Re: [Vo]:faith
Rossi seems to include a test faith with every demo. The "faithful" remain calm and the "unfaithful" protest. Both reactions signify a great deal. Harry On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Harry- > > That reminds me of something from Shakespeare, his well known character of > faith--"full of sound and fury." not unlike the character of some > Vorts. [image: Emoji] > > Bob Cook > > -- > Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:55:02 -0400 > From: hveeder...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: [Vo]:faith > > > Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not > seen. > > > Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV) > > Harry > > > >
RE: [Vo]:faith
Harry- That reminds me of something from Shakespeare, his well known character of faith--"full of sound and fury." not unlike the character of some Vorts. Bob Cook Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:55:02 -0400 From: hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:faith Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV) Harry
[Vo]:faith
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV) Harry
Re: [Vo]:Faith!
I'm interested in your criticisms of mainstream physics. Is there widespread agreement with your opinions on, say, QED? If not, what is preventing mainstream physicists from seeing it? Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:25, Danny Ross Lunsford antimatte...@yahoo.com wrote: My strongest reason for believing that Rossi is on the up and up - plain old faith. 1) QCD, the theory of the strong interaction that controls how protons and neutrons interact, is a beautiful structure that is just about completely useless. Almost nothing can be calculated with it. I don't mean a restricted number of things - I mean just about nothing. Not only is it completely sterile computationally, it is also absolutely useless as a heuristic phenomenology to pave the way forward, the way the London theory of superconductivity paved the way for the real deal of the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory. 2) Neutrino physics is in complete disarray. The discovery of oscillations and the failure to find the Higgs boson (something many of us thought would never be found years ago) has thrown even the successful part of the standard model, the electroweak sector, into chaos. 3) Even bare QED, the quantum version of electrodynamics, is plagued with mathematical ambiguities that caused both Dirac and Feynman to ultimately reject it. Despite all the hubris about calculations to 8 decimal places, as a theory it is hopelessly flawed by reliance on ambiguous mathematics and poorly defined physical concepts. As Dirac said, one ignore a quantity because it is small, not because it is infinite! In other words, the standard model, for all its publicity, is a ramshackle of phenomenology that borrowed shall we say, its main tools from the theory of superconductivity and pushed them way beyond the brink of reasonableness. Even the fundamental idea, gauge invariance, does not last past square 1, and one must sacrifice it to have a short range force. Now consider the situation in 1820, when Faraday was working. Almost nothing was known about the true nature of light, there was no cooperative theory of electricity and magnetism, much less one that united them is a single scheme - that would have to wait until 1865. But Faraday forged ahead with his experiments. He discovered that a current loop in the presence of a magnet experienced a torque - the first clue to their actual relationship. Within a decade, people were making electric motors, completely without any real understanding of what was going on! Yet that did not stop people from tinkering and inventing and moving forward. It was the utility of the phenomenon that drove the science, not the other way around! And of course who in his right mind would have imagined the key to their relationship was nothing but light itself? That had to wait for a epochal genius, Maxwell. Friends, there are no epochal geniuses around. But we do have limited knowledge - a great deal of phenomenology - about the nucleus, and a bandy-legged, cross-eyed theory that at least makes up a sort-of consistent whole. The LENR researchers of today are like Faraday - Rossi is like the guys who made motors (and got rich!) - we wait for the Maxwell to cut the Gordian knot. But for the knot to be cut - you first have to believe it is possible. You have to have faith! Did we really think we would go down into the mud again without ever making any progress? Did we really imagine it was all over? Here's a brand new phenomenon, exactly when one was desperately needed! both in the practical world and in the abstract world of pure research. I could not imagine that we would all just turn out the lights, turn off our computers, shut down our universities and libraries, dismantle their buildings for firewood, and simply return to the dark ages. I had faith that some day, something new would happen. I am painfully aware of my own limitations, but that is exactly why I'm allowed to believe, when the self-satisfied and arrogant skeptic can only stew in his own cynicism. It's faith that tells me, more than 1000 experts and gauges, that this is real. -drl -- I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin
Re: [Vo]:Faith!
Widespread agreement? Everyone knows renormalization is a shell game (as Feynman put it) but are either unwilling or unable to confront it. String theory billed itself as a royal road away from ambiguity, but turned out to be the deadest of dead ends, a one-way alley into absurdity. So we are worse off than before, because all the theorists who at least had a grasp on the real problem have retired. It's the loss of the culture of science, caused by influx of people only interested in careerism and power, nurtured by as system that grades tests and not understanding, that is mostly to blame. Dirac was scathing in his criticism of QED. He knew that the classical theory already has insuperable problems, and tried on three different occasions to get a better classical theory before quantization. He believed that is was hopeless to quantize a classical theory that was already hopelessly diseased. -- I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin --- On Wed, 11/2/11, Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: From: Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Faith! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, November 2, 2011, 6:00 PM I'm interested in your criticisms of mainstream physics. Is there widespread agreement with your opinions on, say, QED? If not, what is preventing mainstream physicists from seeing it?
[Vo]:Faith!
My strongest reason for believing that Rossi is on the up and up - plain old faith. 1) QCD, the theory of the strong interaction that controls how protons and neutrons interact, is a beautiful structure that is just about completely useless. Almost nothing can be calculated with it. I don't mean a restricted number of things - I mean just about nothing. Not only is it completely sterile computationally, it is also absolutely useless as a heuristic phenomenology to pave the way forward, the way the London theory of superconductivity paved the way for the real deal of the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory. 2) Neutrino physics is in complete disarray. The discovery of oscillations and the failure to find the Higgs boson (something many of us thought would never be found years ago) has thrown even the successful part of the standard model, the electroweak sector, into chaos. 3) Even bare QED, the quantum version of electrodynamics, is plagued with mathematical ambiguities that caused both Dirac and Feynman to ultimately reject it. Despite all the hubris about calculations to 8 decimal places, as a theory it is hopelessly flawed by reliance on ambiguous mathematics and poorly defined physical concepts. As Dirac said, one ignore a quantity because it is small, not because it is infinite! In other words, the standard model, for all its publicity, is a ramshackle of phenomenology that borrowed shall we say, its main tools from the theory of superconductivity and pushed them way beyond the brink of reasonableness. Even the fundamental idea, gauge invariance, does not last past square 1, and one must sacrifice it to have a short range force. Now consider the situation in 1820, when Faraday was working. Almost nothing was known about the true nature of light, there was no cooperative theory of electricity and magnetism, much less one that united them is a single scheme - that would have to wait until 1865. But Faraday forged ahead with his experiments. He discovered that a current loop in the presence of a magnet experienced a torque - the first clue to their actual relationship. Within a decade, people were making electric motors, completely without any real understanding of what was going on! Yet that did not stop people from tinkering and inventing and moving forward. It was the utility of the phenomenon that drove the science, not the other way around! And of course who in his right mind would have imagined the key to their relationship was nothing but light itself? That had to wait for a epochal genius, Maxwell. Friends, there are no epochal geniuses around. But we do have limited knowledge - a great deal of phenomenology - about the nucleus, and a bandy-legged, cross-eyed theory that at least makes up a sort-of consistent whole. The LENR researchers of today are like Faraday - Rossi is like the guys who made motors (and got rich!) - we wait for the Maxwell to cut the Gordian knot. But for the knot to be cut - you first have to believe it is possible. You have to have faith! Did we really think we would go down into the mud again without ever making any progress? Did we really imagine it was all over? Here's a brand new phenomenon, exactly when one was desperately needed! both in the practical world and in the abstract world of pure research. I could not imagine that we would all just turn out the lights, turn off our computers, shut down our universities and libraries, dismantle their buildings for firewood, and simply return to the dark ages. I had faith that some day, something new would happen. I am painfully aware of my own limitations, but that is exactly why I'm allowed to believe, when the self-satisfied and arrogant skeptic can only stew in his own cynicism. It's faith that tells me, more than 1000 experts and gauges, that this is real. -drl -- I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin
Re: [Vo]:Faith!
Am 01.11.2011 09:25, schrieb Danny Ross Lunsford: My strongest reason for believing that Rossi is on the up and up - plain old faith. It is absolutely wrong to have to use faith for something that can be easily measured and tested. Rossi wants real money and he will count it without doubt as every businessman does, why dont they use faith? Peter
Re: [Vo]:Faith!
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Rossi wants real money and he will count it without doubt as every businessman does, why dont they use faith? Rossi was allegedly paid by TC (The Customer) for his Reactor. Now, I wonder how much? Was he paid based on the capability or on the test value. He has often quoted the price of $2000/kW; so, a megawatt reactor costs $2M; but, he only demonstrated 479 kW. So, did he get a check for only $958,000? Regardless, he seems happy. Does that mean TCs check cleared the bank? Or was it escrowed? Or, did those Men In Black carry cases of cash? Now that TC has their eCat, can we speculate on who has bought the next one (TC2) as Rossi has said the already has it sold? He said he would sell to any country. Maybe it would be China? Japan could use some heat this winter. I doubt it would go to Defkalion. T
Re: [Vo]:Faith!
Good post Danny. ;-) Dave -Original Message- From: Danny Ross Lunsford antimatte...@yahoo.com To: vortex list vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Nov 1, 2011 4:25 am Subject: [Vo]:Faith! My strongest reason for believing that Rossi is on the up and up - plain old faith. 1) QCD, the theory of the strong interaction that controls how protons and neutrons interact, is a beautiful structure that is just about completely useless. Almost nothing can be calculated with it. I don't mean a restricted number of things - I mean just about nothing. Not only is it completely sterile computationally, it is also absolutely useless as a heuristic phenomenology to pave the way forward, the way the London theory of superconductivity paved the way for the real deal of the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory. 2) Neutrino physics is in complete disarray. The discovery of oscillations and the failure to find the Higgs boson (something many of us thought would never be found years ago) has thrown even the successful part of the standard model, the electroweak sector, into chaos. 3) Even bare QED, the quantum version of electrodynamics, is plagued with mathematical ambiguities that caused both Dirac and Feynman to ultimately reject it. Despite all the hubris about calculations to 8 decimal places, as a theory it is hopelessly flawed by reliance on ambiguous mathematics and poorly defined physical concepts. As Dirac said, one ignore a quantity because it is small, not because it is infinite! In other words, the standard model, for all its publicity, is a ramshackle of phenomenology that borrowed shall we say, its main tools from the theory of superconductivity and pushed them way beyond the brink of reasonableness. Even the fundamental idea, gauge invariance, does not last past square 1, and one must sacrifice it to have a short range force. Now consider the situation in 1820, when Faraday was working. Almost nothing was known about the true nature of light, there was no cooperative theory of electricity and magnetism, much less one that united them is a single scheme - that would have to wait until 1865. But Faraday forged ahead with his experiments. He discovered that a current loop in the presence of a magnet experienced a torque - the first clue to their actual relationship. Within a decade, people were making electric motors, completely without any real understanding of what was going on! Yet that did not stop people from tinkering and inventing and moving forward. It was the utility of the phenomenon that drove the science, not the other way around! And of course who in his right mind would have imagined the key to their relationship was nothing but light itself? That had to wait for a epochal genius, Maxwell. Friends, there are no epochal geniuses around. But we do have limited knowledge - a great deal of phenomenology - about the nucleus, and a bandy-legged, cross-eyed theory that at least makes up a sort-of consistent whole. The LENR researchers of today are like Faraday - Rossi is like the guys who made motors (and got rich!) - we wait for the Maxwell to cut the Gordian knot. But for the knot to be cut - you first have to believe it is possible. You have to have faith! Did we really think we would go down into the mud again without ever making any progress? Did we really imagine it was all over? Here's a brand new phenomenon, exactly when one was desperately needed! both in the practical world and in the abstract world of pure research. I could not imagine that we would all just turn out the lights, turn off our computers, shut down our universities and libraries, dismantle their buildings for firewood, and simply return to the dark ages. I had faith that some day, something new would happen. I am painfully aware of my own limitations, but that is exactly why I'm allowed to believe, when the self-satisfied and arrogant skeptic can only stew in his own cynicism. It's faith that tells me, more than 1000 experts and gauges, that this is real. -drl -- I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin
RE: [Vo]: 'Faith' in the 1st law, re H Veeder
No Harry, 'faith' in logic. Don't get ratty when someone challenges your preconceptions. Extend the argument. Is there something I've missed? Is there a point 3, 4... a way into the argument that Steorn might be on to? I think not. That's the 1st Law and what it means in a nutshell. When someone challenges one in science, one has to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's unless one has very good experimental evidence. R. -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 September 2006 19:12 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Remi, Now when people start talking about violating the *1st Law* it can only mean: 1) The constants of nature have changed over the timescale of your experiment. 2) That some new force has been found. Your faith in the first law is strong. Is it stronger than your religious faith? Harry
Re: [Vo]: 'Faith' in the 1st law, re H Veeder
The logic of the first law when used to interpret particular observations suggests this or that as an explanation. For example, one can always add another force to nature to make observations consistent with the logic the first law, just like one can always add another epicycle to make observations consistent with the logic of the geocentric system. If the constants had changed during the course experiment, did they change every where or just in the proximity of the experiment? If they changed everywhere, then funny things should have happened everywhere during the experiment. Anyway, evidence by itself does not set the course of science. At least the weight of the evidence AND occam's razor are our guides. Harry Remi Cornwall wrote: No Harry, 'faith' in logic. Don't get ratty when someone challenges your preconceptions. Extend the argument. Is there something I've missed? Is there a point 3, 4... a way into the argument that Steorn might be on to? I think not. That's the 1st Law and what it means in a nutshell. When someone challenges one in science, one has to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's unless one has very good experimental evidence. R. -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 September 2006 19:12 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Remi, Now when people start talking about violating the *1st Law* it can only mean: 1) The constants of nature have changed over the timescale of your experiment. 2) That some new force has been found. Your faith in the first law is strong. Is it stronger than your religious faith? Harry
