who it was that told him that the first tower (not the second nor WTC7) was about to come down
Re: [Vo]:Science and faith
Jones and others on this thread have asked the big questions. I certainly do not find fault in the never-ending quest to unravel a clearer picture of who or what was behind the horrific 9/11 events. I freely admit that I'm no expert in what it takes to bring down tall buildings in a covert way. Others, like Jed, OTOH, appear to be more confident in suggesting that the bringing down of huge massive structures like those of the WTC is more straight-forward than some on this list feel comfortable accepting. If my recent 9/11 essay has evoked within certain Vort members the impression that at times I lack a sufficient amount of propensity to use logic, that my recent 9/11 essay was anti-scientific they are absolutely right in the sense that I was expression my personal feelings – a gut reaction. Was that scientific of me? Was it a logical response? No, certainly not. My only defense is to repeat a personal gut feeling, a NON-SCIENTIFIC perception. In matters involving the horrific 9/11 case, admittedly, it's a good idea to get a reasonable handle on who was likely responsible. On that point I suspect few here disagree with the premise that Alkeda possessed sufficient motivation to do us great harm. The unanswered question however seems to revolve around the conjecture on whether Alkeda had help, presumably from a super-secret western-like organization possessing nefarious motivations, where it is alleged that the real truth of the matter is that they allowed Alkeda to do their nefarious bidding for them. Ah! Now, the plot thickens! If so, where do we go from here. Well, that's the beauty of it all: Anywhere we want to take it, and just about to anyone's doorstep we have a personal beef with, it would seem! It seems to me that for many who have expressed dissatisfaction with the official explanations they are now focusing their interest on individuals who claim they are collecting the necessary scientific evidence to prove the conjecture that there had to have been explosives deliberately planted in the WTC. The point being, once one has convinced themselves that explosives had been deliberately planted, presumably so that they can later be detonated... well, one can then spend the rest of their life speculating endlessly on WHO DID IT! Let me repeat that last point from a slightly different angle: Once one buys into the premise that explosives were deliberately and nefariously planted, speculation on who or what organization was responsible will have a tendency to consume one's sense of outrage. One us likely to feel compelled to spend the rest of their life trying to get to the bottom of the injustice of it all. Jones, I feel compelled to ask the following questions, even though they actually are for anyone who feels more and more convinced that explosives had to have been deliberately planted in the WTC: Do you really think you'll get a satisfactory answer? Do you really think these reports that attempt to prove (scientifically) that explosives had to have been involved will really settle the matter? Will the presumed scientific proof clarify everything for you? A lot of innocent people died. It was horrible, we all understand this instinctively. We all continue to suffer from the aftermath of 9/11 in various, and often subconscious ways. For me, I came to the personal conclusion that there are better ways for me to try to transform the world I stand on into hopefully a better place, where something as horrific as another 9/11 event will not likely happen again. I'd rather do that instead of investing what little intellectual and emotional resources I still have left remaining under my command in being consumed in never-ending tantalizing premises of trying to prove the conjecture that explosives had to have been planted in the WTC. No doubt, some will believe I'm behaving naively, if not anti-scientifically. I can live with that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/zazzle.
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Jed wrote: And the NYFD rolled over and play dead. Because as we all know officials in New York City are timid and passive people who never question authorities. They are easily duped, and slavishly devoted to Republican administration. Plus, what would they have to gain? I mean, aside from world-class fame as the most important fire inspectors in history who broke the larger scandal in history? Of course they prefer to shut up in return for a payment of, what? maybe $100,000 for each member of the department in the know. That would be every fireman who saw the building because I assure you they all recognize arson when they see it. You could fool me with thermite but you sure could not fool a professional fireman, or even a volunteer fireman in Emmitsburg Maryland. Any staff expert at the NYFD could easily get a book deal for $5 million but they all much prefer going along with the conspirators. Apart from everything else, the human element of this mishmash conspiracy theory is completely preposterous. People do not act the way you imagine! They do not cover up data when it is in their interest and it is their professional responsibility to reveal that data. If there was a scrap of credible information pointing to premeditated, prepared arson, every member of the NYFD would be on to it, and they would be shouting about it from the rooftops. If, as you claim, the NYFD has photos proving this was prepared arson WHY AREN'T THEY SHOUTING ABOUT IT? WHY ARE THEY GOING ALONE WITH THE CONSPIRACY? What possible benefit is it to them? Do you think they don't recognize what you yourself claim is obvious in these photos? I'm inclined to agree with you about this, Jed. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense from a human motivation point of view. OTOH, it doesn't seem immediately credible that this building should collapse as it did without a plane striking it, although I admit that I don't have enough information about it to form an opinion. As far as NIST is concerned, it's easy to see why people are becoming increasingly skeptical about information coming from government agencies lately. As I have pointed out numerous times, the CDC was forced to make a public apology for lying about the spread of AIDS in the general, non-homosexual, non-drug-addict population. Their motivation was clearly political and they more or less excused themselves on those grounds. Of the thousands of scientists and others who work for the CDC, no one blew the whistle, the GAO had to find them out. A similar situation happened at NOAA concerning solar irradiance. There was no public apology, mostly, I suppose, because the public has no idea what solar irradiance is. It was a tempest in a teapot. Here in the Los Angeles area, we are experiencing what appears to be a local governnment manufactured water shortage. Rationing has been put in place with little water-gestapo agents driving about in their Priuses, trying to catch people using water in an unauthorized government disapproved manner. Meanwhile, there was much longer season for snow in the surrounding mountains due to, ahem, global cooling. The reservoirs are all full to the brim, for those who care to look instead of believing what numbers are issued forth from the local government agencies. The river that flows through Malibu Canyon, which is normally a narrow trickle this late in the summer is nearly overflowing its banks, ditto the concrete channel contained Los Angeles River and the California Aqueduct. Fortunately for me, I live in an area that hasn't yet implemented these apparently unnecessary restrictions. In all these cases, there seems to be a political motivation for these agencies to act in such a fashion. As one government agency does it, others will be tempted to try it to see how much more power or funding they can get. It's just human nature, or at least government agency nature. Surely you can see why some might not be inclined to believe the NIST interpretation of what happened at the WTC, whether accurate or not. M.
Re: [Vo]:Movement in Mars Micrograph
Hi Horace, From Horace, It takes a while to register these three photos for toggling, but the movement of some of this stuff over this 5 minute period is extraordinary because it is gradual across the three frames, and is not due to the change of focus that occurs between the 3 frames. All the frames were illuminated in green. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=29352cID=274 http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=29361cID=274 http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=29376cID=274 Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ I'm puzzled. I've toggled through these three photos numerous times, and what I personally see is NASA attempting to get better more focused images of the martian granules. Any movement I perceive is a deliberate but gradual change in focal length from the lander's camera, that along with a slight change in the angle of the camera. The martian granules themselves, however, do not appear to have moved and/or changed, insofar as I can see. Can you clarify? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:12:25 -0400: Hi, Thanks, that helped. However it raises another question. What about circularly polarized radiation? [snip] This makes me wonder how an ordinary photon manages to go through umpteen cycles between source and destination with a stopped clock. :) It doesn't. A photon is the same no matter when you sample it. The wave function associated with it goes through multiple cycles (which are distributed in space) but the photon itself does not oscillate in any sense of the word. Remember, the photon is traveling with the wave front, and ON THE WAVE FRONT the E and B fields are stationary. If, at the crest of the wave, E points up, then it's that up-pointing E vector which is traveling through space; at the crest it always points up, but the crest is moving at C. Any observer in any inertial frame will see an oscillating E field as the photon passes, of course, because the up-pointing E field at the crest is preceded and followed by down-pointing E fields -- but they're all moving along through space in tandem. If you could travel at C, and you flew along with a radio wave (which is easier to measure than a light wave), and you sampled the E and B fields, you would find that they didn't seem to be changing. This is one of the problems with traveling at C: In a frame of reference moving at C the traveling wave no longer looks like a solution to Maxwell's equations, because @E/@t = @B/@t = 0. The way out of this box chosen in special relativity is to let @t - 0 when you travel at C. A traveling wave is exactly that. It is not a changing wave; rather it's a fixed pattern which travels through space. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Science and faith
Many years ago, George Orwell wrote a very powerful essay, entitled, Benefit of Clergy. It clarified - as only Orwell could - a similar type of situation. I recommend that all Vorticians read it and think about what Orwell was trying to say. P. - Original Message From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2008 3:50:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science and faith Stephen Lawrence wrote: In fact, I'd say that the issue of the bad radios which Giuliani never authorized funds to replace, along with the issue of his cross-dressing, are two of the biggest factors which helped knock him out of the presidential race. Well, there is also rampant marital infidelity, not once but twice - support of gay rights, women's right to choice, etc and being an equal opportunity mayor- he was apparently even outed in NYC as Fruiti Giuliani -- go figure. Big Bill and JFK do not have any lock on being the most-oversexed politician ever. Maybe that comes with the territory, so to speak. Apparently, if J Edgar Hoover is any indication (as well as the members of the Bohemia Club) cross-dressing is not fatal to your ability to serve in the highest offices of the land, so long as you are somewhat discrete :-) If you want to read a tamed-down version of why Giuliani is unfit for public office, maybe even for US citizenship, read the Vanity Fair article (which doesn't even get into the 9/11 scandal which he will be facing - if and only if - McCain loses). http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/01/giuliani200801 It was clear early on this year - that his candidacy was doomed by the right, not the Dem-wits - but less clear that the only thing which has kept him from a grand jury investigation is that he has plenty of dirt to sling on the higher ups in food-chain in the 9/11 aftermath ... like ... who it was that told him that the first tower (not the second nor WTC7) was about to come down
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:45:47 +1000: Hi, Don't bother answering this, I get it. [snip] In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:12:25 -0400: Hi, Thanks, that helped. However it raises another question. What about circularly polarized radiation? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:12:25 -0400: Hi, Thanks, that helped. However it raises another question. What about circularly polarized radiation? Well ... Looking at it classically, the same description applies to circular polarization. If you freeze time, and look at the E field of a traveling circularly polarized wave, you'll find that the E vector forms a spiral in space. Unfreezing time again and letting the wave move along, as this corkscrew shape travels through space, an inertial observer will see the E vector rotating. However, if you could travel with the photon, at C, you'd see a static corkscrew pattern spread out through space; once again, the E field of the photon doesn't change with time, as seen from the photon's viewpoint. It's the changing position of the photon relative to an inertial observer that makes the E field (and B field) appear to spin. The rifling inside a gun barrel, as viewed from the frame of a bullet, might be a reasonable analogy, where the bullet takes the place of the inertial observer. The bullet sees the lands in the barrel rotating around it, and the *apparently* rotating lands are what impart the spin to the bullet. The soldier holding the rifle, on the other hand, sees the lands in the barrel as a stationary spiral, and sees the bullet moving past them. In this analogy, the rifle barrel with its spiral pattern is the photon, and the bullet is the inertial observer. As to the particle view ... AFAIK the photon itself is circularly polarized with either clockwise or counterclockwise polarization. The thing that always bothered me about this is that a so-called circular polarizer isn't that at all; it's a linear polarizer and a quarter-wave plate, which always seemed to me like cheating. It's like we're playing with linear polarization and pretending there's some new property here. Yet, for a circular polarizer to work with single photons, the photons must actually know which way they're polarized. [snip] This makes me wonder how an ordinary photon manages to go through umpteen cycles between source and destination with a stopped clock. :) It doesn't. A photon is the same no matter when you sample it. The wave function associated with it goes through multiple cycles (which are distributed in space) but the photon itself does not oscillate in any sense of the word. Remember, the photon is traveling with the wave front, and ON THE WAVE FRONT the E and B fields are stationary. If, at the crest of the wave, E points up, then it's that up-pointing E vector which is traveling through space; at the crest it always points up, but the crest is moving at C. Any observer in any inertial frame will see an oscillating E field as the photon passes, of course, because the up-pointing E field at the crest is preceded and followed by down-pointing E fields -- but they're all moving along through space in tandem. If you could travel at C, and you flew along with a radio wave (which is easier to measure than a light wave), and you sampled the E and B fields, you would find that they didn't seem to be changing. This is one of the problems with traveling at C: In a frame of reference moving at C the traveling wave no longer looks like a solution to Maxwell's equations, because @E/@t = @B/@t = 0. The way out of this box chosen in special relativity is to let @t - 0 when you travel at C. A traveling wave is exactly that. It is not a changing wave; rather it's a fixed pattern which travels through space. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Taylor J. Smith's message of Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:14:36 +: Hi, [snip] What I see here is a peak around solar max superimposed on a general upward trend. It's a pity about the missing years. This is perhaps more use: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif It seems to indicate that we *may* be at the peak of a wave with a 180-200 year period. (previous minimum in 1910). The next 10 years or so should be quite revealing. Global 10 Warmest Years Mean Global temperature (°C) (anomaly with respect to 1961-1990) 1998 0.52 2005 0.48 2003 0.46 2002 0.46 2004 0.43 2006 0.42 2007(Jan-Nov) 0.41 2001 0.40 1997 0.36 1995 0.28 Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Movement in Mars Micrograph
On Sep 6, 2008, at 12:54 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Hi Horace, From Horace, It takes a while to register these three photos for toggling, but the movement of some of this stuff over this 5 minute period is extraordinary because it is gradual across the three frames, and is not due to the change of focus that occurs between the 3 frames. All the frames were illuminated in green. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=29352cID=274 http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=29361cID=274 http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=29376cID=274 Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ I'm puzzled. I've toggled through these three photos numerous times, and what I personally see is NASA attempting to get better more focused images of the martian granules. Any movement I perceive is a deliberate but gradual change in focal length from the lander's camera, that along with a slight change in the angle of the camera. The martian granules themselves, however, do not appear to have moved and/or changed, insofar as I can see. Can you clarify? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks Yes. Consider just the very center of the 2nd two photos, 29361 and 29376 above (the first photo, 29352 is pretty far out of focus). There is a bunch of stuff that moves to the left and also rotates. This is *not* due to a change of focus, because background stuff gets exposed and and some covered up by the motion. Following are two snippets that can be played as a slideshow to get a feel for the motion and what the object looks like: inline: Picture 3.png inline: Picture 4.png Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
- Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008 8:12 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:29:00 -0400: Hi, [snip] They (apparently) oscillate, which, at least according to my limited and rather primitive understanding of relativity theory, means time passes for them, which suggests pretty strongly that their speed must be subluminal. At C, 1/gamma=0 and the particle must remain immutable between events, because its internal clock has stopped. This makes me wonder how an ordinary photon manages to go through umpteen cycles between source and destination with a stopped clock. :) It doesn't. A photon is the same no matter when you sample it. The wave function associated with it goes through multiple cycles (which are distributed in space) but the photon itself does not oscillate in any sense of the word. Remember, the photon is traveling with the wave front, and ON THE WAVE FRONT the E and B fields are stationary. If, at the crest of the wave, E points up, then it's that up-pointing E vector which is traveling through space; at the crest it always points up, but the crestis moving at C. Any observer in any inertial frame will see an oscillating E field as the photon passes, of course, because the up-pointing E field at the crest is preceded and followed by down-pointing E fields -- but they're all moving along through space in tandem. If you could travel at C, and you flew along with a radio wave (which is easier to measure than a light wave), and you sampled the E and B fields, you would find that they didn't seem to be changing. This is one of the problems with traveling at C: In a frame of reference movingat C the traveling wave no longer looks like a solution to Maxwell'sequations, because @E/@t = @B/@t = 0. The way out of this box chosen in special relativity is to let @t - 0 when you travel at C. For something to travel through space in no time, doesn't that require infinite speed? Anyway did it ever occur to anyone that Maxwell's equations are wrong and need reform because they don't provide a solution at c. Evidently Einstein preferred to regard the equations as right, and instead reform our understanding of time and space. A traveling wave is exactly that. It is not a changing wave; ratherit's a fixed pattern which travels through space. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Movement in Mars Micrograph
From Horace, Yes. Consider just the very center of the 2nd two photos, 29361 and 29376 above (the first photo, 29352 is pretty far out of focus). There is a bunch of stuff that moves to the left and also rotates. This is *not* due to a change of focus, because background stuff gets exposed and and some covered up by the motion. Following are two snippets that can be played as a slideshow to get a feel for the motion and what the object looks like: Thanks for taking the time to consolidate the two images. I wish all these images were bigger however. Speaking cautiously here, It's very easy to read things into imagery that may not necessarily actually be there, especially when the imagery is fuzzy, sparse, or just plain small. The danger here is that such imagery is ripe for different interpretations. Presently I don't know what to make of the visual changes. Insufficient data, IMHO. Personally, I do not feel a desire to attribute it to the possibility of there being some kind of active life forming nearby the space craft. For me personally, the first thing that comes to mind would be to explain it as logically and as prosaically as I can. Therefore, my first impression would be to speculate that the visual changes are likely due to the result of different angles of the sun when the photos were taken causing changes to shadow lengths as they are cast on the surfaces of the martian granules. The effects changes in shadows can create on various landscape structures should not be underestimated. FWIW, I recall the great debate that revolved around the Face of Mars, that famous mountain in the Cydonia region that Hogland made famous back in the 90s. Back then, I followed this issue (and others including anomalies discovered on the Moon) closely and with great personal interest. When higher resolution photos finally arrived from more advanced satellites orbiting Mars I made it a point to make a hard copy print from the new data. I placed the higher resolution imagery alongside the prior less focused (but more romantically perceived) imagery of the martian face. It was a good lesson for me to learn in how a romantic myth can take form and take on a life of its own, running rampant - as long as the imagery remained sufficiently fuzzy, just enough to keep the subject material open to different interpretations. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Movement in Mars Micrograph
On Sep 6, 2008, at 3:39 PM, OrionWorks wrote: From Horace, Yes. Consider just the very center of the 2nd two photos, 29361 and 29376 above (the first photo, 29352 is pretty far out of focus). There is a bunch of stuff that moves to the left and also rotates. This is *not* due to a change of focus, because background stuff gets exposed and and some covered up by the motion. Following are two snippets that can be played as a slideshow to get a feel for the motion and what the object looks like: Thanks for taking the time to consolidate the two images. I wish all these images were bigger however. Speaking cautiously here, It's very easy to read things into imagery that may not necessarily actually be there, especially when the imagery is fuzzy, sparse, or just plain small. The danger here is that such imagery is ripe for different interpretations. I am very well aware of this, and have some experience in this area. I own a stereo microscope, an ordinary monocular microscope, and a medical quality binocular scope with digital camera. Presently I don't know what to make of the visual changes. Insufficient data, IMHO. Personally, I do not feel a desire to attribute it to the possibility of there being some kind of active life forming nearby the space craft. Actually I didn't do that. I'm only inclined to do so if I see clearly identifiable life form structures associated with growth. I've seen plenty of stuff that looks like it may have been living though. For me personally, the first thing that comes to mind would be to explain it as logically and as prosaically as I can. Therefore, my first impression would be to speculate that the visual changes are likely due to the result of different angles of the sun when the photos were taken causing changes to shadow lengths as they are cast on the surfaces of the martian granules. The Phoenix microscope has its own light sources. These LED light sources come from slightly differing azimuth angles and an overhead angle. For this reason I made sure all three photos were the same illumination color, namely green. The effects changes in shadows can create on various landscape structures should not be underestimated. Yes. FWIW, I recall the great debate that revolved around the Face of Mars, that famous mountain in the Cydonia region that Hogland made famous back in the 90s. Back then, I followed this issue (and others including anomalies discovered on the Moon) closely and with great personal interest. When higher resolution photos finally arrived from more advanced satellites orbiting Mars I made it a point to make a hard copy print from the new data. I placed the higher resolution imagery alongside the prior less focused (but more romantically perceived) imagery of the martian face. It was a good lesson for me to learn in how a romantic myth can take form and take on a life of its own, running rampant - as long as the imagery remained sufficiently fuzzy, just enough to keep the subject material open to different interpretations. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks I don't think that kind of explanation applies here. Also, it certainly is true that motion on a microscope stage is the weakest indication of life I've seen. OTOH, those areas that move deserve some following, simply because most all the other areas don't move like that. Also, the fuzzy stuff adhering to the side surfaces is worth following for growth. Here is an example: http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=29567cID=274 The thing I still find most strange is the fact 100 Sols have gone by without the publication of any meaningful FEM data. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a frame of reference movingat C the traveling wave no longer looks like a solution to Maxwell'sequations, because @E/@t = @B/@t = 0. The way out of this box chosen in special relativity is to let @t - 0 when you travel at C. For something to travel through space in no time, doesn't that require infinite speed? As measured by a particle with a stopped clock, yes, speed could be viewed as infinite ... but, in fact, there's length contraction to take into account also. Fitzgerald contraction goes as 1/gamma and as far as the photon is concerned, the universe is 0 units across, so a photon's perceived speed doesn't have to be infinite after all. So, infinite distance, like infinite speed, is in the eye -- and clock, and ruler -- of the beholder. Anyway did it ever occur to anyone that Maxwell's equations are wrong and need reform because they don't provide a solution at c. Evidently Einstein preferred to regard the equations as right, and instead reform our understanding of time and space. Yes, people thought of that. The problem they were facing is that Maxwell's equations appeared to match reality, based on experiment, and yet there was no natural preferred rest frame in the equations. If the equations were valid in some special rest frame, what did that say about any other frame? Either the equations were wrong for all other (moving) observers, or something very strange was going on. As I'm sure you're aware, the speed of an EM wave can be *calculated* from Maxwell's equations. That means either (a) the equations can't be right for an observer who is in motion relative to the preferred rest frame, or (b) an observer in motion and another observer who was stationary would each see a given EM wave as traveling at the *same* *speed* relative to themselves, which appears to be a contradiction. The most common approach to the problem was to postulate an aether which carried the EM waves, and then try to patch things up so that Maxwell's equations would still work. This approach had the large advantage that it did *not* require reforming the common view of space and time -- aether was a simple extension of a familiar concept, albeit with some peculiar new properties. The trouble was that it's very hard to come up with an aether theory in which Maxwell's equations are correct at all speeds. If they're *not* correct at all speeds, then experiments should show differences depending on the observer's speed. And experiment has never turned up such a difference. Ultimately, as you say, Einstein chose to chuck the common understanding of space and time. Our intuition says that in order to have a wave, someTHING must wave. Einstein chucked that overboard, which was a significant change. And people have been objecting ever since. The only reason special relativity is accepted is that its predictions agree with experimental results. The bind most other theories got caught in was that they needed to agree with the outcomes of both the Michelson-Morley experiment (with its null result) and the Sagnac experiment (with its non-null result). The former is inconsistent with most aether theories, and the latter is inconsistent with emission theory. A traveling wave is exactly that. It is not a changing wave; ratherit's a fixed pattern which travels through space. Harry
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Quoting Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Richard, Won't matter.. it over,it's in the past.. in today's world, anything being instant attention is past tense. There are things which resonate, and those which don't. This doesn't. Unfortunately, you are probably right - especially with the massive I take the just what I can prove approach. It's rather odd how someone turned the antiaircraft radar system off at the same time those hijackers took over those airliners, eh? It's also rather odd about the way those square vertical columns failed too. Take a square tube, set it on a sturdy base and hit it with a large sledge hammer. The tube will mush, it's size will expand, but see if you can get it to fail in the manner that the tubes in the WTC failed. My favorite post in this thread was the one which said that the New York building code requires the installation of thermite around structural members so that the building can be straight down in an emergency. My friend Phil thought that story was great. The question is, can you prove it from official sources? OTOH - war criminals going back to the Nazis are still being hunted and the Internet -- and if the Bush legacy continues for 4 more years, hope for truth in this incident is almost lost. Don't hold you breath. The Powers That Be aren't going to let that happen. BTW, They continue in power, no matter who wins the election. Witness Alex Jones, if They were threatened by his activities, he'd have an accident. He wouldn't be the first one either. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Movement in Mars Micrograph
on 6/9/08 9:14 pm, Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The thing I still find most strange is the fact 100 Sols have gone by without the publication of any meaningful FEM data. Finding out why whould be a good job for an investigative journalist. Harry
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Quoting Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Won't matter.. it over,it's in the past.. in today's world, anything being instant attention is past tense. Unfortunately, you are probably right - especially with the massive payoff$$ On the other hand, if we assume there were hoards of elves scurrying through WTC 1, 2, and 7 drilling holes in walls and beams and lugging in In this scenario the thermite would have been installed on small sections of the vertical tubes. There would have been plenty of room in the areas above the ceiling tiles. Incidentally, if debris didn't hit WTC 7 -- I mean, like major hunks of it -- what set WTC 7 on fire? Conversely, if enough junk busted in Speaking of WTC 7, I saw the video of that building coming down, I know a controlled demolition when I see one. It didn't fall down, it imploded. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
