Re: [Vo]:Covid 19 from Wuhan BSL4

[leaking pen]

I take it you have had absolutely no training in statistical analysis?
because that is not what that means in the slightest. when you are doing a
confidence study using statistical analysis of existing data. You make an
assertion. like you would make a hypothesis in a scientific study. and then
you say what your confidence is in that assertion. So it's not a matter of
the data saying it was likely. That is the starting assertion : "We assert
that it is likely that the pandemic was caused by a leak."  and then, you
say how confident you are in whether or not the assertion is correct. in
this case low confidence.

It is exactly the same as if you made a hypothesis in a scientific
experiment, we think that X variable has this much of an impact on Y
process.  and then your result is whether or not your hypothesis was true.
and a rating in a statistical survey of low confidence is basically like
like saying P approaches 1.

On Sun, Feb 26, 2023, 5:56 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> leaking pen  wrote:
>
> WASHINGTON — The Energy Department concluded with "low confidence" that
>> the Covid-19 pandemic
>> <https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/covid-19-urges-investigation-chinese-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-rcna32910>
>>  "likely"
>> originated from a laboratory leak
>> <https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/lab-leak-theory-science-scientists-rcna1191>
>>  in
>> Wuhan . . .
>>
>
>> Thats... not how reports work.  On the question of, is it likely that
>> covid came from a lab leak, the data says, low confidence.
>>
>> That means NO. it did not .
>>
>
> Putting aside the issue of COVID, I think the expression:
>
> "conclude with low confidence that X is likely . . ."
>
> . . . is a convoluted way of saying: "X is probably true, but the evidence
> is thin and it is only somewhat probable. Slightly more probable than not."
>
> It is a confusing, poorly framed way of saying this, but I think that is
> what it means. I wouldn't want to have to translate it into Japanese.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Covid 19 from Wuhan BSL4

[leaking pen]

WASHINGTON — The Energy Department concluded with "low confidence"
that the Covid-19
pandemic

"likely"
originated from a laboratory leak

in
Wuhan, China, according to a classified report delivered to key lawmakers
on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, two sources with direct
knowledge told NBC News.

Thats... not how reports work.  On the question of, is it likely that covid
came from a lab leak, the data says, low confidence.

That means NO. it did not .


On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 9:02 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> According to the DoE new intelligence:
>
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a
>

Re: [Vo]:Corona Virus

[leaking pen]

"seen from space"  ugh.  they dug two 300 foot trenches in an existing
cemetery.  a couple hundred graves, which matches existing numbers.  no
"pits"

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 9:42 AM JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
> Here is a visual synopsis – burial trenches in Iran -  large enough to be
> seen from space …
>
>
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/iran-coronavirus-outbreak-graves/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most_medium=email_source=newsletter=nl_most
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Esa Ruoho 
>
>
>
> d'you have a TL;DW synopsis for us, Ron?
>
>
>

[Vo]:Wing tip vortices of an owl

[leaking pen]

https://mobile.twitter.com/snake_flyer/status/1232176873481920513

BILL!  check out the video, vortices off the wingtips of an owl in flight.

Re: [Vo]:test

[leaking pen]

didnt get it. sorry.

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:14 PM William Beaty  wrote:

> test
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:[Vo]: Dallas Police’s ‘Bomb Robot’

[leaking pen]

you mean, drones?  we already have them.


On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> I would be surprised if the military are not working on robots designed
>> to kill people.
>>
>
> They would be remiss if they were not working on this.
>
> In a sense, every weapon that kills people at distance is a sort of robot,
> starting with arrows, continuing up to artillery and today's guided
> missiles.
>
> I worry about non-military and non-police organizations working on robots
> to kill people. It is hard to know what could be done to stop them.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Ahmed Mohamed case and distrust of experts

[leaking pen]

They never claimed they thought it was a bomb. They KNEW it wasnt a bomb.
They claim to have thought that he was trying to pass it off as a bomb to
scare people. (which is even more assinine)

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> The Ahmed Mohamed case has swept the Internet. I hope the kid gets a
> normal life back. Anyway, I would like to point out something about this
> that clicked in my mind regarding cold fusion.
>
> This is a technical high school, specializing in engineering. The first
> teacher he showed it to saw it was a clock. I expect there are dozens of
> other teachers there who would instantly recognize it is a clock. So, when
> suspicion arose, and the kid and his clock were sent the principal's
> office, the principal should have called in one of the engineering teachers
> and asked "what is this?" The misunderstanding would have been cleared up
> instantly. Instead, the principal called the police. As you see from the
> news accounts the police knew nothing about electronics or bombs.
>
> Decades ago, when a technical questions arose, technical experts were
> called in, and the public accepted their judgement. There were laws that
> all children have to be inoculated against infectious disease. No one
> questioned these laws. An "anti-vaxer" movement in the 1950s, when the
> polio vaccine had just been developed, would have been unthinkable. All
> adults back then understood how dangerous polio is.
>
> Perhaps respect for authority and for expertise was too high back then.
> There were cases of that. But I think the pendulum has swung too far the
> other way. The tragedy of cold fusion is not that experts were wrong, but
> rather that experts were ignored. Decision makers ignored the scientific
> literature and did not listen to experts who had actually performed
> experiments. They turned instead to science journalists, then to ordinary
> journalists, to scientists who had no knowledge of the subject and who had
> read nothing, and finally, to anonymous people at Wikipedia who name
> themselves after comic book characters.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> The story includes one of the most stupid quotes from a police department
> spokesperson I have ever read:
>
> “We have no information that he claimed it was a bomb,” McLellan said. “He
> kept maintaining it was a clock, but there was no broader explanation.”
>
>
> Asked what broader explanation the boy could have given, the spokesman
> explained:
>
>
> “It could reasonably be mistaken as a device if left in a bathroom or
> under a car. The concern was, what was this thing built for? Do we take him
> into custody?”
>
>
> Broad?!? Call it broad or narrow, *the gadget was a clock*, and that was
> the one and only explanation, for crying out loud.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why are there still so many jobs?

[leaking pen]

to provide services. Technical support and customer service phones jobs is
a MASSIVE industry.


On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Jobs required to create, support and run the internet are the vast
 majority?   To make tablets and software?  Laugh!

 On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:44 PM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:

 blaze, if not for the overhead eating efficiency created by mass
 building, those things wouldn't exist.  and the jobs you are describing are
 a SMALL fraction of the jobs available, and the ones Joe is listing the
 vast MAJORITY.


 On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
  wrote:

 No, any sort of job that increases communication and education I don't
 see as generally planet wrecking, though certainly we could do a lot
 better.I'm talking about the excess energy consumption, cars, the
 houses, the yachts, the airplanes, the military to protect all this, etc
 etc.

 On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net
 wrote:

 So would you consider the jobs required to create, support and run the
 internet, networks and infrastructure that this list runs on as bullsh*t
 planet wrecking consumption?
 How about the jobs to create and deliver the computer, tablet or mobile
 device you use to post on this and all of the associated software required
 to do that?
 I'm not suggesting you were advocating that you were not a part of the
 bullsh*t planet wrecking consumption - just questioning if in your mind
 there were any other categories between safety, security, etc and bullsh*t
 planet wrecking consumption. :)




 On 8/4/15 5:03 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:

 it's all pretty much just useless bullsh*t planet wrecking consumption.

Re: [Vo]:Why are there still so many jobs?

[leaking pen]

blaze, if not for the overhead eating efficiency created by mass building,
those things wouldn't exist.  and the jobs you are describing are a SMALL
fraction of the jobs available, and the ones Joe is listing the vast
MAJORITY.


On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:

 No, any sort of job that increases communication and education I don't see
 as generally planet wrecking, though certainly we could do a lot better.
  I'm talking about the excess energy consumption, cars, the houses, the
 yachts, the airplanes, the military to protect all this, etc etc.

 On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net wrote:

 So would you consider the jobs required to create, support and run the
 internet, networks and infrastructure that this list runs on as bullsh*t
 planet wrecking consumption?
 How about the jobs to create and deliver the computer, tablet or mobile
 device you use to post on this and all of the associated software required
 to do that?
 I'm not suggesting you were advocating that you were not a part of the
 bullsh*t planet wrecking consumption - just questioning if in your mind
 there were any other categories between safety, security, etc and bullsh*t
 planet wrecking consumption. :)




 On 8/4/15 5:03 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:

 it's all pretty much just useless bullsh*t planet wrecking consumption.

Re: [Vo]:Why are there still so many jobs?

[leaking pen]

Because a lot of things still require the human touch and cant be replaced
by a robot.


On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:


 http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/08/04/why-are-there-still-so-many-jobs-the-case-for-the-persistence-of-middle-skill-employment/

 I think the answer is pretty obvious, non?   There are so many jobs
 because interest rates are artificially low and allow businesses to borrow
 at cheap rates and hire people for pretty much useless labor.

 As soon as rates go back up, than we'll see if there are still so many
 jobs.

Re: [Vo]:WIRED: Paradoxical Crystal Baffles Physicists

[leaking pen]

Interesting.  You know, I would consider this an obvious one, but since
they just figured it out through an Enh, why not moment...  Has anyone
tried measuring its normal conductivity while its under that magnetic field?

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

 Check out this great article I read on WIRED:

 Paradoxical Crystal Baffles Physicists

 http://www.wired.com/2015/07/paradoxical-crystal-baffles-physicists/

Re: [Vo]:The quest for everlasting power

[leaking pen]

Personally, if i had the ability, inventing and creating new energy sources
would BE the pleasures in my life.

On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Why is Rossi spending the best part of the little life that he has
 remaining in a shipping container for 18 hours a day? What makes a person
 sacrifice all the pleasures that remain in his life.  What is the goal?
 What is the motivation.
 IMHO, What makes Rossi tick is a tight connection between the EGO of Rossi
 and his E-Cat. He cannot give control of this device to someone else. Like
 Joe Papp, Rossi will never tell anybody how it works; valid patent or no.
 Rossi does not trust anyone with the secrets that are so close to defining
 the very tap root of his soul. The reported replication by Parkhomov must
 have shaken him deeply. But he has a hoard of secrets  stashed away in his
 hope chest of still remaining secrets to keep the power of his discovery
 reserved only to him.


 On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 10:02 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net
 wrote:

  Axil,
 I beg to differ a little.
 1. Rossi spends a lot of time studying theory.  It seems that the theory
 of how it works is difficult and it will take an inspired individual to
 crack it.  Just throwing money at it may not help.
 2. If Rossi comes out with a good device at the right price he will get
 trade name recognition.  That is worth a lot.
 3. The potential field is so vast there is plenty of room for
 competitors.  He will have enough business to keep himself happy for as
 long as he wants to work.  He has said that he is not interested in
 becoming ultra rich.
 4. The problem I see is that others are patenting every variation and
 Industrial Heal may have to spend a lot of money on lawyers to be able to
 sell what they invented.
 5. I think Rossi has more of a head start than you credit him with.  Any
 new device has to be tested fo a long time so it is not that easy to catch
 up.  Possibly another entirely different device may make the E-Cat
 obsolete, like Solar Hydrogen Trends - but does anyone know if any of them
 work yet?
 6. There is a whole field of combining E-Cats with micro turbines (etc)
 to produce electricity that will also keep many busy for years.  I
 suspect this is right up Rossi's street.

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[leaking pen]

The issue here is that no matter what the science says, and what the
experiment shows, ramping up an effect to a usable product is never
certain, and lots of REALLY useful known facts fall apart when you try to
make a product out of them. This is why we MAKE proof of concepts.   Not to
prove the concept TRUE, but to prove it EXPLOITABLE!.

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

  I recently had some interesting interactions over at Dr. Mills' SCP
 group. After repeated postings I finally got Dr. Mills to respond to a
 suggestion I wanted to make. See:




 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4652



 The point I keep harping is that it seems to me that assembling a proof
 of concept (POC) prototype before tackling an honest-to-god commercial
 prototype would be a more immediate, realistic and safer goal to reach for
 at this developmental stage of the game. Seems to me that it would
 accomplish the same goal of convincing financial backers that SunCell
 technology worth sinking fortunes in.



 I finally got a response from Dr. Mills which I will post here. But first,
 and for your enjoyment, here's what one ardent supporter had to say about
 my attempts to post my suggestion multiple times:




 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4657



 Your glib balanced harangue against Dr Mills, belies your stated
 support. Your incessant repetition of POC shows an ignorance of the gold
 standard Dr Mills has already adduced numerous times, indeed, in published
 peer reviewed journals.  Let me edify you in science there is no greater
 proof positive/negative than the experiment.  Dr Mills theory in all its
 determinisitic and pleiotropic applications computes, predicts and creates
 experimental results that are impossible for the BIG SCIENCE to
 approach.  Indeed there is not greater scale than the 85 order of magnitude
 that Dr Mills GUT makes knowable.   That reproducible fact immediately and
 permanently bastardizes, yes deliberately used, the BIG SCIENCE adherents
 and all their entire financial ecosystem, politicians, granting agencies,
 grant administrators, colleges/universities, physic department funding,
 right down to the lowly TA. The proven fact that BIG SCIENCE is
 professionally bereft to match the experimental result is all the POC you
 ever need.  If Dr Mills did not have the published derivation, the
 experimental results but was still advocating an energy technology then
 maybe your harangue would be valid; it is not and never has been.



 Yeah. Whatever...



 Of more interest to me was Dr. Mills' response:




 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4660



 *A device that runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to
 being a commercial device.*



 I remain unconvinced. Seems to me it would be a whole lot easier and wiser
 to initially attempt to assemble an experimental self-running POC as a
 preliminary step towards putting together what I assume has to be a much
 more ambitious commercial device. Seems to me an experimental POC would
 accomplish the same results: Convincing financial backers it would be a
 wise decision continue funding BLP's plans... generously so.



 But maybe I'm wrong. So, I'm looking for feedback. Are there any Vorts who
 might want to add their two cents to this matter? Pro or con.



 Regards,

 Steven Vincent Johnson

 svjart.orionworks.com

 zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant

[leaking pen]

*Experimental evidence always trumps theory.*

*I need that on a bumpersticker.  *


On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:19 AM, pjvannoor...@caiway.nl wrote:

   Hello Stefan

 I couldnt agree more with what you say. It is really strange that almost
 nobody
 is looking into the theory of R.Mills. I presented Mills theory a few
 years ago to
 a Nobel price winner in the Netherlands. He got angry.

 Somehow Quantum Physics took the wrong way. It was really at the start of
 the first formula
 to describe the atom with the Quantum theory where they went wrong.
 They couldnt explain the stability of the atom in a classic way  and Bohr
 postulated
 the stability of the atom. Mills found the solution to that problem. He
 proposed that the electron is a shell of current which
 is flowing in such a way that there are solutions to the Maxwell equations
 who correspond to the stable
 quantum levels of the electron in the hydrogen atom. What is more he found
 that with his model fractional quantum levels
 where also possible. He found these stable fractional quantum levels in
 his experiments, when he followed his theory
 that predicted that the groundstate of a hydrogen atom can be destablized
 by using catalyst which can take away n x 27.2 eV
 from atom through collision.

 Peter van Noorden

  *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
 *Sent:* Saturday, January 10, 2015 7:20 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:QM rant

  I would like to see a grants and target institution targeted to answer
 your questions. Also it is good to remember that the standard model was
 fitted to high energy
 particle data, typically advanced theories degenerates at limits to a
 limited set of possible solutions, the standard model QED etc could very
 well be spot on at those
 high limits. Also  you don't get to see hydrinos at thise limits so it is
 unclear if it is wise to try what your suggest, jMills does take care to
 try explain quarks, electorns
 etc as well in his book to hint on the nature of these particles. I can't
 judge those efforts, but for sure it is not certain that everything that
 needs to be developed have been done so
 using his ideas as a base. But if he does not have developed something
 there are possible a permutation of ideas to try ranging from simple
 modifications to what
 Mills is doing to actually add further terms and additions to maxwells
 equations. Again we need to put manwork and grants into this to get
 anywhere.

 On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

  I would like to see Mills rewrite the dirac equations for the electron
 to reflect his hydrino theory. This includes the experimental verification
 of a fractionally charged positron. There should be gamma rays produced to
 account for hydrino anti-hydrino annihilation. How does the anti-hydrino
 interact with the electron? What neutrino is produced when a hydrino is
 emitted in beta decay? There are 101 other permutations and combinations of
 interactions that could be experimentally demonstrated involving the
 hydrino as a fundamental elementary particle.





 On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
 stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 Orionworks,

 Yes experiments is all good, i'm more concerned why we don't get any
 replication / debunks and from more independent sources. Is'n there
 enough to verify the evidences? Also what if it's too difficult to
 create hydrinos, and Mills theory would be better suited to explain for
 example
 cold fusion or high temperature super conductors. Mills theory can with
 great certainty help humanity even if the hydrino effort fails. Why can't I
 hire engineers who know how to model atoms like Mills is doing, are we
 servicing our society as well as we should via our institutions or are the
 folks there cooked into their theory  that is wrong. I think that there
 is huge base of prediction of experiments that Mills does so already
 experiments have triumphed via the well fit between what we know about
 atoms and what his theory does with almost no assumptions at all.
 Our current knowledge may very be faulty and a retake on the whole
 fundamentals of nature might be needed, not seeing this and not feeling
 excited about this opportunity, is amazing.

 Have Fun

 On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
 orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

   Stefan,



 Please correct me if I am mistaken but I assume you are the same
 stefan who has posted similar complaints out at the SCP discussion group.



 As has frequently been stated out in the Vort Collective...



 *Experimental evidence always trumps theory. *



 I must confess the fact that I personally find Mills' CQM interesting,
 perhaps even tantalizing, see:



 http://personalpen.orionworks.com/blacklight-power.htm



 ...where I wrote a personal report on Dr. Mills' audacious CQM theory.
 I need to stress the fact that this is a NON-SCIENTIIC report  analysis.
 It is my 

Re: [Vo]:Exhaled Pounds: How Fat Leaves the Body

[leaking pen]

that..  makes perfect sense, but I never thought about it.  I wonder if...
hmm.   Aerobic exercise that increases oxygen brought into the body is
generally considered better for losing fat, and people with nasal issues
that lower oxygen intake often are larger.  I wonder if low oxygen levels
tie to fat production.   Cold and higher elevation climates tend towards
fatter people, and the explanation was always insulation, but


On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 8:29 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 ​​
 When you lose weight, where does it go? Turns out, most of it is exhaled.
 In a new study, scientists explain the fate of fat in a human body, and
 through precise calculations, debunk some common misconceptions. Fat
 doesn't simply turn into energy or heat, and it doesn't break into
 smaller parts and get excreted, the researchers say.
 ​​
 ​
 http://www.livescience.com/49157-how-fat-is-lost-body.html

 ​-​


 ​​
 Considering the soaring overweight and obesity rates and strong interest
 in this topic, there is surprising ignorance and confusion about the
 metabolic process of weight loss among the general public and health
 professionals alike. We encountered widespread misconceptions about how
 humans lose weight among general practitioners, dietitians, and personal
 trainers (fig 1⇓). Most people believed that fat is converted to energy or
 heat, which violates the law of conservation of mass. We suspect this
 misconception is caused by the “energy in/energy out” mantra and the focus
 on energy production in university biochemistry courses. Other
 misconceptions were that the metabolites of fat are excreted in the faeces
 or converted to muscle. We present a novel calculation to show how we “lose
 weight.”
 ​​


 http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7257



 Harry​

Re: [Vo]:Orbital Science Rocket- Explodes...6:22 PM

[leaking pen]

oh god.. the live video of it burning on the pad is still streaming.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote:

 Greetings Vortex-L,

 Rockets..a bad track recordand  a bad technology:
 http://www.space.com/17933-nasa-television-webcasts-live-space-tv.html


 Ad Astra,
 Ron Kita, Chiralex
 Doylestown PA

Re: [Vo]:The scientific method

[leaking pen]

*The Way It Is*

Standing in line, marking time
Waiting for the welfare dime
'Cause they can't buy a job
The man in the silk suit hurries by
As he catches the poor old lady's eyes
Just for fun he says, Get a job.

That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
Ah, but don't you believe them

Said hey, little boy, you can't go where the others go
'Cause you don't look like they do
Said hey, old man, how can you stand to think that way?
And did you really think about it before you made the rules?
He said, son

That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
Ah, but don't you believe them, yeah

That's just the way it is
That's just the way it is

Well, they passed a law in '64
To give those who ain't got a little more
But it only goes so far
'Cause the law don't change another's mind
When all it sees at the hiring time
Is the line on the color bar, no

That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
That's just the way it is, it is, it is, it is

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:



 I always liked Yossarian’s wisdom:  suppose everyone on our side felt that
 way?   Then I’d be a damned fool to be otherwise, wouldn’t I?

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[leaking pen]

No, its very laughable.  He uses phrases like, well know that. as in, we
should all know this.  but...  he gives no sources, no numbers, and has
failed to notice that there are DIFFERENT types of sintered alumina, some
of which  are DESIGNED to be transparent (sapphire shielding), and some
which aren't.  He mentions that the experiment had calculations that
ASSUMED transmission of infrared, but tied it at a 25 percent transmission
rate.  What we havent seen are any numbers of the transmission rate of
infrared light through that particular size and type.  Now, knowing that a
lot of the armor alumina that is transparent in visible light has a quick
drop off in the infrared spectrum, who wants to bet that the scientists
running the experiment, who designed the numbers to calculate the energy
loss, actually TESTED and MEASURED the alumina they used?  I know I would
in that instance.  Suggesting that they couldn't possibly have thought of
it is, frankly, insulting, unless hes got numbers from actual bench tests
of the variety of alumina they used.

In addition, the fact that it heated up to such a level is STILL more
energy out than is being put in.  Even if you account for the resistors
heating more inside the block and reaching a higher termperature, the temp
reached and the LENGTH OF TIME it was that hot ismore than is possible from
that setup.  That, or Rossi has at the very least created the most
efficient electric heater know to man!

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hi,
 among the skeptic argument one of the only that is not laughable is the
 one of goatguy...
 maybe is it because I don't understand it well...

 He seems to say
 - that alumina is not a grey body, but transparent, and that emissivity
 must be mixed with translucidity when considering the radiation of heat...
 - and maybe that one effect could came from changing resistors that are
 more or less hidden optically...

 I propose a kind of group work,

 I propose that people with competence, analyse goagguys arguments, and the
 report.

 1- can someone explain first the point of goatguy on the fact that alumina
 is transparent...
 is it noticeable ? does it change the way radiation equation are computed
 or is it simply emissivity change ?
 what can be the order of size of the error induced ?

 2- can someone confirm (I cannot yet reread the report) that some known
 emissivity dots were used, but that the surface of the reactor prevented
 permanent thermocouple installation...
 can someone analyse the report precisely

 3- can someone confirm or refute my position that
 if the same object is brighter for an IR cam, even with a complex
 emissivity curve, it is hotter than the same object that bright less
 the term bright is apparent temperature for an IR cam, or for a blacksmith

 4- finally what is the possible error that
 - translucidity of alumina
 - with resistor switching that move heat source
 to change :
 the observed COP, to higher or to lower ?
 5-
 or to make COP possibly =1

 my position is that because of my naive rule 3, 5 is impossible.
 moreover 2 remove the possibility that effect in 1 are noticeable and not
 mostly corrected.

 I want to know if I'm wrong.

 and I have other duties... please help ... I'm sorry.

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[leaking pen]

the alumina is outside the resistors and the reactor.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Rossi would nave used alumina that is transparent to infrared in his
 reactor design because he wants the heat from his primary heater that is
 imbedded in the alumina to get to the nickel powder. An infrared insulator
 is not good reactor design.

 On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:19 PM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:

 No, its very laughable.  He uses phrases like, well know that. as in, we
 should all know this.  but...  he gives no sources, no numbers, and has
 failed to notice that there are DIFFERENT types of sintered alumina, some
 of which  are DESIGNED to be transparent (sapphire shielding), and some
 which aren't.  He mentions that the experiment had calculations that
 ASSUMED transmission of infrared, but tied it at a 25 percent transmission
 rate.  What we havent seen are any numbers of the transmission rate of
 infrared light through that particular size and type.  Now, knowing that a
 lot of the armor alumina that is transparent in visible light has a quick
 drop off in the infrared spectrum, who wants to bet that the scientists
 running the experiment, who designed the numbers to calculate the energy
 loss, actually TESTED and MEASURED the alumina they used?  I know I would
 in that instance.  Suggesting that they couldn't possibly have thought of
 it is, frankly, insulting, unless hes got numbers from actual bench tests
 of the variety of alumina they used.

 In addition, the fact that it heated up to such a level is STILL more
 energy out than is being put in.  Even if you account for the resistors
 heating more inside the block and reaching a higher termperature, the temp
 reached and the LENGTH OF TIME it was that hot ismore than is possible from
 that setup.  That, or Rossi has at the very least created the most
 efficient electric heater know to man!

 On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Hi,
 among the skeptic argument one of the only that is not laughable is the
 one of goatguy...
 maybe is it because I don't understand it well...

 He seems to say
 - that alumina is not a grey body, but transparent, and that emissivity
 must be mixed with translucidity when considering the radiation of heat...
 - and maybe that one effect could came from changing resistors that are
 more or less hidden optically...

 I propose a kind of group work,

 I propose that people with competence, analyse goagguys arguments, and
 the report.

 1- can someone explain first the point of goatguy on the fact that
 alumina is transparent...
 is it noticeable ? does it change the way radiation equation are
 computed or is it simply emissivity change ?
 what can be the order of size of the error induced ?

 2- can someone confirm (I cannot yet reread the report) that some known
 emissivity dots were used, but that the surface of the reactor prevented
 permanent thermocouple installation...
 can someone analyse the report precisely

 3- can someone confirm or refute my position that
 if the same object is brighter for an IR cam, even with a complex
 emissivity curve, it is hotter than the same object that bright less
 the term bright is apparent temperature for an IR cam, or for a
 blacksmith

 4- finally what is the possible error that
 - translucidity of alumina
 - with resistor switching that move heat source
 to change :
 the observed COP, to higher or to lower ?
 5-
 or to make COP possibly =1

 my position is that because of my naive rule 3, 5 is impossible.
 moreover 2 remove the possibility that effect in 1 are noticeable and
 not mostly corrected.

 I want to know if I'm wrong.

 and I have other duties... please help ... I'm sorry.

Re: [Vo]:Sintered Aluminia

[leaking pen]

not.   it still ignores the fact that the transmitted light was more than
the power coming in.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 I find GoatGuy's comment interesting, how valid is his objection?


 http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/third-party-report-on-32-day-continuous.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[leaking pen]

Except, in all those cases, there are specific TIME FRAMES and LOCATIONS
tied to the theory.  Failure to understand that is your problem.  May I
suggest study and learning, instead of ridicule? You know, being a, dare I
say it, SCIENTIST AND SCHOLAR?


On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
wrote:

  Global Warming is the only field in science that can get away with an
 all-inclusive symptoms list.

 If it's hot, it's due to Global Warming
 If it's cold, it's due to Global Warming.
  If it's raining, it's due to Global Warming.
  If it's not raining, it's due to Global Warming.
  If the Glaciers are melting, it's due to Global Warming.
  If the Glaciers are not melting, it's due to Global Warming.
  If it's El Nino, it's due to Global Warming.
  If it's La Nina, it's due to Global Warming.
  If the fish die, it's due to Global Warming.
  If the fish don't die, it's due to Global Warming.
 If the Global Temperature goes up, it's due to Global Warming.
 If the Global Temperature goes down, it's due to Global Warming.
 If the Global Temperature stays the same, it's due to Global Warming..

 on and on it goes.  Everything we see is due to Global Warming.  The
 claims never end despite an utter lack of evidence and/or common sense.


 It never ceases to amaze me how Global Warming alarmists do not realize
 that their theory is not falsifiable.  Everything that happens is taken as
 proof of their theory.  How can one discuss science in the face of such
 intractable ridiculousness.

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[leaking pen]

ehh, no, that one is fair.  Some guys got caught fudging numbers.  it
happens, sadly.


On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 If it's all about science and scholarship then why did the IPCC get caught
 fraudulently changing the data when it showed a cooling trend?


 That is nonsense. It resembles assertions that cold fusion researchers
 committed fraud. There is no fraud in global warming or cold fusion. There
 are only experts who understand what they are doing, and ignorant critics
 yelling fraud.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Paper proves Bill Nye's faked 'greenhouse effect' experiment is also based on the wrong 'basic physics'

[leaking pen]

so run it again with a fan inside.  issue fixed!



On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


 Paper proves Bill Nye's faked 'greenhouse effect' experiment is also based
 on the wrong 'basic physics'


 http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/08/paper-proves-bill-nyes-faked-greenhouse.html

 Although not an accurate demonstration of the physics of climate change,
 the experiment we have considered and related ones are valuable examples of
 the dangers of unintentional bias in science, the value of at least a rough
 quantitative prediction of the expected effect, the importance of
 considering alternative explanations, and the need for carefully designed
 experimental controls.


 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive

[leaking pen]

Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now?



On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 See:


 http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive

[leaking pen]

Dave, according to teh article they separated the power source and drive to
make sure that wasnt teh case.



On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:45 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical
 of this device.  My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error
 once everything is taken into account.  The power to generate the large
 amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the
 root of the thrust.

 Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive

  Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now?



 On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 See:


 http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive

  Eric

Re: [Vo]:Recent news on Podkletnov's gravity shielding work...

[leaking pen]

reading the article...   shoot.  That soundsalmost identical to a gravity
shielding experiment I created fictionally for my webcomic...   Zounds!


On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:58 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  MarkI-ZeroPoint's message of Sun, 18 May 2014 17:27:53 -0700:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 Just a FYI for those interested in superconductors and gravity.
 
 
 
 http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/update-on-podkletnov-gravity.html

  The propagation time of the pulse over a distance of 1211 m was measured
 recording the response of two identical piezoelectric sensors connected to
 two
 synchronized rubidium atomic clocks. The delay was 631 ns, corresponding
 to a
 propagation speed of 64c.

 Unless I'm mistaken, 1211 m in 631 ns is only 6.4 times the speed of
 light, not
 64 times.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:CBI to decommission floating reactor

[leaking pen]

stationary floating.



On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I suppose they forgot about aircraft carriers and submarines.  :-)

 On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:01 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
  CBI to decommission floating reactor
 
  14 April 2014
 
  The USA's only floating nuclear power plant will be decommissioned by
 CBI
  under a $34.7 million contract. The MH-1A reactor provided power to the
  Panama Canal zone before being shut down in 1976.
 
 
 http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-CB-and-I-to-decommission-floating-reactor-1404147.html
 
  Harry

Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find

[leaking pen]

terry, HIGH SPEED is the key.  very interesting project.  good luck!


On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:43 AM,  fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
  Thank you Jones.  I want to detect the bottles before they are shredded
 and
  washed.

 Why don't you just read the code off the bottom of the bottle?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling

Re: [Vo]:Drop a clock

[leaking pen]

gravity is an acceleration vector, it IS accelerating in relation to
itself, not just in relation to you.   In addition, it's an accelerating
acceleration vector.


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:57 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 If you are in an accelerating space elevator, and you throw a clock
 upwards and then it falls down, the clock looks to be accelerating, but it
 is in a constant inertial frame not accelerating and so your time should
 slow due to acceleration according to the equivalence principle of General
 Relativity (Gravity=time dilation  Gravity=inertia force) but you can't
 observe other clocks that are in space around you not accelerating to be
 effected by this form of time dilation.

 So if it is equivalent then you should be able to see that if you let a
 clock be effected by gravity (fall) it should also tick faster than your
 time rate.

 So a clock thrown into a black hole, at least as far as General Relativity
 is concerned should be seen to tick at a normal to an observer far away
 from the black hole!
 At least until it stops falling.

 This is not AFAIK a recognized conclusion of General Relativity.


 John

Re: [Vo]:Drop a clock

[leaking pen]

Not at all, however, if you are accelerating at a rate away from the body
that the clock is falling towards, than you have a force being applied to
you both to create YOUR acceleration, and to cancel out the acceleration
towards that body.  Therefore the clock is accelerating towards the body at
the rate caused by gravity, and you are accelerating away from the object
at the rate caused by, well, your acceleration.

Also, the equivalence principle DOESN'T apply to two falling objects. It
specifically states that an object AT REST on the surface is experiencing
the same force as the force the object NOT at rest is experiencing. In your
thought experiment, the elevator and clock are CERTAINLY experiencing the
same force, however you are applying a greater force in the opposite
vector, yes?



On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:17 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Leaking, I guess you are implying the equivalence principle is not meant
 to apply to dropped objects?


 On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:19 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:

 Leaking, this does not apply to the elevator example though.

 And the equivalence principle states that G-force and Gravity aren't
 similar but are the same thing.

 So if the non-accelerating clock in the elevator can't be reasoned to be
 time dilated according to GR since it occupies an inertial reference frame,
 but in in the gravity example...

 Then the equivalence principle so the equivalence-ish principle if it
 predicts different things for a thrown or dropped clock.
 If you can tell the difference easily, it isn't equivalent!

 Personally I would view that a person standing on earth is accelerating
 relative to space but one going with the distortion of space (falling)
 isn't as far as space is concerned.



 On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:00 AM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:

 gravity is an acceleration vector, it IS accelerating in relation to
 itself, not just in relation to you.   In addition, it's an accelerating
 acceleration vector.


 On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:57 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:

 If you are in an accelerating space elevator, and you throw a clock
 upwards and then it falls down, the clock looks to be accelerating, but it
 is in a constant inertial frame not accelerating and so your time should
 slow due to acceleration according to the equivalence principle of General
 Relativity (Gravity=time dilation  Gravity=inertia force) but you can't
 observe other clocks that are in space around you not accelerating to be
 effected by this form of time dilation.

 So if it is equivalent then you should be able to see that if you let a
 clock be effected by gravity (fall) it should also tick faster than your
 time rate.

 So a clock thrown into a black hole, at least as far as General
 Relativity is concerned should be seen to tick at a normal to an observer
 far away from the black hole!
 At least until it stops falling.

 This is not AFAIK a recognized conclusion of General Relativity.


 John

Re: [Vo]:Drop a clock

[leaking pen]

Maybe I am missing something at this point as well. Isn't dilation an
effect of VELOCITY and not acceleration?


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:26 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have about 4 fundamentally different thought experiments to debunk
 Relativity in various ways besides various other arguments involving
 electromagnetism.

 While they have never been really hard to grasp, I have never had one that
 can be described in 2 quick sentences and be really easy to grasp like this
 one is, so logically infallible:  Equivalence Principle

 If you drop a clock in Einstein's accelerating elevator it is instantly no
 longer accelerating and not subject to gravitational like time dilation.
 Either the same is true if the test is done in a gravity field (the clock
 is seen to run fast the instant you let go), or you can easily tell the
 difference!

 *So while I am very used to being ignored most of time time*, I really
 hope I am not ignored this time because coming up with a conclusive
 argument is not enough if it takes a while to read, or if there are enough
 distractions and misunderstandings to argue about.

 I really hope to get a reply from everyone here that thinks they have even
 a basic grasp of the equivalence principle, time dilation and so on.

 Obviously disingenuous objections can always be made but I think this is
 to clear cut to be badly effected by disbelief and smoke screens.

 So please, tell me I've done it. (either made a new expectation about the
 imperfection of the equivalence principle, or a new expectation about time
 dilation and gravity)

 Or Tell me I haven't because the equivalence principle was always known to
 have this fault.
 Or because gravitational time dilation was always known to have this quirk.

 Or tell me I haven't because the non-accelerating object will be time
 dilated by the acceleration of a local object because of some frame
 dragging effect and everyone knows that.

 Or tell me you don't understand it.
 Tell me you don't believe me but you can't explain it.

 But please this time, don't ignore me.

 John








 On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:43 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:

 If I am wrong about this and this is an expected difference, then
 the equivalence principle is often wrongly stated to be far more
 bulletproof than it should be stated.

 This source says: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilli...Relativity.pdf

 The Equivalence Principle says that it's not just that you're too inept
 to figure out a way to differentiate between them, but instead that there
 is *no possible local experiment you can perform to tell the difference,
 no matter how clever you are*.


 On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:17 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:

 Leaking, I guess you are implying the equivalence principle is not meant
 to apply to dropped objects?


 On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:19 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:

 Leaking, this does not apply to the elevator example though.

 And the equivalence principle states that G-force and Gravity aren't
 similar but are the same thing.

 So if the non-accelerating clock in the elevator can't be reasoned to
 be time dilated according to GR since it occupies an inertial reference
 frame, but in in the gravity example...

 Then the equivalence principle so the equivalence-ish principle if it
 predicts different things for a thrown or dropped clock.
 If you can tell the difference easily, it isn't equivalent!

 Personally I would view that a person standing on earth is accelerating
 relative to space but one going with the distortion of space (falling)
 isn't as far as space is concerned.



 On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:00 AM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.comwrote:

 gravity is an acceleration vector, it IS accelerating in relation to
 itself, not just in relation to you.   In addition, it's an accelerating
 acceleration vector.


 On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:57 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:

 If you are in an accelerating space elevator, and you throw a clock
 upwards and then it falls down, the clock looks to be accelerating, but 
 it
 is in a constant inertial frame not accelerating and so your time should
 slow due to acceleration according to the equivalence principle of 
 General
 Relativity (Gravity=time dilation  Gravity=inertia force) but you can't
 observe other clocks that are in space around you not accelerating to be
 effected by this form of time dilation.

 So if it is equivalent then you should be able to see that if you let
 a clock be effected by gravity (fall) it should also tick faster than 
 your
 time rate.

 So a clock thrown into a black hole, at least as far as General
 Relativity is concerned should be seen to tick at a normal to an observer
 far away from the black hole!
 At least until it stops falling.

 This is not AFAIK a recognized conclusion of General Relativity.


 John

Re: [Vo]:Drop a clock

[leaking pen]

YOU said falls down.  That assumes a mass and direction.  Your statement of
the experiment assumes a massive body being accelerated away from.  if we
are talking about in free space, then that is different.

However, dilation is based on velocity, not acceleration.  I'm PRETTY
positive on this one, and a cursory google search shows me not to have gone
nuts in this regards.


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:40 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:12 PM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:

 Not at all, however, if you are accelerating at a rate away from the body
 that the clock is falling towards,


 No offence to you, but I thought that misunderstanding this was impossible.
 You are not accelerating away from a gravity source the clock is falling
 towards.

 These are 2 separate experiments related toEinstein's thought experiment
 about either being in an elevator and being subjected to uniform
 acceleration in free space (no gravity).
 OR being in an elevator sitting on the ground.

 You can't tell which test you are undergoing everything seems identical,
 So I am adding a test, you drop a clock, the instant the clock on the
 accelerating elevator is let go of it assume a constant relative velocity
 to every other object in space that is confusingly termed an inertial
 reference frame, it is no longer accelerated.  It can not be readily
 justified to experience time dilation from acceleration it isn't undergoing.

 So either the same happens in the elevator test on the planet in the
 gravity field also (which would be very dramatic in a black holes time
 dilation field) OR it doesn't and the equivalence principle falls over, at
 least wounded.

 As far as I am aware and can tell from looking, neither conclusion is
 expected, but one must be true, or something even stranger that is also not
 predicted a time dilation aura effecting objects around an accelerating
 object.

 The rest you wrote as far as I could tell did not relate to what I am
 proposing.

 John

Re: [Vo]:Drop a clock

[leaking pen]

No, the dilation due to acceleration is the change in velocity, from
everything I've read.


And, we already do this experiment in a way.  GPS satellites.  The
adjustment of time from their signal tells us which way they are going.
There is no adjustment given or needed for the constant acceleration they
are undergoing from the earth.


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:03 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:38 PM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:

 Maybe I am missing something at this point as well. Isn't dilation an
 effect of VELOCITY and not acceleration?


 Both!

 General Relativity states that time dilation occurs in gravity fields and
 with acceleration (G-Force) which mimics gravity, and that the 2 are
 equivalent the put in a box small enough that you don't detect and
 geometrical differences, you CAN NOT tell the difference between the 2,
 essentially the same thing.

 It is important to realize that this form of time dilation is asymmetric,
 absolute and non paradoxical, if I an in a gravity well and my clock runs
 slow compared to yours floating in free space, both of us will agree that
 my clock is slower and yours is faster.

 Separately,  Special Relativity has a different argument that is quite
 paradoxical, that is 2 bodies are in relative motion (not acceleration)
 both observers have clocks running faster than the others clock.
 Essentially both insist they have the faster rate of time and than the
 other frame since his clock is clearly running slow by comparison, these
 observations are symmetrical, contradictory and I believe I can show this
 with other thought experiments to be beyond absurd, but that is beside the
 point.

 Since the Special Relativity version of time dilation can't be used to
 explain this since it is zero at zero relative velocity and slowly
 increases reaching toward the speed of light, and the moment the object is
 released it's time dilation due to acceleration would be assumed to
 instantly go to zero (no longer accelerating) and SR's version of time
 dilation would not have begun at all.

 Before the clock's time rate could recover based on SR it would have hit
 the floor or gone out of observation range and be effected by massive
 Doppler distortions of time.

Re: [Vo]:Drop a clock

[leaking pen]

Berry, I'm fairly certain that is dilation from the velocity copresent with
the acceleration.  Technically acceleration is a measure of how fast the
velocity is being changed by the application of force, right?

Alain, the distortion they have is from their velocity of travel towards or
away from us in orbit.



On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:

 note that GPS satellites have experienced that phenomenon.
 since they experience different gravity field (in fact they are in
 freefall, unlike us walkers), they experience time dilation/contraction


 2014-02-27 0:40 GMT+01:00 John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com:

 On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:12 PM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:

 Not at all, however, if you are accelerating at a rate away from the
 body that the clock is falling towards,


 No offence to you, but I thought that misunderstanding this was
 impossible.
 You are not accelerating away from a gravity source the clock is falling
 towards.

  These are 2 separate experiments related toEinstein's thought
 experiment about either being in an elevator and being subjected to uniform
 acceleration in free space (no gravity).
 OR being in an elevator sitting on the ground.

 You can't tell which test you are undergoing everything seems identical,
 So I am adding a test, you drop a clock, the instant the clock on the
 accelerating elevator is let go of it assume a constant relative velocity
 to every other object in space that is confusingly termed an inertial
 reference frame, it is no longer accelerated.  It can not be readily
 justified to experience time dilation from acceleration it isn't undergoing.

 So either the same happens in the elevator test on the planet in the
 gravity field also (which would be very dramatic in a black holes time
 dilation field) OR it doesn't and the equivalence principle falls over, at
 least wounded.

 As far as I am aware and can tell from looking, neither conclusion is
 expected, but one must be true, or something even stranger that is also not
 predicted a time dilation aura effecting objects around an accelerating
 object.

 The rest you wrote as far as I could tell did not relate to what I am
 proposing.

 John

Re: [Vo]:Drop a clock

[leaking pen]

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=237212


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:49 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:41 PM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:

 Berry, I'm fairly certain that is dilation from the velocity copresent
 with the acceleration.  Technically acceleration is a measure of how fast
 the velocity is being changed by the application of force, right?


 But that would need another object with a relative frame which isn't
 mentioned.

 And most importantly it clearly states that gravitational time dilation
 is co-present, not that SR's form of time dilation is copresent from the
 velocity produced!


 Alain, the distortion they have is from their velocity of travel towards
 or away from us in orbit.



 On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:

 note that GPS satellites have experienced that phenomenon.
 since they experience different gravity field (in fact they are in
 freefall, unlike us walkers), they experience time dilation/contraction


 2014-02-27 0:40 GMT+01:00 John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com:

 On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:12 PM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.comwrote:

 Not at all, however, if you are accelerating at a rate away from the
 body that the clock is falling towards,


 No offence to you, but I thought that misunderstanding this was
 impossible.
 You are not accelerating away from a gravity source the clock is
 falling towards.

  These are 2 separate experiments related toEinstein's thought
 experiment about either being in an elevator and being subjected to uniform
 acceleration in free space (no gravity).
 OR being in an elevator sitting on the ground.

 You can't tell which test you are undergoing everything seems
 identical, So I am adding a test, you drop a clock, the instant the clock
 on the accelerating elevator is let go of it assume a constant relative
 velocity to every other object in space that is confusingly termed an
 inertial reference frame, it is no longer accelerated.  It can not be
 readily justified to experience time dilation from acceleration it isn't
 undergoing.

 So either the same happens in the elevator test on the planet in the
 gravity field also (which would be very dramatic in a black holes time
 dilation field) OR it doesn't and the equivalence principle falls over, at
 least wounded.

 As far as I am aware and can tell from looking, neither conclusion is
 expected, but one must be true, or something even stranger that is also not
 predicted a time dilation aura effecting objects around an accelerating
 object.

 The rest you wrote as far as I could tell did not relate to what I am
 proposing.

 John

Re: [Vo]:Too much solar PV electricity in Hawii

[leaking pen]

hmm, sounds like a need for a power intensive industry to move in.  Say,
something that uses seawater as well?  like, oh, I dunno...  water
desalination and hydrogen separation?


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hawaii has the most expensive electricity in the U.S. Now they have too
 much PV electricity. The power company says it is overwhelming the
 distribution network. See:


 http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/the-interconnection-nightmare-in-hawaii-and-why-it-matters-to-the-u-s-residential-pv-industry

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Too much solar PV electricity in Hawii

[leaking pen]

Yes, but iirc, they are on the shipping path to a few areas that aren't,
and might not always be returning with full cargoes from dropping off in
north america.



On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:

 hmm, sounds like a need for a power intensive industry to move in.  Say,
 something that uses seawater as well?  like, oh, I dunno...  water
 desalination and hydrogen separation?


 They have plenty of fresh water in Hawaii. Hydrogen energy storage might
 be a good idea. This takes very little water. Pumped hydro might be good.
 That might take a lot of space, which they do not have. The Germans
 sometimes have excess generating capacity from PV and wind, which they
 store with pumped hydro.

 What they need is better batteries.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Magnetism doesn't exist

[leaking pen]

may i suggest googling the phrase?  245 results.


On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:25 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Except for when I have written it, I have never seen the words Magnetism
 doesn't exist written.

 But this confuses me because while the illusion of magnetism is pretty
 convincing we can all agree the expected forces in any magnetic situation
 are electric at each end (magnetic fields are created by and felt as
 electric fields orthogonal to the claimed magnetic field).
 And the expected so-called magnetic forces are predicted by the distortion
 of motion on electric fields.

 Each and every magnetic force/induction from magnetism can be expected by
 looking at how the electric fields are distorted through motion.

 And when I first figured that out, I thought it was just my idea, till the
 good folks on this list many years ago pointed out that all of this was
 known, that Special Relativity included precisely this.

 So given that the forces are expected without any magnetic field, just a
 complete (and complex) analysis of electric fields distorting from motion
 (vector sum analysis).
 And given that magnetic fields are only created by moving charges and only
 ever felt as a perpendicular electrical force.

 They why does no one else but me say Magnetic fields do not exist!??

 Certainly they are a convincing and useful illusion.
 Sure, holding 2 permanent magnets can make holding this belief very hard,
 but but if the permanent magnets are replaced with electromagnets it is
 easy to see how all the expected forces and induction occurs from the
 moving electric fields pancaking, and the lines bending when feed AC.

 John

Re: [Vo]:Magnetism doesn't exist

[leaking pen]

John, don't forget the   around the line when googling to get exact
phrase only!




On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:58 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Pen, googling it finds results but I have not found anything that are
 saying the same things.
 For instance lines such as 'animal magnetism doesn't exist', or some other
 specific form of magnetism.
 Or 'magnetism doesn't exist by your logic...'

 Harry, you lost me. But saying magnetism is an illusion created by
 electric fields being unmasked by the distorting effects of motion is
 certainly not saying motion is an illusion.




 On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:42 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:25 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:

 Except for when I have written it, I have never seen the words
 Magnetism doesn't exist written.

 But this confuses me because while the illusion of magnetism is pretty
 convincing we can all agree the expected forces in any magnetic situation
 are electric at each end (magnetic fields are created by and felt as
 electric fields orthogonal to the claimed magnetic field).
 And the expected so-called magnetic forces are predicted by the
 distortion of motion on electric fields.

 Each and every magnetic force/induction from magnetism can be expected
 by looking at how the electric fields are distorted through motion.

 And when I first figured that out, I thought it was just my idea, till
 the good folks on this list many years ago pointed out that all of this was
 known, that Special Relativity included precisely this.

 So given that the forces are expected without any magnetic field, just a
 complete (and complex) analysis of electric fields distorting from motion
 (vector sum analysis).
 And given that magnetic fields are only created by moving charges and
 only ever felt as a perpendicular electrical force.

 They why does no one else but me say Magnetic fields do not exist!??


 This requires that motion also does not exist or is illusion.

 Harry

 Certainly they are a convincing and useful illusion.
 Sure, holding 2 permanent magnets can make holding this belief very
 hard, but but if the permanent magnets are replaced with electromagnets it
 is easy to see how all the expected forces and induction occurs from the
 moving electric fields pancaking, and the lines bending when feed AC.

 John


 For

Re: [Vo]:Industrial Heat Acquires E-Cat Technology

[leaking pen]

Doesnt say what he acquired it for, probably cash, royalties, and stock. if
he's smart.


On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote:

 So if Rossi sold the rights to the product, then doesn't this mean that
 he's out of the business? If so, then it seems like quite a waste of time.
 If the product is credible, then he threw away billions.

 Craig


 On 01/24/2014 04:38 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 This gives Rossi a lot of credibility.
 I wonder how this will impact various industries and markets.

Re: [Vo]:Industrial Heat Acquires E-Cat Technology

[leaking pen]

I've never heard anyone malign his programming skills.  moral character,
visual design skills, absolutely, but never his coding chops.


On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:

  Somehow I think millions plus your name to live on throughout history
 would be slightly more important than Billions at age 60+


 Why not have both?!? Billions in royalties plus having your name live on.
 Why do you have to choose?

 Rossi is not a fool. He knows it is worth billions. Why would he sell for
 millions? I sure wouldn't.

 The people he is dealing with seem to be straight arrows. I doubt they
 would offer millions. That would be an insult.

 Most people who invent or develop technology like this are not selfless
 people working for the greater good of humanity. They do it because they
 love technology but also because they love money. See, for example, Edison,
 Bill Gates and for that matter, me. (Gates was a superb programmer. One of
 the best. You may have read otherwise, but I used some of his early
 programs that he himself wrote, and they were really good.)

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:[OT] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted

[leaking pen]

Heh i've been playing around with that idea since reading a book on
chemical memories when I was 12.


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:


 My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such as
 the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain will turn
 out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and grounded in
 the science that we already understand.

 Nigel


 On 08/01/2014 06:36, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:

 On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

 ...
 The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism
   by *Rupert Sheldrake*, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set 
 Freehttp://www.deepakchopra.com/book/view/927
 ...


 Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the Scole
 Experiment http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/scole.htm (see near end
 of last youtube video on the page as well as in the main 1.5hr program).
 Having seen what he saw with his naked eyes, it is hardly surprising that
 he is no longer a fundamentalist of scientific materialism persuasion (if
 he ever was)!

Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[leaking pen]

Waldo anyone?


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:19 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Guys,

 I think Doppler Weather and Military radar pulsing 750,000 to 3,000,000
 watts 24/7 into the atmosphere is potentially the worst of the offenders.
  The NEXRAD Doppler weather towers cover a 150 mile radius.  In Sitka,
 Alaska, within that 150 mile radius, the Yellow Cedar trees are slowly
 wasting/dying, they are having blown/toxic algae blooms, fish/salmon kills
 and star fish dissolving. To me, that is a sign of penetrating, ionizing
 radiation. No long term study has ever been done.

 Cell towers are around 100,000 watts each tower, I believe, but there are
 many more of them.

 I am seeing something similar across the country around NEXRAD/TDWR
 towers.  I am in the process of running the statistics  on two years of
 data in Florida

 If time does not exist and you can't average those pulses and figure you
 are OK, you have to consider what those instantaneous pulses are doing to
 biology 24/7.  It is no wonder bees, bats, starfish, trees, chronic wasting
 disease in animals are increasing as well as Autism and Alzheimers. I think
 we have F^%^% up royally

 Stewart




 On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  OTOH …



 This could be good news J



 At least for those concerned about the risk of brain cancer from
 cell-phones, which are in the same UHF frequency range.



 Heck, using the same logic (or lack thereof) maybe UHF radiation kills
 cancer cells… one would not think that UHF could both promote cancer and
 also stifle cellular development in plants, right?







 Ron Wormus wrote:


 
 http://a-sheep-no-more.blogspot.com/2013/12/9th-grade-science-project-finds-plants_3.html
 

 This would be an interesting experiment to repeat with plants at varying
 distance from the same router to see if there's a dose response effect.
  Even better would be cellular culture, but that's harder to manage without
 a lab.

 I think I will move my router further away from my desktop.
 Ron

Re: [Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship

[leaking pen]

I'm lost.  Time dilation would continue to effect the synchonized clock,
right?


On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:17 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:

  On 16/11/2013 12:25 PM, leaking pen wrote:



 *However if we consider ourselves using our initial clock synchronisation,
 then we know our true accumulated speed because we can see that the light
 pulse is only just travelling a bit faster than us (it takes the pulse a
 very long time to travel from the back of the ship to the front) and so we
 are travelling just a shade slower than c.  Also since any clock tick rate
 is given by an oscillation time, if we use the round trip time of a light
 pulse travelling from the back of the ship, to the front and back again, as
 our oscillation tick time, then we know that our time is ticking a lot
 slower than it was before we accelerated.  If we divide the known distance
 (10 light years) by our speed measured this way (~0.99c or thereabouts)
 then we know how many ticks of our (slowed down) clock will happen in that
 distance - and it will be 1 years worth.  Since our clock seems to us to be
 ticking at its normal rate, we will get there in what feels to us like a
 year. *
 Wouldnt the light take the same amount of time per our observation to
 travel the ship? Isn't that fact basically defined by relativity?

 The question is how do you measure the time?  If you measure the round
 trip time, then Yes it never changes - because that is our definition of
 time.  But if we want to measure the *one-way* velocity so that we can
 compare it with the other *one-way* velocity, then we need two clocks - one
 at each end.  If we synchronise these clocks by any means just before we
 make the measurement, then Yes - again it takes exactly the same amount of
 time to travel in each direction along the length of the ship.  That is
 guaranteed by our synchronisation technique.

 But  if we keep the initial synchronisation that was established
 before we started accelerating, then using this time at each end of the
 ship and pulses of light traversing this distance, we can discover our
 speed relative to when the clocks were initially synchronised - and this
 can indicate a speed in excess of c!

 Consider the Eiffel tower experiment.  The clock at the top runs faster
 and the time difference accumulates until a light pulse sent from the top
 when the clock reads say 10am, could arrive at the bottom clock when it
 reads 9:59:59 - which is before it left!  This same effect occurs without
 any gravitational field to mess with time, and only with the help of
 acceleration.  If you got a reading like this from your space ship
 measurement, you would know that you had accelerated such that your
 accumulated speed relative to when you synchronised your clocks was greater
 than c.

Re: [Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship

[leaking pen]

* However if we consider ourselves using our initial clock synchronisation,
then we know our true accumulated speed because we can see that the light
pulse is only just travelling a bit faster than us (it takes the pulse a
very long time to travel from the back of the ship to the front) and so we
are travelling just a shade slower than c.  Also since any clock tick rate
is given by an oscillation time, if we use the round trip time of a light
pulse travelling from the back of the ship, to the front and back again, as
our oscillation tick time, then we know that our time is ticking a lot
slower than it was before we accelerated.  If we divide the known distance
(10 light years) by our speed measured this way (~0.99c or thereabouts)
then we know how many ticks of our (slowed down) clock will happen in that
distance - and it will be 1 years worth.  Since our clock seems to us to be
ticking at its normal rate, we will get there in what feels to us like a
year.*
Wouldnt the light take the same amount of time per our observation to
travel the ship? Isn't that fact basically defined by relativity?


On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:57 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:

  On 16/11/2013 6:04 AM, David Roberson wrote:

  jwinter says:




 *That is correct.  However for us to measure how fast our signal leaves
 our ship, we need 2 clocks - Say one at the back of the ship where the
 signal is launched from and one at the front of our ship to time how long
 it takes to travel the length of the ship.  The signal *only* leaves our
 ship at the speed of light *if* we have taken care to re-synchronise our
 clocks (using the so-called Einstein method) after reaching a steady
 speed.  If instead we kept the same synchronisation that we had before we
 started to accelerate, then we would measure the same speed that any
 previously stationary observer (remote or otherwise) measures (ie the light
 pulse would travel *much* slower than c travelling from the back of our
 ship towards the front, and *much* faster than c in the reverse direction!
 (this is not well known and is a surprise even to many physicists). The
 important thing here is that once we have reset our clocks to be
 synchronous in our new high speed inertial frame, (or once we consider
 ourselves to be at rest), then all distances with respect to our new
 coordinate system have changed.  In particular the 10 light year remote
 star, has now instantly (with the synchronism or the consideration that we
 are stationary) become only 1 light year away.  That is why it will only
 take us one light year to reach it.  Distances in the reverse direction
 (places behind us) are likewise increased (instead of decreased) simply by
 the change of inertial reference frame. However if we consider ourselves
 using our initial clock synchronisation, then we know our true accumulated
 speed because we can see that the light pulse is only just travelling a bit
 faster than us (it takes the pulse a very long time to travel from the back
 of the ship to the front) and so we are travelling just a shade slower than
 c.  Also since any clock tick rate is given by an oscillation time, if we
 use the round trip time of a light pulse travelling from the back of the
 ship, to the front and back again, as our oscillation tick time, then we
 know that our time is ticking a lot slower than it was before we
 accelerated.  If we divide the known distance (10 light years) by our speed
 measured this way (~0.99c or thereabouts) then we know how many ticks of
 our (slowed down) clock will happen in that distance - and it will be 1
 years worth.  Since our clock seems to us to be ticking at its normal rate,
 we will get there in what feels to us like a year.*

  Why would we need two clocks to measure the speed of light leaving our
 ship?

 Quite simply because that is how we measure the speed of anything
 (distance travelled / time taken).  When it is relatively slow (like a 100
 meter dash) we can signal from end to end with light and only use a single
 stopwatch.  But if we want to measure the one-way speed of light itself,
 then we need 2 clocks - one at each end, and read the time near where the
 light pulse is launched, and read the time at the other end when the pulse
 arrives.  If we try to do it with one clock, then we can only measure the
 round trip time.  The round trip time of light is always constant because
 that is how a clock ticks and is the definition of time itself.

   We were only subjected to a 10 G acceleration for the 1 year drive
 period.  Does the problem encountered accumulate throughout the entire time
 that the acceleration is applied?  For example, radiation emitted by our
 drive engine at the very beginning of the trip would simply be measured by
 all observers as having a velocity of c.  Also, those on board the ship
 plus every clock on board would determine everything was normal except for
 the constant 10 G acceleration due to the drive.  It is normally assumed
 

Re: [Vo]:eCat weaponizable after all?

[leaking pen]

indeed, there are easier and cheaper ways to burn down a building.


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  Rossi has previously said the eCat is no danger : at most it would melt
 and stop working.

 Andrea Rossi
  November 13th, 2013 at 12:24 
 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=829cpage=4#comment-856396

 Hank Mills:
 Safety certification is necessary and must be made by a major
 certification company. Laws regarding safety are basically and
 deonthologically the same in all the world. The E-Cat poses relevant
 problems in domestic applications, where not qualified Customers can use
 it. We should be exposed to enormous risks, also for voluntary sabotages.
 Can you imagine what our enemies could do in a “friendly” apartment with
 an E-Cat they could buy for 1,000 $ in a shop ? This is why, realistically,
 domestic application cannot be a priority. It is a matter of good sense. It
 is not a matter of product failure to get a certification, it is a matter
 of a situation that makes impossible to get a certification in these
 conditions. Safety remains an absolute priority, wherever we put the E-Cats
 in the world.
 Warm Regards,
 A.R.

  (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- and the
 defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!)

Re: [Vo]:Quote from Guy Murchie about Ptolemaic astronomy

[leaking pen]

How is that triple?


On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ruby r...@hush.com wrote:


 I have been moving into a new old house and moving stuff out of storage.
 I have about 2000 books, covering every phase of my life's interests.  I
 just pulled this very book out of a box yesterday, and wondered to myself,
 hmm, why do I have this book?

 Now I know!


 That's courtesy the Department of Synchrony.

 I once experienced a case of triple synchrony with a book. The only thing
 like that I ever encountered. Before the Internet reached Sri Lanka I was
 in a fax conversation with Arthur Clarke about synchrony and coincidences.
 I faxed him some pages of the book Meeting Japan by Fosco Mariani, in
 which Mariani described the time he was a civilian POW in Japan and he
 suddenly sensed that his mother, back in Italy, had just died. Which was
 true. He found out after the war she had died that hour. Anyway, I faxed a
 copy of that page and Arthur faxed back something like: by coincidence I
 just today picked that book up off my shelf. Not because he remembered
 that passage, just by coincidence.

 Or maybe someone brought him a copy . . . It was something like that. I
 could look it up, since I never throw away anything.

 Clarke was fascinated by coincidences and mysterious occurrences. I think
 he was interested in the occult, but he did not want to admit it, being of
 such a scientific bent. He did a TV series Mysterious Universe.

 My guess is that if extrasensory perception exists, Clarke himself had no
 trace of it, even though he was fascinated by it. In that, he resembles the
 character Rupert Boyce in his book, Childhood's End. Boyce is
 investigating ESP and has a library of books on it. He is described:

 He pretends to be open-minded and skeptical, but it's clear that he would
 never have spent so much time and effort in this field unless he had some
 subconscious faith. I challenged him on this and he admitted I was probably
 right. . . .

 In many ways Boyce is remarkably obtuse and simpleminded. This makes his
 attempts to do research in this, of all fields, rather pathetic.

 I believe this is actually Clarke's rueful description of himself.

 I myself have no trace of ESP.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Wanted: Pilot Customer for ECAT 1 MW plant

[leaking pen]

Dibs on minting the copper into commemorative coins.  one side will have
rossi in profile, above the ecat, the other will have In Honor of All Cold
Fusion Deniers inscribed around the rim, and a giant middle finger.


On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 Why can't some of us Vorts pool our resources enough to start a hot tub
 resort powered by free ecats?  Probably the quickest  funnest and MOST
 PROFITABLE way to get exposure for the technology.


 On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote:



 Wanted: Pilot Customer for ECAT 1 MW plant

 Hydro Fusion is looking for a Pilot Customer for the first ECAT 1 MW
 Plant to operate in Sweden. The customer will only pay for the energy
 produced by the ECAT, i.e. Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation will take
 responsibility for all associated costs including: the plant itself,
 installation and any transportation costs.

 http://hydrofusion.com/news/wanted-pilot-customer-for-ecat-1-mw-plant


 ECAT 1 MW Plant produces energy through a so-called cold fusion
 process. No combustion takes place; instead Nickel and Hydrogen merge to
 produce Copper.  Per unit of weight, this process is at least 100,000 more
 efficient than any known combustion process.

 http://hydrofusion.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw-plant



 hmmm...I guess the copper will belong to Rossi. ;-)

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:A new theory of electromagnetism is in the works.

[leaking pen]

That never makes sense to me. It makes more sense to place a photon as a
different energy version of the same type of thing. Electrons exhibit the
same particle wave duality as photons, why are both not just particles in
the same class, mediated by a force we don't yet have set down, and THAT
force is what keeps everything at the speed of light, not light. That just
seems right to me, so there must be lots im missing, right?


On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 FYI,

 From String Theory for Dummies (I hang out there a lot)

 One key component of Maxwell’s unification was a discovery that the
 electromagnetic force moved at the speed of light. In other words, the
 electromagnetic waves that Maxwell predicted from his theory were a form of
 light waves.

 Quantum electrodynamics retains this relationship between electromagnetism
 and light, because in QED the information about the force is transferred
 between two charged particles (or magnetic particles) by another particle —
 a *photon,* or particle of light. (Physicists say that the
 electromagnetic force is *mediated* by a photon.)





 On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 String-net liquid

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String-net_liquid

 In this theory, electrons are breaks in strings of light.

 Fractional charge of the electron is explained. Hydrino fans might want
 to try to understand this theory.

 Check out

 http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/cmp/2013/198710/

 Topological Order: From Long-Range Entangled Quantum Matter to a Unified
 Origin of Light and Electrons

Re: [Vo]:(Video) Catastrophic solar flare narrowly misses Earth

[leaking pen]

Considering that nuclear plants in the US are designed around the idea of
EMP from nearby nuclear explosions not being able to stop them running, I
don't believe there is a problem. (From my father in law, who is a senior
reactor operator at Palo Verde, they have mechanical backups to completely
take a core down if need be. )


On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:29 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I would hope that a backup system would kick in if the grid went down.
  Battery operation kept the Fukushima reactors safe for a few hours and had
 the diesels been functional, there might not have been such a mess.

  There are varying levels and types of EMP to worry about.  EMP from a
 nuclear weapon most likely would behave quite differently from that sourced
 by a solar flare.  The EMP fields from nuclear weapons are instantaneously
 generated with the associated extremely rapid waveforms.  Is there any
 reason to suspect that those originating from a solar eruption would be
 similar?  My guess is that a large, long term, but slowly changing field
 would be easy to defend against.  All of the problems would appear almost
 DC related instead of high energy microwave like.  For instance radios
 would not even be dangerously damaged with solar related issues.

  Transformer overloads would be likely, and so would transmission lines,
 and other long distance metallic paths.  This would be bad, no doubt, but
 not likely to blow up the diesel systems and their controls.  The battery
 backups should survive without serious harm either.

  So, we could expect serious problems with power transmission that lasts
 until the components are repaired, but I doubt a nuclear catastrophe.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 7:03 pm
 Subject: [Vo]:(Video) Catastrophic solar flare narrowly misses Earth

  They ought to be working on it now.  In 1859 many/most had access to
 farms for food and did not rely on electricity/electronics for almost
 everything.  Today we have millions of people racked and stacked in cities
 totally reliant on a power infrastructure that could be knocked out for a
 year or more. A large flare is going to happen.  Fukushima was a good
 example of how woefully unprepared a power company is if there is a loss of
 grid power and diesel backup.  I wonder if those diesel gensets have
 electronic ignitions that will still function?  I used to work for
 Honeywell, what if the control system gets fried?  I still remember those
 helicopters dumping loads of water on top of the reactors, how effective
 was that?

 On Thursday, August 1, 2013, wrote:

 Dave,

 I don't think ChemE is being gloomy.
 Starting at 0:48:42 in the video, someone remarks -
 ... A general EMP would have Fukushimas all over the country.

 One recent paper in arxiv indicated that the probability of such an
 event in a human lifetime is not that small.

 The video shows that the elites are abandoning normality bias.
 As they stated, for less than $2B, the grid could be hardened.
 That's money well spent.

 -- Lou Pagnucco

 Dave Roberson wrote:
  No need to be so gloomy ChemE.  We have survived thus far.
 
 
  Dave
 
  -Original Message-
  From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 4:36 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:(Video) Catastrophic solar flare narrowly misses Earth
 
 
  There will come a day.  It probably won't be the EMP directly that gets
  us.  It will be untold numbers of fission reactors that cannot get their
  backup batteries and diesel generators to run, or enough diesel fuel,
  which will lead to multiple meltdowns and will be the end to life as we
  know it.
  [...]

Re: [Vo]:Bold attempt at OverUnity via gravity

[leaking pen]

are crackle and pop really higher order derivatives of motion, or are you
having some fun there? (im serious, my physics and mechanics is not quite
enough to tell if you're jerking my chain with those two.)


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Grimer seems to think it work:

 http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=112238#112238

 Grimer:

 Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:52 pmPost subject:   Another Claim to a
 Working Device

 *Grimer wrote:*
 *I think I am beginning to grasp one of the essential requirements for a
 gravity mill. *

 *One must have a closed path for the weights on one side of the main axle
 but no *
 *closed path on the other. *

 *In other words we must have at least two centres of motion for the
 weights. *

 *We probably need three but preventing structure as a whole moving
 relative *
 *to the earth will possibly give us the third.*

 LOL. It's all to do with the conservation of energy.

 Each energy derivative is conserved. The two familiar ones are of course
 the first and second derivatives, Momentum and Force x distance. We can
 think off these as velocity energy and acceleration energy. We could add
 conservation of heat within an insulated space as a third familiar
 conservation.

 But all derivatives must be conserved since we are talking in all cases of
 more and more complicated examples of the basic conservation, the
 conservation of momentum.

 So jerk is conserved, snap is conserved, crackle is conserved, pop is
 conserved and all higher as yet unnamed derivatives are also conserved.
 Heat covers a range of derivatives depending on the number of independent
 particle motions involved.

 To return to the subject in hand, if we have a simple closed path which
 weaves in and out towards a single axle centre then though we have plenty
 of change in acceleration towards the centre (jerk), the positive jerk on
 the one side is necessarily balanced by the negative jerk on the other and
 so there is no net gain in energy.

 However, if we have a major and a minor centre and we loop around the
 minor centre on one side but not on the other then we have more jerk energy
 on one side than the other. So we can use the jerk vector to unbalance the
 wheel - which is basically what Trevor is trying to do - and the Boys from
 Brazil as well for that matter.

 end quote

 Extensive discussion in this thread.

Re: [Vo]:Quantum teleportation done between distant large objects

[leaking pen]

They made entangled particles interact with each other at a distance for a
while, sending complex info, rather than a single on off communication like
we've done at distance before.


On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Roger Bird bachc...@gmail.com wrote:

 That really sounds interesting.  I don't suppose you would like to
 translate that in non-mensa-ese.

 Roger


 On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:04 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:


 A very remarkable achievement --

 Quantum teleportation done between distant large objects


 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jun/11/quantum-teleportation-done-between-distant-large-objects

 ...Their experimental set-up involves two room-temperature samples of
 caesium-133 gas held in glass containers and separated by about 50 cm. The
 aim of the experiment is to use light to teleport the collective quantum
 spin state of 10^12 atoms from one container to the other

Re: [Vo]:Reifenschweiler effect rediscovered in Japan

[leaking pen]

vice versa. if it is decreasing the half life, it is INCREASING the
reaction rate, it's decaying faster.


On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote: I don't know much about nuclear physics, but wouldn't it be
 endothermic?

 Endothermic is the wrong word. It would not absorb heat.

 I meant it would release less heat, since fewer reactions occur. It slows
 down the reaction rate.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Reifenschweiler effect rediscovered in Japan

[leaking pen]

That seems speculative. Do we have any proof of that?  It may be a
completely different decay pathway.


On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The BEC formed by the nanoparticles shields the gamma rays produced by the
 acceleration of half life radiation relaxation rates. But the beta release
 of electrons still occurs along with neutrino release. Alpha decay produces
 particles with little energy so no bad side effects come from there.


 On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 On the contrary. If the half life is cut down to 2 months from 30 years,
 the reaction rate is increased 180x. That means Cesium 137 would be much
 more dangerous. But somehow, it is not and the hazard disappeared.


 2013/6/9 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 I meant it would release less heat, since fewer reactions occur. It
 slows down the reaction rate.

 - Jed




 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:I confess

[leaking pen]

This.  Outlook is for suckers and people required to use it at the office.


On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Roger,

 Open a gmail account.  WYSIWYG.

Re: [Vo]:I confess

[leaking pen]

I do know that beta particles, used in the famous gold foil experiments,
are .75 c in vacuum, but often faster than c in other materials.


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Roger B rogerbi...@hotmail.com wrote:

 I confess to being an ignoramus.  I confess to having only a B.A. in
 psychology, a B.A. in philosophy, and an A.S. in electronics technology.
 I am, however, a philosophical savant.

 I have a question that I have asked several times but have never gotten an
 answer.  By what means do conventional physicist probe and understand the
 innards of the atom?  What is the minimum speed of the particles that
 they shoot into the atom to see what is there?  Do they ever use some
 version of light to understand the innards of the atom?

 If, as I suppose, and I could be wrong, all of the particles shot into
 the atom are traveling close to the speed of light, then could not there be
 some unknown characteristic at this speed, perhaps as yet unknown to us,
 that causes things inside the atom to behave differently than from how
 they would behave if the probing particle were going much slower.  For
 example, what if the almost light speed particle had a bow wave in front
 of it as it flew through the aether?  If every single particle that was
 used to probe the inside of the atom were traveling at .99 the speed of
 light, then this distortion would be the same in every experiment, and
 one aspect of this limited view inside the atom we might call the
 Coulomb Barrier.

 Is this all possible?  Or am I off base?


 Roger Bird
 Colorado

Re: [Vo]:I confess

[leaking pen]

I coulda sworn thoron was a beta emitter. my bad.


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Joseph S. Barrera III 
jbarr...@slac.stanford.edu wrote:

 Actually, Rutherford's gold foil experiment used alpha particles,
 generated by Radon radioactive decay.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_**experimenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment

 According to 
 http://www.epa.gov/radiation/**understand/alpha.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/alpha.htmland
 http://www.**newworldencyclopedia.org/**entry/Alpha_decayhttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Alpha_decayalpha
  particles typically have an energy around 5 MeV which works out to be
 a velocity of 5% that of light.

 - Joe


 On 6/4/2013 6:12 PM, leaking pen wrote:
  I do know that beta particles, used in the famous gold foil experiments,
 are .75 c in vacuum, but often faster than c in other materials.
 
 
  On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Roger B rogerbi...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
  I confess to being an ignoramus.  I confess to having only a B.A. in
 psychology, a B.A. in philosophy, and an A.S. in electronics technology.  I
 am, however, a philosophical savant.
 
  I have a question that I have asked several times but have never
 gotten an answer.  By what means do conventional physicist probe and
 understand the innards of the atom?  What is the minimum speed of the
 particles that they shoot into the atom to see what is there?  Do they ever
 use some version of light to understand the innards of the atom?
 
  If, as I suppose, and I could be wrong, all of the particles shot
 into the atom are traveling close to the speed of light, then could not
 there be some unknown characteristic at this speed, perhaps as yet unknown
 to us, that causes things inside the atom to behave differently than from
 how they would behave if the probing particle were going much slower.  For
 example, what if the almost light speed particle had a bow wave in front of
 it as it flew through the aether?  If every single particle that was used
 to probe the inside of the atom were traveling at .99 the speed of light,
 then this distortion would be the same in every experiment, and one
 aspect of this limited view inside the atom we might call the Coulomb
 Barrier.
 
  Is this all possible?  Or am I off base?
 
 
  Roger Bird
  Colorado
 

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed

[leaking pen]

I had to go through the past few threads that I honestly wasn't following
to see what was meant.  Yeah...  I wouldn't have tolerated him as long as
Bill did. It seemed he lived to say, Oh Really?



On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:


 multiple violations of rule 2.

 (I suspect that he didn't read the rules before subscribing.)


 Whoa! That seems precipitous. He did not seem so bad to me.


 Rule 2.  NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is
 banned. Debunking or Pathological Skepticism is banned (see the link.)
  The tone here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful
 debate. . . .

 http://www.amasci.com/weird/wvort.html#rules


 Perhaps you can invite him back after a bit? Also maybe Abd? I miss him.

 They might not swallow their pride and return. Maybe you should say I
 acted too hastily, I apologize. Say this whether you mean it or not.
 That's how they do things in Japan.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input?

[leaking pen]

Because when he DOES finally allow it, and its fine, people will look
stupid. Its never what the magician tells you NOT to look at thats
important, its what he tells you to look at.


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 This has only just occurred to me, but in my mind is a bit of a red flag:

 The reactor vessel is a sealed metal container, no electrical or magnetic
 signal of any frequency will penetrate it (It is a faraday cage).  And all
 of the resistive heating elements are positioned around it, so they do
 nothing but deliver heat to the reactor contents - no special magnetic or
 electrical excitation can pass through the reactor vessel.  All of these
 configurational details were revealed to the testers by Rossi.

 So why did Rossi feel the need to prevent detailed analysis of the input
 power to these resistors that are no more than resistive heaters? We know
 he ran it in at least a partially pulsed 35% on 65% off mode with period of
 about 6 minutes from the thermography.   So what possible harm could have
 come from allowing continuous measurement of voltage drop and current flow
 through the resistors?

 As such preventing that measurement serves no sensible purpose that I, or
 any other engineer/scientist could see, it is a pointless obfuscation.  All
 it achieves is raising suspicion about just what electrical power is really
 flowing through those resistors.

Re: [Vo]:Percentage of Physicist who reject LENR

[leaking pen]

zero percent of those who have actually run the experiments themselves?


On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:

 Just a practical question . (serious, I need a number)
 is there any statistic about the ratio of physicist who think LENR is not
 real?

 is there a recent number about the number or peer-reviewed papers,
 positive or negative about LENR, eliminating the journal that are dedicated
 to LENr, free energies, and uncommon science (as mainstream says)...

 does some people also know that kind of numbers for other past great
 discovery, at inception, like :
 - planes
 - hygiena
 - continental drift/wegener
 - QM
 - fission
 - heliocentrism
 - immunization
 - 5-symmetric crystal

 I'm afraid there are few of those data, and that the few data on recent
 stories have been erased (like 5-symmetries)...

 it seems that today it is a problem to address, so at least I should have
 answers.

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

[leaking pen]

The standard skepticism that any scientist should have, wishing to explore,
to look at the evidence, to experiment and refine, is , from what I've
seen, welcome here. What is not is blindly saying, THis cannot be true, and
then, THEN, after deciding something is false, going about poking every
hole in it possible.  Should the same arguements be made from a point of,
Did you consider this, did you take that into account, how can we refine
this and make it a BETTER model, then there wouldnt be an issue, I believe.


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 I think we need to consider two types of skeptics. If a person does not
 even believe the validity of the subject being discussed, what can that
 skeptic contribute. If CF is not real, what is the point of discussing why
 or how it works? The second kind of skeptics works by considering  the
 basic idea being true, but have questions about the details. Cude is not
 interested in the details of CF because none of the details are correct.  I
 suggest this kind of skeptic is a waste of time once the basic idea is
 accepted.

 Ed Storms

 On May 12, 2013, at 6:07 AM, Vorl Bek wrote:

  On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:53:29 -0500
 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:


 I'm not interested in an inaccessible (non-archived) list like vortex-b,
 so
 I'll just slink away. I may post a few responses to Rothwell's latest
 replies over on wavewatching.net/fringe if they tolerate it.

 Otherwise, adios. It's been a slice.


 It is a pity that J Cude is leaving. While I enjoy a True Believer
 site as much as anyone, after a while it is like eating nothing
 but dessert - you need some meat and potatoes in the form of
 articulate skeptics.

Re: [Vo]:Curious irony

[leaking pen]

Makes perfect sense. excess heat is being generated by the motion of the
particles involved, and becoming more tightly bound and higher forces to
create the new atoms would move everything more, yes no?


On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 On April 15th, an update has been made to the Rossi patent application at
 the European Patent Office - which was mentioned previously here.


 https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?documentId=EUIP5C400118284nu
 mber=EP08873805lng=ennpl=false

 As you can see, Nickel-62 is featured in Claim One as the active species
 for
 the reaction, essentially making this patent very specific.

 The curious factoid ... or irony is that Ni-62 (NOT an iron isotope) - is
 a singularity in a way, being the isotope with the highest binding energy
 per nucleon of all known nuclides (~8.8 MeV per) and yet here it is being
 identified as active for the anomalous energy Rossi claims to have found
 with hydrogen.

 Jones

 On the one hand, if there is true gain in this device primarily due to
 properties of this isotope - being a singularity could be an important
 clue.
 OTOH it is most surprising that the physical property for which it derives
 its uniqueness - is the opposite of what one logically expects in the
 situation.

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[leaking pen]

have you tried printing it out?


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:20 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 All should work, but it does make a difference.
 LED/LCD seems best, I have not yet tried it on a CRT.


 On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:05 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  To the RIGHT side of your monitor.

 Does it matter if your monitor is a CRT, LED or LCD?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[leaking pen]

flip a coin 99 times, if it comes up heads 99 times, what is the
probability that it will come up heads the 100th time?   And not sure where
Fox got their 10 tons, but the volume, 15 meters across, is pretty much
been the estimate since the beginning. perhaps someone mis estimated what
15 cubic feet of stone weighs?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a million.
  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events that
 independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

 1/(365*100)^2
 = 1/133225

 Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand for
 whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

 This is not a coincidence.

 PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
 of 
 1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
 .


 On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
 approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
 direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
 mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
 explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
  Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
 come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
 source footage.  An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
 correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
 a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

 There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events --
 which may be explained independently but taken as independent events seems
 to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

 1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently become
 advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside of
 geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
 announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
 approach on Feb 15, 2012.

 2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to cause
 widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense shockwaves
 correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for decades.

 3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
 appear statistically independent.

 It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since we're
 potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon relating not to the
 mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but rather to the phenomenon of
 public announcement.

 It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is hard
 for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor enters over land,
 and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's surface that is land we
 can increase the  expected frequency only a few fold at best.

 On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
 fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows.
 As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere,
 where is the common sense?

 Ed

 On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s*
 ***
 ** **
 ** **
 NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
 this Russian video, in slo-mo.
 ** **
 The video could have been altered - with the addition  of a fast moving
 object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at
 about 27 seconds).
 ** **
 Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
 military, why not give it some credence?
 ** **
 Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
 ** **
 ** **
 ** **
 ** **
 NASA's blog 
 stateshttp://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.html#comments
 :

 Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction

 ** **
 180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
 ** **
 What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:PLEASE READ, two new rules

[leaking pen]

shoot, I seem to have resubscribed with the wrong email address. Let me fix
that!

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:

 Those two rules are on a very good way, yet I propose slight deviation, in
 the same spirit.


 About Feeding a troll, or as said here someone sincere (jojo,  MY, or me
 sometime, or people whom I respect too much to name because I appreciate
 their contribution - even if MY sometime was interesting) that does not
 want to concede a point :

 I have a personal policy, to give data, propose reasoning, not for the
 troll/stone head/convinced man but for the lurkers and the
 archive ... some fact checking, proposing a position, reminding
 controversy... it feed the troll and the question is when to stop
 feeding... maybe when you have to repeat, but good troll don't get caught
 in a cycle, but move the target in new place... don't feed the troll is a
 precaution principle, maybe too precautionous... anyway have to stop. there
 must be a timeout.



 About anonymity, I agree partially, yet I prefer checked pseudonymity.
 In my case, I imagine that most people know my other LENR pseudonym in the
 community, and some know my name, that sadly you can get in 5 second
 because of... ...pfff...
 I just don't want to have my boss google me talking of non-consensual
 industry, incompatible with the company image and strategy. My professional
 ethic ask me to protect my company from my private position.

 If people here, who agree not to spread (more than already done) my ID,
 want to see my name and CV, I will give link... anyway with 5 minute of
 search you can identify me... I just wan't to be protected from quick
 google.

 but I understand that some higher executive, might prefer to be
 pseudonymized, yet checked by trusted authorities here.



 another policy I've heard about defining what is an abuse (from women
 organization) is that sometime it is hard to define what is
 non-consensual, but when the other party (trusted authorities here)
 says that if have to stop, continuing is abuse.
 Same for something repeated too often...
 The result is not very formal, but it works in real life...




 2013/1/9 Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com

 
  Below are two long-standing but unwritten rules of vortex-L:
 
 1. DO NOT FEED A TROLL.  If someone is insulting, then you are
 required
 to put their address in local killfile.   If you don't know what
 trolls
 are, and aren't familiar with this issue, do not subscribe to
 vortex-L

 Good rule. But to be clear, I don't think the insulters are
 necessarily trolls, which are defined, as I understand it, as
 people who are insincere and post to get a rise out of others.

 The people who took part in the recent rubbish-fest were all
 sincere as far as I could tell, and I think they recognized that
 the insults directed at them were sincerely meant.

 That would make it difficult to put the insulter in a killfile,
 but I agree that is what needs to be done - unless you want to
 give them the option of keeping the rubbish in vortexb.


 
 2. REAL IDENTITIES ONLY.   This is a semi-pro forum, and we all use
 our real names here.  Users will provide linking info in their posted
 messages, such as a sig with personal website, Facebook page,
 mailing addr, etc.   Just make sure anyone can verify your real-world
 identity.
 
  I won't be enforcing the second one until I set up an archive system
 which
  is private, members-only.  I'm looking at groupware services which
  duplicate the groups function at yahoo and google (both of which have
  major issues which we've discussed, and I've very intentionally avoided
  migrating to either one.) But today there are at least three other
  options.
 
 
 
 
  (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
  William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
  billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
  EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
  Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:PLEASE READ, two new rules

[leaking pen]

I'll be completely honest. My insults back at JoJo were intentional, and
horrible behavior. I shouldn't have done it.

Also, Bill, I'm trying to sign up on the list on an email that contains my
name, and I'm not getting a response. Is signup still turned off?

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:02 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:

 On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Vorl Bek wrote:

  Good rule. But to be clear, I don't think the insulters are
 necessarily trolls, which are defined, as I understand it, as
 people who are insincere and post to get a rise out of others.


 I'm an internet troll myself, and I recognize one of my own.  I've never
 met any incincere, intentional trolls, but I've encountered numbers of my
 own type online, plus the occasional one on vortex.  The problem is easy to
 see from inside.

 We trolls live in a reality-warp, a dishonest world, we're buried in major
 psychological projection and hypocrisy.  We refuse to take the tinyest
 responsibility for our actions, or to ever view them in a bad light.  Any
 problems which inexplicably arise are always, always, someone elses'
 fault, and we're expert at convincing others that this is true.  Most of us
 keep up a conversation where we apply derogatory labels to those around us,
 with glowing descriptions of ourselves.  Hence we're usually delivering
 obvious insults to others, while labeling our own rotten behavior as pure
 and justifed deeds.

 Me, I suspect that most of us got this way from physical/emotional abuse
 as children.  But I've only heard about this from a very few.  For
 excessive details on this type of troll or flamer personality,  See:

   Flamer Personality Disorder
   http://amasci.com/weird/flamer

   MS Peck, The People of the Lie
   
 http://www.amazon.com/People-**Lie-Hope-Healing-Human/dp/**0684848597http://www.amazon.com/People-Lie-Hope-Healing-Human/dp/0684848597


  The people who took part in the recent rubbish-fest were all
 sincere as far as I could tell, and I think they recognized that
 the insults directed at them were sincerely meant.


 If both sides *label* their oppenent's insults as grevious disgusting
 slanders, while *labeling* their own insults as justified responses or I'm
 just telling you truths about yourself  ...then you're dealing with
 trolls.  The constant dishonest labeling is the symptom.  The hypocricy is
 the symptom, e.g. my own misbehavior is pure and justifed and beyond
 reproach, while your *identical* misbehavior is completely disgusting and
 requires prompt retribution.  (But outsiders see things differently. Well,
 they do if they can avoid being drawn into the troll's campaign of
 distortion.  Attempting to see things from the troll's viewpoint can be a
 big mistake.)



 (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
 William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:PLEASE READ, two new rules

[leaking pen]

Hah!  No, I'm Alexander Hollins, at some point gmail started putting an old
pen name (pun intended) as my first and last. I'm still not sure how that
change happened, as I didn't do it

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:03 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Leaking, I thought that was your real name! :-) Some sort of foreign name
 thing.

  Dave



 -Original Message-
 From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 11:58 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:PLEASE READ, two new rules

  I'll be completely honest. My insults back at JoJo were intentional, and
 horrible behavior. I shouldn't have done it.

  Also, Bill, I'm trying to sign up on the list on an email that contains
 my name, and I'm not getting a response. Is signup still turned off?

 On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:02 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:

 On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Vorl Bek wrote:

  Good rule. But to be clear, I don't think the insulters are
 necessarily trolls, which are defined, as I understand it, as
 people who are insincere and post to get a rise out of others.


  I'm an internet troll myself, and I recognize one of my own.  I've never
 met any incincere, intentional trolls, but I've encountered numbers of my
 own type online, plus the occasional one on vortex.  The problem is easy to
 see from inside.

 We trolls live in a reality-warp, a dishonest world, we're buried in
 major psychological projection and hypocrisy.  We refuse to take the
 tinyest responsibility for our actions, or to ever view them in a bad
 light.  Any problems which inexplicably arise are always, always, someone
 elses' fault, and we're expert at convincing others that this is true.
  Most of us keep up a conversation where we apply derogatory labels to
 those around us, with glowing descriptions of ourselves.  Hence we're
 usually delivering obvious insults to others, while labeling our own rotten
 behavior as pure and justifed deeds.

 Me, I suspect that most of us got this way from physical/emotional abuse
 as children.  But I've only heard about this from a very few.  For
 excessive details on this type of troll or flamer personality,  See:

   Flamer Personality Disorder
   http://amasci.com/weird/flamer

   MS Peck, The People of the Lie
   
 http://www.amazon.com/People-**Lie-Hope-Healing-Human/dp/**0684848597http://www.amazon.com/People-Lie-Hope-Healing-Human/dp/0684848597


  The people who took part in the recent rubbish-fest were all
 sincere as far as I could tell, and I think they recognized that
 the insults directed at them were sincerely meant.


  If both sides *label* their oppenent's insults as grevious disgusting
 slanders, while *labeling* their own insults as justified responses or I'm
 just telling you truths about yourself  ...then you're dealing with
 trolls.  The constant dishonest labeling is the symptom.  The hypocricy is
 the symptom, e.g. my own misbehavior is pure and justifed and beyond
 reproach, while your *identical* misbehavior is completely disgusting and
 requires prompt retribution.  (But outsiders see things differently. Well,
 they do if they can avoid being drawn into the troll's campaign of
 distortion.  Attempting to see things from the troll's viewpoint can be a
 big mistake.)



 (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
 William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:something to consider

[leaking pen]

there's a big difference between disdain for having a view, and suggesting
that because you belong to a group, you must be a murdering pedophile bent
on the destruction of other groups.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Eric, I forgot to mention.

 What would you do if you are the subject of constant insults and ridicule
 for your views?  Would you not lash out in retaliation?  Your bias is why I
 grow more instransigent each day.  You express grave concern that islam
 may be assaulted but express no equal concern that I have been insulted
 time and time again here for my beliefs in the Bible.

 Well you ask what you would do if you were in Abd's situation.  Why
 don't you ask another equally valid question. What would you do if you
 were in Jojo's position.

 This problem has a very very very simple solution you know.



 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:02 PM
 *Subject:* [Vo]:something to consider

 I am starting this as a new thread because many people are starting to
 skip entire threads.  See my questions below.

 I wrote If that's the best we can do for now, how to address Abd's
 pressing concern about having his background and religion subject to
 constant assault on this list?  But really this is a concern that pertains
 to all of us.  We need a list that is hospitable to all people who can make
 a competent contribution.  (I do not mean *everybody*.  I do not mind in
 the slightest if list mods take action to make the list quite inhospitable
 to those who for whatever reason are too immature to contribute much of
 value.)

 Think about what you would do if you were in Abd's situation.  Perhaps you
 would just abide the assault quietly.  Perhaps you would leave the list.
  But that would not make the environment any more hospitable for others in
 shoes similar to yours.  You may not respond in the way that Abd has.  But
 we should appreciate that he's being put in a very awkward position and
 that he has broader interests in mind.

 Eric


 On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:


  On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com 
 wrote:


  Oh, I'm quivering, shaking with the possibility that *Jed Rothwell*
 might filter me out.

 I am not going to subscribe to VortexB-l. This is supposedy a moderated
 list. If it stays unmoderated, I won't be here long.


 Hate to say it, but the troll is starting to win.  People are starting to
 lose patience with one another.  I think Steve Johnson has been on this
 list since early days.

 Any word on Bill?  Is he ok?

 How long do we suffer the present situation until we reconstitute under
 something like Google Groups, with Terry or another longtimer as mod? Or
 should everyone who can't stand the situation add he who shall not be named
 to a killfile?  If that's the best we can do for now, how to address Abd's
 pressing concern about having his background and religion subject to
 constant assault on this list?

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.

[leaking pen]

Red. Blue. YELLOW! Chartruese.

That has been your color commentary, we now return you to the action.

Alex Hollins

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Jones and Robin are acceptable to me, though Terry seems to involve
 himself in too much off-topic noise.


 Black!

Re: [Vo]:something to consider

[leaking pen]

I'm pointing out an inconsistency in a particular simile you made. Please,
tell me if I have misrepresented your views

Alex Hollins

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Because you have shown your disdain for me and my views, I will now treat
 your views with equal disdain.

 Insults to my faith started from multiple members of this group long long
 long before I started insulting Lomax by telling the truth about his
 religion.

 You might say there is nothing that leaking pen has posted in this post
 that would constitute an insult but you need to take his whole post history
 to properly evaluate his intent with this post.  Based on his hostile
 history to me, I have perceived this post to be an insult.  In fact, this
 is the 4th insult he has directed to me and this is the first time I am
 responding to him with an insult.


 Jojo


 PS, I have agreed to Mark's and David's reasonable proposal to stop the
 cycle of insults, and I have not insulted anyone, in fact, I have not
 posted for over 12 hours now, and yet fresh insults continue to head my way.

 My friends, I am not the problem here.





 - Original Message -
 *From:* leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Friday, January 04, 2013 1:34 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:something to consider

 there's a big difference between disdain for having a view, and suggesting
 that because you belong to a group, you must be a murdering pedophile bent
 on the destruction of other groups.

 On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Eric, I forgot to mention.

 What would you do if you are the subject of constant insults and ridicule
 for your views?  Would you not lash out in retaliation?  Your bias is why I
 grow more instransigent each day.  You express grave concern that islam
 may be assaulted but express no equal concern that I have been insulted
 time and time again here for my beliefs in the Bible.

 Well you ask what you would do if you were in Abd's situation.  Why
 don't you ask another equally valid question. What would you do if you
 were in Jojo's position.

 This problem has a very very very simple solution you know.



 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:02 PM
 *Subject:* [Vo]:something to consider

 I am starting this as a new thread because many people are starting to
 skip entire threads.  See my questions below.

 I wrote If that's the best we can do for now, how to address Abd's
 pressing concern about having his background and religion subject to
 constant assault on this list?  But really this is a concern that pertains
 to all of us.  We need a list that is hospitable to all people who can make
 a competent contribution.  (I do not mean *everybody*.  I do not mind in
 the slightest if list mods take action to make the list quite inhospitable
 to those who for whatever reason are too immature to contribute much of
 value.)

 Think about what you would do if you were in Abd's situation.  Perhaps
 you would just abide the assault quietly.  Perhaps you would leave the
 list.  But that would not make the environment any more hospitable for
 others in shoes similar to yours.  You may not respond in the way that Abd
 has.  But we should appreciate that he's being put in a very awkward
 position and that he has broader interests in mind.

 Eric


 On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:


  On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
  wrote:

  Oh, I'm quivering, shaking with the possibility that *Jed Rothwell*
 might filter me out.

 I am not going to subscribe to VortexB-l. This is supposedy a moderated
 list. If it stays unmoderated, I won't be here long.


 Hate to say it, but the troll is starting to win.  People are starting
 to lose patience with one another.  I think Steve Johnson has been on this
 list since early days.

 Any word on Bill?  Is he ok?

 How long do we suffer the present situation until we reconstitute under
 something like Google Groups, with Terry or another longtimer as mod? Or
 should everyone who can't stand the situation add he who shall not be named
 to a killfile?  If that's the best we can do for now, how to address Abd's
 pressing concern about having his background and religion subject to
 constant assault on this list?

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:OT: The truth about who's continuing the cycle of insults here

[leaking pen]

It's too bad you see insults in simple statements of fact.  in addition,
many of the comments were replys to earlier posts , and because of the
thread it's in, your statement that you will stop may not have been seen by
everyone.  I would suggest making a new thread, with an appropriate title,
stating that you are calling a truce, as you said before, and give it a day
to filter through to everyone.  Hopefully we can all relax and end the
cycle.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Since the time that Mark and David proposed some solution to the cycle of
 insults, I have abided with their reasonable requests.  I have even said
 that to show good faith I will apologize to Lomax if he can agree to my
 proposals.

 I responded to David, that I will honor his request to stop the cycle of
 insults and I have.  My last post on this issue was 4:37PM (my time).  It
 is now 5:07 AM (my time).  Since my last post at 4:37PM, I have not posted
 a single post.  That was over 12 hours ago.

 Since that time, I have counted over a dozen fresh insults, whether direct
 or oblique, thrown my way.  This was done by various members of vortex.  It
 has now become apparent to me that these people will not allow the cycle of
 insults to stop.  I have now responded to some insults in a calibrated
 way.  I will now stop my responses again for another 12 hours to give this
 cycle of insults a chance to die down.

 I am not sure what else to do.  I can not allow fresh insults from a gang
 of bullies to continue.




 Jojo


 PS.  Time is now 5:13 AM (my time).  I will not post another post until at
 least 5:13 PM (my time)  Please let this cycle of insults die.

Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.

[leaking pen]

I sharpen my machete every time I hear that the WBC is in town.   Oh, and
look at how the mormons were treated.  And since you seem so fond of using
past behavior to villify a group today, hows about how the Catholic Church
treated the protestants?

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 My friend, show me where Christians go after each other's throats like the
 Sunnis and the Shiites.

 Last time I checked, Methodists were not cutting off Baptist's heads.


 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
 *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.

 Any heterogeneous group of people fall under this category. And the larger
 the group is, the better is the example, since it implies a larger variety
 of people. So, what you are saying about Islam applies much better to
 Christianity, since it is a bigger group.


 2013/1/2 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com

 I started out thinking that islam is a more or less unified violent
 religion;  now, I know that I was wrong.  It is a non-unified violent
 religion.  A rabid mad dog with one head is dangerous, but a rabid mad dog
 with multiple heads is even more dangerous.






 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.

[leaking pen]

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 First, I would like to apologize to the list for posting this despite my
 promise not to do so



And everything you might have to say from this point doesn't matter. This
has nothing to do with the list , or modern muslims.  You are a bigot,
stretching to find reasons to have your bigotry. We are SCIENTISTS. We
should be above and beyond this kind of behavior. Go Away.

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical

[leaking pen]

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have to change the thread title because of the way Google mail works . .
 . Let me change it to something Schwinger said to Melich.

 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 is that FG mania to focus on THEORY...

  NOT HAVING A THEORY IS NOT A REASON TO IGNORE A FACT

 Ditto and likewise.

 As Einstein wrote : Experimentum summus judex (Experiment is the supreme
 judge)


 As Schwinger said, regarding cold fusion: have we forgotten that physics
 are empirical?


 It does not bother me so much when skeptics disagree and insist that we
 must have a theory before they will accept the findings. What irks me is
 when skeptics do not even bother to read the papers by Bockris, Gerischer
 or McKubre and they assume these people are proposing a theory. Or they
 assume these people are making promises of jam tomorrow.

 Suppose Gibbs were to read EPRI's paper, or Gerischer where he says:
 there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes
 take place in the metal alloys.

 Suppose Gibbs were to say: I get it. I understand why Gerischer reached
 that conclusion. He believes that tritium alone is proof of a nuclear
 reaction and you do not need a theory to justify that conclusion. However,
 I disagree. I say that observation alone is not enough, and you can't be
 sure cold fusion is a real nuclear effect until you explain it with a
 theory.

 I would say: Okay, that violates the scientific method as taught in
 textbooks. However, you have a right to your opinion, and many important
 scientists such as Huizenga agreed with you.

 You should understand the other person's point of view. Know what it is
 you are disagreeing with.

 Getting back to the history of DNA, at Google books I am reading a book
 written in 1916 about genetics, describing the subject accurately in great
 detail: Genetics and eugenics: a text-book for students of biology . . .
 by William Ernest Castle and Gregor Mendel. The author frequently points
 out that he has no physical theory to explain any of this, and it is
 entirely observational. He can prove there are genes, and that some are on
 one chromosome and some on another, and so on. He shows all of this by
 observation and logic alone. This is how science used to be done. No one in
 1916 would demand a theory; i.e. physical evidence of encoded genetic
 information (DNA).

 - Jed

 Observation drives theory, always.  I don't get this Gibbs character
denying that.  He may have a right to an opinion, but the logical
underpinnings of the scientific method are facts of the process, not
opinions!  The way it should be couched, imo, is, here is the observations,
here is the FACTS of what is happening. Care to help us come up with the
theory?

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

[leaking pen]

Perhaps in that case, Jaro, we would all be served better if you WERE to
start drinking.  I'd start with a good rum and coke, I'd suggest Whaler's
dark rum, one shot, poured into a can of cherry coke, with a couple of ice
cubes. Very relaxing!

Alexander Hollins

(ps, your very declarations against certain religions is an insult to
humanity as a whole.)

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 I haven't insulted anyone for over 24 hours now and I thought that things
 would start to simmer down as people stopped insulting me; and yet out of
 the blue, a fresh insult pops up to stoke new heat on the dying embers of
 the conflict.  SVJ has admitted openly that he does this intentionally to
 provoke a strong reaction from me.  This is the pattern of behavior that is
 the problem here in Vortex-L.  Not me.

 For somebody who's worst drinking was less than 5 bottles of beer spread
 over the first 2 decades of his life; an insinuation that I am an alcoholic
 is a grave insult.  Please refrain from insults.

 Instead of acknowledging that my caustic postings are exclusively directed
 at people who insult me; SVJ comes up with an insult veiled as a crackpot
 theory of my alcoholism.  This is the integrity of this list that has gone
 downhill.  And contrary to some people's assertion, I am NOT the problem.
 I am the solution to this madness.

 I challenged anyone to sieve thru the archives to see if I have insulted
 people who have not insulted me.  A few folks immediately come to mind.
 Have I insulted Axil, David Roberson, Fran Roarty, Jones Beene, Terry
 Blanton, Nigel Dyer, Mark Iverson, etc.  These are some of the most
 intelligent scientific minds in this forum and they know how to behave like
 adults, unlike some self appointed experts and off-topic trolls here.

 So Lomax, SVJ, Rocha, Peter Gluck, Jouni and some thers don't like my
 opinions; as I don't like theirs.  But I never start insulting them.  They
 always start it.  If I have a problem with them, I always direct it to
 personal email as I have done with Peter.  That is the proper way for
 civilized individuals to act.

 Qutie obviously, Bill has examined the situation in Vortex-L and has seen
 that what I am doing here does not deserve banning like many of these
 trolls would like to advocate.  But if he does ban me due to mob pressure,
 I will still not change my response to obvious bullies.



 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 6:13 AM
 *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:List integrity

  From Mr. Lomax:

 ** **

  ... But Jojo's writings here also vary in quality. 

  Sometimes his spelling is atrocious,

  sometimes accurate.

 ** **

 I have been wondering if Mr. Jaro drinks. In fact, for some time now I
 have wondered if Mr. Jaro drinks a lot. It might help explain some of his
 occasionally caustic posting behaviors.  Alcoholism, among other issues.**
 **

 ** **

 It's possible that if one were to sift through the history of Mr. Jaro's
 postings one might begin to discern a distinct 24 hour pattern as to when
 his spelling tends to be accurate and when it becomes less so. Quite
 frankly, it's beyond my desire to care to find out. However there might be
 others on this list that might consider it an interesting challenge.

 ** **

 I'm wondering if Jojo needs an intervention. (Not my department.)

 ** **

 Regards,

 Steven Vincent Johnson

 www.OrionWorks.com

 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical

[leaking pen]

Jed,

I can get requiring a testable theory.  I just fail to see how, This
process causes X amount of heat above what goes in to come out. is not a
testable theory.

No, modern science books still teach it the right way.  My sister is taking
high school science, and her book has it as Hypothesis, experiment,
observe, analyze, confirm.  Nothing about a model.

Doing a little research, I'm finding a lot of info on operational
scientific method, which requires a testable model. I notice a lot of the
descriptions seem to add monetization or analysis of increased efficiency
of production as part of the analysis step.  Seems like something that
would get taught to engineers focusing more on the practical side of r and
d, rather than pure scientific investigations?

Alex

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:


 Observation drives theory, always.  I don't get this Gibbs character
 denying that.


 I do. He and many leading skeptics demand a testable theory before they
 will believe the results.

 J. Piel, the late editor of the Scientific American told me that any
 result that cannot be explained by theory is pathological. He said that if
 the precise physical mechanism is not fully understood, that makes it
 Langmuir's pathological science:

 http://lenr-canr.org/AppealandSciAm.pdf

 I am sure he meant that. I have heard the same thing countless times from
 Huizenga and others like him. This is not a controversial point of view
 among opponents of cold fusion. It is no surprise that Gibbs agrees with
 them.

 Naturally, everyone in the field would like to have a theory. No one
 denies the value of a theory. The issue is whether lack of theory is a
 legitimate criterion to reject results, or even downplay them; i.e. to say,
 these results would be more believable if you could explain them. An old
 fashioned scientist such as Schwinger, Bockris or Gerischer would say no.
 Piel, Huizenga and others say yes. There is a huge gap between the two
 camps. The textbooks used to support our side. I have not read a science
 textbook since the 1960s so I do not know what they say nowadays.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

[leaking pen]

You know that Mary was between probably 11 to 13 when she gave birth to
Jesus, right?  Menses was considered adulthood, and children were
considered adults when they reached puberty, and treated that way, with all
the rights and responsibilities.

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Clearly, everyone can see that I started my posting on Vortex-L with
 clearly high hopes.  Then you mentioned that I started insulting.  Did you
 bother to mention why I started insulting.  Did you mention that I started
 insulting people who insulted me first?   If I told you to F*** yourself,
 is that an imagined insult?  You clearly take it as an insult when I call
 allah a moon good, and yet feel that when people call the Bible a fairy
 tale, that is not an insult?

 Lomax, my friend, that is why I call you a LIAR.  You take parts of
 history and pick and choose what you want to support your fallacious
 history.  Even now, when things are starting to calm down, you and SVJ
 continue the cycle of insults by continuing this.   That's the reason why I
 despise you and who you are to the core.  You take fallacy and lies to the
 next level without any qualms about it.  You spin and lie and deceive
 people with your expert use of long wordy essays and you find no problem
 with that.  Of course not, why should you; that is who you are.  That is
 what you are expected to be. That is what you are taught to be.  Hence, in
 you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone.  The same corruption that
 justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 year old little girl
 BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing it.  No matter
 how you justify it, that's CREEPY.


 Jojo


 PS, But you win Lomax.  My Christmas break is almost over.  Come January,
 you will be left on your own to continue lying about me again.






 - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
 a...@lomaxdesign.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM

 Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity


  I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro
 on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative
 energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a
 problem appeared.

 Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He
 imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of insult,
 escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs,
 apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on topics
 that are likely to be inflammatory if brought here (and just about anywhere
 on the internet, except for certain odd corners), and he readily drops
 these into discussions.

 At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

 Yes, I stand corrected.

 If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his
 qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama.


 I will separately address this in another post.

 I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's sense
 of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the contributions of Jojo
 to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that he doesn't start insulting,
 but that others insult him, and he responds with insult.

 He made comments early on that could indicate a certain combativeness,
 but that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700,
 in which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he mentioned that he disagreed on
 Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, source time confirms location in the
 Philippines, I think.)

 However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not mention
 Darwinian Evolution, so this must have been a reference to some other
 post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some support for Jojo, but
 nobody started debating evolution.

 But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:37:50 -0700 (resent time), Jojo sent an
 extensive post on Darwinian Evolution. http://www.mail-archive.com/**
 vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.html

 Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. It was
 in response to a casual comment by James Bowery:

  I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not
 been
 among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.


 This comment is, in no way, propaganda for Darwinian Evolution. Yes, it
 assumes a certain importance to Darwin, but we need to understand this:
 that importance is a routinely accepted fact, tantamount to a belief, among
 most people interested in science. Were there some necessity to attack
 Darwinian evolution -- difficult to understand for Vortex-l --  okay. But
 there was not. The subject was not Darwinian Evolution.
 Jojo escalated, with a rant on Darwinian Evolution that connected it with
 *everyone who accepts Darwinian Evolution.* Read the post! Jojo knew that
 he was changing the subject. 

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

[leaking pen]

I hate to say Amen Brother, and sound cliche, but, Amen Brother!

Alexander Hollins

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the
 error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is
 factually true and must be believed as written.

 You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth.

 This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in
 its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as
 property.

 Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all
 human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future.

 Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error
 exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to
 assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject
 to like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not
 for me.


 Cheers:Axil

 On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up evolution to preserve
 and protect life.  It's called microevolution.  God has put on the genone
 all the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt
 to stressess.  The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already
 encoded in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new
 environment.And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect
 life.

 My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called
 microevolution.  My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian
 Evolution theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation
 and that a species can evolve into another species.  It's this whole
 nonsense of Tree of life that says we all came from single celled
 organisms; that I have a problem with.




 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

 Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not
 interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that
 element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

 Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say
 what God’s plan of creation is?

 Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup
 evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect
 life from the whims of the universe.


 Cheers:Axil

 On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:

 My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each
 day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA
 sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo
 sapiens.
 This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from
 one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand
 as 'Darwinian Evolution'.  I am nevertheless always more than happy to
 discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during
 that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there
 are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked.
 The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds.  It is possible that
 Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian
 Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and
 relativity.  Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture.
  Ditto Darwinian evolution.

 Nigel


 On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote:

 Axil, I think you mentioned this before.

 The question is,  is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur?  Or
 is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant.

 For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are.  It
 is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs.  We don't
 know that.  It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself.

 People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume
 that chickens evolved from dinosaurs.  But that is just a theory springing
 up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct.  We can not
 assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in
 chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof
 of Darwinian Evolution.  That is circular reasoning.

 The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk
 DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant.  During
 microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes.
  The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA.  Microevolution,
 not Darwinian Evolution.  Big difference and people always confuse the
 issue.  They think that 

Re: [Vo]:Mr. Beaty's absence should not be be taken as a form of passive approval of Mr. Jaro's posting content

[leaking pen]

I second the nomination.

I would think, though, that leaving this group as is, and more of a forced
transfer of off topic replies to the new, off topic, group (which we
already have, vortex b), and constant offenders have their posts put on a
per approval basis.

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:55 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
 orionwo...@charter.net wrote:


 Perhaps Mr.
 Blanton could stand in as one of the moderators, since Terry already has
 extensive prior experience moderating large groups!


 You honor me, sir.

 I recently volunteered in an email to BB.  No response, yet.

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

[leaking pen]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am looking into this as part
 of an essay about the history of cold fusion I am writing. Anyway, see:

 http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf

 This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been experimenting with
 recording data in DNA. He recorded his own book and then read it back, with
 only a few errors. He reproduced it 30 million times, making it the
 biggest best seller in history in a sense.

 Quote: DNA storage is very dense. At theoretical maximum, DNA can encode
 two bits per nucleotide (nt) or 455 exabytes per gram of ssDNA . . .

 I'd like to confirm I have the units right here --

 Present world data storage is variously estimated between 295 exabytes in
 2011 to 2,700 exabytes today (2.7 zettabytes). See:

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672 (295 exabytes)

 http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q (2.7
 ZB)

 I don't know what source to believe.

 This takes a colossal number of hard disks and a great deal of
 electricity. On NHK they estimated the number of bytes of data now exceeds
 the number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the world. Assume it is
 2.7 ZB. That seems like a large number until you realize that you could
 record all of this data in 6 grams of DNA.

 That demonstrates how much our technology may improve in the future. We
 have a lot of leeway. There is still plenty of room at the bottom as
 Feynman put it.

 DNA preserves data far better than any human technology. It can also copy
 it faster and more accurately by far. I mean by many orders of magnitude.

 It might be difficult to make a rapid, on-line electronic interface to DNA
 recorded data, similar to today's hard disk. But as a back up medium, or
 long-term storage, it seems promising. As Prof. Church demonstrates, this
 technology may come about as a spin off from genome-reading
 technology. Perhaps there are other 3-dimensional molecular methods of data
 storage. Maybe, but I would say why bother looking for them when nature has
 already found such a robust system?

 - Jed



That would be an awesome way to transmit messages as well.  Pop a message
into a bacterial ring DNA, insert it into a pathogen free Ecoli, and infect
your agent with it.  They travel to whereever, take a blood sample, culture
the bug, and extract. A few days processing time, but still, undetectable.

Hmm Actually... That gives me a novel idea (by which i mean, an idea
for a novel.

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

[leaking pen]

did.. anyone say that there are exabytes in our dna?  I seem to have missed
that assertion.

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:


 Natural Selection is not Random Process. Nor are there exabytes of
 information encoded in our DNA, at least not in a single copy of our set.
 It's far, far less than that.


 The human genome is around 1.5 GB according to this source:

 http://www.genetic-future.com/2008/06/how-much-data-is-human-genome-it.html

 It couldn't be exabytes because it was sequenced by 2002, when
 exabyte-scale storage did not exist. I doubt they stored the raw data the
 sequence was derived from.

 The entire genome is copied in every cell, so the total amount of
 information per body is ~1.5 GB * 100 trillion cells per body. That would
 be 140,000 exabytes (136 zettabytes).

 Abd is correct that natural selection is not a random process. This is a
 widespread misunderstanding.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

[leaking pen]

That you can contain x exobytes in y grams. Not anything about how much
code is actually in the human body. Seems someone assumed on that.

Junk Dna contains a lot of triggers to turn on and off the protein coding
DNA. That's actually been known for, well, I learned that about 20 years
ago.  But it wasn't big news until recently. It also contains leftover
viral strands from infective virus up the line, and copies and backups of
coding dna, including in some instances previous versions that are
deprecated.  Interestingly enough, theres a common marker that seperates
out those backups, much like comment tags in computer coding. With the
protein coding dna sequences, classes as it were, and the information in
the junk to tell the body when and where to use them, the genetic code is
actually VERY similar to object oriented programming such as c ++.




On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Well, Jed's story says that we can store exabytes of data.

 Nowadays, we only use the coding part of DNA to figure out the amount of
 information.  Scientists erroneously assume the non-coding parts are
 junk DNA that have no information.  That is not true.  The non-coding
 parts are not Junk.  Newer research are indicating that all of our DNA have
 functions we still do not know or understand.  If they have function, they
 contain information we don't know about yet.


 Jojo



 - Original Message -
 *From:* leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Friday, December 28, 2012 5:34 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

 did.. anyone say that there are exabytes in our dna?  I seem to have
 missed that assertion.

 On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:


 Natural Selection is not Random Process. Nor are there exabytes of
 information encoded in our DNA, at least not in a single copy of our set.
 It's far, far less than that.


 The human genome is around 1.5 GB according to this source:


 http://www.genetic-future.com/2008/06/how-much-data-is-human-genome-it.html

 It couldn't be exabytes because it was sequenced by 2002, when
 exabyte-scale storage did not exist. I doubt they stored the raw data the
 sequence was derived from.

 The entire genome is copied in every cell, so the total amount of
 information per body is ~1.5 GB * 100 trillion cells per body. That would
 be 140,000 exabytes (136 zettabytes).

 Abd is correct that natural selection is not a random process. This is a
 widespread misunderstanding.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

[leaking pen]

You are in error my friend, is condescending and rude. There is no need to
speak that way.

On the contrary, there are most certainly codings within cells that kill
cells that change badly, be it from damage during mitosis or bad
transcription of dna. When these processes fail, we get cancer. In addition
isn't ALL natural selection an issue of the cellular or dna level? The
changes that express themselves are caused at the cellular or dna level.
For example, there is a major difference between the hemoglobin of humans
and other species that has a MASSIVE influence on efficiency.  Its an about
25 percent difference in efficiency. Caused by 3, count them THREE
different amino acids in one protein.

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 You are in error my friend.  You come to this conclusion only because you
 make the first erroneous assumption that there is natural selection
 occuring.  Nothing can me more unsupported than this speculation.

 As I've mentioned, Natural Selection does not occur at the cellular or DNA
 level.  There is no arbiter within the cell that tells which changes are to
 be retained and which are to be discarded.



 Jojo




 - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
 a...@lomaxdesign.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 10:17 AM

 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  At 08:26 PM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

 Well, Jed's story says that we can store exabytes of data.


 Yes, but only if we don't mind that it's exabytes of copies of about 1.5
 gigabytes of data.


 Nowadays, we only use the coding part of DNA to figure out the amount
 of information.  Scientists erroneously assume the non-coding parts are
 junk DNA that have no information.  That is not true.  The non-coding
 parts are not Junk.  Newer research are indicating that all of our DNA have
 functions we still do not know or understand.  If they have function, they
 contain information we don't know about yet.


 That's an exaggeration of new research. Some functions are being found
 for some noncoding DNA. I've understood noncoding DNA to refer to
 sequences that are not used to create proteins. There can be a few other
 functions, for example, telomeres are noncoding, but serve to protect
 chromosomes from copying errors at the ends.

 There is an interesting piece of evidence. Noncoding DNA much more
 rapidly mutates because of lack of selection pressure. Noncoding DNA gives
 a measure of time since organisms diverged. If this DNA were serving a
 critical biological function, it would be under selection pressure.

 (Most mutations of critical genes kill the cell or the organism, babies
 spontaneously abort, etc.)

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Sent a message of query off to Mr. Beaty concerning recent trolling activity

[leaking pen]

Well, it just came to my attention from the B list that somehow I got
unsubscribed a while back and been too busy to notice, so I just rejoined
the list a few days back, I can't honestly say. But I'll keep my eyes out.

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:42 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

 I just sent off a brief message to Mr. Beaty asking if he could take a
 moment of his time to assess whether what I personally perceive to be an
 increase in trolling activity originating from certain anonymous
 individuals (whose names shall not be mentioned here to avoid email
 filters) might need to be addressed.

 ** **

 It’s generally not my policy to pester Mr. Beaty as we all have busy lives
 that need attending to. However, I am getting concerned.

 ** **

 It was just my own personal opinion that I expressed to Mr. Beaty. As a
 single opinion I don’t carry that much weight. It’s more likely to be the
 collective opinions of the Collective that will carry the necessary weight.
 Therefore, others who might feel concerned about recent trolling activity
 might want to drop Bill a line. Be sure to express your own opinion. BE
 BRIEF!!!

 ** **

 I did mention the fact that, IMHO, posting clearly marked Off Topic [OT]
 discussions is a perfectly healthy activity for Vortex-l participants, as
 long as the intention is not to incite undue aggravation among other
 members. Unfortunately, certain trolls  have been abusing that privilege.
 IMHO, it might be time to address the matter, administratively.

 ** **

 My 2 cents

 ** **

 Regards,

 Steven Vincent Johnson

 www.OrionWorks.com

 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily

[leaking pen]

My email doesnt have my real name anymore, due to a few reasons, but
its the one i use becuase its my main email.  i could easily
resubscribe to this list with one that has my name. enh.

For all those defending him, i agree with grok politically more than i
do anyone else here, it seems, but the way he handled things was in
poor taste.

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:54 PM, William Beatybi...@eskimo.com wrote:
 On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Harry Veeder wrote:

  Grok said no thanks, to the above.
 I am not sure why he should apologize for his off-topic postings,

 Political posting sent here, rather than to vtxB.


 If you expect him to reveal his true identity then that should be
 written in the rules.

 Nope.  If any user misbehaves so badly that they draw complaints from the
 entire community, then I'll fix the problem, which includes crafting
 arbitrary and mysterious requirements on a whim.

 As with any professional community, people with real names are welcome,
 and people who hide their identities have marked themselves as probably
 criminal element in the eyes of the group ...although on internet,
 anonymity also means teenager, or newbie user.  (Which of the three is
 worse?)  To impress fellow professionals, always put your address and
 phone number in your sig.  This is an unwritten societal rule which
 applies to the entire world, not just online or on vortex: try walking
 around downtown wearing a mask, see what happens.

 Perhaps vortex should require surrendering anonymity, but it's much work
 to do it right (to avoid fake identities.)

 If the political commentary incorporates *personal* insults, instead of

 There is very specifically no rule against insults on Vortex-L.  However,
 people who habitually use personal insults will attract complaints from
 the entire community, and then... (see above.)



 (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
 William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

[Vo]:Brain scanning headsets!Sigh.

[leaking pen]

So, i downloaded this companies smaller developer kit a while ago, and
was on their mailing list. They just finally released the big kahuna
kit with headsets.

If i had the money for investment, id be getting the big license, as
i've an even dozen things i can do with those headsets. Sigh. Perhaps
the better funding would be interested though.  For those unaware,
this is a company similar to the one that makes the Force trainer
game that just hit the market, but more complex headsets.  Basically
wearable eeg's, with software to convert thought into numbers, for
purpose of motion, controlling devices, ect.


-- Forwarded message --
From: Emotiv Team a...@emotiv.com
Date: Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Subject: Emotiv Developer Program: SDK  Headset Available Now
To: alexander.holl...@gmail.com alexander.holl...@gmail.com


Dear Alexander,
We are very pleased to announce that the Emotiv SDK including an SDK
headset is now available for immediate license. This product ships
worldwide.
The Emotiv SDK- Standard Edition includes an SDK Headset and our
proprietary software toolkit that exposes our APIs and detection
libraries.  This is now available to independent developers and
researchers for only $500. To license the SDK, please visit
http://www.emotiv.com/corporate/1_0/1_6.htm
Enterprise, Enterprise Plus and Research Plus Editions of the SDK are
also available for license. More details on the Emotiv Developer
Program can be found below.
___
You can choose an SDK License that best suits your development needs:
If you are an independent developer or commercial enterprise:
Introductory (SDKLite) - An introduction to the Emotiv SDK and APIs.
For application developers who want to get started immediately. This
introductory package includes a hardware emulator in place of the SDK
neuroheadset.
Standard - Single license - For indepedent developers who are creating
free and commercial applications for the Emotiv EPOC that will be
distributed exclusively through our Emortal online application store.
Enterprise - Up to 5 licensed users - For companies that are creating
proprietary applications using the Emotiv EPOC.

___

If you are a researcher or educational institute:



Emotiv is committed to supporting the research community in developing
more detections/applications that further improve the capability of
Brain Computer Interface (BCI). We have created a program that takes
into account the needs of educational institutions, research
organizations as well as individual researchers that want to
contribute their knowledge to further the field of BCI.



Research Standard - Single license - For individual researchers and
research groups that are developing free and/or commercial
applications for the Emotiv EPOC that will be available exclusively
through our Emortal online application store.



Research Plus - Up to 5 licensed users - For research institutes that
are developing new applications/detections utilizing raw EEG data from
the Emotiv EPOC.

___

Please let us know via return email to a...@emotiv.com if you wish to
license the Enterprise, Enterprise Plus or Research Plus versions of
the Emotiv SDK.
We look forward to collaborating and partnering with you to further
the field of Brain Computer Interface technology.
Best regards,
Emotiv Team
Emotiv Systems Inc.



LEGAL NOTICE

This message (including all attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is
protected by law.  Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived or
lost because this email has been sent to you by mistake. If you have
received it in error, please let us know by reply email, delete it
from your system and destroy any copies.

This email is also subject to copyright. Any disclosure, copying, or
distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it,
is strictly prohibited.

Emails may be interfered with, may contain computer viruses or other
defects and may not be successfully replicated on other systems. We
give no warranties in relation to these matters. If you have any
doubts about the authenticity of an email purportedly sent by us,
please contact us immediately.

Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time

[leaking pen]

Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort, think of it like
the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY
thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind
against.  I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to
accept it as accurate)

if your on a spaceship going .9 c, and you turn on your headlamps, the
light will go forward at, to your appearence, c away from you, as if
you were standing still.  Now, someone on the spacestation you're
passing would see you moving at .9 c, and the light moving at c, not
at c away from you PLUS your velocity, but simply c away from you, but
c from their perspective.

now, this means you each see the light reaching different distances at
the same time, which is where my mind rebels.

(If i have this incorrect, someone PLEASE correct me, as it hurts my head...)

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Michael Crosiarcrosia...@yahoo.com wrote:
 Hello vortexians,

 Before I begin, I want to thank all of you. I have been lurking here for
 years. I have seen the trolls come and go. They amuse for a while, then they
 get old. But those of you who are of a true vortexian spirit always find new
 and exciting food for the mind to try out. I don't have the math or science
 background that you have, and yes, I am jealous. But obviously I do have the
 interest or I would have gone away a long time ago. I don't post much, guess
 I'm afraid I'll get shot down - and I know I wouldn't have had the time to
 follow and respond to my own threads - and that would suck for all of us.
 But circumstances change and I suddenly find I have much more time than I
 would like. I've grown a little older and am not so scared to raise my hand
 in class. So agian, thank you for sharing and thank you for putting up with
 my incessant lurking :)

 And if I go astray, please let me know, I have gained a deep respect for all
 of you. I will not be offended.

 I have a simple thought experiment I would like your comments on.

 We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it at relativistic
 velosities, such that the inside of the torroid would be rotating at near
 the speed of light. The outside of the field would extand outwards and would
 have an agular velocity that would be greater, proportional to the increase
 in circumference. First, is that correct? Clearly nothing can go faster than
 the speed of light, but as we increase the speed of the rotation, the energy
 must go somewhere, yes? Would this cause the mass of the field to change? In
 other words, would it bend space-time inside the field? And could the
 curvature be negative or positive depending on the direction of rotation
 relative to the N/S pole? Would time run at a different rate inside the
 field versus outside the field? If we were to place a radioactive isotope
 inside the field, could we cause it to decay faster or slower?

 I'll be anxiously awaiting your insights,

 C. Michael Crosiar

Re: [Vo]:Brain scanning headsets!Sigh.

[leaking pen]

It actually picks up brain waves, from my understanding.  I know a bit
more about the other company that makes similar.  They have a headset
with a single sensor, and it picks up concentration states and
meditation states, basically.  This is supposed to be the same thing,
but with more pickups.

they DO also have facial motion pickup, but not JUST facial motion pickup.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-9874515-52.html  is a good article.

ive unfortunately not had a chance to use a headset, just the basic
software.  Can't afford the headset myself.  sigh.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote:


 leaking pen wrote:
 So, i downloaded this companies smaller developer kit a while ago, and
 was on their mailing list. They just finally released the big kahuna
 kit with headsets.

 If i had the money for investment, id be getting the big license, as
 i've an even dozen things i can do with those headsets. Sigh. Perhaps
 the better funding would be interested though.  For those unaware,
 this is a company similar to the one that makes the Force trainer
 game that just hit the market, but more complex headsets.  Basically
 wearable eeg's, with software to convert thought into numbers, for
 purpose of motion, controlling devices, ect.

 For real??  That's incredible.

 Have you used the headset successfully for anything?  How's it go --
 what do you actually need to do to manipulate stuff?

 And does it *really* pick up on brain waves, or is it actually picking
 up signals to the muscles just under the skin of the head?  (The latter
 seems easier to implement and a *lot* easier to control, but might be
 considered far less stunning as an achievement.)  Like, does it know
 when you're sleeping and know when you're awake, like Santa Clause, or
 can it only really tell stuff like whether you're frowning or smiling?

 From their web pages it's not entirely clear just how deep the brain
 wave sensing is that they're using, and the array of sensors *looks*
 like it could just as well be picking up muscle action by facial and
 neck muscles.

Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time

[leaking pen]

So...

I think i followed all the math on that, very simple math, thank you!

and, my original didnt start with lights being turned on with the ship
passing the station, but that DOES simplify things. thanks!

So... What your saying is that if you take into account time dilation,
 the light DOES really move the same distance in a set amount of time,
once converted to local time, relative to both.  so really, the light
ISN'T traveling at c faster than the ship, it just APPEARS that way to
O' due to time dillation?

That makes more sense. But then, that just reinforces to me something
that I feel, and that I've been told is not true.  It just seems to me
there should be then a central point, with a central time flow, and
all other things are variants of that, based on their velocity
relative to this fixed point. (center of the universe, if you will)

I mean, if you were to leave a sattelite in space, not orbiting, but
left behind in our orbit, moving just enough so that we come back to
it in the same spot, relative to earth, next year, more time will have
gone by, becuase its not moving as fast, not orbiting round the sun,
yes?  Where does it end?  what is the most non moving spot?

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote:
 OK here goes.  Response below is to Michael's original message and to
 Leaking's response.

 The reasponse to Leaking is lengthy; the response to Michael comes 'way
 down at the end, after it.

 leaking pen wrote:
 Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort,

 A magnetic field is a magnetic field, ça c'est tout.  EM radiation is a
 wave in the field.  As such they're different.  Sound waves are not air,
 even though they travel in air.

 think of it like
 the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY
 thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind
 against.  I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to
 accept it as accurate)

 if your on a spaceship going .9 c, and you turn on your headlamps, the
 light will go forward at, to your appearence, c away from you, as if
 you were standing still.  Now, someone on the spacestation you're
 passing would see you moving at .9 c, and the light moving at c, not
 at c away from you PLUS your velocity, but simply c away from you, but
 c from their perspective.

 now, this means you each see the light reaching different distances at
 the same time, which is where my mind rebels.

 No, on two counts.

 First, you've left out Fitzgerald contraction; the traveler on the
 spaceship sees the space station as being squished along the line of
 travel.  The observers on the space station, OTOH, see the traveler's
 spaceship as being squished along the line of travel.  (Symmetric, of
 course.)  So, distance measures in the two frames of reference are
 wildly confused to start with, and trying to ask when something reaches
 some *distance* is going to result in confusion.  Ask, rather, when it
 reaches a particular *point*.  When we talk about a particular point in
 space and time, we call it an event.  So, instead of asking about
 distance, let's drop a space beacon into the picture, and say the light
 hits the beacon, and let's ask about when and where that happens, rather
 than asking about how far the light has gone.

 Second, you've assumed at the same time means something, but when
 you're discussing two different frames of reference moving at
 relativistic speeds, it does *not*.  The problem is not just time
 dilation, it's clock skew, and failure to ... er ... grok clock skew
 is the single biggest problem people run into in this area.

 The example as you wrote it is, of course, very fuzzy; it will take a
 lot more words to make it precise.  To make it into something you can
 test (in a gedanken sense) we need to sharpen up the details.  We've
 already started to do that by adding a beacon; we'll continue with the
 necessary sharpening now.

 You seem to have said the headlights are turned on at the moment when
 the ship passes the station.  OK, let's take that as the origin, in both
 reference frames:  The lights go on at time 0, at which time the ship is
 at location 0, and the station is at location 0, in both frames.

 You didn't specify a direction, but let's say that, as seen from the
 space station, the ship is moving along the X axis in the + direction,
 and the headlights, of course, are also shining along the X axis.  So,
 we can reduce the problem to 1 spacial dimension and 1 time dimension.

 We need to name our coordinates:

 x = spacial location in the space station frame
 t = time in the space station frame
 x' = spacial location in the spaceship frame
 t' = spacial location in the spaceship frame

 Note that the space station is located at x=0 in its own frame of
 reference, and the space ship is located at x'=0 in the ship's own frame
 of reference, and those coordinates don't change (you're always
 stationary relative to yourself

Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time

[leaking pen]

So, its not velocity that causes time dillation, thats simply a
convenient way of reffering to it.

Its the difference in actual space traveled during the interval
compared to going in a geodesic, or straight line?

which, honestly, is a sum of the velocities of the trip of the non
geodesic object, yes?

(damn, i think i reconfused myself)

Thank you very very much btw for taking the time on this Stephen!

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote:


 leaking pen wrote:
 So...

 I think i followed all the math on that, very simple math, thank you!

 and, my original didnt start with lights being turned on with the ship
 passing the station, but that DOES simplify things. thanks!

 So... What your saying is that if you take into account time dilation,
  the light DOES really move the same distance in a set amount of time,
 once converted to local time, relative to both.  so really, the light
 ISN'T traveling at c faster than the ship, it just APPEARS that way to
 O' due to time dillation?

 You can view it that way, but it's a little hazardous, because time
 dilation isn't really just a simple number.

 Thinking of it as a simple ratio leads to a lot of confusion.  Time
 dilation, expressed as a number, is dt/dtau for a particular observer,
 A, relative to a particular reference frame, F.  The dt value is
 found by A, by looking at clocks which are stationary in frame F, as A
 passes them by.  The dtau value is found by A by looking at A's own
 clock.

 Note well:  A uses ONE clock in his/her own frame.  A uses AT LEAST
 TWO CLOCKS in frame F, located at *different* points in frame F.
 You can't measure time dilation between two inertial frames without
 using at least two clocks in one of the frames, because once the
 observer has passed a clock, it's gone, and they can't see it any more
 (except at a distance and using a telescope adds unnecessary hair
 without changing the result).

 Thus, time dilation actually measures the rate at which time passes
 along a *particular* *path*.  Something that measures a rate of change
 along a path is a directional derivative, or a 1-form.  It's not a
 simple number.


 That makes more sense. But then, that just reinforces to me something
 that I feel, and that I've been told is not true.  It just seems to me
 there should be then a central point, with a central time flow, and
 all other things are variants of that, based on their velocity
 relative to this fixed point. (center of the universe, if you will)

 There may be but there doesn't have to be.  As far as I know nobody
 knows for sure if there is.


 I mean, if you were to leave a sattelite in space, not orbiting, but
 left behind in our orbit, moving just enough so that we come back to
 it in the same spot, relative to earth, next year, more time will have
 gone by, becuase its not moving as fast, not orbiting round the sun,
 yes?  Where does it end?  what is the most non moving spot?

 No, the difference is not because the Earth is moving faster.

 First, let's agree to ignore the Sun's gravity because paying attention
 to it would throw us into GR.  Let's assume the Earth is just tied to a
 string or something to keep it in orbit.

 Now, with that assumption, here's the difference:  The satellite we
 dropped is in an inertial frame -- it's not accelerating.  The Earth's
 frame, on the other hand, is not inertial -- it's accelerating the whole
 time, due to the pull on that string.

 To deal with acceleration, we don't need GR but we do need some
 differential geometry and I'm not going to try to write that out in flat
 ASCII here (and besides I'm too rusty).

 In simple terms, the distance along any path you might follow through
 (4-dimensional) space time is called the interval, and for a
 particular observer (like the Earth) the interval is equal to the
 elapsed proper time of that observer.  So, how far you go, measured as
 interval, corresponds exactly to how many seconds pass on your wristwatch.

 The square of the interval between any two fixed points in an inertial
 frame is, by definition, (ignoring the Y and Z directions)

  delta_S^2 = delta_T^2 - delta_X^2

 It's not hard to use the Lorentz transforms to show that, for an
 inertial observer in motion with regard to an inertial frame, that
 definition of interval gives us the square of the observer's elapsed
 proper time between any two events in the frame.  (Not hard but I'm not
 going to do it right here.)

 It's also not hard to show that the interval between any two events is
 the same, no matter what inertial frame you use to evaluate it.

 The infinitesimal interval traveled by an astronaut A, from the
 point of view of an observer O, is

  dS^2 = dt^2 - dx^2

 and since it's infinitesimal we can use that formula for an astronaut
 who is *accelerating*.  At the infinitesimal scale, where A's velocity
 hardly varies, we can find the infinitesimal change in A's proper time
 -- which is to say, how much A's clock

Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here

[leaking pen]

the difference between science and hard facts, and politics and opinion?

seems easy to me.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:45 AM, David
Jonssondavidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote:
 How do you make the differentiation between politics and physics? Hard.

 Best wishes,
 David

 On 6/8/09, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:
 On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mark S Bilk wrote:

 So anyone who speaks out against U.S. government policies is well
 justified in doing so anonymously.  In this case anonymity does _not_
 mean:

 probably criminal element ...teenager, or newbie user.

 Then I'll permanently ban him from both lists, as well as everyone else
 who attempts to make that sort of politics the central feature of
 vortex-L.  He can quietly come back with a real name, talk science, and
 make no attempt to attract the FBI to the vortex forum.

 And I suggest you think twice about making excuses for such slimy
 dishonest behavior.  There are THOUSANDS of very serious problems in the
 world, and self-promoters invariably use this fact as an excuse to push
 their personal agendas into forums devoted to other subjects.  Get rid of
 all the science here?  Since you personally have FAR more important topics
 that need to dominate the discussions?  But note well that the people
 trying this are never creating their own forums and calling for users.
 Instead they invade other lists and ignore the existing community while
 hiding their intent behind dishonest excuses.  It's a common Troll trick.

 Take such discussion to your own new forum, or to any number of politics-
 centered lists, or just vtxB, keep it OFF this one.

 After a few weeks or months this idea might sink in, and we can go back to
 normal.

 In the mean time:  producing ionizing radiation with light water
 electrolysis: simple enough for a school science fair, but nobody bothers
 to give it a try:

   http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf




 (( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))
 William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci



 --
 Sent from my mobile device

 David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time

[leaking pen]

I think the fault lay in my not realizing that time dillation would
have an effect on the observed velocity of light.  Very stupid of me
not to think, and then, i wouldn't have assumed that the time
dillation perfectly slides with that difference in velocity.

thanks though!

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Michael Crosiarcrosia...@yahoo.com wrote:
 Hi Leaking Pen,

 I have to admit I cheated and looked ahead to Stephens reply. His reply is
 far better than I could ever give. I will reply anyway as maybe I will get
 corrected and learn something new...

Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort, think of it like
 the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY
 thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind
 against.  I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to
 accept it as accurate)

 I don't believe that a magnetic field is itself em radiation. By expanding
 or collapsing the magnetic field we can induce EM radiation. I see the
 magnetic field as a result of the geometry of space-time itself and that is
 what I'm trying to explore.

if your on a spaceship going .9 c, and you turn on your headlamps, the
 light will go forward at, to your appearence, c away from you, as if
 you were standing still.  Now, someone on the spacestation you're
 passing would see you moving at .9 c, and the light moving at c, not
 at c away from you PLUS your velocity, but simply c away from you, but
 c from their perspective.

now, this means you each see the light reaching different distances at
 the same time, which is where my mind rebels.

(If i have this incorrect, someone PLEASE correct me, as it hurts my
 head...)

 The basic problem I see here is not recognizing the differing frames of
 reference. On the spaceship space and time have been contracted, time is not
 moving forward at the same rate as for the person on the spacestation. Also
 you are trying to measure distance, but the yard sticks you are using are
 not the same length. Further, if you are going to measure how long something
 takes to happen, an event, you also need a measure of time, which is also
 different in each frame of reference. So you are not using the same yard
 stick or the same clock, so it is hard to make comparisons about distance or
 how long something takes to happen, or at what time an event has happened
 from each of the different frames of reference.

 The question I have is, is the lorentz contraction purely a mathmatical
 construct, or has the movement of the spaceship at .9c actually modified the
 space-time it occupies in such manner that the measurements have been
 changed? Can an outside observer on the spacestation determine by any means
 that space-time of the spaceship has been contracted? For example, if we
 observed a star that the spacecraft was passing in front of, would we
 experiance a brief refraction of the light from the star as the spacecraft
 passed in front of it?

 C. Michael Crosiar

Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here

[leaking pen]

if you have to believe  you have missed the point.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Jeff Finkrev...@ptd.net wrote:
 Politics will ultimately determine the brand of physics we are allowed to
 believe.

 Jeff

 -Original Message-
 From: David Jonsson [mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 12:46 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here

 How do you make the differentiation between politics and physics? Hard.

 Best wishes,
 David

 On 6/8/09, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:
 On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mark S Bilk wrote:

 So anyone who speaks out against U.S. government policies is well
 justified in doing so anonymously.  In this case anonymity does _not_
 mean:

 probably criminal element ...teenager, or newbie user.

 Then I'll permanently ban him from both lists, as well as everyone else
 who attempts to make that sort of politics the central feature of
 vortex-L.  He can quietly come back with a real name, talk science, and
 make no attempt to attract the FBI to the vortex forum.

 And I suggest you think twice about making excuses for such slimy
 dishonest behavior.  There are THOUSANDS of very serious problems in the
 world, and self-promoters invariably use this fact as an excuse to push
 their personal agendas into forums devoted to other subjects.  Get rid of
 all the science here?  Since you personally have FAR more important topics
 that need to dominate the discussions?  But note well that the people
 trying this are never creating their own forums and calling for users.
 Instead they invade other lists and ignore the existing community while
 hiding their intent behind dishonest excuses.  It's a common Troll trick.

 Take such discussion to your own new forum, or to any number of politics-
 centered lists, or just vtxB, keep it OFF this one.

 After a few weeks or months this idea might sink in, and we can go back to
 normal.

 In the mean time:  producing ionizing radiation with light water
 electrolysis: simple enough for a school science fair, but nobody bothers
 to give it a try:

   http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf




 (( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))
 William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci



 --
 Sent from my mobile device

 David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here

[leaking pen]

im sorry, science has happened with a downright COMBATIVE political
framework.  large scale corporate science, now that takes a
sociopolitical framework for funding and such.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Harry Veederhvee...@ncf.ca wrote:
 The irony is science cannot happen without a supportive political framework.
 Harry

 - Original Message -
 From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com
 Date: Monday, June 8, 2009 12:53 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here

 the difference between science and hard facts, and politics and
 opinion?
 seems easy to me.

 On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:45 AM, David
 Jonssondavidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote:
  How do you make the differentiation between politics and physics?
 Hard.
  Best wishes,
  David
 
  On 6/8/09, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:
  On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mark S Bilk wrote:
 
  So anyone who speaks out against U.S. government policies is well
  justified in doing so anonymously.  In this case anonymity does
 _not_ mean:
 
  probably criminal element ...teenager, or newbie user.
 
  Then I'll permanently ban him from both lists, as well as
 everyone else
  who attempts to make that sort of politics the central feature of
  vortex-L.  He can quietly come back with a real name, talk
 science, and
  make no attempt to attract the FBI to the vortex forum.
 
  And I suggest you think twice about making excuses for such slimy
  dishonest behavior.  There are THOUSANDS of very serious
 problems in the
  world, and self-promoters invariably use this fact as an excuse
 to push
  their personal agendas into forums devoted to other subjects.
  Get rid of
  all the science here?  Since you personally have FAR more
 important topics
  that need to dominate the discussions?  But note well that the
 people trying this are never creating their own forums and
 calling for users.
  Instead they invade other lists and ignore the existing
 community while
  hiding their intent behind dishonest excuses.  It's a common
 Troll trick.
 
  Take such discussion to your own new forum, or to any number of
 politics-
  centered lists, or just vtxB, keep it OFF this one.
 
  After a few weeks or months this idea might sink in, and we can
 go back to
  normal.
 
  In the mean time:  producing ionizing radiation with light water
  electrolysis: simple enough for a school science fair, but
 nobody bothers
  to give it a try:
 
    http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf
 
 
 
 
  (( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) )
 ))) William J. Beaty
  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
  billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com
  EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects,
 sci fair
  Seattle, WA  206-762-3818    unusual phenomena, tesla coils,
 weird sci
 
 
 
  --
  Sent from my mobile device
 
  David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
 
 

[Vo]:unsubscribe

[leaking pen]

unsubscribe

Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe

[leaking pen]

whoops, thanks terry.  i even recall when that happened previously.
and... my other email was already subscribed?  da hell?

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Terry Blantonhohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 you have to send that to

 vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com

 On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:24 PM, leaking penitsat...@gmail.com wrote:
 unsubscribe

Re: [Vo]:anomalous DNA changes

[leaking pen]

ohh absolutely, and i told people that often, i figured that as a kid.
 However, i put out ones that DONT regularly go out,  And at one
point, i worked at a grocery store with their parking lot full.  i
could basically put out different lights at will by waving and
thinking at them.  How it might work, no clue.  Not enough data for me
to make a theory.

as far as a cd player, static electricity can definatley goof up the
lasers, the motors, and the actual control buttons.

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:41 PM, OrionWorkssvj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
 From Leak:

 ...

 But, the sodium vapor lamp bit is still a great party trick.  in
 puberty i had such excellent control i could point at lights nearby
 and put out specific ones.  (not sure what causes it, but apparently
 overloads of voltage in such lamps cause breakers to pop then come
 back on when the light cools.  the theory was that the human body's
 normal electrical field, if it matched up just right, could cause it.
 who knows why.  But a couple years ago, i lived at a house that had a
 few sodiums still on the street behind it.  i would walk that street
 and then around and in, about a block out of the way.  my roomate knew
 when i was a few minutes from home, because the backyard got dark as
 the lamp went out as i walked under it every day. )

 Regarding the weird phenomenon of sodium vapor lights going out in
 one's presence, I noticed a similar phenomenon happen to me when I
 drove past a certain street lamp in my neighborhood. For a while I
 wondered what it was I might be doing, or what it might be about me
 personally, my physiology, or my fantasized psychic abilities that
 made the lamp flicker out. I pondered this mystery, off and on, for
 quite a spell.

 One evening I decided to watch one of these intermittent sodium vapor
 lights that I felt I was influencing. I eventually discovered that the
 damned light had a tendency to go out on a regular basis regardless of
 whether I was passing by it or not. I had just assumed that I must
 somehow be responsible for the light going out because the light was
 in the process of performing one of its numerous off cycles,
 serendipitously around the time I was driving past it.

 On another matter, back in the 1980s, I had a first generation CD
 player that would act up whenever I passed my hand near the front
 control panel. I assumed I was carrying some kind of a static charge
 that might be interfering with some of the delicate electronics.
 Unfortunately, I never was able to confirm my suspicion. I tried
 everything I could think of to remove all static charge from my body.
 Didn't seem to matter. The CD player would still act up. Happened in
 the middle of a humid summer as well.

 Anyone know what might cause a flaky CD player to act up by a simple
 wave of the hand?

 ...or can I fantasize myself as a latent Uri Geller in training! 8-0

 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:optical trap for FQ (Feline Quanta)

[leaking pen]

ooo, thinking of other things to add to that list just gave me an idea
for a REAL invention

doggy/kitty door with an rfid reader for those pets with chips.  only
your pet can open the door!

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:08 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:
 On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, OrionWorks wrote:
 Except for a tendency to pounce on their meals and occasionally hack
 up a hairball there will be no way to distinguish these futuristic
 invaders from the human population - until it's too late.

 What's wrong with pouncing on meals or hacking up hairballs?  I've been
 doing it for about as long as I've had the idea for this trapping
 experiment.  That, plus my designs for lamp-switch or television remote
 control rugs which can be operated by foot pressure.  And the indoor
 aviary to raise finches.  Perhaps long term events associated with this
 experiment extend temporally in both advance and retarded forms, as in
 Feynman/Wheeler.


 (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
 William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance?

[leaking pen]

I don't have a refference, i grabbed that from someones post on a
message board, to, as i said, give thought to those who know more
about the subject than i to see if that made sense.

2009/6/5 Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net:
 Just so you all have an idea of what its all about, first, a summary of the 
 theory and then I'll
 comment on Nick's post:

 The standard theory of anthropogenic global warming is challenged by a new 
 theory which is based on
 empirical evidence and a reevaluation of the Eddinger equations, using a 
 different set of boundary
 conditions. In this exposition the Eddington radiation equilibrium equations 
 (which apply to stars)
 are solved correctly for a planet with a semi-transparent atmosphere, like 
 the Earth. The correct
 solutions predict that Earth's atmosphere holds an amount of greenhouse gases 
 that maximize
 radiation of heat into space. It appears that the Earth has a self-regulation 
 mechanism that allows
 increases of CO2 to exert only a very minor influence on the planet's 
 temperature. Independent
 measurements give insight into the mechanism of how this self-regulation 
 takes place. Still other
 measurements contradict the atmospheric heating that supposedly follows 
 directly from standard
 climate models as a result of increased CO2 during the last few decades. 
 Cooling is observed,
 instead. Due to the importance of the problem for policies that affect the 
 well-being of the world's
 population, we conclude that there are now ample grounds to organize a 
 discussion between the
 scientific proponents of these two theories.
 REF: http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction


 Nick:

 Your disparaging comment is unconvincing, and misleading; ALL THE FACTS, not 
 just what supports what
 you believe to be true.  I went to your reference (and BTW, I'm still waiting 
 for leaking pen's
 reference!) and did some reading there and at other sites, and it didn't take 
 long to find one
 person's comment about you:

 Nick you are still obfuscating, but thanks for the response anyway.
 As I said, momentum is a vector, and because it is symmetric about the 
 Earth's axis, for S_T it
 sums to zero anyway.

 Ok so how do they do this?  You said,
 The escaping photons provide an effective force on the earth. These might 
 budge the orbit by a
 nanometre or so

 You are making it up as you go by the look of it. Now consider a column 
 through which the photons
 of S_T are passing through the atmosphere they have a momentum what happens 
 to that momentum due to
 interaction with the particles in the amosphere on the way out? Try to stay 
 focused on the
 question.

 ME: For those that are truly interested in this topic, there is some very 
 good DISCUSSION about Dr.
 Miskolczi's papers on these sites:

 http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4t=556

 http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

 Here's a bibliography and review of recent peer-reviewed papers which 
 questions Global Warming
 Science:
 http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb%
 206-07.pdf


 ME: And some of this is beginning to sound very (FP) familiar...

 ... Then Miskolczi himself posts a few messages in his defense and he is 
 insulted by Gavin and
 'raypierre.'

 Gavin and 'raypierre' claim that Mikolczi makes several blatant algebraic 
 errors in the first 9
 pages of his report that invalidate his entire thesis. They don't say what 
 those errors are; they
 are apparently saving them for a paper written by a sophomore physics class 
 as a class project. In
 other words, Miklosci's math errors are so obvious that sophomore physics 
 majors can point them out.

 Maybe they are right, but that was in March and, as far as I can tell, the 
 class paper has not
 been posted yet.

 -Mark


 -Original Message-
 From: Nick Palmer [mailto:ni...@wynterwood.co.uk]
 Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 6:43 AM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance?

 Ferenc Miskolczi - balance? - oh please! Before you now it he will be 
 proving his theories using
 the size, relationships and angles of the great pyramids.

  http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi


 Nick Palmer

 On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it

 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.53/2154 - Release Date: 06/04/09 
 05:53:00
 No virus found in this outgoing message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.53/2154 - Release Date: 06/04/09 
 05:53:00

Re: [Vo]:Shanahan goes off the deep end! -- The psychology of bigotry

[leaking pen]

this should be on B guys.

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:16 AM, OrionWorkssvj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
 From Lawrence de Bivort:

 Some 'substitutes' for racial bigotries come readily to
 mind: anti-Muslim (from evangelical Christians and current
 American society); anti-Semitism (eg from the Nazis);
 anti-Palestinians (from Israelis). Perhaps anti-Liberals?

 I have a perfect example of anti-Mulsim hatred disguised as Christian
 piety, retrieved from a private group list that I somehow managed to
 get included in. (Don't ask me how this came about!) I actually
 received the following true letter twice approximately a year apart,
 so it would seem that my original objections were ignored - or
 overruled.

 What absolutely astonished me was the incredible amount of arrogance
 and scripting the original author displayed in how he characterized
 the behavior of the Imam. In just a couple of sentences it is
 alleged that the Christian minister was capable of reducing the Imam's
 religious ideology to shreds. That's one for the Christians, and  zero
 for the Muslims!

 For those curious I recommend browsing www.snopes.com, for a run down
 on similar internet rumors, including the source of this viral letter
 that continues to circulate through the internet like a virulent case
 of Swine-flu:

 See
 http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp


 And now, for your entertainment, the so-called Christian letter of
 pious enlightenment:

 -

 Allah or Jesus?

 Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for
 maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training
 session there was a presentation by three speakers who represented the
 Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths who explained their
 belief systems. I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam
 had to say.

 The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam complete
 with a video. After the presentations time was provided for questions
 and answers. When it was my turn I directed my question to the Imam
 and asked: Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that all
 of the Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy
 war] against the infidels of the world. And, that by killing an
 infidel, which is a command to al Muslims, they are assured of a place
 in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an
 infidel?

 There was no disagreement with my statements and without hesitation he
 replied, non-believers!

 I responded, so, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers
 of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith
 so they can go to heaven. Is that correct?

 The expression on his face changed from authority and command to that
 of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie
 jar. He sheepishly replied, Yes.

 I then said, Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pop
 John Paul command all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Pat
 Robertson, or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order
 to go to heaven.

 The Imam was Speechless.

 I continue, I also have a problem with being your friend when you and
 your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask
 you a question ... would you rather have your Allah who tell[s] you to
 kill me in order to go to heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you
 because I am going to heaven and wants you to be with me

 You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame.

 Chuck Colson once told me something that has sustained me for 20 years
 of prison ministry. He said to me, Rick, remember that the truth wil
 prevail.

 And it will!

 -


 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks