Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:45 PM, OrionWorks wrote: From the report: How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light? Always wondered about that conundrum. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks That's pretty easy. Field forces are manifested through, i.e. carried by, messenger particle exchanges. The messenger particle for gravity is the graviton. Gravitons do not exchange gravitons with other gravitons, thus they are free to escape black holes and to move through any type of gravitational field unencumbered. That's the vanilla theory. In my theory of gravimagnetics, the virtual photon in the electromagnetic universe corresponds to the graviton in the gravitational universe, as a similar correspondence exists for the photon to the graviphoton. In EM theory electrostatic charge is the source and sink of virtual photon messengers. In gravimagnetics, gravitational charge is the source and sink of gravitons. The answer to your question in gravimagnetics terms is that gravitons carry no gravitational charge, thus they are free to escape black holes. Unlike conventional theory, however, in gravimagnetics we see that virtual photons do not carry gravitational charge either, and thus black holes are free to exhibit electrostatic charge, and vastly more importantly, magnetic fields. Light, however, being carried by photons, which have gravitational charge, is not free to escape black holes. Photons carry gravitational charge, thus can not escape black holes, and their path is bent by gravity. Similarly, graviphotons carry gravitational charge, and thus can not escape black holes. It is also true that graviphotons carry a weak coupling to the virtual photon, corresponding to the weak coupling of the photon to the graviton. This means that it is theoretically feasible to build a graviphoton telescope through use of a powerful electrostatic field used as a lense and through use of a very sensitive detector. Given that graviphotons carry no charge, and have a very weak coupling to electrostatic charge, i.e. to virtual photons, it is reasonable to suspect the possibility that neutrinos are comprised of graviphotons. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 22:12:01 -0800: Hi, [snip] I posted a message, then went shopping. I just got back, and discovered this post from Horace. :) [snip] Given that graviphotons carry no charge, and have a very weak coupling to electrostatic charge, i.e. to virtual photons, it is reasonable to suspect the possibility that neutrinos are comprised of graviphotons. [snip] Is it possible that they are in fact one and the same thing? IOW the gravity waves that various experiments are looking for, may have been here all along, in the form of neutrinos. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick Monteverde wrote: My information that the computer models can't accurately track reality? Chaos theory, mostly, and practical experience and observation too, validated by numerous people who know and use these systems and are honest about how they work. You can't expect a recursive computer model to accurately predict for you the outcomes of a planetary weather/ocean system. That's preposterous. If that were true, weather forecasting computer programs would not work. In fact, they work amazingly well. As I have said before, opinions such as this remind me very much of the assertions made by anti-cold fusion skeptics, and also assertions made by people who think that the New York fire Department experts cannot recognize arson when they see it. On one side we have careful research over decades by thousands of experts. People who have worked with the instruments and data every day for decades. On the other side we have opinions of people who know little or nothing about the subject and yet who assert that they know better than the experts. In cold fusion there are dozens of self-appointed instant experts including Nobel laureates who imagine that they know much more about electrochemistry and calorimetry than Fleischmann or Bockris. And in climate studies everyone thinks he is an expert! One other parallel trend strikes me. Anti-global warming instant experts often ascribe these views to Al Gore as if he made up the data. They ignore the fact that he is merely repeating what genuine experts say. In exactly the same fashion, countless anti-cold fusion instant experts have attacked me, instead of trying to critique the actual papers written by experts. Some have even accused me of inventing the data and writing the papers at LENR-CANR myself. I take that as a compliment. If I could write ~500 papers covering such a broad range of topics I would be a scientific genius. If Al Gore could come up with all of the information he presents he would deserve two more Nobel laureates in physics and chemistry. It is at least conceivable that the climate experts are wrong. I suppose that is somewhat more likely than the possibility that 2000 researchers have done calorimetry, tritium detection and mass spectroscopy wrong. Climate studies or more nebulous than electrochemistry after all, and the results are not as clear-cut. But I do not think it is plausible that people outside the field who know practically nothing about the basics will find problems that the real experts have overlooked. McKubre said that the self-appointed experts have criticized his experiment have NEVER pointed out to him a single aspect of the experiment that he was not already well aware of. And I am quite sure that Steve Jones -- who is so far removed from reality that he imagines McKubre's closed cell may be producing false excess heat from recombination -- is incapable of recognizing or characterizing arson. I am sure he knows less about that subject than I do, just as he knows much less about calorimetry than I do. (Or if he knows more than he lets on, he lies about it.) Frankly, I am sick to death of such people. - Jed
[Vo]:NIST debunking
Kevin Ryan, former Lab director at UL (Underwriters Laboratories - which once-upon-a-time was NIST - that is, before NIST became politicized and no longer is staffed with real scientists - and instead is being run by political appointees) ... weighs in with Dr. Steven Jones on the flawed NIST report. Ryan was illegally fired for simply raising questions about the deliberate misstatements in the report. This is extremely damning - the NIST report is an absolute and total fraud. In the video below there is no hysteria, nor wild unsubstantiated charges, nor conspiracy theories - just a calm appraisal of the deliberate fabrication (lie) which underlies the NIST whitewash - which is that UL has already tested and certified the steel, and even built a model which DID NOT FAIL under more severe conditions than what actually happened. NIST was only able to make a case for the official story by farming-out a bogus computer simulation - which intentionally specified incorrect information and that was only effective because they DENIED the prior UL study. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IACdhpfZjk# I predict that - unless a sympathetic candidate is elected (McCain)- there will be *criminal charges* filed against the Bush political appointees who tried to hide the truth by illegally firing a good man who refused to look the other way and tow the company line. We have not heard the end of this travesty of justice (well - pending the Nov. election). Jones
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Jones Beene wrote: Kevin Ryan, former Lab director at UL (Underwriters Laboratories - which once-upon-a-time was NIST - that is, before NIST became politicized and no longer is staffed with real scientists - and instead is being run by political appointees) No, the two are completely unrelated and always have been. NIST is a federal government agency formerly known as the National Bureau of Standards. Underwriters Laboratories is a private institute run by underwriters (insurance companies). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Howdy Jones, Fact: NO plane hit building 7 of the world trade center so the computer models used on the twin towers are invalid. What we have is a classic example of performing wonders with numbers while eating cucumbers. Won't matter.. it over,it's in the past.. in today's world, anything being instant attention is past tense.All TV ads are predicated on this concept. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3Afeature=related Richard Kevin Ryan, former Lab director at UL (Underwriters Laboratories - which once-upon-a-time was NIST - that is, before NIST became politicized and no longer is staffed with real scientists - and instead is being run by political appointees) ... weighs in with Dr. Steven Jones on the flawed NIST report. Ryan was illegally fired for simply raising questions about the deliberate misstatements in the report. This is extremely damning - the NIST report is an absolute and total fraud. In the video below there is no hysteria, nor wild unsubstantiated charges, nor conspiracy theories - just a calm appraisal of the deliberate fabrication (lie) which underlies the NIST whitewash - which is that UL has already tested and certified the steel, and even built a model which DID NOT FAIL under more severe conditions than what actually happened. NIST was only able to make a case for the official story by farming-out a bogus computer simulation - which intentionally specified incorrect information and that was only effective because they DENIED the prior UL study. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IACdhpfZjk# I predict that - unless a sympathetic candidate is elected (McCain)- there will be *criminal charges* filed against the Bush political appointees who tried to hide the truth by illegally firing a good man who refused to look the other way and tow the company line. We have not heard the end of this travesty of justice (well - pending the Nov. election).
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Richard, Won't matter.. it over,it's in the past.. in today's world, anything being instant attention is past tense. Unfortunately, you are probably right - especially with the massive payoff$$ to the families of the 3000+ victims - some of whom otherwise would never let the story die. Is this a case of 'buying silence' to some degree? How much did the Katrina victims get, by comparison ? For the most part -nada, but that was a different kind of tragedy, or was it? ... what was the real difference- was it the poverty of the victims, skin color, or was it the clear lack of high-level involvement? i.e. in 9/11 was a metaphorical 'guilty conscience' involved somehow - on the payor end, which was absent with other tragedies where nothing was paid out to victims families ? Maybe this genius could tell us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60NR=1 OTOH - war criminals going back to the Nazis are still being hunted down, if they have not all died due to old age. If the Nazi's had won, would we even know about the death camps? I think that some remnants of 9/11 will be with us for a while, but history is written by the winners even in the age of electronics and the Internet -- and if the Bush legacy continues for 4 more years, hope for truth in this incident is almost lost. Jones
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
A slow news day. The following questions are probably directed for Jones, but anyone can chime in. I've been reading this subject thread off and on for some time, and I'm curious about a couple of things... Is it the implication that Cheney either directly or indirectly was responsible for destroying the WTC and/or surrounding buildings? If indirectly, then how far down the chain of command? WHO DID IT? WHY? As the famous saying of a prior gate scandal goes (slightly altered here): What did the VP know and when did he know it? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Jed - That's preposterous. If you wish. It's also a fact. It's inherent in how the math works. If that were true, weather forecasting computer programs would not work. You are correct. You've heard of Lorenz, of course. The programs only work for a very brief time before their results degrade to useless noise, so they are only good before they reach that point - which is PDQ. An interesting thing is that no matter how large or how good your data set is, the same thing happens - unless you add artificial buffering or other programming contrivances to manipulate things towards the results you or your sponsors would like to see. The current attempts to model the ongoing workings of greenhouse gasses as they actually perform in the real world is nothing more than an exercise in computer science and chemistry which probably would only be interesting to academics had such work not come to be abused so badly in this current politically charged situation. There's quite a few other things besides this one that undo AGW, but this is the major deal breaker on the models issue which has driven a large part of the claims in favor of it. - Rick
RE: [Vo]:NIST debunking
What heresy is this? Computer models being misapplied on a controversial subject to back a position not supported by actual evidence observed in the real world? Is it just me, or is it getting warmer in here? - Rick _ From: R C Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 7:53 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking snip What we have is a classic example of performing wonders with numbers while eating cucumbers. /snip
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Jones Beene wrote: Won't matter.. it over,it's in the past.. in today's world, anything being instant attention is past tense. Unfortunately, you are probably right - especially with the massive payoff$$ to the families of the 3000+ victims - some of whom otherwise would never let the story die. Is this a case of 'buying silence' to some degree? That's nothing Jones! Those people hardly matter. The massive payoff must have gone to the engineering firms and consulting engineers worldwide who reviewed the NIST report. Thousands and thousands of them, in every country. Not to mention the entire NYFD, as I mentioned. Not only did they agree to go along with the conspiracy, they agree to have several hundred of their own people killed in the so-called attack and fire. Of course it isn't hard to buy off the world's largest, most credible and professional fire department. As a rule, firemen could not care less how many of their colleagues you kill. It just opens up promotions. They are notorious for that. They will keep arson a secret if you buy them a round of beers. There is no doubt this conspiracy was well planned. Within minutes of the crash, the conspirators must have rushed into engineering firms in the UK and the US and paid the experts there to predict publicly that the towers would soon collapse. This is the third largest conspiracy of scientific engineering experts in recorded history. Numbers 1 and 2 are: 1. Cold fusion, of course. 4000 experts in a huge variety of fields such as electrochemistry calorimetry and mass spectroscopy have all been paid off to pretend that the results are positive. They have also been paid to have their reputations trashed and their careers ruined. Why anyone would pay these people to do this is a complete mystery since there is no conceivable benefit to anyone, but that only makes it more obvious that it must be a conspiracy. Perhaps it is an effort to discredit over unity energy research. 2. Climate change. Need I say more? Not only have the conspirators paid off thousands of experts, they actually managed to melt all the ice at the North Pole with machinery that no one can conceive of, just as Michael Crichton and other distinguished experts predicted they would do. Again, there is no conceivable benefit to doing this but that confirms it must be a conspiracy. Not sure who is behind this, other than Al Gore, of course. 3. Your conspiracy. Small potatoes really. What is astounding about conspiracies #1 and 3 is that Steve Jones discovered them and no one else noticed or has any evidence they exist! Jones is an astounding scientist. As he said in the video, an experiment trumps a computer model. He should know! His cold fusion debunking experiment is a classic case. He proved that there is significant recombination in all cold fusion experiments -- including even ones with closed cells! -- by the simple technique of reducing power by a factor of 1000 and using a cell of the wrong shape. You have to wonder why others did not think of doing this. As Melvin Miles put it, why stop there? Why not throw some finely divided platinum into the electrolyte as well? Steve Jones's personal credibility in this and all other claims is at a world-class level of zero to five significant digits. Jones Beene also has some problems with trifling details such as not knowing NIST from UL, plus apparently he just discovered that government agencies are run by appointees. This has been true for 220 years but no doubt it is a shocking revelation. Actually, in the case of NIST (and many other agencies) the Bush administration has not bothered to appoint a director and the deputy director is running the place. He is Dr. J. Turner, and: He holds degrees in Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Ph.D.) and Johns Hopkins University (B.A.), and taught for five years as an Associate Professor of Physics and Engineering at Morehouse College. He has various other token qualifications such as the U.S. Government Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Service (which any fool can score -- heck, my mother got one), three U.S. Department of Energy Exceptional Service Award, the Secretary of Energy Gold Award and the National Nuclear Security Administration's Gold Medal and various other awards that they hand out like cracker jacks toys at these places. Obviously a sham and a pushover. No doubt the others at NIST are no better qualified. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick Monteverde wrote: If that were true, weather forecasting computer programs would not work. You are correct. You've heard of Lorenz, of course. The programs only work for a very brief time before their results degrade to useless noise, so they are only good before they reach that point . . . Local weather forecasts degrade because they are detailed. Nowadays they can make a weather forecast months or even years ahead for large areas such as the entire Pacific Ocean, or the trends for the whole of Japan for several months, which is now predicted with astonishing accuracy on NHK. My point is that if experts did not understand the detailed physics of the atmosphere, they could not make detailed weather forecasts at all. That was the case until the 1960s. Even after satellite photos became available weather forecasts were not reliable until the physics and computational models were improved. Furthermore, you are ignoring the fact that the global warming experts predictions have come true in the world is indisputably growing hotter rapidly, as Ed pointed out. You do not need a computer to see that. Just look at melting ice, the level of the Inland Sea, or the average temperature of the Pacific ocean water and atmosphere surrounding Japan. Local temperatures vary of course but over large landmasses and extended periods they have been going up. To deny such first-principal observations is to go traipsing off into the cloud-cuckoo land of the cold fusion deniers who do not believe that thermocouples and thermometers work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
OrionWorks wrote: A slow news day. The following questions are probably directed for Jones, but anyone can chime in. I've been reading this subject thread off and on for some time, and I'm curious about a couple of things... Is it the implication that Cheney either directly or indirectly was responsible for destroying the WTC and/or surrounding buildings? If indirectly, then how far down the chain of command? WHO DID IT? WHY? As the famous saying of a prior gate scandal goes (slightly altered here): What did the VP know and when did he know it? If you ignore all the arguments about whether there were airplanes, and just look at the facts which can be substantiated and which nearly everybody agrees on, then there are some very interesting issues with the events that day. The Pentagon plane (flight 77) (assume for the moment that it was a plane, please, and not a global foxbat or ICBM or UFO or spitball or mass hallucination) was not stopped. There is testimony from I-forget-which honcho who was actually talking to Cheney in the bunker shortly before the plane hit that made it sound very much like Cheney *knew* it was coming, and had given orders to let it through. It's 50 miles out sir, do the orders still stand? -- Have you heard anything different?? -- that's a line from a song, but it's lifted directly from sworn testimony before Congress. As I recall, the person who reported it said he had no idea what Cheney and the other party were talking about at the time; it's only in retrospect that the conversation is suggestive of something bad going down. (I will dig up a link if anyone's interested enough to ask.) The failure of SAC and/or NORAD and/or any other organization to respond in time to the planes which hit the WTC (again, please, for the moment let's just set aside the [goofball] theory that there were no planes) has been talked about a lot, and the evidence that there was a stand-down of NORAD throughout the entire Northeast U.S. is frustratingly confusing and vague but it appears that there may have been such a stand-down. If there was, it appears that the orders came directly from Cheney. (Not sure where to find this but I think GlobalResearch.ca, which is one of the saner fringe sites, had something on it.) There is evidence that some laws had been changed just a few months earlier giving Cheney the authority to order the stand-down. Before the change, NORAD was not under the control of the VP, and he could not have done it. That, too, is suggestive but not conclusive. Of course this also strongly suggests that the hammer used to knock down the WTC *was* the airplanes, and they *were* critical to the plan, Steve Jones and the iron sphericals notwithstanding; the disturbing part is that there may have been complicity on the part of Dick Cheney and others in government that day. As to the plane which went down in Pennsylvania (yes there *was* a plane, it went straight down and splattered at cruising speed, there were eyewitnesses, if you don't believe there was a plane there don't bother me about it I've heard too much c*** on this subject already and I'm sick of listening to fools who can't even research the evidence on the internet carefully enough to find the straight story on their own) ... there is some interesting but inconclusive evidence that it was SHOT DOWN, presumably by the USAF. Why did they get just one of the planes? I dunno -- funny, it was the one headed for the White House; but nobody but me seems to think that's odd. Specifically, while there is nothing *conclusive* (like, nobody actually saw the F-16 that may have done it) the evidence from witnesses says that the plane suffered a mid-air trauma some time *before* the crash, and was dropping pieces long before it hit the ground. I mean, big heavy pieces, like engine parts. The official report dismisses this as being due to stuff that got blown up from the crash site but after reading what witnesses think they saw, and reading about how far the debris bounced, I'm ... well, not so sure. And now I'll bow out again, since I probably have managed to disagree with all sides of the discussion at this point. :-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Won't matter.. it over,it's in the past.. in today's world, anything being instant attention is past tense. Unfortunately, you are probably right - especially with the massive payoff$$ to the families of the 3000+ victims - some of whom otherwise would never let the story die. Is this a case of 'buying silence' to some degree? That's nothing Jones! Those people hardly matter. The massive payoff must have gone to the engineering firms and consulting engineers worldwide who reviewed the NIST report. Thousands and thousands of them, in every country. The thing which is interesting about all this, IMHO, is that, if we cut through the noise and gubbish about physical causes, and pretend for a moment that the videos and witnesses are all about as accurate as videos and eyewitness usually are, then the thing could have been pulled off with a rather small conspiracy. But ... to make this theory work we need to give up on the notion that there was 1500 pounds of thermite involved. All we need to do is accept for the moment the notion that Bin Laden may have had some CIA contacts at one time, and confess that we have no idea whether those contacts were still active on 9/11, and admit that some carefully placed orders, involving very few people, could have made it impractical for NORAD to get the planes before they got the towers. And then we need to accept that the vice president may very well have had foreknowledge of Bin Laden's plans, through possible CIA contacts, and admit that he also had the power to prevent an effective air defense that day. And whether it's true or not you'll never be able to prove it, and neither will anyone else, no matter who wins the upcoming election, because the number of people involved is probably not larger than a dozen. On the other hand, if we assume there were hoards of elves scurrying through WTC 1, 2, and 7 drilling holes in walls and beams and lugging in great barrels of thermite and stringing miles of detonator wire (don't forget the wires, this needs to be set off by a computer if it's going to work right), and if we assume that the NYFD actually knew the plunger was being pushed to dynamite WTC7, then it's quite likely that someone will eventually spill the beans. And if the TV networks were all in on it, as some have claimed, then it becomes even more likely that somebody will talk. But I won't hold my breath (oh that's right, I forgot, they've all received death threats and are afraid to talk -- and that includes all the firemen, too, and the graphic arts people who faked the video footage). * Incidentally, if debris didn't hit WTC 7 -- I mean, like major hunks of it -- what set WTC 7 on fire? Conversely, if enough junk busted in through the walls to set fires in the middle of the building, how can anyone be so sure it was not significantly damaged by that same debris? I don't really see any need to assume fire *alone* brought down the building, unless the fire was set by arsonists working inside the building.
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Steven, I've been reading this subject thread off and on for some time, and I'm curious about a couple of things... Is it the implication that Cheney either directly or indirectly was responsible for destroying the WTC and/or surrounding buildings? Never heard that one before. WHO DID IT? It is clear that Al Qa'ida did it and probably did it (mostly) alone. The only question for me is: did they have any help at all, either before or after; either planned or **inadvertent** i.e. gross negligence and cover-up (read on) WHY? They hate us, and for good reason. In 1993 Ramzi Yousef and others bombed the WTC and it all goes back to then - as WTC became a symbol of radical islam of everything they hate about the West. As the famous saying of a prior gate scandal goes (slightly altered here): What did the VP know and when did he know it? It is premature to even suggest Cheney was involved. This is even more unfounded (so far) than that there could have been a missile. Some of the more preposterous theories could have been planted by the guilty parties themselves, however, to cover up the real trail of culpability - by lumping everyone who doubts the NIST into the same mold. The first thing which needs to be done is to confirm the presence or absence of thermite/thermate. This is where the big lie starts and ends. If there was no thermite, then that to me would be the end-of-story. NIST, to everyone's utter amazement, totally dodged this issue; nor did they address the large number of PROVED and documented reports at the NYC Fire Dept has on file - of large pools of molten steel - up to three weeks after the tragedy. You can see this with your own eyes- this is true beyond all doubt, and not even addressed by NIST. Take it one step at a time. IF thermite was there, then how did it get there? There could possibly be a valid but non-conspiracy excuse for it (but it would have put NYC and Giuliani - Silverstein in severe financial jeopardy. I mentioned before there had been a valid demolition permit issued by the City to the WTC owners (the Port Authority) - after the 1993 incident - and there are reports from around that time period from contractors that themite was actually loaded into parts of the structure at that time. It should have been removed, but was it? and if not, why not? that has never even been addressed because of the high level coverup which only goes as high as Giuliani - for now. Don't forget that untill just a few months ago Giuliani was the GOP frontrunner and many though he would be Bush's successor. Not a smoking gun yet, but just pools of molten iron Jones
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Jed Rothwell wrote: Furthermore, you are ignoring the fact that the global warming experts predictions have come true in the world is indisputably growing hotter rapidly, as Ed pointed out. You do not need a computer to see that. Just look at melting ice... Just ask Horace. He's in Alaska, where the glaciers are vanishing and the permafrost is melting. Do you think Horace believes in global warming? Or just ask me. I live in Canada, where the Northwest Passage has suddenly become a political football. There wasn't any Northwest Passage up until very recently, as I hope everyone on this list is aware! The North Pole is a big deal, too, because at the rate things are going there's going to be *clear water* over the Pole during the summer in a very small number of years ... I mean, like 2 or 3, not like 50 or 70. And that makes the issue of who owns that water very significant indeed. Our very conservative Prime Minister is all hot under the collar to beef up Canada's defenses to protect our sovereignty in the far north, and particularly in the Northwest Passage. Harper is a hyperconservative, but in the face of *obvious* step-out-the-door-and-trip-over-it rock-solid evidence, even he has had to admit that things are getting a lot warmer, very fast, and we need to do something about it. His preferred solution seems to be to buy more helicopter gunships, but whatever, at least he admits there's a problem.
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Thank you for the extremely lucid recap. Jones Beene wrote: [ snip ] I mentioned before there had been a valid demolition permit issued by the City to the WTC owners (the Port Authority) - after the 1993 incident - and there are reports from around that time period from contractors that themite was actually loaded into parts of the structure at that time. It should have been removed, but was it? and if not, why not? Got any links on this? I'd be interested in chasing them; I didn't notice this observation when you posted this the first time. How the thermite got into the building has always been a big sticking point in the grand conspiracy theory; it's too much for me to swallow that all the workers involved went swimming with cement overshoes the day after the incident and so none of them had a chance to blow the whistle.
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Jones Beene wrote: NIST, to everyone's utter amazement, totally dodged this issue; nor did they address the large number of PROVED and documented reports at the NYC Fire Dept has on file - of large pools of molten steel - up to three weeks after the tragedy. And the NYFD rolled over and play dead. Because as we all know officials in New York City are timid and passive people who never question authorities. They are easily duped, and slavishly devoted to Republican administration. Plus, what would they have to gain? I mean, aside from world-class fame as the most important fire inspectors in history who broke the larger scandal in history? Of course they prefer to shut up in return for a payment of, what? maybe $100,000 for each member of the department in the know. That would be every fireman who saw the building because I assure you they all recognize arson when they see it. You could fool me with thermite but you sure could not fool a professional fireman, or even a volunteer fireman in Emmitsburg Maryland. Any staff expert at the NYFD could easily get a book deal for $5 million but they all much prefer going along with the conspirators. Apart from everything else, the human element of this mishmash conspiracy theory is completely preposterous. People do not act the way you imagine! They do not cover up data when it is in their interest and it is their professional responsibility to reveal that data. If there was a scrap of credible information pointing to premeditated, prepared arson, every member of the NYFD would be on to it, and they would be shouting about it from the rooftops. If, as you claim, the NYFD has photos proving this was prepared arson WHY AREN'T THEY SHOUTING ABOUT IT? WHY ARE THEY GOING ALONE WITH THE CONSPIRACY? What possible benefit is it to them? Do you think they don't recognize what you yourself claim is obvious in these photos? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Jed - What you describe below circumvents, for a few special practical cases, the fundamental point I made about the use of models. In your examples, some components can contain quite a bit of 'inertia' of one form or another (often as historical and statistical: When we see A happening here, then 90% of the time B will follow in about C time and last for D time. Don't know why, but it just does.) Those situations can be exploited to make useful long term predictions in certain realms, even when the actual real world physical drivers are not well known, measurable, or even, as I have said, calculable. Are you missing my point entirely? On purpose? Both you and Ed essentially say that I refuse to look at melting ice, and you imply that I'm like the CF skeptic who lets papers placed in his hand fall to the floor. My argument is not that there is no such thing as climate change. The argument is whether there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are incapable of directing that conclusion because of their inherent shortcomings. Scientists who are experts in the field also make this observation and have published it. Your attempt to mischaracterize my statements as the personal opinion of myself alone as a diminished instant expert is not only very far off the mark, it's surprising from one who seems to share, as observed from years of reading your postings on this forum, my view that such rhetorical tactics are a poor substitute for an honest and fair minded investigation and exchange on known facts. I have personal exposure and experience in computer science and am capable, just as you claim Gore is, of reading and understanding the papers of scientists in the field. If this were CF/LENR I'd be saying sure I see all that excess energy from some obviously extraordinary and non-chemical source, but I think it's not caused by this particular mechanism you have proposed. Instead it is from some other for which there is better evidence. Not a great analogy, but sorta. I don't think anyone has a real solid track yet on what is behind the various CF/LENR results. Oh wait, that's what I'm saying about the cause of the warming we see. Ok, maybe not so bad after all. - Rick -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:26 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless Rick Monteverde wrote: If that were true, weather forecasting computer programs would not work. You are correct. You've heard of Lorenz, of course. The programs only work for a very brief time before their results degrade to useless noise, so they are only good before they reach that point . . . Local weather forecasts degrade because they are detailed. Nowadays they can make a weather forecast months or even years ahead for large areas such as the entire Pacific Ocean, or the trends for the whole of Japan for several months, which is now predicted with astonishing accuracy on NHK. My point is that if experts did not understand the detailed physics of the atmosphere, they could not make detailed weather forecasts at all. That was the case until the 1960s. Even after satellite photos became available weather forecasts were not reliable until the physics and computational models were improved. Furthermore, you are ignoring the fact that the global warming experts predictions have come true in the world is indisputably growing hotter rapidly, as Ed pointed out. You do not need a computer to see that. Just look at melting ice, the level of the Inland Sea, or the average temperature of the Pacific ocean water and atmosphere surrounding Japan. Local temperatures vary of course but over large landmasses and extended periods they have been going up. To deny such first-principal observations is to go traipsing off into the cloud-cuckoo land of the cold fusion deniers who do not believe that thermocouples and thermometers work. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Never said there was no warming, I said we didn't do it and that we're not capable of doing anything practical to change it. Stephen, add your name to the list of those who choose to ignore the actual content of my posts and are willing to recast them as if they were completely different writings from some completely different person. I myself would disagree with 'that person' you've constructed as well. - Rick -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless Jed Rothwell wrote: Furthermore, you are ignoring the fact that the global warming experts predictions have come true in the world is indisputably growing hotter rapidly, as Ed pointed out. You do not need a computer to see that. Just look at melting ice... Just ask Horace. He's in Alaska, where the glaciers are vanishing and the permafrost is melting. Do you think Horace believes in global warming? Or just ask me. I live in Canada, where the Northwest Passage has suddenly become a political football. There wasn't any Northwest Passage up until very recently, as I hope everyone on this list is aware! The North Pole is a big deal, too, because at the rate things are going there's going to be *clear water* over the Pole during the summer in a very small number of years ... I mean, like 2 or 3, not like 50 or 70. And that makes the issue of who owns that water very significant indeed. Our very conservative Prime Minister is all hot under the collar to beef up Canada's defenses to protect our sovereignty in the far north, and particularly in the Northwest Passage. Harper is a hyperconservative, but in the face of *obvious* step-out-the-door-and-trip-over-it rock-solid evidence, even he has had to admit that things are getting a lot warmer, very fast, and we need to do something about it. His preferred solution seems to be to buy more helicopter gunships, but whatever, at least he admits there's a problem.
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Jones Beene wrote: I mentioned before there had been a valid demolition permit issued by the City to the WTC owners (the Port Authority) - after the 1993 incident - and there are reports from around that time period from contractors that themite was actually loaded into parts of the structure at that time. Who can doubt this happened? People routinely haul tons of hazardous material into large buildings in New York City, obviously preparing the building for demolition, and no one ever says a word about it. Ask anyone who lives in New York: this happens several times a week. Also, office workers in New York are known for meekly and passively going along to get along. They never complain about noise or commotion. I am sure you could gut hundreds of rooms on several floors of the building, and fill them with tons of hazardous materials and heavy wires and other gear, and no one would say anything or complain. People in New York City just don't like to complain or make a scene. Just like the NYFD -- you can kill off a few hundred of their guys, and even though they have photos proving you are guilty, you know they will not say anything or do anything, It's because they are such nice people! So accommodating! They hate to complain or make a fuss about a little thing like the worst crime of arson in history. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
And you miss my point, Rick. My point is that it does not matter if the warming is caused by mankind or not. We all benefit if we develop alternative energy. If this means supporting ALGore, then suck it up and get on with life. Ed On Sep 5, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote: Jed - What you describe below circumvents, for a few special practical cases, the fundamental point I made about the use of models. In your examples, some components can contain quite a bit of 'inertia' of one form or another (often as historical and statistical: When we see A happening here, then 90% of the time B will follow in about C time and last for D time. Don't know why, but it just does.) Those situations can be exploited to make useful long term predictions in certain realms, even when the actual real world physical drivers are not well known, measurable, or even, as I have said, calculable. Are you missing my point entirely? On purpose? Both you and Ed essentially say that I refuse to look at melting ice, and you imply that I'm like the CF skeptic who lets papers placed in his hand fall to the floor. My argument is not that there is no such thing as climate change. The argument is whether there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are incapable of directing that conclusion because of their inherent shortcomings. Scientists who are experts in the field also make this observation and have published it. Your attempt to mischaracterize my statements as the personal opinion of myself alone as a diminished instant expert is not only very far off the mark, it's surprising from one who seems to share, as observed from years of reading your postings on this forum, my view that such rhetorical tactics are a poor substitute for an honest and fair minded investigation and exchange on known facts. I have personal exposure and experience in computer science and am capable, just as you claim Gore is, of reading and understanding the papers of scientists in the field. If this were CF/LENR I'd be saying sure I see all that excess energy from some obviously extraordinary and non-chemical source, but I think it's not caused by this particular mechanism you have proposed. Instead it is from some other for which there is better evidence. Not a great analogy, but sorta. I don't think anyone has a real solid track yet on what is behind the various CF/LENR results. Oh wait, that's what I'm saying about the cause of the warming we see. Ok, maybe not so bad after all. - Rick -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:26 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless Rick Monteverde wrote: If that were true, weather forecasting computer programs would not work. You are correct. You've heard of Lorenz, of course. The programs only work for a very brief time before their results degrade to useless noise, so they are only good before they reach that point . . . Local weather forecasts degrade because they are detailed. Nowadays they can make a weather forecast months or even years ahead for large areas such as the entire Pacific Ocean, or the trends for the whole of Japan for several months, which is now predicted with astonishing accuracy on NHK. My point is that if experts did not understand the detailed physics of the atmosphere, they could not make detailed weather forecasts at all. That was the case until the 1960s. Even after satellite photos became available weather forecasts were not reliable until the physics and computational models were improved. Furthermore, you are ignoring the fact that the global warming experts predictions have come true in the world is indisputably growing hotter rapidly, as Ed pointed out. You do not need a computer to see that. Just look at melting ice, the level of the Inland Sea, or the average temperature of the Pacific ocean water and atmosphere surrounding Japan. Local temperatures vary of course but over large landmasses and extended periods they have been going up. To deny such first-principal observations is to go traipsing off into the cloud-cuckoo land of the cold fusion deniers who do not believe that thermocouples and thermometers work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick Monteverde wrote: Never said there was no warming, I said we didn't do it and that we're not capable of doing anything practical to change it. Stephen, add your name to the list of those who choose to ignore the actual content of my posts Was I responding directly to you? Don't think so. I was commenting on a point Jed had mentioned. In any case, from what I've read, the experts, while not 100% certain of the cause, are in near-universal agreement that it is *very* *likely* that the cause is anthropogenic greenhouse gases. One reason for concluding this, which doesn't take a sophisticated model to understand or reason about, is that anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 has been skyrocketing in parallel with the global temperature, which is, as they say, 'highly suggestive'. If you don't agree with those statements, then I don't know where you get your news but it's not the same science rags I see. From what I've read it's also the case that the long term climate on Earth is highly unstable, according to the geological record. We've benefited from a relatively stable period which has lasted a good while now. Injecting a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere -- which, again, I hope you admit humans have been doing -- could conceivably destabilize things rather badly, sending the global climate into a Superball mode, which is unlikely to be good for humans, animals, coral reefs, or just about anybody else. In the general science community I don't think anything I just said can be considered controversial or even doubtful. And even if you think the probability that the current changes are human-generated is smaller than the numbers I've seen bandied about -- which, IIRC, range from ~65% to ~90% -- it's hard for me to understand how you can feel that efforts to reduce the extremely high rate at which we're dumping CO2 into the atmosphere can be misguided. As someone put it, we're conducting an experiment in terraforming on an enormous scale and if the results don't work out well we're going to be in trouble. Perhaps we should scale back the pace of the experiment, eh?
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:05:13 -0800: Hi, [snip] First, let me be very clear that I said neutrinos may be comprised of graviphotons, not gravitons the messenger particles. [snip] ...and that's exactly what I meant. Is it possible that neutrinos and graviphotons (not gravitons) are identically the same thing, rather than neutrinos being comprised of graviphotons? Note that we normally think of neutrinos as being particles, but surely there is every reason to believe that they have a wave aspect, given that they must have a frequency. If they don't have a frequency, then how can they have differing energies if they all travel at the speed of light? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:05:13 -0800: Hi, [snip] First, let me be very clear that I said neutrinos may be comprised of graviphotons, not gravitons the messenger particles. [snip] ...and that's exactly what I meant. Is it possible that neutrinos and graviphotons (not gravitons) are identically the same thing, rather than neutrinos being comprised of graviphotons? Note that we normally think of neutrinos as being particles, but surely there is every reason to believe that they have a wave aspect, given that they must have a frequency. If they don't have a frequency, then how can they have differing energies if they all travel at the speed of light? I had the impression that their velocity was an open question, but that current evidence points to it being less than C. They (apparently) oscillate, which, at least according to my limited and rather primitive understanding of relativity theory, means time passes for them, which suggests pretty strongly that their speed must be subluminal. At C, 1/gamma=0 and the particle must remain immutable between events, because its internal clock has stopped. More sophisticated people than I have claimed that neutrino oscillations imply they have a nonzero rest mass, which in turn also seems to indicate they're subluminal (else they'd be MDH (Might Darn Heavy) when they got revved up to C). (Unlike the naive time passes for them argument I don't see the connection between oscillations and rest mass, but whatever...) See, for example: http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/nuosc_story.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation Entering neutrino/oscillations in Google got 195,000 hits. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:25:43 -1000: Hi, [snip] The argument is whether there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are incapable of directing that conclusion because of their inherent shortcomings. [snip] I agree that the models are only models and will never get it 100% correct, however a few facts are obvious. 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2) The temperature is rising. 3) Reducing CO2 is the only means we have of influencing the situation (albeit that we don't know exactly how (in)effective that will be). 4) As a byproduct of switching from fossil fuels, we get less air pollution which is better for our health. 5) If we do it right, we make a net profit rather than a net loss. 6) If my ideas on fusion are correct, then that is going to be a very large profit. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
I sent a voice input reply on this topic without any checking, be warned, the grammar etc is rubbish (but the ideas and the picture are good if you can sort them out).
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Thousands of innocent people died on Sept 11, 2001. Most died quickly, mercifully. But some I suspect died slowly and horribly. As human beings it seems to be in our nature to ponder how devastating events of this nature could be allowed happen. Why? We ask ourselves. SOMEONE MUST HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE, we end up asking ourselves. We fool ourselves into thinking that if we could just answer all the HOWs and WHYs that somehow this horrible event will be become more fathomable to our traumatized psyches. Considering the unfathomables, I would agree with those who believe it is premature to even suggest that Cheney was involved. Personally, I think it's absurd, despite the fact that I don't trust him. Blissfully ignorant as I may be, I remain unconvinced that an additional conspiracy had to have been involved other than by Al Qa'ida's doing. And while I'm on the WHO DID IT rant I doubt Al Qa'ida needed assistance from us, no matter how convert or underhanded such assistance it has been speculated may have been. For me it comes down to the notion that I see no personal benefit in entertaining myself in highly charged and intriguing emotional scenarios where I must believe (or at least suspect) that a diabolical conspiracy had been concocted by what must have been a secret cabal from within our own country whose objective it has been speculated was to bring down several NY buildings (and unfortunately murder several thousand human beings - as unavoidable collateral damage) all in order whip up sufficient U.S. public sentiment so that we would be willing to wage war against all those oil rich evil anti-Christian nations of the east, presumably so that eventually we (the good guys) can establish some kind of Judeo-Christian Western Style Global Order through out the entire planet. Let me be clear on one point: I think very little of the current presidential administration, particularly how this administration duped itself into believing that it could win a cost-effective war to be paid by Iraqi oil revenues, and in the process initiate regime change to boot! Bush once scrawled on a piece of paper the words Let Freedom Ring! as he handed the note back to Malaki when the Iraqi PM officially informed Bush that his country had just become solvent. Bush's words, no doubt intended to instill inspiration, pretty much sums up just how ignorant and naive this administration has been through out this entire debacle. But alas, there are people who need to believe that some nefarious aspect of the current administration was capable of orchestrating and pulling off one of the most sophisticated conspiracies in recorded history. For me, Occam's Razor suggests a less glamorous conclusion. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
To summarize my point about chutzpah, Rick Monteverde wrote: Never said there was no warming, I said we didn't do it and that we're not capable of doing anything practical to change it. You can say this without irking me and other conventionally-minded, pocket-protector scientific type people by rephrasing a little. Just throw in some weasel words. You do not even have to be sincere; you may be thinking your version in your mind, but instead of saying it directly and forcefully, you say: Never said there was no warming, I said there are indications that sources other than CO2 emissions from human sources may not be the only cause. Natural CO2 emissions may also play a role, and there is evidence that other factors contribute. Furthermore, although I agree that atmospheric physics are well understood, computer models predicting long-range change have notable weaknesses which are comparable to or at least analogous to the well-known tendency of short range forecasts to degrade into noise because of their probabilistic nature. See? That wasn't hard! You can say anything you like as long as you pad it with doubts, evasions and escape clauses. I will disagree but you will not get my goat. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
I'm sorry, I'll respond from now on only when spoken to directly. My bad. Stephen, I don't care what a majority of scientists or mainstream publishers or whatever have concluded, just as I'm sure Jed doesn't care how many think CF is bunk, in terms that situation having any bearing on the nature of the evidence or the conclusions he has come to regarding the evidence. They can all be wrong, and in the case of CF we're pretty certain they are, so there's your proof that a consensus does not necessarily mean much. There is significant evidence pointing away from the warming cause being related to the huge (what, 4 tenths of a percent is it?) CO2 output we're responsible for. In addition, computer models used to support it as a cause are inherently flawed in a way that matters critically to the use of such models to tell us anything useful about its contribution in the real world. Additionally, we do not have the understanding needed to steer the car back where we want it if in fact it's going off the road, whether or not we caused it to go off the road in the first place. Heck, we don't even know if where we want it to go is the right place anyway. It may seem right for us, sure, but... ? Our time and treasure, as I've pointed out before, should not be wasted trying to comandeer that over which we have no effective control, and instead should be directed towards planning for just being off-road for a while. Trying to mitigate climate changes with light bulbs and stuff is the experiment we need to scale back on. But alternative energy? Great idea under any circumstance for many reasons, chief among them *real* deadly pollution (ask Jed how many die from lung disease from ICEs every year) and political reasons of course. CO2 reduction along for the ride? Hey, if it makes you happy then I'm happy. But there's no scientific evidence for it deserving a significant place on the list, and I object stongly to it being hijacked by unprincipled hacks like Al Gore as a means to consolidate their own wealth and political power. - Rick -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:59 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless Rick Monteverde wrote: Never said there was no warming, I said we didn't do it and that we're not capable of doing anything practical to change it. Stephen, add your name to the list of those who choose to ignore the actual content of my posts Was I responding directly to you? Don't think so. I was commenting on a point Jed had mentioned. In any case, from what I've read, the experts, while not 100% certain of the cause, are in near-universal agreement that it is *very* *likely* that the cause is anthropogenic greenhouse gases. One reason for concluding this, which doesn't take a sophisticated model to understand or reason about, is that anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 has been skyrocketing in parallel with the global temperature, which is, as they say, 'highly suggestive'. If you don't agree with those statements, then I don't know where you get your news but it's not the same science rags I see. From what I've read it's also the case that the long term climate on Earth is highly unstable, according to the geological record. We've benefited from a relatively stable period which has lasted a good while now. Injecting a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere -- which, again, I hope you admit humans have been doing -- could conceivably destabilize things rather badly, sending the global climate into a Superball mode, which is unlikely to be good for humans, animals, coral reefs, or just about anybody else. In the general science community I don't think anything I just said can be considered controversial or even doubtful. And even if you think the probability that the current changes are human-generated is smaller than the numbers I've seen bandied about -- which, IIRC, range from ~65% to ~90% -- it's hard for me to understand how you can feel that efforts to reduce the extremely high rate at which we're dumping CO2 into the atmosphere can be misguided. As someone put it, we're conducting an experiment in terraforming on an enormous scale and if the results don't work out well we're going to be in trouble. Perhaps we should scale back the pace of the experiment, eh?
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
I'm not missing your point Ed, I'm agreeing with it and I believe I said so. And fortunately, it does not require that we support Gore to develop alternative energy. I will disagree with you there if you insist that's so, but that is purely a political debate, which it is not my intention to engage in. - Rick -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Edmund Storms; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless And you miss my point, Rick. My point is that it does not matter if the warming is caused by mankind or not. We all benefit if we develop alternative energy. If this means supporting ALGore, then suck it up and get on with life. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Jed Rothwell wrote [to Rick Monteverde]: ... as you and I agree it [global warming] is happening. The cause is the only question. Yes, you and Rick agree, and only argue over the cause. However, part of the reason I posted my comments about Alaska and Canada, and almost posted a snide comment about those who think a few cool months in 2008 prove global warming isn't happening, is because not all participants in this thread agree with the two of you. In a message early in the thread it was stated -- *not* by Rick: Could a significant global cooling effect be taking place.? I notice there is a deafening silence from Pope Algore and his Church of Global Warming on this subject. It would be very inconvenient for the selling of carbon indulgences, oops... that's offsets. Nothing is made of the fact that 2007 saw the largest one year drop in average global temperature in recorded history. Didn't hear about that did you? Again, that was not Rick talking. However, Rick did make a point here which you, Jed, may have overlooked. You said: And I say [ ... ] if people can predict the weather tomorrow in six months or a year in advance they can darn well predict it 10 or 20 or even 50 years in advance, although obviously not for any particular spot on earth. If you understand how the atmosphere will work in the next 24 hours you can understand to some extent how it will work cumulatively for the next 20 years. Evidence suggests that the climate on Earth is a chaotic process, and chaotic processes may behave in such a way that they are simply *not* *predictable* over the long term, save within very broad bounds. A common example seems to be El Nino. Its behavior can be predicted for a few months, but trying to predict whether there will be an El Nino event in progress as few as 24 months from now is hopeless -- it's chaotic, and flips from one mode to another as a result of tiny perturbations. So, while it makes intuitive sense to say if people can predict the weather tomorrow ... they can predict it 10 years in advance, it doesn't actually follow from the science. The process could be such that error accumulation renders predictions worthless when trying to look more than a small number of months out into the future. This sort of effect is not an artifact of current computers; it's apparently a fundamental feature of the process being modeled. It's like an NP-complete problem -- you can solve it for small datasets, but the nature of the problem makes it intractable when the data set grows large. In the case of an NP-complete problem the complexity (and time to solve the problem) grows geometrically with the dataset size. In the case of a chaotic process, the precision required in the calculations (and measurements) grows rapidly with the length of time over which you want your prediction to be good. In both cases, no matter what sort of hardware you're running on you'll run out of horsepower in short order. It's no coincidence that one of the most powerful machines in the world is named thunder. Weather prediction consumes incredible numbers of computrons.
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Jed: I am saying that both are based upon the same knowledge of atmospheric physics that knowledge is demonstrably impressive. When you say that the hypothesis cannot possibly be right and the experts ought to know better, I say that's chutzpah, it is insufferable, and it irks me! C'mon Jed, buck up and suffer it. It's not my intention to irritate you. I'm saying it because I see it. And others who, unlike me, have legitimate claim to expertise in the field, also see it and published it. It's not chutzpah, I actually do have enough experience in computer science to understand what they are talking about, having myself written recursive code and observed first hand the same characteristics they describe. That at least qualifies me a bit to make somewhat educated comments on the matter, regardless of whether you agree with the comments or not. And now you've got me making excuses for my having made some comments here on Vortex, which is silly. It's not about me at all. The computer models are not the whole deal. There's other evidence against the A in GW. It is not a tiny minority of scientists who take this position, nor is it only those employed by oil or coal. It is a significant minority and it is growing, not declining in number, not that I'm a big fan of determining scientific issues by polling numbers. But I have no problem being in the minority if I have a good reason. - Rick
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
You make a good points about persuasive writing, and Stephen just wrote a good description of the nature of the fundamental problem of modelling chaotic systems. - Rick -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:43 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless To summarize my point about chutzpah, Rick Monteverde wrote: Never said there was no warming, I said we didn't do it and that we're not capable of doing anything practical to change it. You can say this without irking me and other conventionally-minded, pocket-protector scientific type people by rephrasing a little. Just throw in some weasel words. You do not even have to be sincere; you may be thinking your version in your mind, but instead of saying it directly and forcefully, you say: Never said there was no warming, I said there are indications that sources other than CO2 emissions from human sources may not be the only cause. Natural CO2 emissions may also play a role, and there is evidence that other factors contribute. Furthermore, although I agree that atmospheric physics are well understood, computer models predicting long-range change have notable weaknesses which are comparable to or at least analogous to the well-known tendency of short range forecasts to degrade into noise because of their probabilistic nature. See? That wasn't hard! You can say anything you like as long as you pad it with doubts, evasions and escape clauses. I will disagree but you will not get my goat. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Robin - Well and concisely put. I only take issue with #3 because of the assumptions that we should be trying to interfere with the situation, and that warming is necessarily a bad thing in the long run. Used to be a lot warmer, and for a very long time. I say let nature handle the climate. It's our job to adapt to it. So let's put our opposable thumbs and big brains to work on the right problems. That still leaves people like you for #6 in at least the same, if not an even better, position. Right? - Rick -Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:25:43 -1000: Hi, [snip] The argument is whether there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are incapable of directing that conclusion because of their inherent shortcomings. [snip] I agree that the models are only models and will never get it 100% correct, however a few facts are obvious. 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2) The temperature is rising. 3) Reducing CO2 is the only means we have of influencing the situation (albeit that we don't know exactly how (in)effective that will be). 4) As a byproduct of switching from fossil fuels, we get less air pollution which is better for our health. 5) If we do it right, we make a net profit rather than a net loss. 6) If my ideas on fusion are correct, then that is going to be a very large profit. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
On Sep 5, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:05:13 -0800: Hi, [snip] First, let me be very clear that I said neutrinos may be comprised of graviphotons, not gravitons the messenger particles. [snip] ...and that's exactly what I meant. Is it possible that neutrinos and graviphotons (not gravitons) are identically the same thing, rather than neutrinos being comprised of graviphotons? I think it is reasonably certain that neutrinos are not graviphotons, because graviphotons have a spin 1 and neutrinos are spin 1/2. This is purely under my gravimagnetics theory. I don't know of any other theory that predicts graviphotons, though some may exist. The thing about gravimagnetics in this case is it involves separate dimensions, the imaginary dimensions, for gravitational forces and values, and real dimensions for EM forces and values. However, there are weak couplings that are cross dimension, so this leaves an open question as to just how a spin in one set of dimensions is viewed in interactions with the other. It also leaves open the possibility of a purely gravitational equivalent to a quark, and thus the possibility of heavy particles in one set of dimensions manifesting as weekly coupling ultra-light particles in the other - a perfect duality. Also feasible is a cross dimensional spin, which varies through time the particle characteristics as observed in both dimensions. This is all highly speculative and just food for thought. Note that we normally think of neutrinos as being particles, but surely there is every reason to believe that they have a wave aspect, given that they must have a frequency. If they don't have a frequency, then how can they have differing energies if they all travel at the speed of light? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] AFIK all particles have a wave-particle duality. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick Monteverde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure Jed doesn't care how many think CF is bunk, in terms that situation having any bearing on the nature of the evidence or the conclusions he has come to regarding the evidence. They can all be wrong, and in the case of CF we're pretty certain they are, so there's your proof that a consensus does not necessarily mean much. I disagree. Scientific consensus is meaningful and important. BUT you have to define it carefully. It has to be a legitimate consensus among scientists who have the right to an opinion: A real consensus: members have relevant qualifications, have done the research (or something very similar), and have read other people's papers. They are reasonably objective and open minded, and willing to entertain alternative hypotheses. In the case of CF, 99.9% of the group is certain the effect is real (everyone except Britz), and I expect 99% are sure it is a surface effect. You should pay close attention to that consensus, and not dismiss it without very good reasons. A fake consensus: people on Wikipedia claim they are scientists in various fields unrelated to cold fusion have strong opinions and loads of facts that they made up on the spur of the moment. They have read nothing and understand nothing about the research. Being a scientist doesn't count if you have not done your homework, or if you make up facts as you go along. You can ignore this crowd. A person who knows a thing or two about computer modeling and recursive models may have an informed opinion about global warming models. That opinion should be respected, but only so far. It should not be given the same level of respect and attention we give to people who have made computer models about climate and also physics models, and who have in-depth knowledge, and data, and years of work in the field. When that person categorically dismisses the consensus of the real experts, I say he has overstepped the bounds, and overstated his qualifications. At best he can express doubts or question the results. If you want to go further you have to write a paper and get it past peer-review, assuming that peer-review in the field in question is reasonably fair and objective. (We all know that it is not, in some fields.) Of course you can always find a legit experts who disagrees. We have Britz. Heck, there are probably real, accredited, professional biologists who believe in creationism (and by the way, I don't want to hear about them if there are), but the consensus of opinion is that Darwin's theory is correct, and that consensus was carefully and thoughtfully arrived at. To give a relevant example, I know a good deal about data collection and consumer applications with lots of small transactions, such as grocery store scanners. I used to write code and documentation for that sort of thing at NCR, back when they were first invented. Plus, DeKalb County GA trained me on the Georgia voting machine operations, so I know how they work. I spent a day working at a poll watching the machines work, and not work -- malfunction and lose track of at least three votes. Plus I read some fairly detailed technical reports on the problems with these machines written by experts at Johns Hopkins. I know more than enough about operating systems, apps and computer security to understand these papers. So, I am well qualified to have an opinion about the reliability and wisdom of using these machines. But, you would not want to call me to testify before Congress on this subject, or to make recommendations to the County. You would want to call the profs. at Johns Hopkins. There is a huge difference between my level of knowledge and theirs, and if we disagree I should probably defer to their judgment. The consensus of informed opinion about these machines is that they are riddled with errors and design faults and should not be used. I am sure you can find legitimate, sincere computer experts who disagree and who say the possibility of vote fraud is overblown. They may not be on the payroll of the vendor. But if you are a politician or County computer expert assigned to dealing with these machines, you should definitely go along with the consensus, and get rid of the damn machines as soon as possible. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:45:00 -1000: Hi, [snip] Robin - Well and concisely put. I only take issue with #3 because of the assumptions that we should be trying to interfere with the situation, and that warming is necessarily a bad thing in the long run. Used to be a lot warmer, and for a very long time. I say let nature handle the climate. It's our job to adapt to it. So let's put our opposable thumbs and big brains to work on the right problems. That still leaves people like you for #6 in at least the same, if not an even better, position. Right? [snip] While a warmer world might be nice in some respects, it could have major consequences for humanity. 1) Coastal flooding (where most major cities have been located for historical reasons). 2) Spreading of tropical diseases into temperate zones. 3) Possible major shifts in what will grow where. This could have a serious impact on agriculture. 4) Increases in the frequency and severity of weather extremes (which will also impact on agriculture). While we undoubtedly have the ingenuity to deal with all of these things, it is unlikely we can do so at no economic and political cost. By political cost, I mean the cost in lives lost due to wars brought on by major migrations of people when the region where they currently live becomes unsustainable. A primary example of this is Bangladesh. Therefore it seems wise to me to make a profit by pulling on the only lever we have and possibly making a difference, rather than just sitting back and doing nothing (while probably making the situation worse) while we incur considerable extra costs. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Howdy Steven, I don't know why the 9/11 buildings collapsed because I wasn't there. One building collapse under these circumstances does raise an eyebrow,,, two buildings collapse under identical circumstances stretches the imagination... 3 buildings collapse in like circumstances with no plane hitting the 3rd building is beyond belief.. not even a drunk at the Dime Box Saloon would buy it. NIST used Occam's razor to shave the circumstanes to meet the contract stipulations.. leaving a little shaving cream.. or is that egg on their face.. I saw a woman leap to her death to escape the flames. All I do know is that the people responsible for this tragedy were watching on TV. Who were they? People with very strong stomachs. When they face the Lord.. they better have !! Richard OrionWorks wrote, For me, Occam's Razor suggests a less glamorous conclusion.
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick Monteverde wrote: I'm sorry, I'll respond from now on only when spoken to directly. My bad. Sorry if it sounded like I thought you shouldn't have replied; I wasn't trying to shush you! I was just saying those remarks were not directed specifically at what you said. It was nothing more than an attempt at defending myself against the accusation that I had not read your message before I disagreed with it. There is significant evidence pointing away from the warming cause being related to the huge (what, 4 tenths of a percent is it?) CO2 output we're responsible for. Hmmm. 0.4% ... yeah, that's how much we've been boosting the CO2 level in the air ... EVERY YEAR for the last 50 years. To estimate how much CO2 will increase in the coming years, though, you need to *integrate* that value; you're looking at the derivative of the measured total level and calling it the anthropogenic change in the total CO2 generation rate. That's, at best, misleading, and at worst it's just wrong. Total CO2 level in the atmosphere is currently around 0.04%. This is 35% higher than historic levels determined from ice cores in the 1800's. So says Wikipedia; I'd guess that they're not grossly far off. They also show a chart of measurements made at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii indicating CO2 levels have risen smoothly from about 315 ppm in 1960 to about 380 ppm in 2007, which is a rise of about 20% in the last 48 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere A 20% increase in the atmospheric CO2 level in the last half-century seems pretty substantial to me. In addition, computer models used to support it as a cause are inherently flawed in a way that matters critically to the use of such models to tell us anything useful about its contribution in the real world. Additionally, we do not have the understanding needed to steer the car back where we want it if in fact it's going off the road See above. With a 20% rise in total atmospheric CO2 in 50 years, and with the rate of increase continuing to increase (curve is concave up), we've essentially got our foot jammed all the way to the floor on the accelerator. Yes, I agree, we're lost in the weeds, but maybe it would make sense to try slowing down a little -- *before* we careen over a cliff, eh? Nobody's suggesting seeding the ocean or other pro-active things that might really whack the climate -- we're just suggesting that it would make good sense at this point to slow down the rate at which we're changing the atmosphere. We like stability, in climates at least, and whacking a climate that's obviously already warming up with a big hammer which everyone(?) agrees is likely to warm it up even more, whether just a little or a whole lot, does not seem sensible. , whether or not we caused it to go off the road in the first place. Heck, we don't even know if where we want it to go is the right place anyway. It may seem right for us, sure, but... ? Our time and treasure, as I've pointed out before, should not be wasted trying to comandeer that over which we have no effective control, and instead should be directed towards planning for just being off-road for a while. I don't understand why you seem to feel humans have no control over human-generated carbon dioxide. A beaker full of bacteria have no control over the waste products they produce, which may eventually strangle the whole colony, but humans are hopefully a little better at self-management than bacteria. Trying to mitigate climate changes with light bulbs and stuff is the experiment we need to scale back on. What's experimental about trying to reduce energy consumption? It's continuing to boost carbon dioxide levels at a rate of 0.4% per year which seems like the big experiment here to me. But alternative energy? Great idea under any circumstance for many reasons, chief among them *real* deadly pollution (ask Jed how many die from lung disease from ICEs every year) and political reasons of course. CO2 reduction along for the ride? Hey, if it makes you happy then I'm happy. But there's no scientific evidence for it deserving a significant place on the list, and I object stongly to it being hijacked by unprincipled hacks like Al Gore as a means to consolidate their own wealth and political power. - Rick
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:29:00 -0400: Hi, [snip] They (apparently) oscillate, which, at least according to my limited and rather primitive understanding of relativity theory, means time passes for them, which suggests pretty strongly that their speed must be subluminal. At C, 1/gamma=0 and the particle must remain immutable between events, because its internal clock has stopped. This makes me wonder how an ordinary photon manages to go through umpteen cycles between source and destination with a stopped clock. :) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
