RE: [Vo]:Randum , Randumb, Randumber
If we're talking stocks, have a look at a local outfit... www.nevadaexploration.com Check out the presentation on the results of Phase-I drilling at Fletcher Junction... www.tsx.com symbol NGE; on the american side it trades under the symbol NVDEF. Just to be up front about it, I do own shares... -Mark No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1872 - Release Date: 1/2/2009 1:10 PM
Re: [Vo]:Randum , Randumb, Randumber
Howdy Jones, Stockscouter sez there are some big institutional boys dumping SWC before they run outa money. Mystery how they do it by making the share price increase.. but.. who knows. It appears that these 10 buck internet stock peddlers have a way of getting an order from a buyer, pool the order with others .. pump a little air in the deal and shazzaam.. You think you are buying SWC at 2.50 ..BUT.. you are informed 3 days later that you paid 3.25... see how it works?? Richard a very close look at Stillwater Mining ( SWC) should give one pause as an example of how to play poker with a pinocle deck while performing wonders with numbers while eating cucumbers... the stock jumped from 1.60 to above 5.00 Richard, Sounds like you may have taken a flyer on this one, a while back, and made enough silver to buy a few rounds down at the Dime Box. ... or else there is some "smart money" out there (whose advisers finally tuned into the promise of LENR) and these folks suspect that the only palladium mine in North America is worth getting control of... ... not to leave a lost preposition, nor dangling participle, or anything like that as part of my New Year's Resoultions ;-) As Win sez: "That is nonsense up with which I shall not put." Jones Or as Groucho sez: One morning on safari, I shot an Hippo in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I will never know.
[Vo]:Melvin Miles comments on recombination
Here is a message from Melvin Miles about recombination. Subject: Shanahan's misunderstandings of recombination . . . If Shanahan's statements about my NHE co-deposition measurements are typical of his lack of understanding of cold fusion experiments, then I would not give credence to anything he says. For example, I did not convert the outflowing gases to water as Shanahan states. For my three NHE co-deposition experiments, I simply measured the initial and final volumes of electrolyte to obtain the volume of D2O consumed. For the cell in question (Cell A-2), the initial volume was 91 +/- 1 cc, the final volume was 83.3 cc, thus 7.7 +/- 1 cc was consumed versus 7.2 cc calculated by Faraday's Law. A quick approximate calculation indicates that the volume of D2O consumed would have to be smaller by about 5 cc if the excess heat in this experiment were due to recombination. This was NOT observed. The amount of D2O consumed by electrolysis is within experimental error (+/- 1 cc) of Faraday's Law. A slightly higher D2O consumption is expected experimentally because the D2and O 2 gases bubbling out of D2O are always saturated with D2O vapor. This is an evaporation effect and not Shanahan's entrainment. Fleischmann's calorimetric equations have always included this evaporative effect. Full details of all three co-deposition studies are in my NHE Report, pp. 22-25 (see LENR-CANR.org). There was no correlation of the excess heat to recombination in any of these three cells. [This refers to http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMnedofinalr.pdf to which I should add page numbers. - JR] I hope this helps to discredit Shanahan's false statements about my experiments as well as his statements about cold fusion in general. Mel
Re: [Vo]:Lotteries vs casino gambling
leaking pen wrote: enh. i have more fun for longer with my money gambling at a casino. > the lottery is fun for a minute, then done. Instant lotteries are only fun for a minute, but the ones drawn periodically are fun for several day. You buy the ticket and daydream about winning until the drawing. There have been some serious studies of this. Some people do get their money's worth of happiness from a $1 ticket that might possibly win millions in a week. It is like window shopping, or dressing up nicely and going to an expensive restaurant. It isn't the food you pay extra for; it is the transient pretend feeling of being rich. The payback for Georgia lottery tickets is about 40 to 1, as I recall. Thousands of tickets pay back $2, when you get the "Mega Ball" number only. I play several times a year and I have won $7 (3 out of 5 numbers). The smaller winnings keep people hooked on the game. If it only paid off in millions (all or nothing) it would be less enticing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lotteries vs casino gambling
not really. Its fun when i buy the ticket, and when i check the numbers. I forget about it in the meantime, mostly, other than occasional, what would we do with teh money, conversations. On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 1:47 PM, John Berry wrote: > Compared to roulette the lottery makes lots of sense because with the latter > there is a very real even if very small chance of becoming truly wealthy > with a very small investment. > > Where the roulette player must have a larger purse and has no chance of > making the kind of money a lottery player might, and since wealth is not > going to find him in a single spin then he has to choose where to quit so he > is more likely to lose it. > > I am not aware of any one armed bandit that has a payout as large as a > lottery payout, but as mentioned the frequency of play makes it more likely > to be costly. > > There are plenty of people who have a fortune made from lottery winnings, > however there are I am sure very few people who have made millions with very > little starting capital from roulette or craps and managed to not give it > all back to the casino. > > Now spending a lot on a lottery is foolish as you are still probably going > to lose, playing every week/month is foolish as is buying many tickets or > using the same numbers, but it does make sense to buy one once in a while > with a few spare bucks. > > Without an extraordinarily asymmetrical payout or an element of skill > gambling makes no sense. > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 6:30 AM, leaking pen wrote: >> >> enh. i have more fun for longer with my money gambling at a casino. >> the lottery is fun for a minute, then done. > > > Isn't it fun from the purchase through to the draw? > >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Horace Heffner >> wrote: >> > >> > On Jan 3, 2009, at 5:37 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: >> > >> > Quoting Pascal, "Lotteries are a tax on fools." >> > >> > Pascal is certainly right about that, especially when they are used to >> > directly offset taxes, which is why not only the fools like lotteries, >> > but >> > also those who see them as means to avoid taxes, and those who profit >> > directly from running them. As insidious as monthly lotteries in lieu of >> > taxes might be, they are benign in comparison to various forms of casino >> > gambling. In some communities, gambling produces more costs for the >> > communities than revenue, due to the small community take and the demand >> > on >> > public services, insurance companies, public safety, and the legal/penal >> > system. >> > >> > It might be asked why a monthly lottery with a 50 percent take and less >> > than >> > a chance in a million of winning could be considered far less harmful >> > and >> > addictive than, say, betting red or black in roulette, which has an >> > about >> > 5.263 percent house take and nearly even chances of winning each bet. >> > The >> > answer is that the roulette player typically places much more than a >> > single >> > bet. According to Ian B William's Slot Machines: Fun Machines or Tax >> > Machines, $51 billion a year is spent in the US on casino gambling, and >> > about 70 percent of that on slot machines. If the typical gambler bet >> > only >> > a few times, then each slot machine and table would have lines of people >> > going out the door and down the street. This is not what you see at >> > casinos. People bet repeatedly for long periods. Repeated betting >> > increases >> > the expected house win amount drastically. >> > To see which is better, a monthly lottery or roulette, take a look at >> > the >> > expected purse amounts for the two alternatives over the one month >> > period of >> > the lottery. If a gambler has $100 to bet for that time he will likely >> > gamble it all away. His expected purse value after the 100 hours or so >> > of >> > roulette gambling time possible during the month will be a tiny fraction >> > of >> > a cent. If a roulette wheel has 38 slots then 2 will be without color >> > (or >> > green, house take) and 18 will be black and 18 red. The house take will >> > be >> > about 5.26 cents per dollar bet. Due to a typical house $5 minimum the >> > gambler's $100 will likely only be a 20 bet purse. If allowed to make >> > $1 >> > bets the gambler will have a 100 bet purse and can expect to be broke in >> > less than 1900 bets, or less than about 19 hours of betting. He will >> > probably try to obtain even more money with which to vindicate himself. >> > The >> > following table shows in 100 bet intervals the probability of being >> > broke >> > and the expected value of the purse for roulette color bettors that >> > start >> > with a 20 bet purse. >> > >> > Number of bets in better's starting purse 20 >> > House percentage = 5.263 percent >> > Bet Prob. Alive Expected Value >> > ----- >> > 100 0.88108326738214.891433066690 >> > 200 0.61984849851010.952448130541 >> > 300 0.435274926086 8.1998051706
Re: [Vo]:Lotteries vs casino gambling
Compared to roulette the lottery makes lots of sense because with the latter there is a very real even if very small chance of becoming truly wealthy with a very small investment. Where the roulette player must have a larger purse and has no chance of making the kind of money a lottery player might, and since wealth is not going to find him in a single spin then he has to choose where to quit so he is more likely to lose it. I am not aware of any one armed bandit that has a payout as large as a lottery payout, but as mentioned the frequency of play makes it more likely to be costly. There are plenty of people who have a fortune made from lottery winnings, however there are I am sure very few people who have made millions with very little starting capital from roulette or craps and managed to not give it all back to the casino. Now spending a lot on a lottery is foolish as you are still probably going to lose, playing every week/month is foolish as is buying many tickets or using the same numbers, but it does make sense to buy one once in a while with a few spare bucks. Without an extraordinarily asymmetrical payout or an element of skill gambling makes no sense. On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 6:30 AM, leaking pen wrote: > enh. i have more fun for longer with my money gambling at a casino. > the lottery is fun for a minute, then done. Isn't it fun from the purchase through to the draw? > > On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Horace Heffner > wrote: > > > > On Jan 3, 2009, at 5:37 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: > > > > Quoting Pascal, "Lotteries are a tax on fools." > > > > Pascal is certainly right about that, especially when they are used to > > directly offset taxes, which is why not only the fools like lotteries, > but > > also those who see them as means to avoid taxes, and those who profit > > directly from running them. As insidious as monthly lotteries in lieu of > > taxes might be, they are benign in comparison to various forms of casino > > gambling. In some communities, gambling produces more costs for the > > communities than revenue, due to the small community take and the demand > on > > public services, insurance companies, public safety, and the legal/penal > > system. > > > > It might be asked why a monthly lottery with a 50 percent take and less > than > > a chance in a million of winning could be considered far less harmful and > > addictive than, say, betting red or black in roulette, which has an about > > 5.263 percent house take and nearly even chances of winning each bet. > The > > answer is that the roulette player typically places much more than a > single > > bet. According to Ian B William's Slot Machines: Fun Machines or Tax > > Machines, $51 billion a year is spent in the US on casino gambling, and > > about 70 percent of that on slot machines. If the typical gambler bet > only > > a few times, then each slot machine and table would have lines of people > > going out the door and down the street. This is not what you see at > > casinos. People bet repeatedly for long periods. Repeated betting > increases > > the expected house win amount drastically. > > To see which is better, a monthly lottery or roulette, take a look at the > > expected purse amounts for the two alternatives over the one month period > of > > the lottery. If a gambler has $100 to bet for that time he will likely > > gamble it all away. His expected purse value after the 100 hours or so > of > > roulette gambling time possible during the month will be a tiny fraction > of > > a cent. If a roulette wheel has 38 slots then 2 will be without color > (or > > green, house take) and 18 will be black and 18 red. The house take will > be > > about 5.26 cents per dollar bet. Due to a typical house $5 minimum the > > gambler's $100 will likely only be a 20 bet purse. If allowed to make $1 > > bets the gambler will have a 100 bet purse and can expect to be broke in > > less than 1900 bets, or less than about 19 hours of betting. He will > > probably try to obtain even more money with which to vindicate himself. > The > > following table shows in 100 bet intervals the probability of being broke > > and the expected value of the purse for roulette color bettors that start > > with a 20 bet purse. > > > > Number of bets in better's starting purse 20 > > House percentage = 5.263 percent > > Bet Prob. Alive Expected Value > > ----- > > 100 0.88108326738214.891433066690 > > 200 0.61984849851010.952448130541 > > 300 0.435274926086 8.199805170679 > > 400 0.313261560357 6.245178037378 > > 500 0.230621461565 4.823106110599 > > 1000 0.062016797315 1.514700202615 > > 2000 0.007334798455 0.206508730270 > > 3000 0.001127300806 0.034033899035 > > 4000 0.000195968405 0.006173086380 > > 5000 0.36627971 0.001187554885 > > 6000 0.07182650 0.000237810615 > > 6900 0.01707388 0.57358537 > > The roulette gamble
Re: [Vo]:Toyota Planning Solar Car?
This one has lots of links. http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Toyota+Developing+SolarPowered+Car/article13838.htm http://snipurl.com/9evw0 [www_dailytech_com] On 1/3/09, Terry Blanton wrote: > I know it makes no sense. > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090101/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_solar_toyota > >
Re: [Vo]:Toyota Planning Solar Car?
This one has an interesting piccy. http://www.newsoxy.com/electric-cars/article11560.html On 1/3/09, Terry Blanton wrote: > I know it makes no sense. > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090101/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_solar_toyota > >
[Vo]:Toyota Planning Solar Car?
I know it makes no sense. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090101/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_solar_toyota
[Vo]:Why Knol Failed?
Who writes Wikipedia anyway? http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/1/who-the-hell-writes-wikipedia-anyway
Re: [Vo]:Lotteries vs casino gambling
enh. i have more fun for longer with my money gambling at a casino. the lottery is fun for a minute, then done. On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2009, at 5:37 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: > > Quoting Pascal, "Lotteries are a tax on fools." > > Pascal is certainly right about that, especially when they are used to > directly offset taxes, which is why not only the fools like lotteries, but > also those who see them as means to avoid taxes, and those who profit > directly from running them. As insidious as monthly lotteries in lieu of > taxes might be, they are benign in comparison to various forms of casino > gambling. In some communities, gambling produces more costs for the > communities than revenue, due to the small community take and the demand on > public services, insurance companies, public safety, and the legal/penal > system. > > It might be asked why a monthly lottery with a 50 percent take and less than > a chance in a million of winning could be considered far less harmful and > addictive than, say, betting red or black in roulette, which has an about > 5.263 percent house take and nearly even chances of winning each bet. The > answer is that the roulette player typically places much more than a single > bet. According to Ian B William's Slot Machines: Fun Machines or Tax > Machines, $51 billion a year is spent in the US on casino gambling, and > about 70 percent of that on slot machines. If the typical gambler bet only > a few times, then each slot machine and table would have lines of people > going out the door and down the street. This is not what you see at > casinos. People bet repeatedly for long periods. Repeated betting increases > the expected house win amount drastically. > To see which is better, a monthly lottery or roulette, take a look at the > expected purse amounts for the two alternatives over the one month period of > the lottery. If a gambler has $100 to bet for that time he will likely > gamble it all away. His expected purse value after the 100 hours or so of > roulette gambling time possible during the month will be a tiny fraction of > a cent. If a roulette wheel has 38 slots then 2 will be without color (or > green, house take) and 18 will be black and 18 red. The house take will be > about 5.26 cents per dollar bet. Due to a typical house $5 minimum the > gambler's $100 will likely only be a 20 bet purse. If allowed to make $1 > bets the gambler will have a 100 bet purse and can expect to be broke in > less than 1900 bets, or less than about 19 hours of betting. He will > probably try to obtain even more money with which to vindicate himself. The > following table shows in 100 bet intervals the probability of being broke > and the expected value of the purse for roulette color bettors that start > with a 20 bet purse. > > Number of bets in better's starting purse 20 > House percentage = 5.263 percent > Bet Prob. Alive Expected Value > ----- > 100 0.88108326738214.891433066690 > 200 0.61984849851010.952448130541 > 300 0.435274926086 8.199805170679 > 400 0.313261560357 6.245178037378 > 500 0.230621461565 4.823106110599 > 1000 0.062016797315 1.514700202615 > 2000 0.007334798455 0.206508730270 > 3000 0.001127300806 0.034033899035 > 4000 0.000195968405 0.006173086380 > 5000 0.36627971 0.001187554885 > 6000 0.07182650 0.000237810615 > 6900 0.01707388 0.57358537 > The roulette gambler at a 5.263 percent house take and a $100 to bet at $5 a > bet can expect to be broke in less than 3 hours. In fact, from the table, > you can see that at bet 300, about 3 hours, he has a 43.5274926086 percent > chance of being alive. He has about 1.7 chances in a million of lasting > 6900 bets, or about 69 hours of betting during the month, and only a small > fraction of a cent expected purse value by that time. > At $5 a bet and 100 bets an hour he can be expected to lose 0.05263 * $5/bet > * 100 bets/hour = $26.32 per hour. If he has 100 hours to gamble in the > month, and does so, he can be expected to lose about $2,632 per month. The > estimated 100 bets per hour may be high, and a lower bet rate will reduce > the expected loss per hour. > The lottery ticket buyer probably will not even spend the full $100 on > tickets, unless there are lots of quick turnaround small pots, which will in > fact act just like casino gambling. A single large pot can be expected to > attract out of state money - especially when no winner shows up and the > expected win becomes positive on a subsequent "let it ride" round. But let > us assume the lottery player does spend the full $100 on the lottery in > order to compare apples to apples. Lotteries typically take about half the > proceeds. The $100 provides about a $50 expected purse at the end, as > opposed to the small expected fraction of a cent purse for the roulette > gambler tha
[Vo]:Lotteries vs casino gambling
On Jan 3, 2009, at 5:37 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: Quoting Pascal, "Lotteries are a tax on fools." Pascal is certainly right about that, especially when they are used to directly offset taxes, which is why not only the fools like lotteries, but also those who see them as means to avoid taxes, and those who profit directly from running them. As insidious as monthly lotteries in lieu of taxes might be, they are benign in comparison to various forms of casino gambling. In some communities, gambling produces more costs for the communities than revenue, due to the small community take and the demand on public services, insurance companies, public safety, and the legal/penal system. It might be asked why a monthly lottery with a 50 percent take and less than a chance in a million of winning could be considered far less harmful and addictive than, say, betting red or black in roulette, which has an about 5.263 percent house take and nearly even chances of winning each bet. The answer is that the roulette player typically places much more than a single bet. According to Ian B William's Slot Machines: Fun Machines or Tax Machines, $51 billion a year is spent in the US on casino gambling, and about 70 percent of that on slot machines. If the typical gambler bet only a few times, then each slot machine and table would have lines of people going out the door and down the street. This is not what you see at casinos. People bet repeatedly for long periods. Repeated betting increases the expected house win amount drastically. To see which is better, a monthly lottery or roulette, take a look at the expected purse amounts for the two alternatives over the one month period of the lottery. If a gambler has $100 to bet for that time he will likely gamble it all away. His expected purse value after the 100 hours or so of roulette gambling time possible during the month will be a tiny fraction of a cent. If a roulette wheel has 38 slots then 2 will be without color (or green, house take) and 18 will be black and 18 red. The house take will be about 5.26 cents per dollar bet. Due to a typical house $5 minimum the gambler's $100 will likely only be a 20 bet purse. If allowed to make $1 bets the gambler will have a 100 bet purse and can expect to be broke in less than 1900 bets, or less than about 19 hours of betting. He will probably try to obtain even more money with which to vindicate himself. The following table shows in 100 bet intervals the probability of being broke and the expected value of the purse for roulette color bettors that start with a 20 bet purse. Number of bets in better's starting purse 20 House percentage = 5.263 percent Bet Prob. Alive Expected Value ----- 100 0.88108326738214.891433066690 200 0.61984849851010.952448130541 300 0.435274926086 8.199805170679 400 0.313261560357 6.245178037378 500 0.230621461565 4.823106110599 1000 0.062016797315 1.514700202615 2000 0.007334798455 0.206508730270 3000 0.001127300806 0.034033899035 4000 0.000195968405 0.006173086380 5000 0.36627971 0.001187554885 6000 0.07182650 0.000237810615 6900 0.01707388 0.57358537 The roulette gambler at a 5.263 percent house take and a $100 to bet at $5 a bet can expect to be broke in less than 3 hours. In fact, from the table, you can see that at bet 300, about 3 hours, he has a 43.5274926086 percent chance of being alive. He has about 1.7 chances in a million of lasting 6900 bets, or about 69 hours of betting during the month, and only a small fraction of a cent expected purse value by that time. At $5 a bet and 100 bets an hour he can be expected to lose 0.05263 * $5/bet * 100 bets/hour = $26.32 per hour. If he has 100 hours to gamble in the month, and does so, he can be expected to lose about $2,632 per month. The estimated 100 bets per hour may be high, and a lower bet rate will reduce the expected loss per hour. The lottery ticket buyer probably will not even spend the full $100 on tickets, unless there are lots of quick turnaround small pots, which will in fact act just like casino gambling. A single large pot can be expected to attract out of state money - especially when no winner shows up and the expected win becomes positive on a subsequent "let it ride" round. But let us assume the lottery player does spend the full $100 on the lottery in order to compare apples to apples. Lotteries typically take about half the proceeds. The $100 provides about a $50 expected purse at the end, as opposed to the small expected fraction of a cent purse for the roulette gambler that bets more than 70 hours. Typically both betters end up broke. However, the lottery ticket buyer is more likely to stay on budget, more likely to win, and will definitely be provided the trut
Re: [Vo]:Randum , Randumb, Randumber
- Original Message From: R C Macaulay > a very close look at > Stillwater Mining ( SWC) should give one pause as an example of how to play > poker with a pinocle deck while performing wonders with numbers while eating > cucumbers... the stock jumped from 1.60 to above 5.00 Richard, Sounds like you may have taken a flyer on this one, a while back, and made enough silver to buy a few rounds down at the Dime Box. ... or else there is some "smart money" out there (whose advisers finally tuned into the promise of LENR) and these folks suspect that the only palladium mine in North America is worth getting control of... ... not to leave a lost preposition, nor dangling participle, or anything like that as part of my New Year's Resoultions ;-) As Win sez: "That is nonsense up with which I shall not put." Jones Or as Groucho sez: One morning on safari, I shot an Hippo in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I will never know.
Re: [Vo]:Randum , Randumb, Randumber
Howdy Mark, Considering the stock market is a legal form of gambling, I wonder why these regs don't apply to the market... unless.. well.. err.. the SEC was set up for that purpose and the "goombahs" lost control of Wall Street? Seeems while the public was content to pull the lever on the "slots" provided by Merrill Lynch, sum'buddy was performing the greatest bank robbery in the history of the world. Meaanwhile, considering the reality that a sucker should never be given an even break, UP jumped the Dow above 9000 just in time for BO to land in DC. Forget the "fundamentals" of investing, the market is going up up up and there's no stopping it now, place your bets. For the more enlightened gamblers with "Jones" skills, a very close look at Stillwater Mining ( SWC) should give one pause as an example of how to play poker with a pinocle deck while performing wonders with numbers while eating cucumbers. Stillwater borrowed 150 mil, they caved into the US Steelworkers Union and agreed to keep the second mine open. They are quickly exhausting their cash and the fundamentals are zilch, The Russians control the board and the market is fading... and the analysists downgraded SWC to negative,,, BUT .. the stock jumped from 1.60 to above 5.00 If the really smart of the world can do it with a tiny obscure stock like SWC, consider what they can do with a portfolio holding GMAC and Citi-Bank. The Dime Box Retired cardsharps, montebanks, and stage coach robbers union are very disturbed at someone stealing their ill-gotten gains. Richard Mark wrote, Straight from the horses mouth... http://gaming.nv.gov/about_regulation.htm
[Vo]:Dark Energy was :The Memristor
Jack Smith wrote on 1-3-09: Even the speed limit of the photon ... is controversial. Hi All, I retract that. The speed of the photon is not controversial. See http://njsas.org/projects/speed_of_light/em_const/ ``Ratio of Electrostatic to Electromagnetic Units In 1857 Wilhelm Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch were the first to show that the ratio of electrostatic to electromagnetic units produced a speed matching the then known value for the speed of light. It was already known, from dimensional arguments, that the ratio was a speed. Weber and Kohlrausch built what were for the time ingenious devices and their measurements found a speed close to the then known speed of light. The race to deduce light propagation from the laws of electricity and magnetism was on, to culminate in Maxwell's Electricity and Magnetism treatise in 1873. '' I meant to say that the speed of the photon does not set a limit on the speed of other things, for example, the graviton. Jack Smith
[Vo]:Dark Energy was :The Memristor
Jones wrote on 1-2-09: Many of us may not like whatever new definition of 'graviton' or 'photon' emerges from this ... Anyway, the original Beck/Mackey cite is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703364 Here is Wiki's entry on Ginzburg Landau which has a similarity to Higgs - and as you mention, Higgs might be the ultimate referee or indicator of truth - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginzburg%E2%80%93Landau_theory Horace Heffner wrote on 1-2-08: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ I don't think the photon and graviton are analogous ... Hi All, The self-imposed constraints on this discussion are amusing, to say the least: A priori, why should there be any similarity between gravitons and photons? Even the speed limit of the photon, as proposed by Einstein, is controversial. Lorentz was able to explain, with exact matehematics, the results of Michelson-Morely in the context of a luminiferous ether by inventing length contraction, which seems a very tame invention when compared with the more recent "virtualities" and "darks." Horace has convincingly destroyed the position of those who maintain that the centrifugal force is a virtual force. Those who have ridden in the rotor at Cedar Point, Ohio, know from personal experience that the centrifugal force is very real. Why assume that the speed of the graviton is the same as the speed of the photon? It is far simpler to say that the Earth feels the force of the Sun about 8 minutes before light emitted at the same time reaches the Earth because gravitons move much faster than photons. There is no need to invoke epicycular "retarded potentials." I've read that NASA still uses Newton's equations and action at a distance to calculate the trajectiories of the rockets to Mars. Jack Smith Stephen A. Lawrence wrote on 1-2-09: State lotteries also are funded in part by compulsive gamblers, and in fact generally "tax" the least well to do the most heavily. This is highly unfair; the lotteries are among the most regressive of taxes. Unfortunately, they are politically far more popular than the more "fair" graduated income tax, and in fact the people lotteries hurt worst are exactly the ones who want states to continue to offer them. Jack writes: Quoting Pascal, "Lotteries are a tax on fools."
Re: [Vo]:Randum , Randumb, Randumber
On Jan 2, 2009, at 10:32 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: Horace wrote: "The final player remaining after all the 19 others go broke would be given a prize that depends on how many bets he can make from his remaining purse before going broke. That would be a pretty illuminating contest, don't you think?" Gee, if that isn't a loaded question, I don't know what is! :-) Yep. 8^) If you've only got $100, and you drop it all into a slot machine, and thus are now 'broke', that's your fault, not the casinos! That sounds way to liberal a mentality for me -- absolving the person from all responsibility for their actions. No one was holding a gun to their head forcing them to pull the handle... No, I don't think it'd be all that illuminating. Gaming is just another form of entertainment. Some peole spend $100+ to go see some concert that I wouldn't give a dime to go see. Who am I to judge what should be allowed for entertainment? When you go to a movie, or a concert, or the Indy 500, do you get a portion of your money back? Hell no! You're just as 'broke' as the person playing slots… perhaps more so. First, you have the option of walking away at any time, and second, at least with the slots, there is some chance that you'll walk away with much MORE that you started with!!! Can you say that about the Indy spectator or the movie- goer I don't think so! Say, the above sounds like a cigarette company argument! No one was holding a gun to cigarette smokers heads making them smoke. The argument I make is that the customers are not adequately informed. When retired teachers go to Vegas for the first time and lose all their retirement savings trying to avoid the disgrace of early losses and get back even, that's not like a trip to the movies or the Indy 500. That is not entertainment. The main difference between the informing of cigarette smokers and the informing of gamblers is it is much more difficult to fully inform the latter, and much easier to provide deliberately misleading information. The same apparently goes for juries. And just for the record, I may live in a gaming town, but I CHOOSE not to gamble... Well, most of the time! Some of the best places to eat are in the casinos! ;-) I've heard in some places there is good food and lots of it. Ahhh that hits my weak spot! 8^) I can sit and have a nice dinner while watching everyone else go 'broke'... -Mark Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Randum , Randumb, Randumber
On Jan 2, 2009, at 9:42 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: And it can be triggered by completely innocent actions on the part of the "soon-to-be" compulsive gamblers. Anyone with RLS (Restless Leg Syndrome) may be at risk for becoming a compulsive gambler, at least if neither they nor their doctor happens to be aware of one of the more bizarre side effects of the drugs used to treat the condition. See, for example: http://www.mdvu.org/emove/article.asp?ID=920 http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2007-rst/3918.html http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/08/09/primarysource/ entry3152310.shtml As some shrinks have observed, compulsive gamblers of any sort tend to be very reluctant to talk about their problems, and often try to hide their compulsion from friends, family, and doctors. Consequently the number of "victims" of this particularly strange side effect may be a great deal larger than the number of documented cases. Addictive behaviours of all sorts seem to be closely tied together from the point of view of what's going on in the brain, and messing with the dopamine receptors is never a good idea. Thanks very much for posting the above references. I have RLS. If confronted with the need for such medication I'll opt for a non- dopamine agonist like gabapentin. BTW, contrary to some popular wisdom, RLS is a very real thing and readily diagnosed in a sleep lab by the presence of leg tremors at regular intervals. The interval duration and separation in the trace for me was amazingly uniform and the trace looked like it was generated by a signal generator. Even given the above and various other physiological causes of gambling addiction, I still think there is a serious need to scientifically determine just how many problem gamblers would not have been exposed to their problem if they knew the full truth about gambling machines, and to determine how effective proper training in this regard can be in assisting treatment of existing patients. It is also clearly important to determine what means is effective for training the non-addicts who lose the other 70% of the money. State lotteries also are funded in part by compulsive gamblers, and in fact generally "tax" the least well to do the most heavily. This is highly unfair; the lotteries are among the most regressive of taxes. Yes, indeed, especially when the time between bets are short. Monthly lotteries are not so bad. Lotteries are much better than state sponsored casinos. Unfortunately, they are politically far more popular than the more "fair" graduated income tax, and in fact the people lotteries hurt worst are exactly the ones who want states to continue to offer them. So sad. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Dark Energy was :The Memristor
I forgot to note in the post below that, under the isomorphism I proposed, it is necessary that the spins of the photon and graviphoton are 1, and the spins of the messengers, the graviton and virtual photon are both even and identical. It is thought the graviton spin must be 2, due to relativistic constraints, but under gravimagnetic theory the spin is free to be 0. Unless electromagnetic charge warps space in the same manner gravitational charge does, both messenger spin values can be zero, otherwise both are 2. On Jan 2, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace, Thanks for a good analysis of this new theory vis-a-vis your theory and the mainstream thinking which precedes it. It can be noted that your objection: "It seems to me this thinking is not right in that it leaves the question: what entity then remains to communicate via gravitons?" is also a semantics issue that goes away - with a more complex definition of "what is virtual" in the sense that can be implied from their paper. Many of us may not like whatever new definition of 'graviton' or 'photon' emerges from this, since it could (possibly) imply something akin to "flavor oscillations" which are seen in the neutrino to rationalize how a graviton, for instance, can go from massless to at least expressing a mass-like effect. That is a form of 'communication'. I don't think the photon and graviton are analogous. The graviton is analogous to the virtual photon, which is the electromagnetic force carrier. If the physical law isomorphism I propose exists, then there necessarily exists an analog to the photon. I called it a "graviphoton" in order to be consistent with the naming conventions demanded by the isomorphism. The virtual particles, the virtual photon and graviton, are the force messengers, the "real" particles are quantized energy packets. The difference between them lies in the dimensions in which they reside. It is too bad this relationship was not understood when the graviton was named. Otherwise the graviton would have been named the "virtual graviton", and the graviphoton would have been named the graviton. The existence of the graviphoton could have profound implications for astronomy. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Predictions for 2009
Hmmm. Considering that for the time period between Christmas and New Years, that the following took place at my home: 1. Freak high-velocity winds took the shingles off my carport. 2. I got the flu. 3. Someone stole my garbage can (not the wind, the winds were dead calm that day.) 4. I discovered that with favorable (!) winds, you can shovel the same snow out of your driveway 5 times. 5. Was cussed out by my boss for the heinous and evil deed of helping get someone unstuck from the snowy slush in our shop's parking lot (because da boss didn't want to snowplow) 6. A faulty photocell caused my furnace to quit on New Years Day, several hours before anyone was awake. Once started, the hydronic radiator supply line was frozen, due to it being 7F outside, and that the line was located next to the cat door, which somehow one of our cats, or possibly a raccoon, removed. The door ain't been found, either. A blow torch solved this, eventually. (the pipe, not the cat.) 7. Upon hitting a pothole in The Land of Taxes (NY State), the coil spring seat for my car's R/F strut broke. 8. Got the flu back, after messing around in the cold with all this whatnot. So yeah, '09 isn't looking too charming at this point. No, but seriously. I have no idea. All I will say is, there is a lot of hope and potential, but the human race has a tendency to waste opportunities, and pave them over with good intentions, thus furthering construction of the Highway to Hell. The same earth is still in the ground. The same air is still here. The same snow is still on the ground outside, each crystalline bit glittering as the luminous melody of distant streetlights, moonlight, and skyshine catches it in the right way, allowing it to provoke something of a profound feeling in even so jaded an individual as myself. The same people I love are still near to me. The same familiar yellow light will rise again in a few more hours, and will do so for 5 billion years to come. The same hope and possibility exists today, as it did yesterday, if only we would take it. The same constants of nature still exist, that bind matter together, that make molecular machines such as ourselves possible. And yet we concern ourselves so, build our lives around, dictate our actions by, and all too often harm one another... ...based only on a few jots of numbers, which exist only on paper. --Kyle
