Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
on 6/9/08 10:16 pm, Stephen A. Lawrence at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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. Since the aether is not identical with Newton's notion of absolute of space, the failure to detect an aether does not invalidate the notion of absolute space. The difference between an aether and absolute space is very apparent when light is concieved as a particle, although the preference for the wave theory of light by the latter half of the 19th century resulted in a tendency to disregard this important conceptual difference. Even without quantum theory, one could still argue that light is a particle and that Maxwell's equations simply provide a mathemtical *formalism* for predicting how light particles interact with matter. > 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. I'm still waiting for a one-way light speed measurement. As far as I know all experiments todate use the absence of interference to infer the constancy of the speed of light over different frames of reference. > 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. What is the emission theory? The particle theory of light?
Re: [Vo]:NIST caught in huge Lie
Jones Beene wrote: > Much was made by NIST in the televised Public Relations extravaganza > back in August about the "fact" that they had debunked the freefall > "theory"... as it was only a theory anyway - and not based on "real > science". > > Essentially NIST had to say this - and very firmly- from the start of > their presentation - as even NIST and everyone else agrees that > "freefall" indicates controlled demolition and ONLY controlled demolition. Have you attempted to estimate the difference between pancake collapse and freefall? With very little work it becomes clear that after the collapse starts, the time required to break support columns *must* be insignificant -- either the building collapses at (nearly) free-fall speed, with supports breaking as the shock waves travel through them, or it doesn't collapse. *Any* "hesitation" during collapse is going to translate into the collapse ceasing. WTC1 and WTC2 sure looked like they collapsed from the top down, with a large "blob" of floors initiating the collapse by falling onto the floor below. Those buildings should have -- and did -- collapse at free-fall speeds, regardless of whether anyone "blew the bottom out" to start with. But, again, they collapsed TOP-DOWN, as every video shows. Whether any of my comments apply to WTC7 is not clear, as its collapse looked rather different on video. In any case, there is something which *could* retard the collapse: The building was full of air. It takes time to push the air out, and that can slow the collapse. However, the "air cushion" is the same regardless of whether you're talking about controlled demo or collapse due to any other cause; thermite doesn't push the air out. > Freefall is not possible under any other scenario, This has been asserted many times since 9/11. However, it's not true. As I said, pancake collapse from the top down will result in (nearly) free-fall collapse speeds -- so fast that it will look like free-fall on video. It's simple conservation of momentum which assures this: The extra mass "picked up" at each new floor makes an insignificant difference in the speed of the falling "bolus" after it's accumulated a few floors. > such as their proposed > 'gradually-weakening' computer simulation. They had to make the strong > case for NO freefall. > > As it turns out, today we learn that they are playing the American > public for fools - once again - with more of the same Bush-league > anti-science propaganda, thinly disguised. > > The timing study was redone by the original scientist, this time using > NIST numbers and the identical video, and guess what - freefall indeed ! > > It turns out, NIST had tried to sneak in an "average" of the complete > collapse [down to ground level] time frame - as disproving the very > significant 3 seconds of absolute freefall of the top 29 floors - which > is all that can be seen in the video to begin with. > > What were they [NIST] thinking? That everyone would fold up tents and go > home, following the powerful "take-away" message from NIST that there > was no freefall ! - and then everything would be hunky-dory thereafter? > > This all important 3 seconds can only happen with controlled demolition. > Period. > > This is damning, and may be evidence of criminal conduct on the part of > the top officials at NIST. > > http://utube.smashits.com/video/gC44L0-2zL8/WTC7-in-Freefall.html
[Vo]:NIST caught in huge Lie
Much was made by NIST in the televised Public Relations extravaganza back in August about the "fact" that they had debunked the freefall "theory"... as it was only a theory anyway - and not based on "real science". Essentially NIST had to say this - and very firmly- from the start of their presentation - as even NIST and everyone else agrees that "freefall" indicates controlled demolition and ONLY controlled demolition. Freefall is not posible under any other scenario, such as their proposed 'gradually-weakening' computer simulation. They had to make the strong case for NO freefall. As it turns out, today we learn that they are playing the American public for fools - once again - with more of the same Bush-league anti-science propaganda, thinly disguised. The timing study was redone by the original scientist, this time using NIST numbers and the identical video, and guess what - freefall indeed ! It turns out, NIST had tried to sneak in an "average" of the complete collapse [down to ground level] time frame - as disproving the very significant 3 seconds of absolute freefall of the top 29 floors - which is all that can be seen in the video to begin with. What were they [NIST] thinking? That everyone would fold up tents and go home, following the powerful "take-away" message from NIST that there was no freefall ! - and then everything would be hunky-dory thereafter? This all important 3 seconds can only happen with controlled demolition. Period. This is damning, and may be evidence of criminal conduct on the part of the top officials at NIST. http://utube.smashits.com/video/gC44L0-2zL8/WTC7-in-Freefall.html
Re: [Vo]:New Storms paper
Our belief is that a cluster of deuterons forms. Occasionally two members of the cluster fuse. The energy is then proportioned between the resulting alpha, which has too little energy to be detected, and the members of the cluster. The amount of energy each member receives depends on how many deuterons were in that cluster. You should read the entire discussion. Ed On Sep 13, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Question for Ed: > Conclusion: "the particles are deuterons with energy peaks having various values between 0.5 and 3 MeV." IF the high energy particles are deuterons - then where is the nuclear reaction? Storms, E. and B. Scanlan. Detection of Radiation Emitted from LENR. in ICCF-14 International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2008. Washington, DC. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEdetectiono.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Storms paper
Question for Ed: > Conclusion: "the particles are deuterons with energy peaks having various values between 0.5 and 3 MeV." IF the high energy particles are deuterons - then where is the nuclear reaction? Storms, E. and B. Scanlan. Detection of Radiation Emitted from LENR. in ICCF-14 International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2008. Washington, DC. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEdetectiono.pdf - Jed
[Vo]:Mini Nuke Plants in the plans
This may have been mentioned in passing on vortex, but just in case it hasn't, "mini" nuclear plants (Hot-tub-size minireactors) are being developed. >From the Kiplinger letter, Sept 12, 2008 newsletter, ENERGY topic: "The first new nuclear power plants in decades: Hot-tub-size minireactors being developed by Toshiba, Hyperion Power Generation and NuScale Power. The miniplants can create enough electricity to power a town of about 25,000 homes. But municipal uses aren't likely. In four to five years, they'll show up in remote spots for heavy industry functions like oil extraction from tar sands or water desalination. In 2014 or 2015, look for the first new full-size plant to come on line, followed by a score or more of additional facilities erected within a handful of years. In fact, demand will be large enough to support assembly-line production. The Shaw Group and Westinghouse Electric are building an enormous facility in La. to mass-produce control systems, piping, steel reinforcing and other components for a standardized plant, the AP1000. Only the reactor core must be built on-site." Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
Some concepts for mulling over follow. The earth has gone through a number of mass extinctions. Some are attributed to meteorite hits on earth, but for some no craters have been found. I have suggested that a sufficient mass of bodies hitting the sun could provide an explanation for mass extinctions without associated craters, because of the kinetic energy induced solar heating: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Nemesis.pdf At the time the above was written, it was not known the solar system was not part of the Milky Way, but rather part of a colliding galaxy with a nearly polar orbit about the Milky Way. This polar orbit of our solar system provides an excellent alternative explanation for nemesis returns, namely the crossing of the Milky Way galactic plane. The heating of the sun can by extra-solar bodies, which can have many times the kinetic energy of solar system bodies, is characterized by far more J/kg. Undetectable amounts of extra-solar system matter striking the sun can produce long term heating effects. Apparently not enough heating has occurred in the past to tip the earth into a venus like state. However, if extra-solar-system kinetic heating of the sun were to occur while the earth were in an anthropomorphically induced high CO2 state, perhaps the outcome will differ. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
On Sep 12, 2008, at 5:57 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:57:31 -0800: Hi, [snip] "It is currently thought that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. The runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases.[7]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus Quote:- "The temperature and pressure at the surface are 740 K (467°C) and 93 bar, respectively.[1]" Note that if all the Earth's oceans existed as water vapour in the atmosphere, the pressure at the surface would be about 250 bar. http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/1988Icar...74..472K [snip] Quote from the abstract: "Finally, the results of the model are used to speculate about when an Earth-like planet might lose its water and how much closer to the Sun Earth could have formed without ending up like Venus." ...I take it from this that they concluded that it couldn't have ended up like Venus at it's current location. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> That's right. However, the abstract states "The critical solar flux above which water is rapidly lost could be as low as 1.1S0". That's a 10% increase in solar flux. However, there is no mention of the inclusion of the effects of other greenhouse gasses like methane. They attribute the loss of water to hydrogen boiling out of the atmosphere. I don't have access to the article, but based on the abstract, which indicates the study was based on a one dimensional model, namely the loss water vs solar flux, it appears many critical considerations may have been sidestepped, like the presence of methane or other greenhouse gasses. The article apparently considers the loss of water to be photolysis of high altitude water: H2O -> O + 2H Other pathways exist for the creation of hydrogen and therefore its eventua rise to the top of the atmosphere and ejection. For example, about 15% of the mass of volcanic ejecta is SO2. Even a mostly CO2 atmosphere can convert SO2 to H2SO4 by the following: CO2 → CO + O SO2 + O → SO3 SO3 + H2O → H2SO4 The more chemically active CO is then free to attack yet another water molecule: CO + H2O -> H2 + CO2 Similar pathways exist for freeing hydrogen from methane to produce CO2 and eliminate water from the atmosphere. The H2SO4 depresses the freezing point of water in concentrations of up to 40%. This helps eliminate polar caps and accelerate a runaway. Pools of water on a glacier are well known to absorb heat and to quickly bore through a glacier and then float it on a thin layer of water, making it go "rogue". It seems to me a 10% margin of protection against runaway global warming is a very thin veneer of protection at best. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
