[Vo]:OT:Meteorite Fragments Are Said to Rain Down on Siberia; 400 Injuries Reported
Meteorite Fragments Are Said to Rain Down on Siberia; 400 Injuries Reported http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/world/europe/meteorite-fragments-are-said-to-rain-down-on-siberia.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:OT:Meteorite Fragments Are Said to Rain Down on Siberia; 400 Injuries Reported
some video http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/video-captures-flaming-object-believed-to-be-meteorite/ Harry On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Meteorite Fragments Are Said to Rain Down on Siberia; 400 Injuries Reported http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/world/europe/meteorite-fragments-are-said-to-rain-down-on-siberia.html Harry
[Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
See: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/15/world/europe/russia-meteor-shower/index.html Reads like science fiction. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
This video captures the sound of the explosion and breaking glass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dA2A_df0w This may wake people up and make them realize the need for Spaceguard. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:23:22 -0500 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This video captures the sound of the explosion and breaking glass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dA2A_df0w This may wake people up and make them realize the need for Spaceguard. Why? The last time a big rock hit earth was the one that exploded in uninhabited Siberia, doing no damage, over a hundred years ago. And when was the one before that? It looks to me like the chance of earth being hit by a rock that does real damage is minuscule. Why spend billions, or is it trillions, on 'spaceguard' to prevent something that will almost certainly never happen?
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Almost certainly will never happen??? That's the same attitude the dinosaurs had. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Friday, February 15, 2013, Vorl Bek wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:23:22 -0500 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: This video captures the sound of the explosion and breaking glass: Meteor Hits Russia Hard 2013https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dA2A_df0w This may wake people up and make them realize the need for Spaceguard. Why? The last time a big rock hit earth was the one that exploded in uninhabited Siberia, doing no damage, over a hundred years ago. And when was the one before that? It looks to me like the chance of earth being hit by a rock that does real damage is minuscule. Why spend billions, or is it trillions, on 'spaceguard' to prevent something that will almost certainly never happen?
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Giovanni may be close to correct in his criticism with Dawkins than Sheldrake. With Sheldrake - it is more of a case of being on the cutting edge, and being read out of context. The bleeding edge, as the Brit's like to call it - is a place where many claims are by nature hard to substantiate . and even if correct, the proponent comes out looking bloody. Such is the morphic field which is further complicated by its ties to religion and ID not as competing but more as explanatory.. It is very easy to slip off of this edge, bloody or not - and RS provides his critics a large target. If he is remembered for nothing else then the morphic field paradigm . Sheldrake will be considered as one of the great thinkers in human history, along with this mirror image, or is that his evil twin - Richard Dawkins, the meme-man. The two want to have nothing to do with each other - which is a strange irony. They are a Janus-headed pair, good-cop, bad cop etc who together epitomize the two most important paradigms in modern PsySci (parapsychology combined with philosophy). IMO these two ought to be read together, since a morphic field is of little use in our day-to-day context without memes. Problem is - Sheldrake takes every opportunity to extend his insight to areas of lower-fit - such as with Pets - and many of those suggestions have even lower proof levels; whereas Dawkins takes every opportunity to espouse atheism as its own religion, which ironically is inherently best-explained by memes and holons as a necessary stage of societal development. For instance- even in the context of today's Science news, consider the 'bigger picture' in its PsySci context - by taking the meme of hidden threat from outer space which is embodied in the Tunguska event and recently came into focus with the news of a large meteorite approaching close earth contact - and then add in the surprise News of meteorites in Russia. Is there a religious/spiritual connotation, or is this merely random coincidental occurrence which our TV media wants to sensationalize? Had it been closer to Dec 22, 2012 you can imagine the headlines. Sheldrake might go further out on a limb to say that the worldwide focus on a latent meme will actually increase the probability field of it happening. There is no proof of that, but it is intriguing. Perhaps this meteorite is not the best example of increasing the probability of a random event, but that would not deter RS from saying that it was. Strong Caveat: this is my strained example, and I do not know what, if anything RS has to anything to say about this particular incident. From: Giovanni Santostasi Sheldrake makes a lot of absurd claims that are unsubstantiated. And he doesn't understand how creation from nothing is the most natural thing of all. Giovanni Terry Blanton wrote: Rupert Sheldrake is sometimes annoying to conventional science. Published late last month this talk in two parts is amusing at times; but, always thought provoking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRKvvxku5So
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: And when was the one before that? No one knows when the last one was. It might have hit the Pacific. The population was lower. But you are missing the point. Celestial mechanics are highly predictable. The first thing to determine is how many there are and how soon the next one will hit. It looks to me like the chance of earth being hit by a rock that does real damage is minuscule. Based on what? Have you measured the positions and trajectories of all potentially harmful meteors? 90% of them? Why spend billions, or is it trillions, on spaceguard' to prevent something that will almost certainly never happen? 1. You cannot know the certainty level. That's what we have to find out. 2. It will cost billions but not trillions. 3. It will certainly create new knowledge and benefit science. It is worth it for that reason alone. 4. It might even evolve into commercially useful space technology. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:04:27 -0500 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: And when was the one before that? No one knows when the last one was. It might have hit the Pacific. The population was lower. But you are missing the point. Celestial mechanics are highly predictable. The first thing to determine is how many there are and how soon the next one will hit. We already know that the next one that hits will almost certainly be far in the future. We know that because there are no records, as far as I know, of hits before the Tunguska rock; and lower population or not, there would have been records if the rocks had hit frequently enough for us to be worrying about a 'next' occurrence. Why spend billions, or is it trillions, on spaceguard' to prevent something that will almost certainly never happen? 1. You cannot know the certainty level. That's what we have to find out. See above. 2. It will cost billions but not trillions. 3. It will certainly create new knowledge and benefit science. It is worth it for that reason alone. You don't have to spend billions on something that is not going to happen in order to benefit science; spend it on better batteries, better solar panels, even this 'lenr' stuff.
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Comets are notoriously unpredictable and unstable so I disagree with your celestial mechanics On Friday, February 15, 2013, Vorl Bek wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:04:27 -0500 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com javascript:; wrote: And when was the one before that? No one knows when the last one was. It might have hit the Pacific. The population was lower. But you are missing the point. Celestial mechanics are highly predictable. The first thing to determine is how many there are and how soon the next one will hit. We already know that the next one that hits will almost certainly be far in the future. We know that because there are no records, as far as I know, of hits before the Tunguska rock; and lower population or not, there would have been records if the rocks had hit frequently enough for us to be worrying about a 'next' occurrence. Why spend billions, or is it trillions, on spaceguard' to prevent something that will almost certainly never happen? 1. You cannot know the certainty level. That's what we have to find out. See above. 2. It will cost billions but not trillions. 3. It will certainly create new knowledge and benefit science. It is worth it for that reason alone. You don't have to spend billions on something that is not going to happen in order to benefit science; spend it on better batteries, better solar panels, even this 'lenr' stuff.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
The hydrogen (H) is packed to form a hydride before the heat is applied and it will penetrant only a short way into the bulk of the micro-particle. ***Then how do they achieve a high D/Pd ratio? How many Hydrogen atoms can fit into a Pd box? On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I was thinking about the Rossi type reactor and NiH system, but the principle is the same for the Palladium system. The hydrogen (H) is packed to form a hydride before the heat is applied and it will penetrant only a short way into the bulk of the micro-particle. When the particle is heated, charge separation will occur, the electron will be stripped from some of the H, and that hydrogen will be ionized leaving these protons in the bulk. Then the high negative charge at the surface will draw the protons outward toward the surface. Remember that the proton will be attracted to the positive nucleus as happens in cooper pair production because of the negative permeability coefficient of the particle’s surface charge ( the Shukla-Eliasson effect). Cheers: Axil On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: In the balloon analogy, all the balloons will be drawn to the surface just under the top of the particle’s bulk. ***How is that? In the balloon analogy, the tinker toys represent the palladium lattice and the balloons represent Hydrogen atoms. There hasn't been indication that hydrogen atoms migrate to the surface, has there?
[Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining CF
A major issue keeps being ignored. The effect CAN NOT occur unless a basic change is made in the a material. You can apply all the laser energy or RF frequency you want, but nothing will happen until a critical change occurs, which I call the NAE. Ordinary materials are not active without this NAE being present. Once this change has taken place, application of extra energy in ANY form will increase the magnitude of the effect. This critical change occurs by random processes that are usually initiated by unexpected events occuring as part of the initial treatment. As a result, the resulting new conditions are ignored and the LENR is attributed to later application of RF or other treatments.In fact, once the critical change occurs, LENR will occur spontaneously without any extra effect provide hydros are made available to the location of the NAE. If you want to succeed, you must identify how to make these critical changes by more than random chance. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. I seem to need to remind people that I have studied the effect for 23 years and done thousands of experiments, most of which failed. My opinions are not based on imagination, as is generally the case. I have very good reasons to believe what I do, but most of the evidence is not available because it was not published. I know that suggesting ideas based on imagination is fun, but this is a waste of time unless the ideas are related to what is real. Unfortunately, I see very little reality being used in these discussions. Yes, reality does exist - everybody's opinion is not equal. Ed On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: In a previous post, I explained why I have concluded that what the field currently needs is not more theory, particularly theories proposed widely in advance of the experimental evidence that makes the theory *necessary.* Ed has developed circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence is inadequate to establish for braod consideration something that is as he described, a new idea in physics. Much of Ed's full theory is still circumstantial as to the problematic part, the assertion of a mechanism to explain the draining process. However, Ed does not do this in this paper, so I will set that issue aside, at least at first. At 08:38 PM 2/13/2013, Edmund Storms wrote: I would like to provide some advice to people attempting to explain LENR. This advice comes from someone who has studied the subject for the 23 years, who has an extensive background in chemistry and physics, and who has read almost every paper about the subject. I believe new ideas in physics are required, so my approach is not based on an unwillingness to explore new ideas. We know from centuries of observation and well developed understanding of materials that a nuclear interaction, whether it be fusion or transmutation, is not possible in normal material. Consequently, a novel and rare condition must be created. Ludwik pointed to a possible misinterpetation of the penultimate sentence, and, after some thought, I'll agree with Ludwik that there is a problem, but not exactly the problem he pointed to. What Ed is attempting to assert here is sound, but the expression can be misunderstood in a way that could inhibit certain further explorations of the topic. Further, the logic is missing something. What is necessarily true is that a novel and rare condition must be created. It must not occur spontaneously in normal material. But what is normal material? Highly loaded palladium deuteride is hardly a normal material. And deuterium with muons floating about is hardly normal either. Abnormal materials imply a relative lack of exploration of what happens in them. However, the circumstantial evidence is strong that highly loaded palladium deuteride, per se, doesn't exhibit the effect. Indeed, something else is needed. This conclusion, however, is *not* from centuries of observation. It's actually coming, not from that, but from the accumulated observation of the FP Heat Effect, which is what Ed knows so well. Ludwik picked up on some exceptions, but those are covered by normal, I'd say. What's missing is the evidence about normal palladium deuteride (or reference to it). I'm not sure how to handle this, but I'm hoping that Ed will recognize the issue. Two separate questions require answers. 1. What aspect of a material is able to initiate a spontaneous nuclear reaction? Something about a material must change and this change must involve only a small part of the material, i.e. the NAE. Ed is, as usual, correct, however, this has not logically been established. This commonly happens when we write about something where we have high familiarity, we skip steps. In a personal interaction, the resulting gaps can be filled through question and response. It's more difficult to do it
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
I have always been interested in how people describe a Creator. Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting events. At which level are you describing the Creator and what use is the concept to anyone? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Chris Zell wrote: Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
I will reply later in more details, but besides a lot of unfalsifiable claims Sheldrake says a lot of false stuff, like most of what he said about memory and the brain function. There is ton and ton of evidence to show that indeed mind is in the brain and nowhere else. Giovanni On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Giovanni may be close to correct in his criticism with Dawkins than Sheldrake. ** ** With Sheldrake – it is more of a case of being on the cutting edge, and being read out of context. The bleeding edge, as the Brit’s like to call it - is a place where many claims are by nature hard to substantiate … and even if correct, the proponent comes out looking bloody. Such is the “morphic field” which is further complicated by its ties to religion and ID not as competing but more as explanatory.. ** ** It is very easy to slip off of this edge, bloody or not - and RS provides his critics a large target. If he is remembered for nothing else then the morphic field paradigm … Sheldrake will be considered as one of the great thinkers in human history, along with this mirror image, or is that his evil twin – Richard Dawkins, the meme-man. ** ** The two want to have nothing to do with each other – which is a strange irony. They are a Janus-headed pair, good-cop, bad cop etc who together epitomize the two most important paradigms in modern PsySci (parapsychology combined with philosophy). IMO these two ought to be read together, since a morphic field is of little use in our day-to-day context without memes. Problem is - Sheldrake takes every opportunity to extend his insight to areas of lower-fit – such as with Pets - and many of those suggestions have even lower proof levels; whereas Dawkins takes every opportunity to espouse atheism as its own religion, which ironically is inherently best-explained by memes and holons as a necessary stage of societal development. ** ** For instance- even in the context of today’s Science news, consider the ‘bigger picture’ in its PsySci context – by taking the meme of “hidden threat from outer space” which is embodied in the Tunguska event and recently came into focus with the news of a large meteorite approaching close earth contact - and then add in the surprise News of meteorites in Russia. Is there a religious/spiritual connotation, or is this merely random coincidental occurrence which our TV media wants to sensationalize? Had it been closer to Dec 22, 2012 you can imagine the headlines.** * * Sheldrake might go further out on a limb to say that the worldwide focus on a latent meme will actually increase the probability field of it happening. There is no proof of that, but it is intriguing. Perhaps this meteorite is not the best example of “increasing the probability of a random event”, but that would not deter RS from saying that it was. ** ** Strong Caveat: this is my strained example, and I do not know what, if anything RS has to anything to say about this particular incident. ** ** *From:* Giovanni Santostasi ** ** Sheldrake makes a lot of absurd claims that are unsubstantiated. And he doesn't understand how creation from nothing is the most natural thing of all. Giovanni ** ** ** ** Terry Blanton wrote: ** ** Rupert Sheldrake is sometimes annoying to conventional science. Published late last month this talk in two parts is amusing at times; but, always thought provoking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRKvvxku5So ** **
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
The laws of physics derive from a slight alteration of the perfect symmetry of nothing. Symmetry is the most fundamental principle of natural law. No much space for patchwork universe there. Giovanni On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I have always been interested in how people describe a Creator. Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting events. At which level are you describing the Creator and what use is the concept to anyone? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Chris Zell wrote: Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
I agree, but as has been noted many times before, Nature always tests all possibilities until the one that works is found. Presumably, our universe is here because it worked. We humans are here because we survived the tests used by Nature to determine what works. Presumably, many life-forms having greater awareness exist throughout the universe. Any life-form that fails the test is eliminated, both on a personal level as well as on a planet-sized level without any consideration by a Creator. That's my opinion. On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: The laws of physics derive from a slight alteration of the perfect symmetry of nothing. Symmetry is the most fundamental principle of natural law. No much space for patchwork universe there. Giovanni On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I have always been interested in how people describe a Creator. Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting events. At which level are you describing the Creator and what use is the concept to anyone? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Chris Zell wrote: Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
In other words your God is an experimentalist., or what you call Nature. Harry On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I agree, but as has been noted many times before, Nature always tests all possibilities until the one that works is found. Presumably, our universe is here because it worked. We humans are here because we survived the tests used by Nature to determine what works. Presumably, many life-forms having greater awareness exist throughout the universe. Any life-form that fails the test is eliminated, both on a personal level as well as on a planet-sized level without any consideration by a Creator. That's my opinion. On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: The laws of physics derive from a slight alteration of the perfect symmetry of nothing. Symmetry is the most fundamental principle of natural law. No much space for patchwork universe there. Giovanni On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I have always been interested in how people describe a Creator. Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting events. At which level are you describing the Creator and what use is the concept to anyone? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Chris Zell wrote: Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries.
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
A middle ground - based on expanding Sheldrake's thinking is that group mind (collective consciousness, or even a collective intelligence combined with a directed unconsciousness evolved from morphic fields) fits the definition of divinity in a defensible, scientific way. Of course, this kind of sensibility and rationality please no one - the evangelicals hate it more so than the atheists... which probably means it is as correct as human mentality can imagine. From: Edmund Storms I have always been interested in how people describe a Creator. Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting events. At which level are you describing the Creator and what use is the concept to anyone? Chris Zell wrote: Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Yes, but more exactly a trial-and-errorist. On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:47 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: In other words your God is an experimentalist., or what you call Nature. Harry On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I agree, but as has been noted many times before, Nature always tests all possibilities until the one that works is found. Presumably, our universe is here because it worked. We humans are here because we survived the tests used by Nature to determine what works. Presumably, many life- forms having greater awareness exist throughout the universe. Any life-form that fails the test is eliminated, both on a personal level as well as on a planet-sized level without any consideration by a Creator. That's my opinion. On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: The laws of physics derive from a slight alteration of the perfect symmetry of nothing. Symmetry is the most fundamental principle of natural law. No much space for patchwork universe there. Giovanni On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I have always been interested in how people describe a Creator. Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting events. At which level are you describing the Creator and what use is the concept to anyone? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Chris Zell wrote: Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
But whose mind? Which group? I believe minds do communicate in unconventional ways, but this is a natural aspect of how nature works. Minds of birds and fish clearly communicate directly. This behavior can be seen in other animals as well. Even certain humans have this ability to a small extent. However, this ability is a natural part of how the universe is designed and is nothing special. The big question is, In whose mind is the universe itself? What size is the collective mind that communicates information between all intelligent lif-forms throughout the universe? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Jones Beene wrote: A middle ground - based on expanding Sheldrake's thinking is that group mind (collective consciousness, or even a collective intelligence combined with a directed unconsciousness evolved from morphic fields) fits the definition of divinity in a defensible, scientific way. Of course, this kind of sensibility and rationality please no one - the evangelicals hate it more so than the atheists... which probably means it is as correct as human mentality can imagine. From: Edmund Storms I have always been interested in how people describe a Creator. Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting events. At which level are you describing the Creator and what use is the concept to anyone? Chris Zell wrote: Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries. winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining CF
A major issue keeps being ignored. The effect CAN NOT occur unless a basic change is made in the material. You can apply all the laser energy or RF frequency you want, but nothing will happen until a critical change occurs, which I call the NAE. It all depends on how you consider the material. Matter can be considered as either a particle or a wave. If we look on matter as a wave, then light, heat, and RF can modify matter. The field of Nanophotonics is a very new field in physics and within just the last year is producing some amazing transformations of matter by creating all sorts of interesting and useful quasiparticles. We can now turn electrons into bosons by shining a laser on them or we can now convert heat into electrons, infrared into x-rays of gamma rays into heat. The interaction of EMF with these nanoscale features leads to confinement of the electromagnetic field to the surface or tip of the nanostructure resulting in a region referred to as the optical near field. This effect is to some extent analogous to a lightning rod, where the field concentrates at the tip. In this region, the field may need to adjust to the topography of the nanostructure which is subject to the boundary conditions of Maxwell's equations. This means that the electromagnetic field will be dependent on the size and shape of the nanostructure that the EMF is interacting with. This is where the NAE is born. For example, we can change the color of gold or carbon to any color of the rainbow by adjusting the size and shape of its nanoparticle. Novel optical properties of materials can result from their extremely small size. A typical example of this type of effect is the color change associated with colloidal gold. In contrast to bulk gold, known for its yellow color, gold particles of 10 to 100 nm in size exhibit a rich red color. I am now of the opinion that manipulation of matter on the nano-scale, where it is properly considered as a wave, is where the mysteries of LENR can be found. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: A major issue keeps being ignored. The effect CAN NOT occur unless a basic change is made in the a material. You can apply all the laser energy or RF frequency you want, but nothing will happen until a critical change occurs, which I call the NAE. Ordinary materials are not active without this NAE being present. Once this change has taken place, application of extra energy in ANY form will increase the magnitude of the effect. This critical change occurs by random processes that are usually initiated by unexpected events occuring as part of the initial treatment. As a result, the resulting new conditions are ignored and the LENR is attributed to later application of RF or other treatments.In fact, once the critical change occurs, LENR will occur spontaneously without any extra effect provide hydros are made available to the location of the NAE. If you want to succeed, you must identify how to make these critical changes by more than random chance. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. I seem to need to remind people that I have studied the effect for 23 years and done thousands of experiments, most of which failed. My opinions are not based on imagination, as is generally the case. I have very good reasons to believe what I do, but most of the evidence is not available because it was not published. I know that suggesting ideas based on imagination is fun, but this is a waste of time unless the ideas are related to what is real. Unfortunately, I see very little reality being used in these discussions. Yes, reality does exist - everybody's opinion is not equal. Ed On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: In a previous post, I explained why I have concluded that what the field currently needs is not more theory, particularly theories proposed widely in advance of the experimental evidence that makes the theory *necessary.* Ed has developed circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence is inadequate to establish for braod consideration something that is as he described, a new idea in physics. Much of Ed's full theory is still circumstantial as to the problematic part, the assertion of a mechanism to explain the draining process. However, Ed does not do this in this paper, so I will set that issue aside, at least at first. At 08:38 PM 2/13/2013, Edmund Storms wrote: I would like to provide some advice to people attempting to explain LENR. This advice comes from someone who has studied the subject for the 23 years, who has an extensive background in chemistry and physics, and who has read almost every paper about the subject. I believe new ideas in physics are required, so my approach is not based on an unwillingness to explore new ideas. We know from centuries of observation and well developed understanding of materials that a nuclear interaction, whether
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, but more exactly a trial-and-errorist. Which is hardly god-like ... it seems to me that the Catholic god (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent) is what a true god should be ... the alpha and omega ... all other flavors of god are, at best, demi-gods. So, if god is an experimentalist that would imply that he doesn't know the outcome of his experiments and therefore he/she is not a true god. [m]
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
That's the point. To make the concept of Divinity acceptable to science, it must have the aspect of appearing as nothing special in the sense that it is natural, evolved, cumulative, all-encompassing, voluntary and timeless. That does not mean that to any one individual, the concept cannot be perceived to be what Gibbs calls the Catholic god (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent etc.) IOW - Divinity ... like lightspeed... is relative to the observer -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms But whose mind? Which group? I believe minds do communicate in unconventional ways, but this is a natural aspect of how nature works. Minds of birds and fish clearly communicate directly. This behavior can be seen in other animals as well. Even certain humans have this ability to a small extent. However, this ability is a natural part of how the universe is designed and is nothing special. The big question is, In whose mind is the universe itself? What size is the collective mind that communicates information between all intelligent lif-forms throughout the universe? Ed attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Comets are notoriously unpredictable and unstable so I disagree with your celestial mechanics I was kidding partly. However, comets change more than meteors because they vent gas. They are active. If things were so predictable we could just measure them and have done with it. Small meteors can only be predicted out about 100 years. Anyway, that is why we need to look for them and measure the trajectories carefully. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
First, I used to be an ardent Creationist but realized that nature does not allow for such a notion. There's far too much that exists that's just horrible - and ( seemingly) Really Well Designed - such as Guinea worms, Crocodiles, Tyrannosaurus Rex and more. A personal Creator would have to be a psychopath and would resemble something out of a H.P. Lovecraft novel. However, that still allows for a transcendent impersonal God who operates as a system - and might even answer prayers. I think the human race has a perceptual block in that they use the brain as an analogy for a God as Designer instead of seeing Him as being more like the body - a marvelous system of systems that needs no immediate conscious direction to grow or exist ( I still breathe and my heart still beats even though I don't think about it) As for symmetry and more, I have one thing to say: Folks, at some level, the universe just is. Yep, that's right - reductionism fails, ends, no mas. Victor Mansfield realized this ( Buddhist physicist) - so have some atheist scientists who critique entanglement results ( Victor Stenger) Which leaves me wondering, what in the macro world might just be? Ghosts? ESP? Bigfoot? I don't know but I do get a laugh whenever some Great Authority pontificates about what can or can't exist according to some neat, elegant theory of reality. Ultimately, it all, 'just is'. That's why I had no trouble believing that Cold Fusion could be real. Plasmons and such are nice but , in the end, stuff 'just is'.
[Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview with Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley Research Center. Zawodny discusses research on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions at NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of nuclear powerIF theory is validated by experimental results. http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/
[Vo]:Tesla adds new meaning to Supercharging
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/15/autos/tesla-model-s/ There are only a half-dozen of these charging stations in the country, and the closest one for me is almost two hours away... but damn ... these vehicles are lust-worthy. Even if LENR becomes commercial, or should I say By the time LENR becomes commercial this strategy of Tesla for rapid recharging stations in many markets - is probably going to be established as the way of the future - (despite the growing pains) First, we need to get GM, Toyota and Ford to jump into the act - to put up these charging stations everywhere, not to mention Exxon, Chevron 7-11 etc. at least as combined with their other offerings. Never mind the supply will exceed the demand for several years. When we have an affordable car that can run on batteries with only a moderate range, but give the customer the assurance of easy and rapid recharging - that will be a tipping point. Later, we can put the eventual LENR device into the Supercharging station itself, or into the home (garage). Makes far less sense to put such a device into the car itself, at least at first. The bettery - which is the long-awaited better-battery (3:1 reduction in cost/performance over lithium) will probably materialize before LENR becomes commercial ... despite the huge disappointment of EEStor and a few others. There is a ton of high value work going-on batteries which is under the radar, so to speak. There are even a few EEStor knock-offs using barium titanate. With the proper inducements and stimuli for promoting this - DoE could have the Supercharging networks available much sooner than in a free market. Perhaps even solar-powered. Of course, unless Big Oil gets a piece of the pie - they will fight that kind of forward thinking as being more liberal socialism ... so why not let them get in on the action? A thought that comes to mind (of an apt inducement for Big Oil) is to limit the oil depletion tax giveaway to the number of recharging facilities which are operational. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: However, that still allows for a transcendent impersonal God who operates as a system - and might even answer prayers. A true god would not answer prayers as he would have created the conditions that required your prayers and would have determined the outcome presumably prior to genesis (when the universe was on the drawing board, so to speak) so your prayers would make no difference other than to be what he wanted you to do. If there is, indeed, a true god then we're nothing but automatons or puppets going about our pre-ordained existences and everything is as it was intended to be and can never be otherwise. If I believed that I would have to shoot myself. And that would have preordained anyway. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Obvious question: Was the vector correlated with that of the earth approaching asteroid? On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/15/world/europe/russia-meteor-shower/index.html Reads like science fiction. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Here you and I agree. I just is!! But what is it? The universe is not designed for us. We are temporary inhabants just like the dinosaurs and millions of other life-forms. What is the universe designed to do? I believe it is designed to acquire awareness. The awareness starts in the various life-forms throughout the universe and it eventually is accumulated elsewhere. Identifying this elsewhere is the big problem. As for free will, I believe nothing stops us from doing anything we want except our own mental limitations. It does not matter to the system because we will either pass the test and continue to exist or fail and die. The system does not care. The system is designed to create by trial and error the most efficient product. We humans are not the best example of this process nor is it clear we will pass the coming tests. We will only pass the tests if we play by the required rules. To do this, we must understand the rules. Unfortunately, this understanding is severely lacking. Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Chris Zell wrote: First, I used to be an ardent Creationist but realized that nature does not allow for such a notion. There's far too much that exists that's just horrible - and ( seemingly) Really Well Designed - such as Guinea worms, Crocodiles, Tyrannosaurus Rex and more. A personal Creator would have to be a psychopath and would resemble something out of a H.P. Lovecraft novel. However, that still allows for a transcendent impersonal God who operates as a system - and might even answer prayers. I think the human race has a perceptual block in that they use the brain as an analogy for a God as Designer instead of seeing Him as being more like the body - a marvelous system of systems that needs no immediate conscious direction to grow or exist ( I still breathe and my heart still beats even though I don't think about it) As for symmetry and more, I have one thing to say: Folks, at some level, the universe just is. Yep, that's right - reductionism fails, ends, no mas. Victor Mansfield realized this ( Buddhist physicist) - so have some atheist scientists who critique entanglement results ( Victor Stenger) Which leaves me wondering, what in the macro world might just be? Ghosts? ESP? Bigfoot? I don't know but I do get a laugh whenever some Great Authority pontificates about what can or can't exist according to some neat, elegant theory of reality. Ultimately, it all, 'just is'. That's why I had no trouble believing that Cold Fusion could be real. Plasmons and such are nice but , in the end, stuff 'just is'.
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Ah, see just is in previous section. Einstein was obsessed with determinism. Didn't like that Heisenberg Principle. I used to feel the same way but realized that you just run out of causes for stuff. Things become emergent in our macro world because it's difficult to neatly explain all the stuff at the top with only a few basic things at the bottom. Very liberating.
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Here is the latest. Apparently, a chunk of the meteor fell into a lake. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/02/15/russian_meteorite_fragment_may_have_fallen_in_frozen_lake.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
If you look at that chip that Zawodny held up for our examination, you will see 48 different nano-photonic configurations of the test material, probably carbon nanotubes. Nasa is on the right track. They need to switch the nanotubes to nickel nanowire completely covering uniform micro-particles. Because resonant temperature is so important, heat the micro-particles to the black body resonance temperature that corresponds to the uniform diameter of the micro-particles. To get an improved reaction rate, Nasa should boost the free electron surface electron density by either using thermionic material like potassium or alternatively, like DGT, use spark discharge. The best approach is to use both of these surface electron boosting techniques on the micro-particles. If we follow the recipe closely, LENR can be so simple. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview with Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley Research Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” at NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of nuclear power—IF theory is validated by experimental results. http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Yes ! I'm also tempted by the thought in The Physics of Immortality in which God appears in the future and works backward thru time to fix things. This would make a person an atheist ( but only for now) until universal awareness (God) emerges. He quoted the revelation to Moses as ( ehyeh asher ehyeh) I will prove to be or I will be what I will be - a future God. As to predestination, I can only cite Zeno, as the master beating his slave for stealing. the slave said but I was destined to steal. Zeno replied and I was destined to beat you ( rimshot)
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: There is ton and ton of evidence to show that indeed mind is in the brain and nowhere else. How does the fully partitioned mind collapse the wave function outside?
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
I added the following comment: The experimental approach and the intention for applying LENR in space should be be admired. The problem is with the theory being explored. This theory is flawed in so many ways, all of which have been well explained in published papers, that I’m amazed that NASA would seriously explore the idea. Many other explanations have much better consistency with observed behavior and with basic physics. Why is a universally rejected theory being used by NASA is my question? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview with Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley Research Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” at NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of nuclear power—IF theory is validated by experimental results. http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Here is a video showing the explosion, windows breaking and the broken windows later on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6uOzFo2MQg The effect of the explosion in an office (no sound): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6uOzFo2MQg MAJOR damage to a building shown in photos on this page: http://zyalt.livejournal.com/722930.html Scroll down for the photos 2 and 3. Not sure if this is related. You have to hand it to Wikipedia; they have comprehensive coverage already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Russian_meteor_event They say the object was 15 m in size, ~10 tons. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:22 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Obvious question: Was the vector correlated with that of the earth approaching asteroid? No, they were almost perpendicular. Pure and delightful coincidence.
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
I consider it wonderful that these guys are doing this research. How are they able to be so public and out of reach of the major detractors? Can we expect the repercussions to come up soon? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 2:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny If you look at that chip that Zawodny held up for our examination, you will see 48 different nano-photonic configurations of the test material, probably carbon nanotubes. Nasa is on the right track. They need to switch the nanotubes to nickel nanowire completely covering uniform micro-particles. Because resonant temperature is so important, heat the micro-particles to the black body resonance temperature that corresponds to the uniform diameter of the micro-particles. To get an improved reaction rate, Nasa should boost the free electron surface electron density by either using thermionic material like potassium or alternatively, like DGT, use spark discharge. The best approach is to use both of these surface electron boosting techniques on the micro-particles. If we follow the recipe closely, LENR can be so simple. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview with Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley Research Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” at NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of nuclear power—IF theory is validated by experimental results. http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
I am not sure anyone has a good answer to your question Ed. I do not care what theory they are operating upon at the moment as long as they keep plugging away. One day we might be able to set them straight, but that will not happen if they give up too soon. Encourage them in any way that you can for now. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny I added the following comment: The experimental approach and the intention for applying LENR in space should be be admired. The problem is with the theory being explored. This theory is flawed in so many ways, all of which have been well explained in published papers, that I’m amazed that NASA would seriously explore the idea. Many other explanations have much better consistency with observed behavior and with basic physics. Why is a universally rejected theory being used by NASA is my question? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview with Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley Research Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” at NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of nuclear power—IF theory is validated by experimental results. http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
The problem Dave is that the theory determines the results. The design of the apparatus and the expected behavior are all determined by the theory. If NASA fails, this will be a black mark. Failure is not treated the same way in LENR as it is in normal science. Beside, anyone who has studied the theory must wonder about the competence at NASA. Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 1:21 PM, David Roberson wrote: I am not sure anyone has a good answer to your question Ed. I do not care what theory they are operating upon at the moment as long as they keep plugging away. One day we might be able to set them straight, but that will not happen if they give up too soon. Encourage them in any way that you can for now. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny I added the following comment: The experimental approach and the intention for applying LENR in space should be be admired. The problem is with the theory being explored. This theory is flawed in so many ways, all of which have been well explained in published papers, that I’m amazed that NASA would seriously explore the idea. Many other explanations have much better consistency with observed behavior and with basic physics. Why is a universally rejected theory being used by NASA is my question? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview with Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley Research Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” at NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of nuclear power—IF theory is validated by experimental results. http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
At 12:14 PM 2/15/2013, you wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:22 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Obvious question: Was the vector correlated with that of the earth approaching asteroid? No, they were almost perpendicular. Pure and delightful coincidence. That was my first thought. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/meteorite-injures-more-than-900-in- russian-city/2013/02/15/ff67c624-7770-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html?wprss=r ss_europe Sergei Zakharov, regional branch chairman of the Russian Geographic Society, told the Interfax news agency that three explosions occurred as the meteor blew apart. Judging by my observations, the fireball was flying from southeast to northwest, he said. A bright flare of more than 2,500 degrees [Celsius] happened before the three explosions. The first explosion was the strongest. - - - - - My quick take (partly copied from elsewhere) Consider a small object (in this case the meteor) orbiting a large object (asteroid), as seen from above the orbit. If the orbital velocity of the meteor round the asteroid is small, then the trajectory of the meteor will look like a sine wave around the trajectory of the asteroid. (Similarly, the trajectory of the moon looks like a sine wave superimposed on the orbit of the earth). In this case the trajectory of the meteor will be substantially the same as the asteroid, so it cannot possibly hit the northern hemisphere of Earth. If the orbital velocity of the meteor were very large compared to the asteroid's trajectory then it would trace a cycloid, and COULD hit the earth north-to-south. But orbital velocities of the meteor round the asteroid are most likely to be in the first category. - - - - Then the southeast to northwest trajectory made me think it was feasible again. But unless it had a cycloidal path it couldn't have grazed the atmosphere in the Northern hemisphere. A lead-time of 16 hours, and an offset of 17,000 miles would make it very unlikely. I'm sure somebody will come up with an orbital calculation/simulation -- I don't have time to try it today.
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: It looks to me like the chance of earth being hit by a rock that does real damage is minuscule. As I mentioned, that idea has been brought into question because the number of serious asteroid strikes on earth is now thought to be much higher than people used to think. I mentioned the ocean. In previous estimates of the historical record of earth impacts, people did not take into account of the fact that 70% of them hit the oceans instead of the land. When they started looking in the oceans they found many previously unaccounted-for craters, and based on this, they estimated that meteor strikes occur more often than previously realized. They determined that the most recent catastrophic strike was in the year 536 AD, in the ocean north of Australia. This caused global-wide disruption. See this 2008 article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/06/the-sky-is-falling/306807/?single_page=true - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
Nasa like so many others suffers from theory fixation. They fail to look at other systems for behavior that closely resembles what happens in LENR to gain insight into the physical mechanisms that underpin both systems. It is actually these universal mechanisms that are important and not the theories that they inspire. Nasa needs to fill their conceptual tool bag with these mechanisms to properly apply them to the LENR puzzle. Certain preconceptions block advancement of a valid theory. In the case of Nasa, it is the need to generate neutrons to allow penetration of the nucleus. There are other ways that the coulomb barrier can be overcome. Another concept that hangs people up is the conditions under which a condensate can form. When shown an experiment that shows how a condensate can be form at extreme temperatures, this concept should be included in the LENR tool kit. It is not a question of imagination, but applying experimentally demonstrated concepts in appropriate ways to describe similar behavior that also appears in LENR. This is what you must mean by plugging away; constantly looking at your conceptual toolkit to see the best ways and the appropriate order in which they can be applied to solve the LENR puzzle. We all need to be supple of theory in this process of explanation. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am not sure anyone has a good answer to your question Ed. I do not care what theory they are operating upon at the moment as long as they keep plugging away. One day we might be able to set them straight, but that will not happen if they give up too soon. Encourage them in any way that you can for now. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny I added the following comment: The experimental approach and the intention for applying LENR in space should be be admired. The problem is with the theory being explored. This theory is flawed in so many ways, all of which have been well explained in published papers, that I’m amazed that NASA would seriously explore the idea. Many other explanations have much better consistency with observed behavior and with basic physics. Why is a universally rejected theory being used by NASA is my question? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview with Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley Research Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” at NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of nuclear power—IF theory is validated by experimental results. http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Consider a small object (in this case the meteor) orbiting a large object (asteroid), as seen from above the orbit. NASA is now saying that their trajectories were closer to 180 degrees apart. But, we could calculate the possibility. Has anyone checked to see what the gravitational constant is today? eg
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 12:14 PM 2/15/2013, you wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:22 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Obvious question: Was the vector correlated with that of the earth approaching asteroid? No, they were almost perpendicular. Pure and delightful coincidence. That was my first thought. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/meteorite-injures-more-than-900-in- russian-city/2013/02/15/ff67c624-7770-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html?wprss=r ss_europe Sergei Zakharov, regional branch chairman of the Russian Geographic Society, told the Interfax news agency that three explosions occurred as the meteor blew apart. “Judging by my observations, the fireball was flying from southeast to northwest,” he said. “A bright flare of more than 2,500 degrees [Celsius] happened before the three explosions. The first explosion was the strongest.” - - - - - My quick take (partly copied from elsewhere) Consider a small object (in this case the meteor) orbiting a large object (asteroid), as seen from above the orbit. If the orbital velocity of the meteor round the asteroid is small, then the trajectory of the meteor will look like a sine wave around the trajectory of the asteroid. (Similarly, the trajectory of the moon looks like a sine wave superimposed on the orbit of the earth). I thought so too 25 years ago, when my instructor in an introductory course on astronomy asked us what we thought the trajectory of the moon is around the sun. It is actually a curve which is always convex... http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/convex.html It is not a circle, but is close to a 12-gon with rounded corners. It is locally convex in the sense that it has no loops and the curvature never changes sign. harry
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
The Moon makes about 13 revolutions in the course of a year. revolutions around what? On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 12:14 PM 2/15/2013, you wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:22 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Obvious question: Was the vector correlated with that of the earth approaching asteroid? No, they were almost perpendicular. Pure and delightful coincidence. That was my first thought. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/meteorite-injures-more-than-900-in- russian-city/2013/02/15/ff67c624-7770-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html?wprss=r ss_europe Sergei Zakharov, regional branch chairman of the Russian Geographic Society, told the Interfax news agency that three explosions occurred as the meteor blew apart. “Judging by my observations, the fireball was flying from southeast to northwest,” he said. “A bright flare of more than 2,500 degrees [Celsius] happened before the three explosions. The first explosion was the strongest.” - - - - - My quick take (partly copied from elsewhere) Consider a small object (in this case the meteor) orbiting a large object (asteroid), as seen from above the orbit. If the orbital velocity of the meteor round the asteroid is small, then the trajectory of the meteor will look like a sine wave around the trajectory of the asteroid. (Similarly, the trajectory of the moon looks like a sine wave superimposed on the orbit of the earth). I thought so too 25 years ago, when my instructor in an introductory course on astronomy asked us what we thought the trajectory of the moon is around the sun. It is actually a curve which is always convex... http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/convex.html It is not a circle, but is close to a 12-gon with rounded corners. It is locally convex in the sense that it has no loops and the curvature never changes sign. harry
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
ignore me, i just realized the error in my mental model. On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Alexander Hollins alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote: The Moon makes about 13 revolutions in the course of a year. revolutions around what? On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 12:14 PM 2/15/2013, you wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:22 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Obvious question: Was the vector correlated with that of the earth approaching asteroid? No, they were almost perpendicular. Pure and delightful coincidence. That was my first thought. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/meteorite-injures-more-than-900-in- russian-city/2013/02/15/ff67c624-7770-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html?wprss=r ss_europe Sergei Zakharov, regional branch chairman of the Russian Geographic Society, told the Interfax news agency that three explosions occurred as the meteor blew apart. “Judging by my observations, the fireball was flying from southeast to northwest,” he said. “A bright flare of more than 2,500 degrees [Celsius] happened before the three explosions. The first explosion was the strongest.” - - - - - My quick take (partly copied from elsewhere) Consider a small object (in this case the meteor) orbiting a large object (asteroid), as seen from above the orbit. If the orbital velocity of the meteor round the asteroid is small, then the trajectory of the meteor will look like a sine wave around the trajectory of the asteroid. (Similarly, the trajectory of the moon looks like a sine wave superimposed on the orbit of the earth). I thought so too 25 years ago, when my instructor in an introductory course on astronomy asked us what we thought the trajectory of the moon is around the sun. It is actually a curve which is always convex... http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/convex.html It is not a circle, but is close to a 12-gon with rounded corners. It is locally convex in the sense that it has no loops and the curvature never changes sign. harry
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:52:41 -0500 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: They determined that the most recent catastrophic strike was in the year 536 AD, in the ocean north of Australia. This caused global-wide disruption. See this 2008 article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/06/the-sky-is-falling/306807/?single_page=true So 1500 years ago a rock falling into the ocean caused a couple of cold years, about the equivalent of the Tambora explosion of 1815. European civilization survived that with nary a hiccup. If it had hit land (30 percent chance) it would have caused worse crop failures; still, our European civilization today, with its abundance of food and fuel, would sail through it like it was a summer breeze. BUT we should still be afraid!!, because 5000 years ago, a really big rock hit the ocean and created a 600 foot high tsunami, and if it were to hit land: much of a continent would be leveled; years of winter and mass starvation would ensue. It sounds like gross exaggeration; and anyway, if the thing hit 5000 years ago, when did the previous one hit? Was it 1 years previous, 20,000? Should I lie awake nights about this? This speculation strikes me as chicken little stuff, and not to be concerned about. When, in 100 years, we have a reasonably cheap and effective technology, then, sure, deploy it; for now, the doomsayers should find something more realistic to get hysterical about as a way to suck tax dollars out of my pocket.
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
also it was 28 years ago. Harry On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Alexander Hollins alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote: ignore me, i just realized the error in my mental model. On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Alexander Hollins alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote: The Moon makes about 13 revolutions in the course of a year. revolutions around what? On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 12:14 PM 2/15/2013, you wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:22 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Obvious question: Was the vector correlated with that of the earth approaching asteroid? No, they were almost perpendicular. Pure and delightful coincidence. That was my first thought. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/meteorite-injures-more-than-900-in- russian-city/2013/02/15/ff67c624-7770-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html?wprss=r ss_europe Sergei Zakharov, regional branch chairman of the Russian Geographic Society, told the Interfax news agency that three explosions occurred as the meteor blew apart. “Judging by my observations, the fireball was flying from southeast to northwest,” he said. “A bright flare of more than 2,500 degrees [Celsius] happened before the three explosions. The first explosion was the strongest.” - - - - - My quick take (partly copied from elsewhere) Consider a small object (in this case the meteor) orbiting a large object (asteroid), as seen from above the orbit. If the orbital velocity of the meteor round the asteroid is small, then the trajectory of the meteor will look like a sine wave around the trajectory of the asteroid. (Similarly, the trajectory of the moon looks like a sine wave superimposed on the orbit of the earth). I thought so too 25 years ago, when my instructor in an introductory course on astronomy asked us what we thought the trajectory of the moon is around the sun. It is actually a curve which is always convex... http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/convex.html It is not a circle, but is close to a 12-gon with rounded corners. It is locally convex in the sense that it has no loops and the curvature never changes sign. harry
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: So 1500 years ago a rock falling into the ocean caused a couple of cold years, about the equivalent of the Tambora explosion of 1815. European civilization survived that with nary a hiccup. If it had hit land (30 percent chance) it would have caused worse crop failures . . . ; still, our European civilization today, with its abundance of food and fuel, would sail through it like it was a summer breeze. The object was roughly 200 m in length. As noted in the article, if a 300 m object -- somewhat bigger -- were to hit land, it would have the force of roughly 20,000 Hiroshima bombs and it would destroy an area the size of France. That's ~400 MT, or 10 times the size of the Tsar Bomb, the largest thermonuclear bomb in history. The shock wave would be spread over a much larger area than the Tsar Bomb, the way today's meteor was. I would not call that sailing through like a summer breeze. If the 1908 Tunguska meteor had struck a city, it would have completely destroyed it. Even the largest city such as London, Paris or New York would have been completely leveled. much of a continent would be leveled; years of winter and mass starvation would ensue. It sounds like gross exaggeration . . . I do not think you know enough about this to judge whether that is gross exaggeration or not. In fact, I get the impression you are jumping to conclusions about a subject you know nothing about, and dismissing the opinions of scientific experts who have spent years studying these subjects. People often do that with cold fusion and with global warming. It irks me. ; and anyway, if the thing hit 5000 years ago, when did the previous one hit? We don't know. We should find out. More to the point, we should find out when the next one is likely to hit. Was it 1 years previous, 20,000? Should I lie awake nights about this? No, you should advocate sensible scientific research aimed at preventing it. This speculation strikes me as chicken little stuff, and not to be concerned about. You strike me as someone who has no qualifications whatever to hold that opinion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
At 03:06 PM 2/15/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: If the 1908 Tunguska meteor had struck a city, it would have completely destroyed it. Even the largest city such as London, Paris or New York would have been completely leveled. Nature comment (we know they're an unbiased source!) http://www.nature.com/news/russian-meteor-largest-in-a-century-1.12438 It was a very, very powerful event, says Margaret Campbell-Brown, an astronomer at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada, who has studied data from two infrasound stations near the impact site. Her calculations show that the meteoroid was approximately 15 metres across when it entered the atmosphere, and put its mass at around 7,000 metric tonnes. That would make it the biggest object recorded to hit the Earth since Tunguska, she says. ps -- Thanks, Harry, for the orbital correction. But for a fast-moving (relatively) meteor + asteroid I think my sine-wave is a good first-approximation. (Too lazy to do the math).
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Nature comment (we know they're an unbiased source!) On a subject like this I consider them unbiased. They are only biased against a limited number of things such as cold fusion. A person's bias or prejudice is often highly selective to one subject area, and does not affect other areas. Anyway, this report says the object released hundreds of kilotonnes of energy. That would make it bigger than the Hiroshima bomb. If it had come straight in during the Cold War, it might have wiped out a city and have triggered a nuclear war. The detector used to determine the size of the blast was set up as part of the Cold War test ban treaty. As I said, this not sailing through like a summer breeze. These things are a serious long-term technical problem, along with global warming, and things like the reduced efficacy of antibiotics from overuse and abuse. If people would have more respect for science, and start paying more attention and money for it, we would be a lot closer to solving problems like this. The right-wing fruitcakes in Russia are saying this was a U.S. weapon. People like that are everywhere! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
As spherical object with that size and made of water would weight ~1800 tons. If that's an iron asteroid, that would give over 10 thousand tons. In terms of explosive power, it should be equivalent between 0.2 and 1 Megaton 2013/2/15 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com They say the object was 15 m in size, ~10 tons. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:06:15 -0500 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: So 1500 years ago a rock falling into the ocean caused a couple of cold years, about the equivalent of the Tambora explosion of 1815. European civilization survived that with nary a hiccup. If it had hit land (30 percent chance) it would have caused worse crop failures . . . ; still, our European civilization today, with its abundance of food and fuel, would sail through it like it was a summer breeze. The object was roughly 200 m in length. No, the article says it was 300m in length and caused the equivalent of the 1815 Tambora explosion. As noted in the article, if a 300 m object -- somewhat bigger -- were to hit land, No, that was the one that hit 5000 years ago and was a kilometer in length. it would have the force of roughly 20,000 Hiroshima bombs and it would destroy an area the size of France. That's ~400 MT, or 10 times the size of the Tsar Bomb, the largest thermonuclear bomb in history. The shock wave would be spread over a much larger area than the Tsar Bomb, the way today's meteor was. I would not call that sailing through like a summer breeze. I would not either, but I was talking about the 300m pebble that was the equivalent of Tambora. If the 1908 Tunguska meteor had struck a city, it would have completely destroyed it. Even the largest city such as London, Paris or New York would have been completely leveled. So what? With 70 percent of the world ocean, and most of the rest NOT London, Paris or New York, in fact with most of the rest pretty much empty, should we be in anguish over the possibility? much of a continent would be leveled; years of winter and mass starvation would ensue. It sounds like gross exaggeration . . . I do not think you know enough about this to judge whether that is gross exaggeration or not. True, and maybe the author really can estimate what a 1k rock can do when it hits earth at x-thousand mph. In fact, I get the impression you are jumping to conclusions about a subject you know nothing about, and dismissing the opinions of scientific experts who have spent years studying these subjects. People often do that with cold fusion and with global warming. It irks me. The article isn't as scary to me as it is to you: 1. There was a Tambora-like rockfall 1500 years ago. And the next Tambora was in 1815, 1400 years later. Why the heck should I be worrying that another Tambora will hit me in the head tomorrow? And, as I said, European civilization would hardly notice it. 2. There was a super-Tambora 5000 years ago. 5000 years ago. And I am supposed to be worried that another one will hit in a few years or decades? I see she talks about big craters under the ocean, but don't we need more than such vague references to start sucking money out of taxpayer's pockets? ; and anyway, if the thing hit 5000 years ago, when did the previous one hit? We don't know. We should find out. More to the point, we should find out when the next one is likely to hit. Was it 1 years previous, 20,000? Should I lie awake nights about this? No, you should advocate sensible scientific research aimed at preventing it. If the last big one was 5000 years ago, my statistical intuition tells me that we have at least a couple hundred years before the next big one hits, and by that time we will have the ability to create an effective 'spaceguard'. This speculation strikes me as chicken little stuff, and not to be concerned about. You strike me as someone who has no qualifications whatever to hold that opinion.
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
A comment in line with my sine vs cycloid thinking : http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/02/15/1747226/asteroid-2012-da14-approaches?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanonutm_medium=feed Re:are we sure it has nothing to do with DA14? (Score:4, Informative) by Clueless Moron (548336) on Friday February 15, @02:51PM (#42914591) No... if that meteorite was in an orbit 30,000km radius from DA14 (which it would have to have been in order to hit Russia when it did), its orbital velocity would necessarily have to be very low. As in, so slow it would take millenia to complete even one orbit. Since DA14 is moving at a whopping 30km/second relative to Earth, anything orbiting it that far out would be moving in virtually the same direction and speed with respect to us. In short, there's no way that meteorite could have been orbiting DA14 - - - - - - I plugged the best numbers I could find into a spreadsheet. The asteroid of mass m1 passes d1 above earth, with velocity v1 For the meteor to just graze earth 16 hours ahead of the asteroid, it must be d2 = time*velocity ahead of it. We then have a right triangle with sides d1 and d2 ... hypotenuse d3 = radius of orbit. Ignoring the mass of the meteor, we have the period 2 pi * sqrt( d3^3 / G m1 ) Indeed, it gives an orbital period of 153 millenia -- so they're pretty much travelling in the same direction. No cycloid motion. Asteroid 2012 DA 14 and Russian meteorite v1 2013.2.15:A v130km/sec3m/sec Velocity of asteroid relatve to earth d1 27000km 2700m Distance from surface of earth t216hrs 57600secsMeteor ahead of asteroid (hours) d2 172800m v1*t2 Meteor ahead of asteroid (m) d3 1728210925sqrt(d1^2 + d2^2) Radius of meteor orbit m113tonnes13000kg Mass of asteroid G 6.7E-11G gravitational constant t2 4.83674E+15orbital period seconds = 2 * pi * sqrt ( d3 / G m1) 1.34354E+12hrs 55980833311days 153372146.1years
Re: [Vo]:Tesla adds new meaning to Supercharging
It is good to remember that when electric vehicles goes into mainstream — around early 2020's, there will be (wireless) solar/wind charging option in every parking lot. Charging option will be free only when there is oversupply of solar and wind power. —Jouni On 15 February 2013 21:13, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/15/autos/tesla-model-s/ There are only a half-dozen of these charging stations in the country, and the closest one for me is almost two hours away... but damn ... these vehicles are lust-worthy.
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
A comment in line with my sine vs cycloid thinking : Indeed, it gives an orbital period of 153 millenia -- so they're pretty much travelling in the same direction. No cycloid motion. 153372146.1years Oops : not 153 MILLennia .. but 153 MEGennia
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
I would like to see a plot of the orbit of the rock that hit Russia. It may be possible that it was associated with the asteroid a very long time ago and became deflected on a fly by that happened when no one was looking. I suspect that the time frame for near misses of the pair would vary, but there may be some form of synchronization occurring that we have not modeled accurately. The fact that both of these events happened so close together just does not seem likely since both are infrequent. Talk of a miracle in cold fusion; this seems like one in astronomy. How about a conspiricy theory? An alien race sent the small one as a shot across our bow. They thought that we were far to intelligent to think that this was a coincidence and would understand the message. The warning is that we had better prepare to deflect a big one that will come our way one day. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 10:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured A comment in line with my sine vs cycloid thinking : Indeed, it gives an orbital period of 153 millenia -- so they're pretty much travelling in the same direction. No cycloid motion. 153372146.1years Oops : not 153 MILLennia .. but 153 MEGennia
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** However, that still allows for a transcendent impersonal God who operates as a system - and might even answer prayers. This sounds a lot like deism. Many of the philosophers, scientists and public intellectuals of the eighteenth and nineteenth century were deists. Atheism wasn't even much of a possibility back then. By that I mean that people didn't entertain it as a serious possibility, if they could even imagine it. There is a great book by Charles Taylor, the philosopher, called A Secular Age, which tries to explain how over two or so centuries atheism became a respectable choice, and, in today's age, it is becoming more and more a predominant view in some areas such as science. Personally, I note that with regard to the question of whether there is a creator there is an epistemological dimension, a philosophical/aesthetic one and a social one. In the epistemological dimension, I doubt there is any way whatsoever to distinguish using empirical means between a world in which there is a creator and any variety of scenarios where there isn't one. This conclusion for me takes the subject wholly out of the realm science; any strong claims to the contrary, either on the creationist side or on the evangelical atheist side, seem to me to be fundamentally ill-conceived. There is also an aesthetic and philosophical dimension to the question of whether there is a creator. People find beauty in mathematics, in art, and in any number of other things, and they also often find beauty in different ways of making sense of the human situation. Perhaps they conceive of a clockwork universe that God wound up at the beginning of time and let go on its way, like the deists did. Perhaps they perceive a design and purpose in everyday life which either lends itself to some larger intent or, alternatively, specifically does not. Perhaps they see ugliness and war and see no possibility of any kind of higher purpose or rhyme or reason. Here we're in the realm of aesthetics, and there is the latin saying, *de gustibus non est disputandum* -- there's no disputing taste. But people do in fact argue about religion and God and fight over it in the public sphere, which takes us into the realm of society. It seems to me that in a world where people are expected to justify their actions with reasons, especially when we're talking about things like public policy and law, you have to use a language that everyone can agree on. Not everyone can agree on a justification that involves religion, so unless a decision is being made that narrowly affects a specific community, there's not much place for religion in working out general arrangements. For general decisions, it seems to me that you need a secular language that does not make reference to religion. Eric
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am not sure anyone has a good answer to your question Ed. I do not care what theory they are operating upon at the moment as long as they keep plugging away. That's right -- it should be like Newton's method for finding the roots of a real-valued function. You pick some starting point -- anywhere, really, as long as it is not too far afield -- and then you plug away, Edisonian-like, gradually narrowing down the possibilities without being dogmatic about what has been set aside, since new information may come to light that causes one to reevaluate previous evidence. In this context I don't see much use for hewing to a specific theory when approaching a very challenging problem. Anything is beloved that delivers, even heavy electrons. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: If NASA fails, this will be a black mark. Failure is not treated the same way in LENR as it is in normal science. Beside, anyone who has studied the theory must wonder about the competence at NASA. Honestly, if LENR gets off the ground and gains mainstream acceptance, I see the possibility of it helping to influence the culture of physics in a new, more tolerant direction. Who knows. The current mode of intolerance and haughtiness is not flattering for physics. I think it is ironic in this light that the field can also go in the other direction, towards any number of possibly unfalsifiable avenues of investigation in string theory and multiple universes and so on. Perhaps it is just because these areas of investigation cannot easily be falsified that some physicists are able to carve out a respectable niche there. Most physicists will wonder about the competence at NASA if they pursue any LENR theory. It is only a subset of LENR people that wonder about the competence of NASA's pursuing W-L. I think NASA should have the latitude to keep on staff a few people who entertain oddball ideas; such people can still end up coming up with interesting and useful innovations. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The fact that both of these events happened so close together just does not seem likely since both are infrequent. Talk of a miracle in cold fusion; this seems like one in astronomy. I suspect these events only seem infrequent, in two ways. First, because we personally aren't involved in monitoring all of the asteroids, large and small, coming through the local region of the solar system, and if we did, we might lose sleep at night (just a guess). Second, our ability to record such events is improving, and we might have lost a lot of data earlier on when the tracking of events was less systematic and accurate. An interesting challenge would be to independently work out the parameters of a model based on the Poisson distribution to calculate the likelihood and magnitude of similar events in the next few years. Eric
