On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Harry Veeder wrote:
Maybe I did miss something. Did you ban someone for their religious
commentary?
This was my May 20 message:
Let's just do the usual: move all the off-topic discussions to
vortexB-L.
It's time for a temporary ban on all off-topic discussions, most
John Berry apologized for replying to a political message crossposted to
vortex-L and vortexB-L. He thought he was sending it to vortexB only.
Watch out for that. Never put vortex-L and vortexB-L in the same message
address. Rule 5 bans crossposting; the including of vortex-L in any
message
So, based on recent kvetching, i figured id go ahead and be one of the
unknowns to use a more professional email address. It was this or,
lordalexanderthes...@witchesforjesus.com
This one works better, i think.
OrionWorks wrote:
I recall two recent comments of worth:
Harry Veeder wrote:
If political commentary is banned, why not ban religious
commentary as well?
And from Stephen Lawrance:
The specific problem was caused by incontinent spraying of
political issues over every
Riggs Eckelberry of Origin Oil (algoil producer), Daniel Nocera of
MIT, and others to address the first annual Intergovernmental
Renewable Energy Organization (IREO) Renewable Energy Conference at
the United Nations headquarters in New York City on Thursday, June
11, 2009.
The meson data is consistent with the predictions made using SR,
and so
can be viewed as supporting it. Other interpretations are certainly
possible, however, and this experiment, alone, certainly doesn't
*prove*that time dilation occurs; to claim so is to step way
outside the bounds
of
Lets NOT actually discuss the political posts that caused the whole
furor on this list, mmmkay? That's just throwing gasoline back on
the fire that our good moderator is TRYING to put out. You want to
discuss grok and his posting habits and politics directly, send it to
B where it belongs
Alexander Hollins wrote:
The meson data is consistent with the predictions made using SR,
and so
can be viewed as supporting it. Other interpretations are certainly
possible, however, and this experiment, alone, certainly doesn't
*prove*that time dilation occurs; to claim so is to step way
They ran it with an sr71 and a ground based clock. I can find no
evidence for this online, so we have to go by what my father (a
marine at the base the experiment was ran from) told me he was told by
his friend, who, while not the pilot for that experiment, was a pilot
for other experiments run
We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it
Whoops your gedanken just jumped the tracks. You *can't* rotate a field.
You can rotate an object. You can rotate a frame of reference. You can
rotate your head trying to follow an obscure argument. But you can't
rotate a field, nor
Alexander Hollins wrote:
They ran it with an sr71 and a ground based clock. I can find no
evidence for this online, so we have to go by what my father (a
marine at the base the experiment was ran from) told me he was told by
his friend, who, while not the pilot for that experiment, was a
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote:
AFAIK the experiment using atomic clocks on airplanes has been done
just once, and used clocks flown on commercial airliners for two single
trips around the world, going in opposite directions.
Oh, it's happening every
A thought experiment...
Is it conceivable that a relatively small PM could be encased in a
non-magnetic casing of some high-tech sort prior to spinning it up to
RPMs in the range of, oh, lets say possibly within the spectrum of low
radio.
If the high-tech encasing was balanced perfectly so it
I wish I could. all i have is stories my father told me when i was a
kid. I also no longer have the pic of myself as a baby in 81 sitting
in the cockpit of one of the pre-production apaches... Sigh.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote:
Alexander Hollins
What makes you believe it would radiate any EM? The field is rotating, it is
not expanding or collapsing. I see this as a standing or scalar wave. I would
expect an E-field, but no EM radiation.
From: OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com
To:
I believe I am using the term magnetic domain wrong, but I'm unsure what you
would call the alignment of charged particles in a plasma.
From: Michael Crosiar crosia...@yahoo.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 9:43:35 AM
Subject: Re:
Alexander Hollins wrote:
Lets NOT actually discuss the political posts that caused the whole
furor on this list, mmmkay? That's just throwing gasoline back on
the fire that our good moderator is TRYING to put out. You want to
discuss grok and his posting habits and politics directly, send
From Michael Corsiar:
What makes you believe it would radiate any EM?
I don't. Not sure what to believe. It's why I'm askin...
The field is rotating, it is not expanding or collapsing.
I see this as a standing or scalar wave. I would expect
an E-field, but no EM radiation.
I think the
I know this is of interest to Bill:
http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR~PUBCODE~014~ACCT~140101~ISSUE~0906~RELTYPE~PSC~PRODCODE~~PRODLETT~EI.html
Hoyt Stearns
Scottsdale, Arizona US
http://HoytStearns.com
Ok, so take a magnet (it's a thought experiment so the realities of near
relativistic speeds of a spinning object interest me not), rotate it in such
a way that it's magnetic poles flip.
The field at some distance from the magnet must logically be moving greater
than C.
So we have 2
Ok, so take a
magnet (it's a thought experiment so the realities of near
relativistic speeds of a spinning object interest me not),
Thank
you!
rotate it in such a way that it's magnetic poles
flip.
Actually, I don't think this is the normal rotation, I
am more interested in the axial
Michael Crosiar wrote:
We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it
Whoops your gedanken just jumped the tracks. You *can't* rotate a field.
You can rotate an object. You can rotate a frame of reference. You can
rotate your head trying to follow an obscure argument. But you
Ok, well if it's axial field orientation then I would say you have walked
right into the N-Machine paradox.
Which is, does the magnetic field actually rotate when you rotate a magnet
on an axial orientation?
It is very difficult to prove since the only effect from an axially rotating
magnet is a
OrionWorks wrote:
A thought experiment...
Is it conceivable that a relatively small PM could be encased in a
non-magnetic casing of some high-tech sort prior to spinning it up to
RPMs in the range of, oh, lets say possibly within the spectrum of low
radio.
This would be EXTREMELY
BTW I might add one thing.
Even if a magnetic field can exceed the speed of light in this sense it is
not really clear how that compares to any other form of movement.
For instance a magnetic field can be made to appear to rotate by turning on
electromagnets in order as with the rotating stator
FYI,
The Crime of Reason and the Closing of the Scientific Mind
Robert D. Laughlin, Reviewed by Edward Gerjuoy
Basic Books, New York, 2008. $25.95 (186 pp.). ISBN 978-0-465-00507-9
-Mark
First I answered quite a few questions about the 60 hz resonances I have
procurred to the moderator of tesla pupman list, but when another poster asked
a question it was refused as off topic. I also have now come to a point of
application concerning interphasal resonances as I have promoted
In reply to Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.'s message of Tue, 9 Jun 2009 14:20:30 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
I know this is of interest to Bill:
http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR~PUBCODE~014~ACCT~140101~ISSUE~0906~RELTYPE~PSC~PRODCODE~~PRODLETT~EI.html
Hoyt Stearns
Scottsdale, Arizona US
Of course I will be happy to again make a new innovation with the design of
what might be termed a
Power factor corrected TC primary These will be the subject of future flicker
URL submissions. In actuality I have posted to tesla list years ago on the
titled concept bearing the same name. For
29 matches
Mail list logo
