[Vo]:Gravitational Pair Creation article updated
My Gravitational Pair Creation article has been updated: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GravityPairs.pdf http://tinyurl.com/ybs8bhw The most significant update is the adding of this section: MORE ON MASS/ENERGY VACUUM EXCHANGES If particles are created in quartets then it is easy to see how black holes emit opposed mass charge matter as well as radiation. Each quartet has two pairs of particles, each pair with opposed mass charge. When a pair annihilates, it creates two photons having the same gravitational mass charge as the original pair. However, the photons have no charge to hold them back from exiting the vicinity of the remaining pair. If the photons have the same gravitational charge as the black hole, they are absorbed into the singularity, increasing its gravitational charge. If the photons have opposed gravitational charge, then they ar ejected from the black hole with additional energy added. Suppose a quartet of electron-positron particles is created from the vacuum in the interior of a black hole, one pair having 2 *(+i)*(511 keV/c^2) gravitational charge, the other 2 *(-i)*(511 keV/c^2) gravitational charge. The black hole has mass +i*M. If one pair of the quartet, say the pair having 2 *(+i)*(511 keV/c^2) gravitational charge annihilates, then the two resulting 511 keV photons will be absorbed by the singularity. The remaining pair, if they annihilate, will create a pair of 511 keV photons which will be expelled at high energy from the black hole, otherwise, both particles will be expelled. If the quartet creation event occurs at radius r from the singularity, then the ejected mass/energy in either case will be U= G*m*M/r = G*(2*511 keV/c^2)*M/r If a quartet is created at a radius of 1 m from the singularity of a black hole of mass of 1000 suns then the energy created for each member of the ejected pair is: U= G*m*M/r = G*(511 keV/c^2)*(1000)*(1.9891x10^30 kg)/(1 m) U = 1.20904x10^-7 J = 7.54624 x 10^11 eV The Schwarzschild radius of a black hole is given by: R_s = 2*G*M/c^2 The kinetic energy of a pair particle, ejected at the Schwarzschild radius is: U_s = G*m*M/(R_s) = G*m*M/(2*G*M/c^2) = (1/2)*m*c^2 which for an electron or positron is the kinetic energy: U_s = (1/2)*(511 keV/c^2)*c^2 = (1/2) 511 keV = 255.5 keV For a photon, we add that gravitational potential energy to its original 511 keV energy, to arrive at 766.5 keV as the lowest energy photons to be emitted from within the Schwarzschild radius of any black hole, and as seen at large distance. That is a frequency of 1.8533 x 10^20 Hz, and wavelength of 1.6175 x 10^-12 m. The relation of flux to energy is inverse cubic. That is because the volume from which a given energy is emitted is proportional to the cube of the radius at which the emission occurs, and vacuum fluctuation quantities per unit of time are proportional to the volume of vacuum involved. The largest flux of photons from within any black hole will thus be at about 767 keV. The cutoff energy is limited only by the shortest feasible radius at which quartet fluctuations can occur. The luminosity of a black hole grows in proportion to its volume which means in proportion to its Schwarzschild radius cubed, and thus its mass cubed, i.e.: Luminosity ~ (2*G*M/c^2)^3 ~ M^3 Unfortunately, it is not certain this photon flux will be visible. The photons represent negative energy to the locality of the black hole if the mass of the black hole is of the same sign as the locality it is in. In other words, black holes emit photons and particles which have repelling gravitational characteristics. If an approaching black hole has ordinary gravity to us, we might not be able to see it except for the glow of any inward falling mass. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:DIY electrolytic cell / fuel cell rechargeable battery
See: http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/fuel_cell/fuel_cell.html I had no idea an ultraclean rechargeable battery could be done so simply! Supplies: - One foot of platinum coated nickel wire, or pure platinum wire. Since this is not a common household item, we carry platinum coated nickel wire in our catalog. - A popsickle stick or similar small piece of wood or plastic. - A 9 volt battery clip. - A 9 volt battery. - Some transparent sticky tape. - A glass of water. - A volt meter. H2 and O2 are produced by short electrolysis runs, after which the bubbles clinging to the electrodes are catalytically recombined by the electrode surface material (platinum) to generate electricity :) 1/ The article features nice explanations of how it works, but how does it _really_ work? In particular, in the generating (fuel cell) phase, they don't say what makes the positive hydrogen ions climb uphill from the negative electrode to the positive one, anyone can explain this miracle? ;-) 2/ It seems to me a much higher capacity (and perhaps even practical) rechargeable battery could be made by using a hydrogen absorbing/desorbing material e.g. Pd for the negative electrode, and by making gaseous oxygen available at the anode. Storing the latter is not required of course, O2 from the air is fine... maybe a floating support which would keep a grid or flat serpentine shaped positive electrode at the surface of the water or just below? Michel
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
Taylor J. Smith wrote: Try Bible-dipping and find By their works you shall know them. Are they doing a terrible job? Do you think it is some accident that there has been very little US government funding for cold fusion research since the announcement by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989? Of course not. Everyone knows that this research has been suppressed since 1989. However, the people suppressing it are academic scientists at the APS and the DoE, not secret government agents. The methods they use include things like: Ridicule in the mass media. Publishing books attacking the research. Rejecting papers without peer-review. Reassigning distinguished scientists such as Miles to menial tasks, and trying to fire Bockris. The methods do not include things like Men in Black harassing me. (With the possible exception that someone at Google may be deliberately preventing their search engine from indexing the DIA document.) The dispute is driven by academic politics, not national security concerns. People at the national security and intelligence agencies, other than the DIA, all believe that cold fusion was never replicated and there is no truth to it. The skeptics are all convinced there is nothing to it. It isn't as if they fear it might work after all, so they have redoubled their efforts. The thought that they might be mistaken has never crossed their minds. That much I am sure of, based on many encounters with them. Do you think that all the savage attacks on cold fusion have been motivated by altruism? Or is it possible that some of the sceptics are hired guns? Why would anyone bother to hire people to do this? Any number of people such as Taubes, Huizenga, Close and Park are anxious to do it for free. Actually, Taubes is doing it for money. That's what he told some cold fusion researchers. The Men in Black need not pay him; Random House did. The American Nuclear Society paid Hoffman a large sum to write his book. I think it was $120,000. Why should the Men in Black pay secret hired guns when Random House and the American Nuclear Society are openly paying authors to trash the research? The Scientific American, the New Scientist and Nature trash it for fun, or to sell magazines. Attacking cold fusion has been profitable and enjoyable to the skeptics. It has enhanced their reputations and furthered their careers. Taubes is a certified idiot who does not understand the first thing about electricity, yet he persuaded four Nobel laureates and the head of the AAAS to plug his book, in the back cover blurb. That's a huge favor! A fifth rate hack like him would never score these blurbs by attacking some other research. There is plenty of motivation and opportunity to attack cold fusion. There is no need to postulate someone behind the scenes pulling strings or paying off people such as Taubes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DIY electrolytic cell / fuel cell rechargeable battery
On Nov 23, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: See: http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/fuel_cell/ fuel_cell.html I had no idea an ultraclean rechargeable battery could be done so simply! Supplies: - One foot of platinum coated nickel wire, or pure platinum wire. Since this is not a common household item, we carry platinum coated nickel wire in our catalog. - A popsickle stick or similar small piece of wood or plastic. - A 9 volt battery clip. - A 9 volt battery. - Some transparent sticky tape. - A glass of water. - A volt meter. It seems to me a small amount of lye would help the reaction along. No matter, the intent is apparently not to create a working cell, i.e. generate power, it is merely to generate a voltage. I see they sell the wire for $14.41 plus shipping. A bulk source for wire and mesh might be: http://www.gerarddaniel.com/ H2 and O2 are produced by short electrolysis runs, after which the bubbles clinging to the electrodes are catalytically recombined by the electrode surface material (platinum) to generate electricity :) 1/ The article features nice explanations of how it works, but how does it _really_ work? In particular, in the generating (fuel cell) phase, they don't say what makes the positive hydrogen ions climb uphill from the negative electrode to the positive one, anyone can explain this miracle? ;-) 2/ It seems to me a much higher capacity (and perhaps even practical) rechargeable battery could be made by using a hydrogen absorbing/desorbing material e.g. Pd for the negative electrode, and by making gaseous oxygen available at the anode. Storing the latter is not required of course, O2 from the air is fine... maybe a floating support which would keep a grid or flat serpentine shaped positive electrode at the surface of the water or just below? Michel The explanation looks bogus to me. I think the cell works by reversible reactions, not recombination. Bockris states that conduction in an electrochemical cell in the volume between the interface layers is almost entirely due to concentration gradients. That is because almost all the potential drop is in the interface layers themselves. The E field in the bulk of the cell is very small. I expect the cell actually operates by creating even *more* bubbles, not consuming the gas already there in the form of bubbles. In the course of the brief electrolysis by battery, the volume of water around the anode is filled with H3O+ ions, and the volume around the cathode is filled with OH- ions. This can actually be viewed by use of a dilute electrolyte, plus a pH indicator like phenolphthalein, which is colorless in acidic electrolytes, and pink in basic solutions. To do this first add the (liquid) phenolphthalein to distilled water. To view the creation and migration of OH- ions: before connecting the battery add a little bit of hydrochloric acid to the water, and stir until it just turns pink. When the battery is connected the volume around the cathode (- electrode) will turn clear. HCl can be obtained from some bathroom tile cleaners, which are simply hydrochloric acid, HCl. To view the creation and migration of H3O+ ions: before connecting the battery add a little bit of lye to the water, and stir. When the battery is connected the volume around the anode (+ electrode) will turn pink. It can take a little fooling around with concentrations to get the effect to work quickly and dramatically. The diffusion occurs slowly but at a clearly visible pace. You can demonstrate the reversibility of the reactions by reversing the battery. Note, however, that the diffusion occurs in a somewhat random manner. It doesn't typically blossom out in a perfectly spherical or cylindrical manner (depending on the electrode shape). Reversing the reaction is thus not a perfect process either. I tried some of this decades ago in a feeble attempt to make a display technology. I got a nice red stream of ions coming from a copper anode in a basic solution. In any case I doubt it is actually recombination that causes the potential at the electrodes. It is the presence of the high concentration of ions in solution that makes the residual potential when the battery is disconnected. The H3O+ ions take on electrons through the wire originally releasing hydrogen at the site where the hydrogen was generated, the anode, thus making *more* hydrogen bubbles. Similarly, the OH- ions donate electrons to make H2O2 and *more* O2 at the site where O2 was generated prior. The meter is probably a 10 megohm meter, meaning registering the 2 V potential requires generating 0.2 microamps of current, and thus 0.4 microwatts of power. Not much of a fuel cell! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
On Nov 23, 2009, at 7:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Taylor J. Smith wrote: Try Bible-dipping and find By their works you shall know them. Are they doing a terrible job? Do you think it is some accident that there has been very little US government funding for cold fusion research since the announcement by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989? Of course not. Everyone knows that this research has been suppressed since 1989. However, the people suppressing it are academic scientists at the APS and the DoE, not secret government agents. The methods they use include things like: Ridicule in the mass media. Publishing books attacking the research. Rejecting papers without peer-review. Reassigning distinguished scientists such as Miles to menial tasks, and trying to fire Bockris. . Let's not forget suppression of patents, at least in the US. That kills off industrial development and research investment within the US, at least somewhat. Though probably instigated by pathological skeptic academics, it is still an official governmental agency policy. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:updated my theory for relativistic fractional states
The Hydrino as defined by Dr Randell Mills has a real fractional quantum state where the orbital is claimed to be smaller than the Bohr radius. Mills claim has been rejected by mainstream physics but an alternate theory by Jan Naudts was better received. Naudts proposed that hydrogen atoms inside a Casimir cavity could appear to have fractional states from a relativistic perspective outside the cavity. His paper, On the hydrino state of the relativistic hydrogen atom only solved for the case of a nuclear reaction many orders of magnitude higher than the controversial 137 fractional states claimed by Mills but established a relativistic loophole. Then, In 2007, Ron Bourgoin published Inverse Quantum Mechanics of the Hydrogen Atom that showed the general wave equation predicts exactly the 137 inverse principal quantum states indicated by Mills. In a related paper Bourgoin solved for orbital velocity as C/n where 1 n 137. The equations he used dictate this velocity is only apparent from a relativistic perspective outside the cavity and can only be applied to electrons when in different inertial frames. the orbital velocity remains unchanged locally inside the same inertial frame. The relativistic interpretation is based on Cavity QED by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula which proposes that Casimir cavities break gravitational isotropy. An abrupt equivalence boundary is formed by Casimir plates. The displacement of longer slower wavelength vacuum flux in between Casimir plates can be re-interpreted as a change in inertial frames simply making them appear faster or smaller. ( see animation virtual particle vs. depiction changed wavelength ). This puts a relativistic twist on the QED theory of up conversion of vacuum flux frequency due to Casimir effect. The Mills device and the device proposed by Haisch and Model US Patent 7379286 - Quantum vacuum energy extraction both exploit the ability of Casimir cavities to segregate vacuum fluctuations by wavelength. Even the suppression of spontaneous emission of photons in a waveguide can be interpreted as relativistic by extension. I am proposing that every depletion zone such as a Casimir cavity is balanced by concentration zones. In the case of Casimir cavities this occurs naturally in the lattice of the cavity wall but this segregation of flux by wavelength can also be accomplished in a microwave waveguide. The suppression of spontaneous emission would require atomic interaction with concentration zones to slow time as opposed to depletion” zones to accelerate time in a Casimir cavity. This theory also gives some plausibility to recent claims by Roger Shawyer of an EM drive based on relativity where microwaves are supplied into a sealed horn shaped microwave cavity to produce reactionless thrust. Shawyer maintains SR comes into play because the group velocity at either end of his horn are large fractions of the speed of light creating a tiny differential in radiation pressure which he claims can be multiplied by the Q of his microwave cavity. His microwave source and geometry may amount to a powered segregation of these depletion and concentration zones allowing us to drive vacuum fluctuations as opposed to being driven in a Casimir cavity. I am proposing that Casimir force is actually the engine behind catalytic action. I don't accept that the Casimir geometry of the skeletal catalyst Rayney Nickel used by Black light power is just a coincidence. I believe that all catalytic action is based on Casimir geometry and that the Naudts relativistic solution for the hydrino applies to all catalytic action. Recently a team at Cornell University filled in an important blank by pinpointing unique sites where the reactions take place on SWCNTs the scientists showed that the reactions do not occur all along the tubes, but at the ends of the tubes or at defects along the tubes. I suggest this applies equally to all Casimir cavities in that catalytic action will only occur when the distance between plates change. Many of the diverse unexplained phenomena from excess heat to suppression of spontaneous emission can be interpreted as the relativistic manipulation of vacuum fluctuations. Catalysts cause an increase in the number of reactions per unit time while Casimir cavities are observed to have fewer long wavelength vacuum fluctuations in between their plates, If we assume Naudts proposal regarding a relativistic solution for the Hydrino is correct then both the increased number of reactions in a catalyst and fractional quantum states of hydrogen are actually relativistic and both effects are based on time dilation where the number of reactions and atomic radius are unchanged locally and only appear changed to an observer outside the catalyst-cavity. This solution based on depletion zones of long vacuum fluctuations inside a cavity also suggests suppression of spontaneous emission in a waveguide may be due to
Re: [Vo]:Long interview with Taubes
At 04:28 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: What a creep! See: http://www.thedailybell.com/BellPage.asp?nid=604http://www.thedailybell.com/BellPage.asp?nid=604 Taubes is not too difficult to understand. Ambitious, and cold fusion was intended to be a book that could sell. He jumped to conclusions as to the story he wanted to sell, and pursued it and interpreted the facts in the light of the story. He happens to have done a great job with salt and the whole fat/cholesterol hypothesis, but obviously a lousy one with cold fusion. Looks like he never looked back to review his conclusions, and he clearly had an axe to grind from the beginning, from comments in the story above. Feynman's warning was for other people, not for him
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
Horace Heffner wrote: The methods they use include things like: Ridicule in the mass media. Publishing books attacking the research. . . . . Let's not forget suppression of patents, at least in the US. That kills off industrial development and research investment within the US, at least somewhat. . . . Sure. I have a memo circulated at the Patent Office on June 5, 1989 instructing inspectors to be on the lookout for fusion patent applications, so they can be shunted aside, presumably in order to reject them summarily. It does not actually say they will be rejected, but they all were. There are other methods as well. I did mean that was a comprehensive list. My point is that the suppression has been overt, not covert. The methods are obvious to everyone. The people suppressing cold fusion are not trying to keep their activities quiet. On the contrary, at every opportunity they brag about what they did, in the mass media and at conferences. Though probably instigated by pathological skeptic academics, it is still an official governmental agency policy. It sure is. - Jed
[Vo]:Sun Catalytix Gets $1M More from Polaris, Exclusive License
Sun Catalytix Gets $1M More from Polaris, Exclusive License: http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/648-1.html http://tinyurl.com/yk6vt5x Polaris Venture Partners has pumped an additional $1 million in seed capital into Cambridge, MA-based solar fuel startup Sun Catalytix, bringing its total investment in the MIT spinout to $3 million Metcalfe, a leader of the clean technology practice at Waltham-based Polaris, didn’t seem afraid to tell me that Sun Catalytix doesn’t have a definite plan for how it plans to bring its technology to market. The startup, which now has five employees, has been focused on building systems that can demonstrate how well the technology works with different types of water and with larger volumes of water than Nocera used in his lab at MIT. (Separate experiments have successfully demonstrated the technology using water from the Charles River and Boston Harbor, Metcalfe says, but yet another experiment that tested antifreeze as an alternative to water for using the system in freezing weather didn’t quite work.) Sun Catalytix is developing several different catalysts to perform a water-splitting reaction. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
Steven V Johnson wrote: I'm sure this was stated with tongue firmly implanted in cheek.;-) Not really. I'd bet even money someone is diddling with the Google's search engine. It would be pointless to speculate about who or why. My apologies if the following speculation has already been discussed at length, but isn't it conceivable that Google's search engines focus on the data mining of actual text. Since the DIA report is in an image/graphic format there is no actual text for which Google can directly index. Nope. I converted it to image-over-text Acrobat format. Google has indexed other documents in this format. Plus there are claims on the net that Google OCRs image-only Acrobat files automatically. Also, it is not finding this text on the HTML main screen at LENR-CANR.org. It found this very same text a few days ago, but now it has stopped finding it. This is unprecedented as far as I know. All HTML text at LENR-CANR has always be indexed and made available. Therefore, Google is unintentionally blind to its existence. Honestly, this does not look like a program error to me. I have looking at program errors for nigh on 40 years, and this ain't one. It reminds me a little of the fake MIT data with 7 or more extra data points mysteriously crammed into the first 20 hours. Computers never do that sort of thing. See p. 23 here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMisoperibol.pdf If you set out to deceive people, you should not use inept, transparent lies. They fooled the skeptics but they only insulted my intelligence. It took me 2 seconds to see this was fake. I have never had any doubt about it. It could not be inadvertent or unnoticed. I do not know exactly who did it, or when they did it. (I think Gene told me it was probably Stanley C. Luckhardt, a co-author to the Albagli paper in which this figure appeared.) So I suppose my observation would not constitute legal proof. But I think any sane, unbiased programmer would agree that the data points have been manually changed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Long interview with Taubes
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: What a creep! See: http://www.thedailybell.com/BellPage.asp?nid=604 His article fails the basic pseudoscience test ...and he even MENTIONS this test for detecting pseudoscience! It might seem quite bizarre at first. Don't people typically use the Golden Rule, and apply their criticism also to themselves? But it's not bizarre, it's just the Scoffers' Fallacy: always maintaining double standards, and never realizing that you've done so. Think about it. If you apply stringent critical standards only to those you attack, never to yourself, and you carefully avoid all self-examination, then you'll never discover your own pathology! Very devious. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beatyhttp://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ beaty chem washington edu Research Engineer billbamascicom UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 206-543-6195Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
Re: [Vo]:Long interview with Taubes
Beaty sez: What a creep! See: http://www.thedailybell.com/BellPage.asp?nid=604 His article fails the basic pseudoscience test ...and he even MENTIONS this test for detecting pseudoscience! It might seem quite bizarre at first. Don't people typically use the Golden Rule, and apply their criticism also to themselves? Actually, in my experience the opposite is often the case. But it's not bizarre, it's just the Scoffers' Fallacy: always maintaining double standards, and never realizing that you've done so. Think about it. If you apply stringent critical standards only to those you attack, never to yourself, and you carefully avoid all self-examination, then you'll never discover your own pathology! Very devious. Yeah, but it sure simplifies things. There are books to write! Let's see now... what should I write about now??? It would appear that Taubes knew all too well which side of the toast he should butter. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Long interview with Taubes
William Beaty wrote: It might seem quite bizarre at first. Don't people typically use the Golden Rule, and apply their criticism also to themselves? They do not, although countless guides to morality say they should. Such as: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Along the same lines, scientists are typically supposed to believe peer-reviewed journals rather than mass media hype and Internet rumors, but in real life they fall for the latter. They are no less gullible than other folks, except perhaps in their own narrow speciality. Most of the people who condemn cold fusion are from other fields, and most have read nothing and understand nothing about the subject. If you apply stringent critical standards only to those you attack, never to yourself, and you carefully avoid all self-examination, then you'll never discover your own pathology! Very devious. In Taubes' case it is stupid, not devious. Also, his standards are anything but stringent. He attacks the researchers for hundreds of preposterous made-up reasons, such as his claim on NPR that excess heat is an artifact caused by using power supplies that produce less electricity on Saturday and Sunday but no one notices. (How does that work? Why less electricity? Why wouldn't their instruments catch this? Has no one ever measured excess heat on a weekday?) Huizenga is much smarter that Taubes and somewhat devious. But let's put him aside and think for a moment about Leon Ledermann or Burton Richter. What are they doing on the back of Taubes' book, praising it to the skies? Did they apply stringent critical standards in this case? Of course not! They jumped to a conclusion and never looked back. There are professionals who make grievous errors and leave a swath of chaos behind them. CEOs who bankrupt companies, lead programmers who mastermind abominations such as Windows Vista, and WWI generals who order thousands of infantry to attack machine guns head on. I know nothing about Ledermann and Richter. It is possible they might be like this, but I doubt it. More likely they are brilliant people who normally follow the rules and examine their own beliefs rigorously. BUT, unfortunately, in this instance -- in the case of cold fusion -- they did not. Why? Because it never occurred to them that they should. They never stopped for a second to consider the possibility that cold fusion might be real. They treated the subject the way I would react to someone who tells me he is a Leprechaun in disguise. I would think he is crazy. I would humor him, and not for one second take him seriously. I have met many brilliant scientists who have never -- not even for one second -- stopped to consider the possibility that cold fusion is real. They are a lost cause. There is no point to trying to convince them. Yet by and large they are open minded and fair toward other subjects. It is regrettable that a widespread mental block has developed. This is a social phenomenon, not strictly caused by individual bias. It is similar to race prejudice, sexism, and other formerly widespread biases that even enlightened people were prone to have. Such biases change over time but I doubt their overall number or severity has decreased, and I do not think it possible they will be eliminated in some future Utopia. These people should heed Oliver Cromwell's plea to the Presbyterians of Scotland: I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken. Not to admit right off that you are wrong, but to consider the possibility. Think twice. - Jed
[Vo]:Google search is back to normal
Ah. Google now finds the following search terms on the front page at LENR-CANR.org: defense intelligence agency cold fusion DIA-08-0911-003 But it still does not find the document itself. Coincidence? We report, you decide. By the way, some months ago, all mention of Robert Duncan's lecture at the Missouri Energy Summit mysteriously vanished from the server at U. Missouri, and then reappeared sometime later. That was not a computer glitch. Duncan told me someone got cold feet for a while. He did not think it was a big deal. He did not seem upset. Perhaps he would have got upset if they had not restored the announcement. - Jed
[Vo]:time dilation is already known to accumulate with changes in quantum fluctuations?
I thought I had to make the case for this in Casimir cavities and microwave waveguides but I found the paragraph below in an October 22nd blog Vacuum or zero point http://www.theimagineershome.com/blog/?p=2297 energy and quantum fluctuations that seems to indicate this is already known and understood. Can I take it that time dilation in a Casimir cavity was already a known fact or am I reading too much into this blog? [Snip] From The Imagineer's Chronicles http://www.theimagineershome.com/blog/ according to Einstein's space-time concepts time is dilated or always moves slower in volumes that contain a different energy content than the ones from which they are observed. This means the time dilation associated with quantum fluctuations will be cumulative even though the energy associated with the particle antiparticle pairs is not. [end snip]
[Vo]:Science Magazine References NET Bubble Fusion Story
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/roundup-1123-ke.html
[Vo]:RE: NET Bubble Fusion Story
Errors found in final version, so far: Some of the affidavits suggest that Butt have [had] been subjected to coercion by the senior professors who were conducting the fact-finding. ...has been demonstrated to be out [missing] of it's jurisdiction. -Mark _ From: Steven Krivit [mailto:stev...@newenergytimes.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 5:52 PM http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET33Cdfkj5.shtml#A1 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.78/2521 - Release Date: 11/23/09 07:52:00
RE: [Vo]:RE: NET Bubble Fusion Story
I must be brain-dead... sorry 'bout that post. I obviously meant it to go to Steve... :-/ -Mark _ From: Mark Iverson [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 10:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:RE: NET Bubble Fusion Story Errors found in final version, so far: Some of the affidavits suggest that Butt have [had] been subjected to coercion by the senior professors who were conducting the fact-finding. ...has been demonstrated to be out [missing] of it's jurisdiction. -Mark _ From: Steven Krivit [mailto:stev...@newenergytimes.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 5:52 PM http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET33Cdfkj5.shtml#A1 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.78/2521 - Release Date: 11/23/09 07:52:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.78/2521 - Release Date: 11/23/09 07:52:00
RE: [Vo]:RE: NET Bubble Fusion Story
yeah, I deserved that! :-) I was really trying to show all those OCD Vorts how few grammatical errors there are in your very lengthy, detailed, and fact-filled investigative articles! :-) -Mark _ From: Steven Krivit [mailto:stev...@newenergytimes.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: NET Bubble Fusion Story Butt head? At 10:15 PM 11/23/2009, you wrote: Errors found in final version, so far: Some of the affidavits suggest that Butt have [had] been subjected to coercion by the senior professors who were conducting the fact-finding. ...has been demonstrated to be out [missing] of it's jurisdiction.
