Re: [Vo]:Video The Believers
I have physicist in my family, and I know how the priest treat the cookers. Question is not whether all are so, but nice and honest people have usually less power and voice in debate compared to nasty egotic personalities. 2013/10/17 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Baudette's claim that the problem was primarily one of difference in scientific protocol between chemistry and physics must be respected given the depth of his research, however, he, himself, points to events like Oriani's rejection by the American editors of Nature early in 1990 as pivotal -- and I just can't believe that scientific protocol in physics demanded that kind of behavior. He should be confronted with that contradiction. On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: Thank you James. I would love to talk with Charles Beaudette and I will try to do that. He was at ICCF-18 and I wanted to talk with him, but unfortunately, since we ended up filming the entire set of lectures, the interviews were severely impacted. On 10/16/13 5:13 PM, James Bowery wrote: Hopefully you'll consult with Baudette. On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: Here is a review of The Believers that I wrote: http://coldfusionnow.org/marvin-hawkins-i-will-defend-them-at-every-turn/ I found the use of Martin Fleischmann in a private medical situation disturbing, among other elements. Over the next year, Eli and I are making a documentary on the field that will go deeper into why cold fusion was rejected, and more importantly, show the successes that have come since. We have several interviews from ICCF-18 and GlobalBEM, so far. We'll be visiting some labs and resuming filming after the New Year. It will be a feature film to be submitted to festivals, and further awareness the way Believers couldn't. Ruby -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:MFMP Hypothesis: Celani Wire Splits Hydrogen
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/la00059a022
Re: [Vo]:MFMP Hypothesis: Celani Wire Splits Hydrogen
Axil, Well said, I like the combination of “plasmon-induced dissociation of H2 on Au” and “As a byproduct of the polariton lifecycle, an irregular metal surface will produce high energy electrons through this nanoplasmonic mechanism” , IMHO the “irregular metal surface” is of rigid casimir geometry which resonates through a range of different geometries causing a constant change in casimir force in a confined area while the hydrogen atoms in this area are still locally subject to the random motion of gas law. I would assume a similar plasmon induced disassociation of H2 on Ni with irregular surface geometry be it powder, tubules or skeletal catalysts. I have always drawn a line between this phenomena and the Langmuir atomic welder – somewhere I read he was aware of the heat anomaly and advised not to pursue it further but he still took advantage of the thermal advantage for welding metals with higher melting temperatures thru the boost of reassociating hydrogen. I don’t think Langmuir was causing nuclear reactions so much as creating an environment that discounts the disassociation threshold below the energy released when these atoms recombine.. an HUP or Maxwellian trap that exploits random motion in a confined space on the surface of the tungsten electrodes.. a very primitive, less confined trap that is over driven by electrical arcs to simply concentrate heat for the purpose of melting high temperature metals. I think Rossi is still using the same ingredients but with better confinement. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:13 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:MFMP Hypothesis: Celani Wire Splits Hydrogen http://phys.org/news/2012-12-hot-electrons-impossible-catalytic-chemistry.html Hot electrons do the impossible in catalytic chemistry The incoming laser light optically excites surface plasmonshttp://phys.org/tags/surface+plasmons/ on the metal surfacehttp://phys.org/tags/metal+surface/, and the plasmons then decay into hot electronshttp://phys.org/tags/hot+electrons/. Because of their high energies, the hot electrons extend further away from the nanoparticles than electrons with lower energies do. If another atom or molecule that can accept the electron is nearby, the hot electron can transfer into that acceptor's electronic states. In these experiments, the researchers adsorbed H2 molecules on the gold nanoparticle surface, a procedure that is commonly performed in heterogeneous catalysishttp://phys.org/tags/heterogeneous+catalysis/, in which the adsorbed molecules act as reactantshttp://phys.org/tags/reactants/. The researchers found, as the main result of their study, that some of the hot electrons could transfer into the closed shells of the H2 molecules and cause the two hydrogen atomshttp://phys.org/tags/hydrogen+atoms/ to separate, or dissociate. This process, called plasmon-induced dissociation of H2 on Au, could improve the efficiency of certain chemical reactionshttp://phys.org/tags/chemical+reactions/. As a byproduct of the polariton lifecycle, an irregular metal surface will produce high energy electrons through this nanoplasmonic mechanism. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-hot-electrons-impossible-catalytic-chemistry.html#jCp On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.commailto:kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect this is the key. 42% better absorption into the metal matrix. If it's a surface effect, then why would higher absorption into the bulk create more reliable excess heat events reactions? On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.commailto:kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/101/12/10.1063/1.467850 Direct reaction of gas‐phase atomic hydrogen with chemisorbed hydrogen on Ru(001) T. A. Jachimowskihttp://scitation.aip.org/content/contributor/AU0666706;jsessionid=35ucjlhs7rg8q.x-aip-live-031 and W. H. Weinberghttp://scitation.aip.org/content/contributor/AU0332482;jsessionid=35ucjlhs7rg8q.x-aip-live-031 View Affiliations J. Chem. Phys. 101, 10997 (1994); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.467850 The adsorption of gas‐phase atomic hydrogen on the Ru(001) surface results in a saturation coverage of 1.42 hydrogen adatoms per primitive surface unit cell, which may be compared with a saturation coverage of one hydrogen adatom per primitive surface unit cell in the case of dissociative chemisorption of molecular hydrogen. The observed saturation fractional coverage of 1.42 results from a steady‐state balance of adsorption of gas‐phase atomic hydrogen and reaction of gas‐phase hydrogen with chemisorbed hydrogen adatoms, which produces molecular hydrogen that desorbs from the surface at a temperature at least 150 K below the temperature of recombinative desorption of two hydrogen adatoms. The cross section of this direct reaction of hydrogen was found to be
Re: [Vo]:Video The Believers
Deciding why CF was rejected is difficult because so many variables apply and each person only experienced part of the process. To start the evaluation, the basic reasons need to be acknowledged. Once the reasons are available, their importance needs to be determined. The importance of each would be different to different people at the time. For example, an academic would find the conflict with theory important while a politician would consider the threat to an industry more important. So, the reason for rejection will depend on which person you ask. Initially, the idea was not rejected by many people who later found reasons to reject. The rejection grew because certain high-profile laboratories could not make the effect work easily. Granted, many of the efforts were done with no expectation it would work while using sloppy technique. However, if the studies had been successful, all the reasons for rejection would have disappeared. When it worked on occasion, I found these successes were generally ignored. They were ignored locally at the laboratories where the studies were made and later by the DOE panel. You might ask why success was ignored. I can suggest three main reasons were used by normally rational, honest, and educated men to modify what they believed. 1. The claim conflicted with known and expected behavior based on hot fusion. People assumed CF and HF were the same phenomenon. Some people still have this belief. 2. The claim, if real, would eliminate the need for hot fusion. This caused everyone supported by HF to band together to reject CF. 3. The claim, if real, would threaten all industries based on conventional energy. This caused every one at high level in government who are loyal to these industries to band together against CF. Based on these reasons, the media was used by the organizations that have this influence to focus the opinions of unthinking people by creating the myth we see today. These same people saw to it that the patent office did not grant patents and that the government did not grant financial support. In short, the system that controls what we believe and what path the US follows came together to stop CF. From then on, whatever reason that worked was used, much like how the Iraq war was justified. The truth no longer mattered. In addition, the irrationally that lurks below the surface in the US was released and focused on Fleischmann and Pons. They both had to leave the US to find peace and safety in other countries. We see this irrationally coming to the surface again, but now the issue is economic. In sort, the experience with CF reveals a condition in society well beyond the scientific issue. On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Ruby wrote: Hmm, I will have to look into this that you are describing. I can see how both issues could relate. My thesis so far is that it was the MIT and Caltech negative results which most influenced the APS, Nature magazine, the DoE report, and subsequently the USPTO. Both public and private investment were nixed. Those were the pivotal actions, or figures, that expressed the rejection. But the ground was, as it always is, the powerful draw of an existing paradigm. As the premier science institutions, MIT and Caltech had (have) the power to sway policy, and they did. Their attitudes, and hasty experiments, operated from a particular scientific paradigm where, Everything [they] knew as a physicist, ...everything [they] knew about nuclear theory (-Glenn Seaborg), told them cold fusion was impossible. Some people can only go so far. On 10/16/13 5:51 PM, James Bowery wrote: Baudette's claim that the problem was primarily one of difference in scientific protocol between chemistry and physics must be respected given the depth of his research, however, he, himself, points to events like Oriani's rejection by the American editors of Nature early in 1990 as pivotal -- and I just can't believe that scientific protocol in physics demanded that kind of behavior. He should be confronted with that contradiction. On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: Thank you James. I would love to talk with Charles Beaudette and I will try to do that. He was at ICCF-18 and I wanted to talk with him, but unfortunately, since we ended up filming the entire set of lectures, the interviews were severely impacted. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Video The Believers
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Initially, the idea was not rejected by many people who later found reasons to reject. Some of them were standing by, nursing a grudge, waiting to speak out in public. Especially the MIT plasma fusion group. That's what Gene Mallove said. They hated it from the moment they heard about it, and they began scheming to discredit it. They succeeded! This happened with other discoveries such as the laser. When it worked on occasion, I found these successes were generally ignored. They were ignored locally at the laboratories where the studies were made and later by the DOE panel. This often happens. There are countless examples in history. I can suggest three main reasons were used by normally rational, honest, and educated men to modify what they believed. 1. The claim conflicted with known and expected behavior based on hot fusion. People assumed CF and HF were the same phenomenon. Some people still have this belief. . . . I agree with these three main reasons. I would add a fourth reason: human nature. Most people reject most novel ideas out of instinct. People fear novelty. They fear the unknown; that is, unknown places, sights, smells and other stimuli. This is instinct. It is a product of evolution. There is a countervailing instinct explore the unknown. The two instincts are at war with one another. Some people are more inclined to fear, other to explore. You can observe the same push-pull fear and attraction in other species. In the 1970s in Japan I took part in studies in which we measured these effects in guppies, and in Japanese ground squirrels. This was masterfully described by Francis Bacon: The human understanding, when any preposition has been once laid down, (either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it affords,) forces every thing else to add fresh support and confirmation; and although more cogent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, yet either does not observe or despises them, or gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first conclusions. - Novum Organum, 1620 And by William Trotter: If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Video The Believers
I agree, Jed, with your description of human nature. I see this same behavior being applied by people even within the CF field. You would think they would not be prone to this behavior. But, as you note, humans are the same no matter the subject. Perhaps, this behavior is beneficial because it slows progress enough for people to adjust. Present progress, thanks to the computer that does not suffer from this limitation, is starting to exceed the ability of many people to adjust. This failure to adjust does not give optimism about the future. Ed On Oct 17, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Initially, the idea was not rejected by many people who later found reasons to reject. Some of them were standing by, nursing a grudge, waiting to speak out in public. Especially the MIT plasma fusion group. That's what Gene Mallove said. They hated it from the moment they heard about it, and they began scheming to discredit it. They succeeded! This happened with other discoveries such as the laser. When it worked on occasion, I found these successes were generally ignored. They were ignored locally at the laboratories where the studies were made and later by the DOE panel. This often happens. There are countless examples in history. I can suggest three main reasons were used by normally rational, honest, and educated men to modify what they believed. 1. The claim conflicted with known and expected behavior based on hot fusion. People assumed CF and HF were the same phenomenon. Some people still have this belief. . . . I agree with these three main reasons. I would add a fourth reason: human nature. Most people reject most novel ideas out of instinct. People fear novelty. They fear the unknown; that is, unknown places, sights, smells and other stimuli. This is instinct. It is a product of evolution. There is a countervailing instinct explore the unknown. The two instincts are at war with one another. Some people are more inclined to fear, other to explore. You can observe the same push-pull fear and attraction in other species. In the 1970s in Japan I took part in studies in which we measured these effects in guppies, and in Japanese ground squirrels. This was masterfully described by Francis Bacon: The human understanding, when any preposition has been once laid down, (either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it affords,) forces every thing else to add fresh support and confirmation; and although more cogent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, yet either does not observe or despises them, or gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first conclusions. - Novum Organum, 1620 And by William Trotter: If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Video The Believers
about human fear of change this join this study http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/111212_creativity.htm I think that sucess of failure of acceptance of something like LENR, is partially determined, but hugely chaotic... few details could have make LENR a success. 2013/10/17 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Initially, the idea was not rejected by many people who later found reasons to reject. Some of them were standing by, nursing a grudge, waiting to speak out in public. Especially the MIT plasma fusion group. That's what Gene Mallove said. They hated it from the moment they heard about it, and they began scheming to discredit it. They succeeded! This happened with other discoveries such as the laser. When it worked on occasion, I found these successes were generally ignored. They were ignored locally at the laboratories where the studies were made and later by the DOE panel. This often happens. There are countless examples in history. I can suggest three main reasons were used by normally rational, honest, and educated men to modify what they believed. 1. The claim conflicted with known and expected behavior based on hot fusion. People assumed CF and HF were the same phenomenon. Some people still have this belief. . . . I agree with these three main reasons. I would add a fourth reason: human nature. Most people reject most novel ideas out of instinct. People fear novelty. They fear the unknown; that is, unknown places, sights, smells and other stimuli. This is instinct. It is a product of evolution. There is a countervailing instinct explore the unknown. The two instincts are at war with one another. Some people are more inclined to fear, other to explore. You can observe the same push-pull fear and attraction in other species. In the 1970s in Japan I took part in studies in which we measured these effects in guppies, and in Japanese ground squirrels. This was masterfully described by Francis Bacon: The human understanding, when any preposition has been once laid down, (either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it affords,) forces every thing else to add fresh support and confirmation; and although more cogent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, yet either does not observe or despises them, or gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first conclusions. - Novum Organum, 1620 And by William Trotter: If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Video The Believers
I suggest we are not dealing only with creativity here. What passes for new ideas or creative thinking is more often nonsense or insane rambling. We are shocked by the rejection only when the idea is later found to be correct or is applied in a useful way. Most ideas that might be called creative do not reach this level because they are based on nonsense. The challenge is separating the nonsense from what is real early in the process of evaluation. Some ideas get accepted early. Take the computer for example. This was introduced into society very rapidly. Of course a few people and businesses ignored the idea, but many other people accepted the idea because it worked. Gates became a success very quickly. The creative ideas introduced by Apple are accepted without any rejection because they are obvious to the most uneducated. In fact, the ability to understand and accept new ideas is related to education. An uneducated society or person will naturally reject complex ideas more often than an educated person. In the case of CF and many other discoveries, the rejection is based on a threat to self interests, which has no relationship to creativity. Nevertheless, I find the basic ability to accept new ideas is built into the individual mind. Some people have this ability and most do not, regardless of education. The ability simply comes with the package, like ability to speak new languages easily or musical ability. These abilities can be enhanced but they can not be created if they are not present initially. I suggest this is also true of creativity and the ability to accept new ideas. On Oct 17, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: about human fear of change this join this study http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/111212_creativity.htm I think that sucess of failure of acceptance of something like LENR, is partially determined, but hugely chaotic... few details could have make LENR a success. 2013/10/17 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Initially, the idea was not rejected by many people who later found reasons to reject. Some of them were standing by, nursing a grudge, waiting to speak out in public. Especially the MIT plasma fusion group. That's what Gene Mallove said. They hated it from the moment they heard about it, and they began scheming to discredit it. They succeeded! This happened with other discoveries such as the laser. When it worked on occasion, I found these successes were generally ignored. They were ignored locally at the laboratories where the studies were made and later by the DOE panel. This often happens. There are countless examples in history. I can suggest three main reasons were used by normally rational, honest, and educated men to modify what they believed. 1. The claim conflicted with known and expected behavior based on hot fusion. People assumed CF and HF were the same phenomenon. Some people still have this belief. . . . I agree with these three main reasons. I would add a fourth reason: human nature. Most people reject most novel ideas out of instinct. People fear novelty. They fear the unknown; that is, unknown places, sights, smells and other stimuli. This is instinct. It is a product of evolution. There is a countervailing instinct explore the unknown. The two instincts are at war with one another. Some people are more inclined to fear, other to explore. You can observe the same push-pull fear and attraction in other species. In the 1970s in Japan I took part in studies in which we measured these effects in guppies, and in Japanese ground squirrels. This was masterfully described by Francis Bacon: The human understanding, when any preposition has been once laid down, (either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it affords,) forces every thing else to add fresh support and confirmation; and although more cogent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, yet either does not observe or despises them, or gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first conclusions. - Novum Organum, 1620 And by William Trotter: If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Video The Believers
The challenge in understanding LENR and its eventual acceptance by mainstream science is that it is driven by a zoo of complex interacting quantum mechanical phenomena. In order to make any progress in LENR, original and out-of-the-box experimental techniques are required to provide a reliable conceptual benchmark for understanding LENR. Fortunately, many of these techniques have been developed over more than 40 years since 1974 in the study of Nanoplasmonics. Using Nanoplasmonics as an experimental template, the challenge is separating the nonsense imposed by our common sense from what is quantum mechanical reality. This baseline is done at the experimental setup phase in the process of sub-atomic phenomenal evaluation. The ability to accept new LENR based ideas is built into the experimental discipline of plasmonics based science. No more than a few hundred people throughout this world have the required background to understand what is really going on in LENR. The ability to properly understand LENR will only come from a comprehensive study of Nanoplasmonics and its optical and quantum mechanical underpinnings. This background comes as a complete package and a narrow specialization, like the ability to speak new Mongolian languages easily or the ability to play first violin in a symphony orchestra. These abilities can only come from a huge amount of work and study in a highly focused and demanding scientific specialty. I suggest that once sufficient talent is planted on this correct track of study and enlightenment, only then will substantial progress in LENR be made. On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I suggest we are not dealing only with creativity here. What passes for new ideas or creative thinking is more often nonsense or insane rambling. We are shocked by the rejection only when the idea is later found to be correct or is applied in a useful way. Most ideas that might be called creative do not reach this level because they are based on nonsense. The challenge is separating the nonsense from what is real early in the process of evaluation. Some ideas get accepted early. Take the computer for example. This was introduced into society very rapidly. Of course a few people and businesses ignored the idea, but many other people accepted the idea because it worked. Gates became a success very quickly. The creative ideas introduced by Apple are accepted without any rejection because they are obvious to the most uneducated. In fact, the ability to understand and accept new ideas is related to education. An uneducated society or person will naturally reject complex ideas more often than an educated person. In the case of CF and many other discoveries, the rejection is based on a threat to self interests, which has no relationship to creativity. Nevertheless, I find the basic ability to accept new ideas is built into the individual mind. Some people have this ability and most do not, regardless of education. The ability simply comes with the package, like ability to speak new languages easily or musical ability. These abilities can be enhanced but they can not be created if they are not present initially. I suggest this is also true of creativity and the ability to accept new ideas. On Oct 17, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: about human fear of change this join this study http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/111212_creativity.htm I think that sucess of failure of acceptance of something like LENR, is partially determined, but hugely chaotic... few details could have make LENR a success. 2013/10/17 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Initially, the idea was not rejected by many people who later found reasons to reject. Some of them were standing by, nursing a grudge, waiting to speak out in public. Especially the MIT plasma fusion group. That's what Gene Mallove said. They hated it from the moment they heard about it, and they began scheming to discredit it. They succeeded! This happened with other discoveries such as the laser. When it worked on occasion, I found these successes were generally ignored. They were ignored locally at the laboratories where the studies were made and later by the DOE panel. This often happens. There are countless examples in history. I can suggest three main reasons were used by normally rational, honest, and educated men to modify what they believed. 1. The claim conflicted with known and expected behavior based on hot fusion. People assumed CF and HF were the same phenomenon. Some people still have this belief. . . . I agree with these three main reasons. I would add a fourth reason: human nature. Most people reject most novel ideas out of instinct. People fear novelty. They fear the unknown; that is, unknown places, sights, smells and other stimuli. This is instinct. It is a product of
Re: [Vo]:Video The Believers
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: ...Perhaps, this behavior is beneficial because it slows progress enough for people to adjust. Present progress, thanks to the computer that does not suffer from this limitation, is starting to exceed the ability of many people to adjust. This failure to adjust does not give optimism about the future. The conservative posture has obvious merits given the real complexity of any society, let alone the ecology within which society is embedded. However, if we are to be consistent, we must recognize that some changes, such as the introduction of civilization, were profound shocks to which humans and indeed the biospherehttp://longnow.org/seminars/02012/apr/20/social-conquest-earth/are still adjusting. Nor is it obvious that these changes will ultimately prove beneficial. There is rationality in being skeptical of even this kind of widely-accepted change. At the other extreme we have the Enlightenment's acceptance of individual rights to freedom of thought and -- in the form of Protestantism's freedom of individual association in the formation of diverse sects -- conscience in _society_. This extreme acceptance of individually chosen change was given substance by the New World in its Jeffersonian exemplar of classical liberalism (which has nothing to do with today's liberal touchstone of equality of outcome): The Declaration of Independence. My long history of taking seriously the potentials of computer networking and space settlement http://www.oocities.com/jim_bowery/vnatap.html led me to directly confront the control structures in the media and Washington, D.C. -- actually shepherding grass-roots legislation into law that banned NASA from competing with private launch companieshttp://www.oocities.com/jim_bowery/testimny.htm so that when the FP phenomenon hit I naturally teamed up with a founder of the US hot fusion program to legislatively terminate the hot fusion program and replace it with prize awards for achievement of technical milestoneshttp://www.oocities.com/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html. This, in turn, forced me to analyze failures in private sector capital markets that had resulted in technical stagnation and provide policy recommendations for their remediationhttp://ota.polyonymo.us/others-papers/NetAssetTax_Bowery.txt. After all, I was attacking public funding of technology so I could not very well ignore the macro-economic policies that were leaving private sector investment gaps that were used by proponent of public sector technology programs to justify their social theories. The end result of this educational process -- a process that has brought me full circle to the conservative posture that is skeptical of civilization itself -- has been that I now recognize only one over-riding priority, and that is to sort proponents of social theories into governments that test them http://sortocracy.org/. Only in this way can profound conservatives coexist with profound liberals and -- in so doing -- not only allow the Enlightenment to penetrate the social sciences (which would, as a byproduct, find the social theories that both lead to the most rapid advances in technology) and preserve the pre-civilization ecologies that we must preserve lest we become victims of our own hubris.
[Vo]:Chunk of Chelyabinsk meteorite recovered
See: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/16/chelyabinsk-meteor-russians-lake I read elsewhere that the meteorite is not particularly interesting. It is a very common type of meteorite. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Chunk of Chelyabinsk meteorite recovered
Astronomers say asteroid might collide with Earth in 2032 Space watchers from the observatory in the Crimean peninsula said they discovered an asteroid about 1,345 feet in diameter, which they call 2013 TV135, that is approaching Earth at a potentially dangerous trajectory, RIA Novosti said. The astronomers calculated the date of a potential collision as Aug. 26, 2032, the news service said, but they acknowledged that the odds of an impact as 1 in 63,000. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-astronomers-asteroid-collide-earth.html#jCp On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/16/chelyabinsk-meteor-russians-lake I read elsewhere that the meteorite is not particularly interesting. It is a very common type of meteorite. - Jed
[Vo]:Guest Editorial by Dr. Stoyan Sarg
Dear Readers, Hundred years from now it will be obvious how deep it was/is the creativity crisis and productivity crisis of the contemporary theoretical physics and actually how easy it was to radically change the situation. It will be also seen then in which extent the very bold ideas of Dr. Stoyan Sarg presented in his papers, lectures and his 3 books have contributed directly or have inspired the radical paradigm change to come. The theory is too high level for a technologist like me but I am very impressed by its boldness and consistency. I am honored to publish Stoyan's guest editorial: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/10/about-secret-catalyzer-used-by-andrea.html Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
