Re: [Vo]:Electrons
Hi Harry and Robin, It's an experimental measurement all right, to one ppT all right. They sequester a single electron for months on a large (0.1µm) circular orbit and count photons as I understand, do have a look at the short CERN paper (only the abstract in the beginning is in French, the rest is in English) : http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29724 I have OCR'd the Dear Gerald letter therein for you: Dear Gerald...As one of the inventors [of QED], I remember that we thought of QED in 1949 as a temporary and jerry-built structure, with mathematical inconsistencies and renormalized infinities swept under the rug. We did not expect it to last more than 10 years before some more solidly built theory would replace it...Now, 57 years have gone by and that ramshackle structure still stands... It is amazing that you can measure her dance to one part per trillion and find her still following our beat. With congratulations and good wishes for more such beautiful experiments, yours ever, Freeman Dyson. (Dyson 2006). I find this impressive, especially considering that the (computer assisted of course) theoretical computation, to the same accuracy, involves accounting for such wonderful possibilities as the photon going from the magnet to the electron turning into an electron-positron pair and the latter recombining again into a photon on the way, and this at any possible place in space-time, as explained in Feynman's enlightening little (160 pages) 1985 QED book, see the following excerpts from p.115 and following: Finally, I would like to return to that number 1.00115965221, the number that I told you about in the first lecture that has been measured and calculated so carefully. The number represents the response of an electron to an external magnetic field-something called the magnetic moment. Laboratory experiments became so accurate that further alternatives, involving four extra couplings (over all possible intermediate points in space-time), had to be calculated, some of which are shown here. The alternative on the right involves a photon disintegrating into a positron-electron pair (as described in Fig. 64), which annihilates to form a new photon, which is ultimately absorbed by the electron. I am sure that in a few more years, the theoretical and experimental numbers for the magnetic moment of an electron will be worked out to still more places. Of course, I am not sure whether the two values will still agree. That, one can never tell until one makes the calculation and does the experiments. Well, 20 years later, they still agreed all right, up to the 12th decimal place... are you really sure we need a better theory Robin? ;-) Cheers, Michel 2009/3/2 mix...@bigpond.com: In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:55:37 +0100: Hi Michel, [snip] Robin, I may be wrong but all this sounds complicated and ad hoc, compared to the standard quantum electrodynamics theory, which, although it often goes against common sense (e.g. the preposterous things I mentioned), does predict things nicely from a tiny set of rules. Does it really? I must admit to never having been deeply involved in quantum theory, but I get the impression, looking in from the outside, that in practice adjustments are usually made until the right result is obtained. For example, to go back to the subject of your original question, can Mills predict the next decimal places for the electron's intrinsic magnetic moment (presently 12 or so) I doubt very seriously that there is a single physical quantity anywhere on Earth that can be measured with such accuracy/precision, for two reasons. 1) Measurement implies comparison with a standard, and I don't think we have any standards that accurate/precise. 2) The measurement instruments themselves would need not to vary in *any* of their critical parameters by that degree of precision during the measurement process. I find it very hard to believe that this is the case. Furthermore the accuracy of those parameters also needs to be known with that degree of precision, otherwise the number is meaningless, even if the precision were valid. Here I use accuracy to describe the absolute value of a measurement, and precision to describe the number of decimal places to which the value is known. However, to answer your question, I think the answer is no, but then he also doesn't (yet) take many of the smaller effects into account that influence precision at that level. IOW it doesn't necessarily mean that his theory would fail at that level if he were to try. BTW you shouldn't judge Mills by any representations I may make. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:water fueled furnace
A kettle will achieve the same effects (heat and humidity, at almost overunity COP), and think of the money you'll save! Cheers, Michel 2009/3/3 thomas malloy temal...@usfamily.net: Any body up for doing a prototype? http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:HHOHHU_--_Hydroxy_Home_Heating_Unit --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
[Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
See: It's Time to Make Free Energy our Next Grass Roots Victory Steve Windisch http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/it%E2%80%99s-time-to-make-free-energy-our-next-grass-roots-victory-by-steve-windisch/ This author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed. A lot of people agree, but I doubt it. The author says we should pressure the government to open up and allow research on these subject. That I agree with. Interesting quote from article: Back in the 1993 after his retirement; the former head of Lockheed's Skunk Works (producers of the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber and SR-71 Blackbird), Benjamin Rich, said on the record at an U.C.L.A. School of Engineering Alumni awards dinner (and again three days later at a presentation given at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base): We already have the means to traverse the stars but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of god to ever get them out to benefit humanity.. Any thing you can imagine we already know how to do. Did Rich really say that?!? The government does not seem good at hiding information, so I kind of doubt they have all this stuff under wraps. - Jed
[Vo]:threat of nuclear war is low
grok wrote: As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mounted the barricade and roared out: I think there is no chance North Korea or Iran will use a weapon. They know they would be annihilated if they did. They may seem kind of crazy to us, ... right. And you all seem crazy to the rest of the planet too. Kim Jung Il is the despot king of a medieval nation, not a modern leader. His aggression toward us has nothing to do with us. The hell it doesn't. Your ruling-class and its stooges still haven't even yet paid for their crimes against the korean people Yah like freeing them from that evil lunatic. He does not fear invasion. He uses other countries and threats against them as a form of political theater within North Korea, as a way to gain advantage and crush his internal enemies. Not quite true. Your side does indeed threaten REAL invasion. This just doesn't happen to appear to be imminent. Fear invasion? He's the one planning on invading South Korea! This resembles what some far right U.S. leaders did during the latter stages of the cold war. I doubt that many of them actually feared Russia or worried that Russia might invade Western Europe. There was ZERO chance the Soviets were going to do what the U.S./NATO Maybe you haven't heard Jed, The Russians are continuing to build Typhoon class submarines. Did you sleep through last summer? Does the word Georgia, the country not the state bring back any memories? I doubt many Republican leaders today seriously believe that Obama is a socialist, but some of their followers believe this, and it is politically useful for them to say this. I think that he's a Socialist, and Newsweak agrees with me Of course they don't believe this. Point is that the Republicans are liars, thieves and mass murderers -- hell, just like the Democrats -- and will say absolutely anything, if they think it will get them something. And on that we could likely agree 100%. Both R and D are lairs and thieves.That doesn't change the fact that we live in a dangerous world which is full of people who want to impose the sort of dystopia that Orwell wrote about. Part of the problem is that Jed and Grok have been drinking of the Communitarian cool aid. I just listened to John Leoffler deliver a lecture on the subject see, http://www.khouse.org/6640/KICDA01-2/ --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
Jed Rothwell wrote: See: It's Time to Make Free Energy our Next Grass Roots Victory Steve Windisch http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/it%E2%80%99s-time-to-make-free-energy-our-next-grass-roots-victory-by-steve-windisch/ This author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed. A lot of people agree, but I doubt it. The author says we should pressure the government to open up and allow research on these subject. That I agree with. Interesting quote from article: Back in the 1993 after his retirement; the former head of Lockheed's Skunk Works (producers of the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber and SR-71 Blackbird), Benjamin Rich, said on the record at an U.C.L.A. School of Engineering Alumni awards dinner (and again three days later at a presentation given at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base): We already have the means to traverse the stars but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of god to ever get them out to benefit humanity.. Any thing you can imagine we already know how to do. Did Rich really say that?!? The government does not seem good at hiding information, so I kind of doubt they have all this stuff under wraps. You also might think that, if mainstream science and engineering done by trained scientists and engineers (which is what Lockheed and similar outfits engage in) had actually found a workable star drive, then there might be some hints in currently published papers on cosmology pointing to how they might do it. The details would be secret, sure, but you'd see some sort of dim outline of it in the public journals. Yet, you don't -- there are no hints of such a thing. There are fringe notions which could lead to a star drive, maybe, someday, if mainstream cosmology is all wrong and if people like Van Flandern and Sarfatti turn out to be honest capable researchers who were just misunderstood. But from what I can see, the mainstream physics community doesn't have a shadow of a hint of a such a thing, and even some ideas which were floating around, such as wormholes and gateways through spinning black holes, seem to be on the skids. To have a workable star drive in the back room at some lab, while there's no hint in the literature, would be as though the Manhattan project had been started up at a time when there was no hint in the mainstream literature that splitting the atom was even possible. Or it would be like the SR-71 Blackbird being developed in a time when all mainstream flight engineers still believed faster than sound flight was impossible. Or it would be like someone building a working digital computer and computing pi to 1000 places on it, *before* Edison announced the invention of a practical lightbulb. Or it would be like someone producing a workable canon back before anyone had invented gunpowder. None of these things are impossible, but they are very, very improbable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:threat of nuclear war is low
thomas malloy wrote: Maybe you haven't heard Jed, The Russians are continuing to build Typhoon class submarines. Did you sleep through last summer? Does the word Georgia, the country not the state bring back any memories? That wasn't my comment. But I think the Russian threat was exaggerated. Real, but exaggerated. Much of the Soviet weapons buildup was a response to the U.S. weapons build-up, which was a response to the Soviet weapons, which were a response to us, etc, etc. Also, both sides have a military industrial complex which profits from things like Typhoon class submarines. You will note that the U.S. still has these things, too. My father was posted to Russia during WWII and the State Department during the early years of the cold war. He and others there were realists, and well aware of the might of the Soviet Union. People like him who saw the remains of Stalingrad first hand understood the power of the Russian people and the ruthlessness of their military more vividly than you can imagine. It is one thing to read about these things in books, and quite another to see mile after mile of destruction and the graves of roughly a million people in a single battlefield. But he and the others also felt that the postwar threat to the U.S. was exaggerated. I have no doubt that if Europe had collapsed in 1945 or 1946 from hunger and social revolution, the Russians would have been pleased to push their armies through to the coast of Normandy. The Berlin Crisis was a serious attempt to drive the U.S. and its allies out of Germany. The Cuban Missile crisis came far too close to triggering an all out nuclear war. But despite their brutality, I do not think the Soviet ever seriously intended to resort to full scale conventional war, and I am certain that at no time did they ever contemplate using nuclear weapons in a first strike. They were as desperate to prevent a war during the Cuban Missile crisis as our people were. Gorbachev and others made that clear, and there is plenty of historical evidence to back it up. The Soviets were evil people. I know lots of people who experienced this first hand. But they were not as evil or unpredictable as the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists. They were never as much of a threat to the West as these others were. Winston Churchill and many others agreed on that. It is a huge mistake to paint all of your enemies with the same brush, and to assume that there are no gradations in evil, and that you cannot deal with people you do not like. It is also a huge mistake to think that the U.S. shared no blame for the escalation of the cold war, the nuclear arms buildup, or the near miss of the Cuban Missile crisis. If Kennedy had listened to some of his hot-head advisors it might have ended in unspeakable tragedy. Of course the U.S. also shares the credit for the nuclear arms reductions, which have been much broader than many people realize. Reagan, in particular, went ahead with huge reductions that both liberal and conservative analysts considered impossible. They said the Russians would never agree, but they were wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
Ah, but look what happened to planet Krikkit ;-) Michel 2009/3/4 Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com: Jed Rothwell wrote: See: It's Time to Make Free Energy our Next Grass Roots Victory Steve Windisch http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/it%E2%80%99s-time-to-make-free-energy-our-next-grass-roots-victory-by-steve-windisch/ This author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed. A lot of people agree, but I doubt it. The author says we should pressure the government to open up and allow research on these subject. That I agree with. Interesting quote from article: Back in the 1993 after his retirement; the former head of Lockheed's Skunk Works (producers of the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber and SR-71 Blackbird), Benjamin Rich, said on the record at an U.C.L.A. School of Engineering Alumni awards dinner (and again three days later at a presentation given at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base): We already have the means to traverse the stars but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of god to ever get them out to benefit humanity.. Any thing you can imagine we already know how to do. Did Rich really say that?!? The government does not seem good at hiding information, so I kind of doubt they have all this stuff under wraps. You also might think that, if mainstream science and engineering done by trained scientists and engineers (which is what Lockheed and similar outfits engage in) had actually found a workable star drive, then there might be some hints in currently published papers on cosmology pointing to how they might do it. The details would be secret, sure, but you'd see some sort of dim outline of it in the public journals. Yet, you don't -- there are no hints of such a thing. There are fringe notions which could lead to a star drive, maybe, someday, if mainstream cosmology is all wrong and if people like Van Flandern and Sarfatti turn out to be honest capable researchers who were just misunderstood. But from what I can see, the mainstream physics community doesn't have a shadow of a hint of a such a thing, and even some ideas which were floating around, such as wormholes and gateways through spinning black holes, seem to be on the skids. To have a workable star drive in the back room at some lab, while there's no hint in the literature, would be as though the Manhattan project had been started up at a time when there was no hint in the mainstream literature that splitting the atom was even possible. Or it would be like the SR-71 Blackbird being developed in a time when all mainstream flight engineers still believed faster than sound flight was impossible. Or it would be like someone building a working digital computer and computing pi to 1000 places on it, *before* Edison announced the invention of a practical lightbulb. Or it would be like someone producing a workable canon back before anyone had invented gunpowder. None of these things are impossible, but they are very, very improbable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
From Jed: Interesting quote from article: Back in the 1993 after his retirement; the former head of Lockheed's Skunk Works (producers of the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber and SR-71 Blackbird), Benjamin Rich, said on the record at an U.C.L.A. School of Engineering Alumni awards dinner (and again three days later at a presentation given at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base): We already have the means to traverse the stars but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of god to ever get them out to benefit humanity.. Any thing you can imagine we already know how to do. Did Rich really say that?!? The government does not seem good at hiding information, so I kind of doubt they have all this stuff under wraps. ...and from Steve Lawrence: ... None of these things are impossible, but they are very, very improbable. FWIW: Having attended numerous informal social gatherings of a local UFO group held in the Milwaukee area since the 1990s I'd have to say that Rich's comments are, not surprisingly, fertile topics of constant conjecture. For example, the true propulsion of the B-2 has occasionally been discussed. It's become my suspicion that a person could easily spend his entire lifetime pursuing the Holy Grail of what really drives the B-2 bomber through the air, or whether something of an extraterrestrial nature really did crash in Roswell back in 1947, or whether we humans are actually being abducted by extraterrestrial visitors for who knows what kinds of various experiments. If one is into pursuing these kinds of Holy Grails, I would recommend a website that was first brought to my attention by Thomas Malloy, Project Camelot. See: http://www.projectcamelot.org/interviews.html for the latest interviews with various players. Some of the interviewees are obscure, and some well known within the UFO field. This is an excellent smorgasbord of video audio entrees for those who want to get an overwhelming dose of conspiratorial views. (Took me damned well over a month to get through most of the video interviews.) Upon reflection, and as I approach the sixth decade of my life on this planet I've found myself, sometimes uncomfortably, reevaluating a few of my personal interests within the UFO community and the Free Energy field. In my own defense I really can say without a doubt that I've experienced numerous adventures over the decades, and some of those adventures have even been fun - incredibly fun! But what did I actually learn (of substance) from all of my adventures? That IS the key question, one that is not easily answered. For example, what have I personally uncovered - have I actually SEEN the Holey Grail, personal proof that there exists a simple free energy device that if ONLY we could get the contraption past the MIBs and out to the public it would solve ALL of our planet's dire energy problems. Or, have I personally met an extraterrestrial, perhaps at a StarBuck's coffee shop, and he/she/it answered one of my burning questions, like: Was the Face on Mars really constructed in the likeness of Elvis? ... Ok, strike that last statement. Me bad. As for what I actually have learned... well, I think I've learned not to pass judgment on what I've heard, at least not so quickly as perhaps I would have tended to have done earlier in my life. I've learned that the more I've learned the more ignorant I realize I truly am about what the hell may actually be going on, particularly beyond the boundaries of my five senses. I've learned that there is only so much I, as an individual, can know about my surroundings. I would like to suggest that if one chooses to make as one of their Life's Goals the pursuit one of the above Holy Grails (UFOs, Aliens, Free Energy, etc...), it would be wise to prepare yourself with the possibility that, as you approach death, you may NOT know what is really going on behind the curtain. There is a real temptation to manufacture an explanation of truth, just so one can feel like they accomplished something of value in their all-too-short life span. One of the few but profound revelations I have learned so far in this lifetime is that it is a good thing to know and enjoy what I DO know, along with what I truly do NOT know. The wisdom is to know the difference. Small steps, Sparks. Small steps. Still working on that one. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:MIT builds solar-powered race car that runs all day
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/030309-mit-builds-solar-powered- race-car.html http://tinyurl.com/aq99vd Photo: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/solarcar-1-enlarged.html http://tinyurl.com/cetyph Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Or it would be like the SR-71 Blackbird being developed in a time when all mainstream flight engineers still believed faster than sound flight was impossible. Or it would be like someone building a working digital computer and computing pi to 1000 places on it, *before* Edison announced the invention of a practical lightbulb. That's my gut feeling. There have been some mechanical devices that seem temporally out of sequence, such as the Antikythera device and Babbage's computer designs. But I can't think of any full-scale devices based on new physical principles. The closest I can think of offhand is ancient Iraqi batteries, from around 2000 years ago, which were probably used for medical purposes. Of course ancient people did not understand electricity. The batteries were clay jars with an iron rod surrounded by a copper cylinder. The electrolyte was probably vinegar, and it produced ~1.1 V. You wonder how they ever discovered it, but that can be said for countless other ancient discoveries such as steel. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
OrionWorks wrote: From Jed: Interesting quote from article: Back in the 1993 after his retirement; the former head of Lockheed's Skunk Works (producers of the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber and SR-71 Blackbird), Benjamin Rich, said on the record at an U.C.L.A. School of Engineering Alumni awards dinner (and again three days later at a presentation given at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base): We already have the means to traverse the stars but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of god to ever get them out to benefit humanity.. Any thing you can imagine we already know how to do. Did Rich really say that?!? The government does not seem good at hiding information, so I kind of doubt they have all this stuff under wraps. ...and from Steve Lawrence: ... None of these things are impossible, but they are very, very improbable. FWIW: Having attended numerous informal social gatherings of a local UFO group held in the Milwaukee area since the 1990s I'd have to say that Rich's comments are, not surprisingly, fertile topics of constant conjecture. For example, the true propulsion of the B-2 has occasionally been discussed. It's become my suspicion that a person could easily spend his entire lifetime pursuing the Holy Grail of what really drives the B-2 bomber through the air, Ummm... I gather there's some reason to believe that Four General Electric F118-GE-100 engines, as it says on the fact sheet, are not actually up to the job? Of course they're buried in the body of the plane to cut the heat signature, contributing to the overall weird look of the plane, but seriously, are you saying that folks (who are presumably not aerospace engineers) have been able to *prove* that these engines couldn't possibly be the real power plant? I've learned some things, too, over the years, starting with this: It's easier to raise objections to a (patently correct) claim than it is to counter them. It's possible to come up with 10 arguments showing, for example, that the Apollo missions could not possibly have gone to the Moon in far less time than it takes to thoroughly debunk any *one* such argument. Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction must make sense -- what this really means is that figuring out why the truth actually does make sense can be extremely difficult and time consuming. In many cases it's *much* easier to come up with a convenient, and apparently sensible, fiction, and just *deny* the truth. We went to the moon 38 years ago, and then the last mission came home and we never went back. That doesn't make sense! If we could do it then, we *certainly* could do it now! Lots of people want to go, so if we could do it, we certainly would! That's *really* hard to explain! So, it must all be a lie, and a cover-up of the real truth. It's *much* easier to make sense of a claim that we never went to the moon at all, and it was all done in Stanley Kubrick's studio. Oh, and one other thing: Never accept without corroboration an outlandish claim made by a speaker who received an honorarium for talking. Once people start taking money for making their strange claims, they will *never* realize that their claims are, after all, false. (This principle applies to a lot of other things, as well, such as authors who have published a book (and who are hence making money) showing strange things denied by the Establishment. Jack Sarfatti comes to mind here.) or whether something of an extraterrestrial nature really did crash in Roswell back in 1947 I like the Roswell story. As far as I know nobody made a dime off those weird photos. If it was a hoax it wasn't done for the money. , or whether we humans are actually being abducted by extraterrestrial visitors for who knows what kinds of various experiments. Right ... recovered memories are a wonderful arena. The folks whose memories were recovered are apparently sincere. As to the researchers who, in many cases, helped those memories surface, that's another story -- and as soon as you get into memories recovered under hypnosis you're also getting into an area where the prime mover (the hypnotist) is making money from the operation. Are you aware of the stories of WWII veterans who apparently remembered being in battles which never took place, outside of movies? If not I'll see if I can dig up more info on it. There is evidence that human memory is *extremely* fallible, but we usually exercise a great deal of conscious or semi-conscious judgment and weed out the bogus stuff before it causes trouble. When you get yourself into a situation where you can no longer easily distinguish bogus from real memories simply by using context, beware. (The WWII vets were in exactly such a situation.) If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I immediately conclude it was a dream. However, if, when I awake, I have someone at my shoulder telling me it might
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
I wrote: Photography, maybe. The electromagnetic telegraph, and Watt's steam engine? No. The cut-off is around 1750, about 150 years into the scientific revolution. To clarify, I do not mean that every single gadget invented after 1750 could only have been invented by modern people. Paperclips, for example, could have made anytime in the last 2000 years, although the automatic machines that make them could not have been. The first photography was done around 1820 but I think it might have been done earlier. I am not sure how much knowledge of chemistry went into it, and how much was trial and error. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Or it would be like the SR-71 Blackbird being developed in a time when all mainstream flight engineers still believed faster than sound flight was impossible. Or it would be like someone building a working digital computer and computing pi to 1000 places on it, *before* Edison announced the invention of a practical lightbulb. That's my gut feeling. There have been some mechanical devices that seem temporally out of sequence, such as the Antikythera device and Babbage's computer designs. But I can't think of any full-scale devices based on new physical principles. Actually, both the Antikythera device and Babbage's engines support what I was saying: They were the bleeding-edge best which could be done in their times, and they were both based firmly on known and well understood physics of those times. No scientist of the time would have mistaken them for magic; any engineer of the time would have recognized them for what they were. Babbage's engines were based on mechanical mechanisms which had been understood, at least in principle, for a couple thousand years. The Antikythera device was similar (in principle). Neither would have allowed computing pi to 1000 places; they simply didn't have the horsepower for the job. To do that job, new physics was needed, and the new physics didn't exist before the 1900's, and the engineering fundamentals needed to use the new physics didn't exist before Edison's lightbulb paved the way to develop vacuum tubes. In concept, one could compare both of those computing engines to a star ship built with a combination of rockets and ground based lasers. We can design such a device today, because it's based on physics we understand. But we could not build such a device and cruise to the galactic center to check out the black hole there, because such a star ship simply wouldn't be capable of such a performance. New physics is needed -- and there is no hint of the necessary new physics anywhere in the mainstream literature. A Bussard ramjet is probably the closest thing going to an end run around the problems of a star ship. Unfortunately as far as I know there's no reason to believe such a thing is even possible; it's pure speculation without any kind of firm factual foundation -- like Tony Stark's transistor powered iron suit. The closest I can think of offhand is ancient Iraqi batteries, from around 2000 years ago, which were probably used for medical purposes. Of course ancient people did not understand electricity. The batteries were clay jars with an iron rod surrounded by a copper cylinder. The electrolyte was probably vinegar, and it produced ~1.1 V. You wonder how they ever discovered it, but that can be said for countless other ancient discoveries such as steel. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
or whether something of an extraterrestrial nature really did crash in Roswell back in 1947 I like the Roswell story. As far as I know nobody made a dime off those weird photos. If it was a hoax it wasn't done for the money. , or whether we humans are actually being abducted by extraterrestrial visitors for who knows what kinds of various experiments. Right ... recovered memories are a wonderful arena. The folks whose memories were recovered are apparently sincere. As to the researchers who, in many cases, helped those memories surface, that's another story -- and as soon as you get into memories recovered under hypnosis you're also getting into an area where the prime mover (the hypnotist) is making money from the operation. Are you aware of the stories of WWII veterans who apparently remembered being in battles which never took place, outside of movies? If not I'll see if I can dig up more info on it. There is evidence that human memory is *extremely* fallible, but we usually exercise a great deal of conscious or semi-conscious judgment and weed out the bogus stuff before it causes trouble. When you get yourself into a situation where you can no longer easily distinguish bogus from real memories simply by using context, beware. (The WWII vets were in exactly such a situation.) If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I immediately conclude it was a dream. However, if, when I awake, I have someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh? And what happens next? Hmmm Before getting too carried away by this reasoning, I suggest you read the books by David Jacobs. Prof. Jacobs is a professor at Temple University who has been interviewing abductees for many years. He was convinced of their claims when many different people from different parts of the US described in detail the various medical instruments used during the examination. These people did not know each other and had no way of getting this information from normal sources. Even now, this detail is not published and is used to test the veracity of the claims. Dr. John Mack, at Harvard Medical School, has found the same relationship between a claimed abduction and a common memory of the tools and procedures. This seems to me to be very credible evidence that could be used in any court of law to prove a legal fact. Ed If one is into pursuing these kinds of Holy Grails, I would recommend a website that was first brought to my attention by Thomas Malloy, Project Camelot. See: http://www.projectcamelot.org/interviews.html for the latest interviews with various players. Some of the interviewees are obscure, and some well known within the UFO field. This is an excellent smorgasbord of video audio entrees for those who want to get an overwhelming dose of conspiratorial views. (Took me damned well over a month to get through most of the video interviews.) Upon reflection, and as I approach the sixth decade of my life on this planet I've found myself, sometimes uncomfortably, reevaluating a few of my personal interests within the UFO community and the Free Energy field. In my own defense I really can say without a doubt that I've experienced numerous adventures over the decades, and some of those adventures have even been fun - incredibly fun! But what did I actually learn (of substance) from all of my adventures? That IS the key question, one that is not easily answered. For example, what have I personally uncovered - have I actually SEEN the Holey Grail, personal proof that there exists a simple free energy device that if ONLY we could get the contraption past the MIBs and out to the public it would solve ALL of our planet's dire energy problems. Or, have I personally met an extraterrestrial, perhaps at a StarBuck's coffee shop, and he/she/it answered one of my burning questions, like: Was the Face on Mars really constructed in the likeness of Elvis? ... Ok, strike that last statement. Me bad. As for what I actually have learned... well, I think I've learned not to pass judgment on what I've heard, at least not so quickly as perhaps I would have tended to have done earlier in my life. I've learned that the more I've learned the more ignorant I realize I truly am about what the hell may actually be going on, particularly beyond the boundaries of my five senses. I've learned that there is only so much I, as an individual, can know about my surroundings. I would like to suggest that if one chooses to make as one of their Life's Goals the pursuit one of the above Holy Grails (UFOs, Aliens, Free Energy, etc...), it would be wise to prepare yourself with the possibility that, as you approach death, you may NOT know what is really going on behind the curtain. There is a real temptation to manufacture an explanation of truth, just so one can feel like they
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: There is evidence that human memory is *extremely* fallible . . . And suggestible. And malleable. The extent of this in normal, healthy people has only been discovered in recent decades. It explains a lot about history and human nature. It is regrettable in some ways, but my guess is that this same mental flexibility allows creativity. There are a few people with perfect memories. That is, people who can correctly recall what they had for breakfast and what the weather was like on June 1, 1967. This has been confirmed by looking up old weather data. There are others who can recite from memory books that they read once decades ago. Such people are not notably creative. Most of them are miserable, and apparently incapable of original thinking. I think the ability to forget things and confuse them is essential to discovering new ways to look at old facts. I hope that is true because I myself feel reborn practically every day, having (it seems) forgotten all that I ever knew about programming, calorimetry and women, among other things. It makes life an adventure. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
Edmund Storms wrote: Right ... recovered memories are a wonderful arena. The folks whose memories were recovered are apparently sincere. As to the researchers who, in many cases, helped those memories surface, that's another story -- and as soon as you get into memories recovered under hypnosis you're also getting into an area where the prime mover (the hypnotist) is making money from the operation. Are you aware of the stories of WWII veterans who apparently remembered being in battles which never took place, outside of movies? If not I'll see if I can dig up more info on it. There is evidence that human memory is *extremely* fallible, but we usually exercise a great deal of conscious or semi-conscious judgment and weed out the bogus stuff before it causes trouble. When you get yourself into a situation where you can no longer easily distinguish bogus from real memories simply by using context, beware. (The WWII vets were in exactly such a situation.) If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I immediately conclude it was a dream. However, if, when I awake, I have someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh? And what happens next? Hmmm Before getting too carried away by this reasoning, I suggest you read the books by David Jacobs. Prof. Jacobs is a professor at Temple University who has been interviewing abductees for many years. He was convinced of their claims when many different people from different parts of the US described in detail the various medical instruments used during the examination. These people did not know each other and had no way of getting this information from normal sources. Even now, this detail is not published and is used to test the veracity of the claims. If this information is not published, how can we test the veracity of Prof. Jacobs's claims? How do we know he is honest and sincere (aside from his own testimony, of course)? As the author of books which are, presumably, founded on the assumed veracity of the abduction stories, *his* testimony is, of course, immediately suspect -- he is making money and acquiring fame as a result of these stories! This question is, of course, a big part of the reason reproducibility is so important in the sciences. This appears, at first glance, to be very similar to one of the bits of testimony regarding the WTC collapse: There were violent explosions in the basement before the buildings fell. This is *very* suspicious. We know there were such explosions, in part, through the testimony of a man who was working in the basement at that time. He happens to be an amateur stage magician (which shouldn't matter) and he happens to have gone on a lecture tour (paid, of course) after 9/11 talking about his experiences (that shouldn't matter, either). But the details of his personal history *do* matter because they show that he is not disinterested (he is taking money for saying things that cast doubt on the official story) and he is experienced with delivering totally bogus statements in a convincing way (that's what magicians do, after all). So, should we believe him? Not without corroboration! Similarly, we must wonder about Professor Jacobs, and we must ask what independently verifiable support for his assertions exists. Dr. John Mack, at Harvard Medical School, has found the same relationship between a claimed abduction and a common memory of the tools and procedures. Has Dr. Mack published the details of what it was he found the common thread to be? Again, as I said to start with, it's not the abductees who are the suspicious characters in memories of abductions -- it's the interviewer. In this case, that's Dr. Mack. This seems to me to be very credible evidence that could be used in any court of law to prove a legal fact. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This question is, of course, a big part of the reason reproducibility is so important in the sciences. This appears, at first glance, to be very similar to one of the bits of testimony regarding the WTC collapse: There were violent explosions in the basement before the buildings fell. This is *very* suspicious. We know there were such explosions, in part, through the testimony of a man who was working in the basement at that time. He happens to be an amateur stage magician (which shouldn't matter) and he happens to have gone on a lecture tour (paid, of course) after 9/11 talking about his experiences (that shouldn't matter, either). But the details of his personal history *do* matter because they show that he is not disinterested (he is taking money for saying things that cast doubt on the official story) and he is experienced with delivering totally bogus statements in a convincing way (that's what magicians do, after all). So, should we believe him? Not without corroboration! Here would be the appropriate place to point out the not un-interesting fact that, 2 relatively small planes can magically drop 3 huge massive buildings right into their footprints. And talk about mis-direction... (bah-bah-boomp. Somebody cue the next act, please.) - -- grok. - -- *** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! *** * Boycott bourgeois mass-media * Political Comix Cartoons * ** for enlightenment enjoyment * * Critical endorsement only Most sites need donations * * http://www.crumbmuseum.com R. Crumb Museum BuzzFlash * * http://www.buzzflash.com/bradenton/archives.html Editorial toons * * http://weltschmerz.caWeltschmerz * * http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html Get Your War On * * http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks The Boondocks * * http://www.mediachannel.org/reality Living the Reality * * http://www.crumbmuseum.com/history1.html R.Crumb History of U.S. * * DEATH TO NEOLIBERALISM * GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmu64YACgkQXo3EtEYbt3HLAQCgyd0y6EYYmSUrtuDgkbCPQDeo E2cAn2K9sfM+az2tkWpJ3AeQ0idoFn7H =FR4j -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
On Mar 4, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Right ... recovered memories are a wonderful arena. The folks whose memories were recovered are apparently sincere. As to the researchers who, in many cases, helped those memories surface, that's another story -- and as soon as you get into memories recovered under hypnosis you're also getting into an area where the prime mover (the hypnotist) is making money from the operation. Are you aware of the stories of WWII veterans who apparently remembered being in battles which never took place, outside of movies? If not I'll see if I can dig up more info on it. There is evidence that human memory is *extremely* fallible, but we usually exercise a great deal of conscious or semi-conscious judgment and weed out the bogus stuff before it causes trouble. When you get yourself into a situation where you can no longer easily distinguish bogus from real memories simply by using context, beware. (The WWII vets were in exactly such a situation.) If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I immediately conclude it was a dream. However, if, when I awake, I have someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh? And what happens next? Hmmm Before getting too carried away by this reasoning, I suggest you read the books by David Jacobs. Prof. Jacobs is a professor at Temple University who has been interviewing abductees for many years. He was convinced of their claims when many different people from different parts of the US described in detail the various medical instruments used during the examination. These people did not know each other and had no way of getting this information from normal sources. Even now, this detail is not published and is used to test the veracity of the claims. If this information is not published, how can we test the veracity of Prof. Jacobs's claims? If the information were published, the people testing the claims would no longer have this tool available. But suppose you had the information, what good would it do you? How would this help you decide if Jacobs and the other people studying the field were honest? So, according to you, any one who publishes his discoveries and makes some money is suspect. In other words, the large literature based on books cannot be believed unless you personally have tested the claims. This might be an overstatement of how you approach the problem, but where do you draw the line? How can someone who has such unique information make it known to you in a way you would accept? The possibility that beings from other planets have visited us and are presently interacting with people, seems to me to be a subject worth exploring in a serious way. I have talked to Jacobs personally and I'm convinced he is honest and just as amazed by what he is discovering as you are. In his case, he took the effort to make a serious investigation. How does any new idea get accepted unless people are willing to at least give the benefit of doubt to the claim and look deeper? How do we know he is honest and sincere (aside from his own testimony, of course)? As the author of books which are, presumably, founded on the assumed veracity of the abduction stories, *his* testimony is, of course, immediately suspect -- he is making money and acquiring fame as a result of these stories! This question is, of course, a big part of the reason reproducibility is so important in the sciences. This appears, at first glance, to be very similar to one of the bits of testimony regarding the WTC collapse: There were violent explosions in the basement before the buildings fell. This is *very* suspicious. We know there were such explosions, in part, through the testimony of a man who was working in the basement at that time. He happens to be an amateur stage magician (which shouldn't matter) and he happens to have gone on a lecture tour (paid, of course) after 9/11 talking about his experiences (that shouldn't matter, either). But the details of his personal history *do* matter because they show that he is not disinterested (he is taking money for saying things that cast doubt on the official story) and he is experienced with delivering totally bogus statements in a convincing way (that's what magicians do, after all). So, should we believe him? Not without corroboration! I see no relationship in your example to this subject. The UFO phenomenon is investigated by hundreds of people and seen directly by thousands. If you want reproducibility, this is a perfect example. People reproduce the same experience, although not willingly. Similarly, we must wonder about Professor Jacobs, and we must ask what independently verifiable support for his assertions exists. I have read at least a dozen books
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
Some follow-up comments I presume this was from Jed, though I have not received the actual post: If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I immediately conclude it was a dream. However, if, when I awake, I have someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh? And what happens next? Hmmm From Ed Storms: Before getting too carried away by this reasoning, I suggest you read the books by David Jacobs. Prof. Jacobs is a professor at Temple University who has been interviewing abductees for many years. He was convinced of their claims when many different people from different parts of the US described in detail the various medical instruments used during the examination. These people did not know each other and had no way of getting this information from normal sources. Even now, this detail is not published and is used to test the veracity of the claims. From Stephen Lawrence: If this information is not published, how can we test the veracity of Prof. Jacobs's claims? How do we know he is honest and sincere (aside from his own testimony, of course)? As the author of books which are, presumably, founded on the assumed veracity of the abduction stories, *his* testimony is, of course, immediately suspect -- he is making money and acquiring fame as a result of these stories! ... Similarly, we must wonder about Professor Jacobs, and we must ask what independently verifiable support for his assertions exists. In my experience the above conjecture as described by Mr. Lawrence often seems to be a common thread that many skeptics (particularly debunkers) use to discredit UFO researchers, particularly that they are not sincere and that they are doing it primarily for the money. BTW, I'm not implying the Mr. Lawrence is, himself a debunker! ;-) I just want to be clear on the point that I doubt few UFO researchers have made any tangible money off of their UFO/alien abduction research and related publications. Far from it. To publish a book on alien abduction is pretty much the professional kiss of death. (Jee! Does this sound familiar???) One is in eminent danger of having mainstream science never taking any their professional work seriously ever again. ...and now, on to... Dr. John Mack, at Harvard Medical School, has found the same relationship between a claimed abduction and a common memory of the tools and procedures. Has Dr. Mack published the details of what it was he found the common thread to be? There was an academic publication that was published in the early 90s for which John Mack was one of the principal authors. It's a HUGE white book, white cover with plain back text title: Alien Abduction or something like that. It's close to a thousand pages in length. It was NOT a best seller. It's one of those books that you buy and then put in your library shelf to collect dust... Plenty of details to get lost in. The compilation contains numerous testimony from experiencers. I bought a copy. Cost a good penny, too. Not sure if it contains the specific markers that are alluded to in Dr. Jacob's work however. Unfortunately, we can't ask Dr. Mack since he has since transcended to the next dimension due to an unfortunate encounter with a car while stepping off a curb in London. The driver was drunk, and Mack was killed. No conspiracy here. Just tragic unfortunately circumstances. Again, as I said to start with, it's not the abductees who are the suspicious characters in memories of abductions -- it's the interviewer. In this case, that's Dr. Mack. I do sympathize with those who question the veracity of collecting recovered memories. Indeed, there is much controversy over how effective such a tool is. Finally, as for grok's most recent contributions, predictably he felt compelled to say something that he felt was presumably witty about this extremely contorted subject. I wish grok would post something useful or informative. Continuing to post judgmental opinions pertaining to the weaknesses and fallacies of others and their perceptions as an attempt to show how superior his personal intellect must be, is turning out to be nothing ore than an exercise in mental masturbation. Grok, please do it behind closed doors where we don't have to continue observing the activity. Like Mr. Lawrence, I too, am seriously considering the kill file for the remainder of your life-span within Vortex. I realize I risk fanning the flames here, but I guess it's the risk I'll have to take. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Finally, as for grok's most recent contributions, predictably he felt compelled to say something that he felt was presumably witty about this extremely contorted subject. I wish grok would post something useful or informative. Continuing to post judgmental opinions pertaining to the weaknesses and fallacies of others and their perceptions as an attempt to show how superior his personal intellect must be, is turning out to be nothing ore than an exercise in mental masturbation. Grok, please do it behind closed doors where we don't have to continue observing the activity. Like Mr. Lawrence, I too, am seriously considering the kill file for the remainder of your life-span within Vortex. I realize I risk fanning the flames here, but I guess it's the risk I'll have to take. - From my POV, fella, when most people like you wax eloquent on politix -- maybe Science too, eh? -- you're just plain embarrassing. You think you've made your slam-dunk point, etc. -- but in fact you haven't even gotten close to Reality. So by all means, put me in your killfile. Life is too short to have to suffer such endless repeated inanity as yours. Not to mention the hypocrisy. Talk about intolerant. Welcome to U.S. society. Police state that it is. - -- grok. - -- *** FULL-SPECTRUM FIGHTBACK! *** * In advance of the Revolution: * Get facts get organized * * Fight the Man! * thru these sites movements * * http://www.infoshop.org/wiki Infoshop OpenWiki * *http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix The Matrix:Anti-Capitalist Wiki * http://risingtide.org.uk Greenwash Guerillas UK * * http://risingtidenorthamerica.orgGreenwash Guerillas * * http://www.ministrywatch.com MinistryWatch * * http://www.levees.org Levees.Org * * http://www.govtrack.us GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress * NEW-WORLD-ORDER-SPEAK: Law Order == Police State GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmu+WIACgkQXo3EtEYbt3HsNwCgjw+dE6da/3OsJlhlle658uRM DggAniRjGIwfxaKzw1Bt8OEDAKgsFcXJ =iCtk -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Oh, and one other thing: Never accept without corroboration an outlandish claim made by a speaker who received an honorarium for talking. Once people start taking money for making their strange claims, they will *never* realize that their claims are, after all, false. You should not accept any claim without corroboration, even an ordinary one. Still, I agree with this general principle. But it can be pushed too far. See Drasin's classic essay: . . . if investigators or chroniclers of the unorthodox have profited financially from activities connected with their research, accuse them of profiting financially from activities connected with their research! If their research, publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of work or sole means of support, hold that fact as conclusive proof that income is being realized from such activities! If they have labored to achieve public recognition of their work, you may safely characterize them as publicity seekers. Take care not to inadvertently apply such judgments to those pursuing, in similar fashion, orthodox activities. There is a version of this essay here, but it is missing the last sentence: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/pathskep.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
Edmund Storms wrote: On Mar 4, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Right ... recovered memories are a wonderful arena. The folks whose memories were recovered are apparently sincere. As to the researchers who, in many cases, helped those memories surface, that's another story -- and as soon as you get into memories recovered under hypnosis you're also getting into an area where the prime mover (the hypnotist) is making money from the operation. Are you aware of the stories of WWII veterans who apparently remembered being in battles which never took place, outside of movies? If not I'll see if I can dig up more info on it. There is evidence that human memory is *extremely* fallible, but we usually exercise a great deal of conscious or semi-conscious judgment and weed out the bogus stuff before it causes trouble. When you get yourself into a situation where you can no longer easily distinguish bogus from real memories simply by using context, beware. (The WWII vets were in exactly such a situation.) If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I immediately conclude it was a dream. However, if, when I awake, I have someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh? And what happens next? Hmmm Before getting too carried away by this reasoning, I suggest you read the books by David Jacobs. Prof. Jacobs is a professor at Temple University who has been interviewing abductees for many years. He was convinced of their claims when many different people from different parts of the US described in detail the various medical instruments used during the examination. These people did not know each other and had no way of getting this information from normal sources. Even now, this detail is not published and is used to test the veracity of the claims. If this information is not published, how can we test the veracity of Prof. Jacobs's claims? If the information were published, the people testing the claims would no longer have this tool available. But suppose you had the information, what good would it do you? How would this help you decide if Jacobs and the other people studying the field were honest? So, according to you, any one who publishes his discoveries and makes some money is suspect. Of course they are, when he's getting the money in exchange for a simple recital of the discoveries, rather than as a result of some consequence of the discoveries. That's why we require reproducibility by third parties. There is no physical evidence for this claim. There is nothing but the researcher's word for it. Before I'd go too far believing it, I'd want *some* kind of additional evidence that it's true. People are venal. People are not always truthful. If these things were not true we could dispense not just with a lot of experimental replications, but with the locks on our front doors. In other words, the large literature based on books cannot be believed unless you personally have tested the claims. No, I never said that. I asked what corroboration existed. If there is only Prof. Jacobs' word for his results, then yes, I am suspicious. If one person alone got a result and nobody else did, and there was no physical evidence of the result, I would not necessarily believe that result. Does that surprise you? I don't require that I, personally, test the result, obviously! But there should be *some* independent corroboration. This might be an overstatement of how you approach the problem, but where do you draw the line? How can someone who has such unique information make it known to you in a way you would accept? The possibility that beings from other planets have visited us and are presently interacting with people, seems to me to be a subject worth exploring in a serious way. I have talked to Jacobs personally and I'm convinced he is honest and just as amazed by what he is discovering as you are. While that's not *exactly* the same as corroboration it's still extremely interesting, and lends a lot of credibility to it; thank you for mentioning it. In his case, he took the effort to make a serious investigation. How does any new idea get accepted unless people are willing to at least give the benefit of doubt to the claim and look deeper? How do we know he is honest and sincere (aside from his own testimony, of course)? As the author of books which are, presumably, founded on the assumed veracity of the abduction stories, *his* testimony is, of course, immediately suspect -- he is making money and acquiring fame as a result of these stories! This question is, of course, a big part of the reason reproducibility is so important in the sciences. This appears, at first glance, to be very similar to one of the bits of testimony regarding the WTC collapse: There were violent explosions in
RE: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
Grok killfile Useless troll, no contribution whatsoever - typical megalomaniac problems. Request removal by list owner. -Original Message- From: grok [mailto:g...@resist.ca] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Finally, as for grok's most recent contributions, predictably he felt compelled to say something that he felt was presumably witty about this extremely contorted subject. I wish grok would post something useful or informative. Continuing to post judgmental opinions pertaining to the weaknesses and fallacies of others and their perceptions as an attempt to show how superior his personal intellect must be, is turning out to be nothing ore than an exercise in mental masturbation. Grok, please do it behind closed doors where we don't have to continue observing the activity. Like Mr. Lawrence, I too, am seriously considering the kill file for the remainder of your life-span within Vortex. I realize I risk fanning the flames here, but I guess it's the risk I'll have to take. - From my POV, fella, when most people like you wax eloquent on politix -- maybe Science too, eh? -- you're just plain embarrassing. You think you've made your slam-dunk point, etc. -- but in fact you haven't even gotten close to Reality. So by all means, put me in your killfile. Life is too short to have to suffer such endless repeated inanity as yours. Not to mention the hypocrisy. Talk about intolerant. Welcome to U.S. society. Police state that it is. - -- grok. - -- *** FULL-SPECTRUM FIGHTBACK! *** * In advance of the Revolution: * Get facts get organized * * Fight the Man! * thru these sites movements * * http://www.infoshop.org/wiki Infoshop OpenWiki * *http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix The Matrix:Anti-Capitalist Wiki * http://risingtide.org.uk Greenwash Guerillas UK * * http://risingtidenorthamerica.orgGreenwash Guerillas * * http://www.ministrywatch.com MinistryWatch * * http://www.levees.org Levees.Org * * http://www.govtrack.us GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress * NEW-WORLD-ORDER-SPEAK: Law Order == Police State GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmu+WIACgkQXo3EtEYbt3HsNwCgjw+dE6da/3OsJlhlle658uRM DggAniRjGIwfxaKzw1Bt8OEDAKgsFcXJ =iCtk -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
Edmund Storms wrote: The UFO phenomenon is investigated by hundreds of people and seen directly by thousands. If you want reproducibility, this is a perfect example. Not so perfect. It is more in the category of a natural science field observation, rather than a phenomenon reproduced in an experiment, and detected with instruments. The latter is far more reliable. Field observations are essential to science. Darwin used them to make biology into a science, rather than glorified stamp collecting. But observations made by untrained people are often flawed. It seems to me that the term reproduce usually means that the researcher plays an active role in bringing about the phenomenon. The researcher makes it happen in some sense. This would not apply to a UFO unless you invent a gadget that brings a UFO to your door, like the one shown in the movie ET. It doesn't have to work every time. Low reproducibility would be convincing, as long as the proof itself is solid, the way it is with cloning, for example. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
Rick Monteverde wrote: Useless troll, no contribution whatsoever - typical megalomaniac problems. Request removal by list owner. I don't see any point to removal by the list owner. That seem too extreme. All modern e-mail systems allow the user to flag and delete individuals. I have already nailed Grok so his postings do not trouble me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
OrionWorks wrote: Some follow-up comments I presume this was from Jed, though I have not received the actual post: If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I immediately conclude it was a dream. However, if, when I awake, I have someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh? And what happens next? Hmmm Actually that was me. I have to say I have found the things you and Ed have been saying to be extremely interesting. As Ed seems to have guessed, I'm kind of a pathological skeptic in this area, as well as certain other areas which come up now and then (and which I try to avoid commenting on) but the statements I've been seeing here have got me thinking seriously about this. Perhaps ... I should look into this a bit farther. After all, I could be wrong... I wonder if any of the seminal works on this are available in Mobipocket format? I'll look around; that's always a painless way to add yet another book to the queue of things I read bits of now and again.
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
While I agree with Jed's point about reproducibility and hard evidence, such hard evidence is claimed to apply to the UFO phenomenon, the existence of which is rejected with the same kind of arguments. Other than personal observation, we have: 1. Photographs. 2. Radar signals. 3. Pieces of space craft. 4. Pieces of strange foreign material found imbedded in the skin of abductees. 5. Changes in the retina of the eye of people who claimed to be near a UFO. Simultaneous sightings and photographs have been made at different locations allowing the actual position in space of the object to be determined. This virtually eliminates fraud. While some of the evidence can be faulty, all the evidence, especially that which is internally consistent, can be ignored on this basis. Nevertheless, I can sympathize with people who do not want to accept this idea. It would require a basic change in religious belief and it would provide one more reason to be afraid. After all, most people are expected to have no contact with the aliens, so why bother with the idea? Ed On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: The UFO phenomenon is investigated by hundreds of people and seen directly by thousands. If you want reproducibility, this is a perfect example. Not so perfect. It is more in the category of a natural science field observation, rather than a phenomenon reproduced in an experiment, and detected with instruments. The latter is far more reliable. Field observations are essential to science. Darwin used them to make biology into a science, rather than glorified stamp collecting. But observations made by untrained people are often flawed. It seems to me that the term reproduce usually means that the researcher plays an active role in bringing about the phenomenon. The researcher makes it happen in some sense. This would not apply to a UFO unless you invent a gadget that brings a UFO to your door, like the one shown in the movie ET. It doesn't have to work every time. Low reproducibility would be convincing, as long as the proof itself is solid, the way it is with cloning, for example. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Rick Monteverde r...@highsurf.com mounted the barricade and roared out: Grok killfile Useless troll, no contribution whatsoever - typical megalomaniac problems. Request removal by list owner. Contribute to what? Ayn Rand and Rush Limbaugh crap is fine to you, huh? And I didn't realize you had to be an experimenter to be on this apparently Reichwing eList. Hope the Depression hits you hard, twit. Do what you will. - -- grok. - -- ** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! *BOYCOTT BOURGEOIS* Get your news analysis * * MASS-MEDIA:* from the Best on the Web * Critical endorsement only Most sites need donations * http://mediamatters.orgMedia Matters for America * * http://www.theorganizer.org The Organizer Newspaper * * http://www.michiganimc.orgBlack Box Radio / Michigan IMC * * http://www.vheadline.com Venezuela Headline News * * http://www.commondreams.orgCommon Dreams * * http://www.redpepper.org.uk Red Pepper * * http://www.lefthook.org Lefthook * * The best way out is always through *** GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmvBbIACgkQXo3EtEYbt3EOJwCcCLPPu8pIFBR4n0OYr6vkym88 7oMAoKQ4FSAqJLeneCLBH1mHYQb1AoIK =hl4V -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mounted the barricade and roared out: I don't see any point to removal by the list owner. That seem too extreme. All modern e-mail systems allow the user to flag and delete individuals. I have already nailed Grok so his postings do not trouble me. - Jed You seem to think that this is a monumental development or something... (Please anyone note I'm only responding to get in the last word in this dumb-ass pettiness.) And of course, you could care less that you people actually started this. But it's the nature of hypocrisy. - -- grok. - -- *** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! *** * BOYCOTT BOURGEOIS MASS-MEDIA* RSS/XML newsfeeds from around * * Use these links in RSS readers * the planet: Who needs CNN/Fox? * Critical endorsement only Most sites need donations * http://rss.newstandardnews.net/liberty_1.xml Civil Lib Security* * http://www.plenglish.com/rss/north/ Prensa North America * * http://www.plenglish.com/rss/europe/ Latina Europa * * http://www.plenglish.com/rss/asia/(Cuba)Asia * * http://www.plenglish.com/rss/africa/Afrika Middle East * * http://www.plenglish.com/rss/arts/ Arts * * http://www.plenglish.com/rss/health/Health Science * ** A properly-chosen slogan cuts thru bullsh!t like a sharp knife ** GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmvBr4ACgkQXo3EtEYbt3GdQwCgw5qj3Ryfzsbb7gOBjzVnkz2x HUAAoNosGPL5bONEgiE0AknWAmq+zG3P =qI2t -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
Mr. Lawrence sez: ... Perhaps ... I should look into this a bit farther. After all, I could be wrong... Oh, n, n n Save yourself, Stephen! You could end up spending the rest of your life in the pursuit of ...the truth! ;-D Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I immediately conclude it was a dream. However, if, when I awake, I have someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh? And what happens next? I once had a dream about an ad on TV promoting The (new-er) Outer Limits. The problem was that because of the plausibility of the station that used to show it showing ads for it's return was so plausible I later believed it, I lost track of the source of the memory and it became reality.
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: OrionWorks wrote: Some follow-up comments I presume this was from Jed, though I have not received the actual post: If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I immediately conclude it was a dream. However, if, when I awake, I have someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh? And what happens next? Hmmm Actually that was me. I have to say I have found the things you and Ed have been saying to be extremely interesting. As Ed seems to have guessed, I'm kind of a pathological skeptic in this area, as well as certain other areas which come up now and then (and which I try to avoid commenting on) but the statements I've been seeing here have got me thinking seriously about this. Perhaps ... I should look into this a bit farther. After all, I could be wrong... I wonder if any of the seminal works on this are available in Mobipocket format? I'll look around; that's always a painless way to add yet another book to the queue of things I read bits of now and again. I suggest you read UFOs Abductions, which is a collection of articles edited by Jacobs. It gives a good overview of modern thinking on the subject. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
Upon reflection, and as I approach the sixth decade of my life on this planet I've found myself, sometimes uncomfortably, reevaluating a few of my personal interests within the UFO community and the Free Energy field. In my own defense I really can say without a doubt that I've experienced numerous adventures over the decades, and some of those adventures have even been fun - incredibly fun! But what did I actually learn (of substance) from all of my adventures? That IS the key question, one that is not easily answered. For example, what have I personally uncovered - have I actually SEEN the Holey Grail, personal proof that there exists a simple free energy device that if ONLY we could get the contraption past the MIBs and out to the public it would solve ALL of our planet's dire energy problems. The real issues with UFO's and Aliens is not really if you believe or not, the real point is that it almost certainly does not matter what you believe. There is no real way to communicate with them, or meet them. Their existence may give you comfort or fear but outside of your head it is practically immaterial at least for the moment. Personally the evidence is sufficient to convince me (though it does not leave me with a very clear picture) but really it still doesn't matter. (at least until we have the ability to visit them) So I agree with you there it is interesting but pragmatically useful only in so much that it teaches you that the universe may be stranger than you imagine or can imagine. I would like to suggest that if one chooses to make as one of their Life's Goals the pursuit one of the above Holy Grails (UFOs, Aliens, Free Energy, etc...), it would be wise to prepare yourself with the possibility that, as you approach death, you may NOT know what is really going on behind the curtain. There is a real temptation to manufacture an explanation of truth, just so one can feel like they accomplished something of value in their all-too-short life span. What does matter is FE and there too I am a believer probably no surprise there but that IS important. And useful discoveries there are possible and real though not always easy, I have had to give up my preconceptions but there is *real* practical substance there. (indeed I believe that one discovery of mine is able to be made rather easily demonstrative and made practical without too much difficulty) On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: OrionWorks wrote: Some follow-up comments I presume this was from Jed, though I have not received the actual post: If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I immediately conclude it was a dream. However, if, when I awake, I have someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh? And what happens next? Hmmm Actually that was me. I have to say I have found the things you and Ed have been saying to be extremely interesting. As Ed seems to have guessed, I'm kind of a pathological skeptic in this area, as well as certain other areas which come up now and then (and which I try to avoid commenting on) but the statements I've been seeing here have got me thinking seriously about this. Perhaps ... I should look into this a bit farther. After all, I could be wrong... I wonder if any of the seminal works on this are available in Mobipocket format? I'll look around; that's always a painless way to add yet another book to the queue of things I read bits of now and again. I suggest you read UFOs Abductions, which is a collection of articles edited by Jacobs. It gives a good overview of modern thinking on the subject. Ed
[Vo]:Energy Prize
http://www.conocophillips.com/Tech/energyprize/index.htm As of February 16, 2009, the ConocoPhillips Energy Prize is open for submissions. About the Prize The ConocoPhillips Energy Prize is a joint initiative of ConocoPhillips and Penn State to recognize new ideas and original, actionable solutions that can help improve the way the nation develops and uses energy. In 2009, the program will award up to $300,000 in cash prizes to further the development of innovative ideas and solutions in three areas: Developing new energy sources, including new ways to develop alternative energy. Improving energy efficiency, such as new methods to significantly reduce the amount of energy consumed in the United States. Combating climate change, including solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By creating an open forum for new energy ideas, we can create a path to a more secure and environmentally conscious energy future. How it Works Participants have until May 1, 2009, to submit their entries. See the complete program rules and entry details. A qualified panel of expert judges will select up to five finalists – individuals or teams – to present their submissions in October. Submissions will be judged on the basis of creativity, scalability, commercial viability and sustainability. Finalists will initially receive $25,000 to help further develop their concepts. The winner will receive an additional $100,000, the first runner-up will receive an additional $50,000, and the second runner-up will receive an additional $25,000. KEY DATES May 1, 2009 – Entries due August 2009 – Finalists announced October 2009 – Awards event Harry
RE: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
I know that of course, and have done the same. But please consider that the forum is archived. That's why I requested removal. There's no effort on the part of such a person to actually participate. They only make frivolous attacks and outrageous statements with no intent other than to cause turmoil. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:25 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Cc: bi...@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed Rick Monteverde wrote: Useless troll, no contribution whatsoever - typical megalomaniac problems. Request removal by list owner. I don't see any point to removal by the list owner. That seem too extreme. All modern e-mail systems allow the user to flag and delete individuals. I have already nailed Grok so his postings do not trouble me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
OrionWorks wrote: Some follow-up comments I presume this was from Jed, though I have not received the actual post: Finally, as for grok's most recent contributions, predictably he felt compelled to say something that he felt was presumably witty about this extremely contorted subject. I wish grok would post something useful or informative. Continuing to post judgmental opinions Grok is a classic example of what happens when you drink way too much of the Oligarchy's cool aide. As for you Steven, you may have noticed that link I posted that starts with the khouse.org , If you want to understand the effects on the human brain of the aforementioned beverage, and the origins of this mind melting concoction, I strongly suggest that you spend an hour listening to Mr. Loeffler. Thomas Malloy, Grog Baiter-in-chief --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
