Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity?
2008/10/4 Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Then perhaps that's exactly what happens. The matter is completely converted to energy which circulates around the center of mass at the event horizon. That would mean that there is no point mass at the center of a black hole, in fact there isn't anything there at all. If so, then this results in an interesting question:- Suppose that the circulating energy forms a ring rather than a spherical shell. What would happen to something passing down the axis of that ring? Suggestion, suppose that matter is created from space time directly by the field from the ring, and is spewed out along the axis (resulting in the frequently seen jets emitted from the cores of many galaxies). As I recall, those jets are satisfactorily explained without resorting to matter creation. The jets' matter comes from the internal edge of the accretion disk orbiting around the BH and failing to fall into it (slingshot effect I believe) Michel
[Vo]:Another Mars Bug found
Another Mars “bug” caught in motion in these NASA Phoenix Sol 123 photos: http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=36456cID=321 http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=36497cID=321 http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=36498cID=321 These are animated in a video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb_aNjkHlSc Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Thixotropy and the Aether
Baldor Motor. They also recently purchased Reliance so they can offer submersible motors as well. Franklin Electric makes a split phase submersible and a range of fractional motors. Wear rubber boots Richard John Berry wrote, What kinds of motors? I am actually planning to do an experiment similar to this soon and I do have a nice Synchronous motor. I actually believe that this is 'the key' to OU, I have noted some correlations that 'prove' it IMO. On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:10 PM, R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even stranger, breaking the circuit to an electric motor can exhibit some mind teasing anomalies outside of your standard surge . There is the occasional motor that can produce an incredible voltage spike when the circuit is interrupted, either momentarily of on disconnect, even small fractional HP motors. Some motors above 150 HP starting and stopping across the line can produce incredible spikes unless they are surrounded by grounding rings. Even so, it is not uncommon to have the lights come on momentarily in a dark building. Fun stuff happens in adjacent areas with electronics. I have suspected a link beween these type events and the problems with mag motors. Richard -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1706 - Release Date: 10/3/2008 6:17 PM
Re: [Vo]:Thixotropy and the Aether
John, ... not sure how you plan to proceed with your experiment (do you have a web page?) but here is an extended comment based on similar situations: As you know, most observers with EE training are critical of the Bedini two-battery (battery swapping) technique as proving gainfulness. This criticism is logical if you approach it solely from the perspective of electrical engineering, instead of EE + suprachemisty (redundant ground state reactions). The most common quip is if batteries work, then why not use caps. It is clear that caps do not work in these circumstances. That can be due to the fact that there is no gain to begin with -- or it can be due to the fact that caps (especially if they are not sized properly) can modulate the harmonics and attenuate the Q factor on both the cathode and anode. Or it can be due to the fact (my interpretation) that the gain is not in the circuit itself and never was - but the gain is in the chemistry of the battery *on the(positive ion) side*. Batt-caps should not affect the positive side harmonics AFAIK. This might relate to hydrinos and it why some battery types work better than others. None of this proves that batteries demonstrate true OU- as Bedini has been deficient in thorough testing (or at least in reporting the results) especially with low capacity batteries AFAIK. But there are many others who think that there could be something to it. Apparenly you are in that camp. However, it is less clear, perhaps it is unknown, how Batt-caps would fare if they were used instead -- and if they would improve the overall situation. I think that Batt-caps, due to lower internal resistance on that negative side, could perform better at recapture of spiked bemf than batteries alone, without necessarily quenching the positive ion harmonics- for a variety of reasons. http://www.batcap.net/About_batcap.html If you plan on using a variation of the Bedini battery switching technique - please consider as an option using batt-caps in addition to whatever else you will be trying. They are available, but not cheap; but are probably preferable to do-it-yourself arrangements (not sure of that). At least the manufacturers have been optimizing them for years for the intended application. The typical application for them is automotive sound systems. They seem to perform very well at audible frequencies. Harmonics from 3-phase motors are generally in this range. That is why they could be worth a try in a BBS g bedini-battery-swapping situation. Good luck. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science
At 07:34 PM 10/2/2008, you wrote: and this is cross posted here becuase? Thanks for asking. The Vortex list is, in my opinion, a group of fairly enlightened and aware group of individuals who have an interest in CMNS and free speech. Here's the background: I do not have a problem with McKubre and there is no message of his at this time that is of interest for me to publish. This thread was not initiated from anything to do with McKubre and I'm not sure why he jumped into the thread with a call for tighter information control. I'm not sure why Storms has jumped in and is casting aspersions about me. Storms' hostile statements are unfortunate and puzzling, but that is another matter, the present matter has nothing to do with McKubre and Storms. This thread was initiated by a posting by Marissa Little to the CMNS list, not McKubre. I engaged with the Little's (Scott and Marissa) of Earthtech International in response to information that they sent to the CMNS community via the CMNS list. This thread had to do with their failure to verify the excess heat claims of John Dash. I engaged in a few message exchanges with the Little's copying Dash and McKubre. I included McKubre because I consider him a world-respected expert in calorimetry. Haiko and Ed seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I have some misplaced interest that is un-supportive of the CMNS community. No, gentlemen, nothing could be further from the truth. Your CMNS list confidentiality rule may give you the illusion of privacy, but you do not have privacy. Your presumption of privacy is a self-delusion, naiive, and dangerous. If you want privacy, a) confirm the identification of all the members of your CMNS list and b) set up nondisclosure agreements. By closing the list from the press, you not only are sheltering honest and supportive discussions from exposure, but are also sheltering and harboring people with less-benevolent motives. I appreciate all of the critical and thoughtful remarks make on this Vortex list. It is a valuable resource. Steve
Re: [Vo]:Thixotropy and the Aether
To further this thought: ... most observers with EE training are critical of the Bedini two-battery (battery swapping) technique as proving gainfulness. This criticism is logical if you approach it solely from the perspective of electrical engineering, instead of EE + suprachemisty (redundant ground state reactions). OK - The reason that this MO (redundant ground state reactions happening in the battery chemistry) might have special relevance to a situation where aether thixotropy was a moderating influence (which limited certain kinds of rotating devices and kept them from even getting to a sustained OU state) - is that the hydrino or tight Bohr radius state would not only get around this situation; but possibly even benefit from a large viscosity increase in the aether. It should also be noted that lead-acid batteries have been said to work best for the BBS technique (AFAIK) and the reason for that is obvious in that both lead Pb+++, the oxide ion O++, and lead-oxide are all hydrino catalysts AND at the overlapping IP enthalpy of ~54.4 eV. Not to mention, this electrolyte contains lots of hydrogen. NiMH batteries work well too, and the reasoning is similar, but they are much more expensive and possibly not as active. We have mentioned oxygen as catalyst before, but with lead (Pb) the sum of first three IP states is 7.42 + 15.03 + 31.94 = ~54.4 and since oxygen is similar at ++, it would appear that the lead-acid battery (assuming that this proves correct) appears to be a little hydrino factory when under highly spiked and pulsed bemf. Obviously, this result is not seen in the world's 100 million automobiles which use this kind of batttery - for the simple reason that spiked pulsation has been avoided totally at the design stage -- since it is very hard on electronic parts and wiring. If the BBS techniques is ever shown to be useful it will demand much more robust wiring, for instance. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science
Oh ! Beautiful, beautiful Texas( Vortex) , where the deer and the antelope play... where 'nary is heard , a discouraging word... Richard I appreciate all of the critical and thoughtful remarks make on this Vortex list. It is a valuable resource. Steve
Re: [Vo]:Another Mars Bug found
On Oct 4, 2008, at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Holy sand worms ! If there is any 'melange' under that footprint, the will be a massive space-rush, maybe even a 'spice-war' between us the Chinese and the Ruskies, to exploit the scat of Mars... and ... dare I say it ... exploit the oil. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Freedom of Information and Open Science
On Oct 4, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Ed, You would demonstrate your intention to communicate without hostility by refraining from suggesting what you think I do or do not understand. Rather than continue a polemic with me, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me your view as to why you think it is beneficial for the CMNS list to be, by default, protected from the media? First of all, the CMNS list is not protected from the media. The media can, as I explained previously, learn of anything that is said. If a reporter wants to publish anything, he can do this and we cannot stop him. You, on the other hand are not the media and you are not any ordinary reporter. You are trying to help the field. In addition, you have important friendships and relationships in the field based on trust and respect. When you propose to act like an ordinary reporter, you damage that trust. As for the advantage to the CMNS list to maintain privacy, this is a requirement for open, frank and sometimes critical discussion. For example, I would want to be able to tell a person that his data is wrong without that information being made public. Such public disclosure might cause embarrassment to the person or his loss of support. I would want to discuss the situation and have my concerns addressed so that the work could be improved in the future. On the other side of the coin, I want criticism from other people about my work without having to feel the risk of a public display of my faults. I could do this by private e-mail, which I sometimes do, but the list takes advantage of the different ideas and experiences that a group provides. But you say, you would not reveal such information. Perhaps not, but you are already blaimed for shutting down Ross' work by showing its flaws in public. While I agree, you were not the cause of Ross' problems, nevertheless you showed a policy that other people fear. An ordinary reporter can get away with this because he works on a broad range of issues and with a large group of people. You, on the other hand, are in a narrow field and have to maintain relationships with a small group of people. This requires a more careful and nuanced approach. I hope this makes sense without the distraction of feeling that I'm being hostile. Normally, I would send this as a private response, since it does not concern anyone on Vortex. However, you sent this to me through Vortex so I'm responding the same way. I apologize to people who find this exchange unimportant. Best regards, Ed Thanks, Steve At 12:06 PM 10/4/2008, you wrote: Steve, let me make myself completely clear without any hostility being intended. The CMNS discussion is considered by the members to be private. Although I and everyone involved agrees, there is no way this intention can be enforced, a fact about which you do not need to remind us. In addition, the site is not closed to the press. Anyone, yourself included, can join if they agree to the rules. The rule is that nothing will be published without permission. You or anyone could seek permission and no doubt get such permission if they were trusted by the person from whom permission was requested. In other words, nothing is secret, nothing is being hidden, and the press can get involved if they use a little common courtesy. In your case, you say you will not abide by the rules, you resigned from the group, and then had other people send you the discussion. In addition, you insist that the group is attempting to interfere with freedom of the press. This approach simply shows that you do not understand the situation and want to continue a confrontation. If instead, you had said that you understood the wish and need for privacy, even though it is unenforceable, and would request permission to publish any of the discussion, then the issue would have dissappeared and you would be welcomed into the discussion. No doubt, most people would then give you permission to publish their discussion. Ludwik has gotten permission on many occasions using this approach. I hope I made clear why you got the response you did. The issue has nothing to do with any hostility or any lack of your support for the CNMS community. The issue is ONLY about your stated attitude about publishing the CMNS discussions without permission. Regards, Ed On Oct 4, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:33:29 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science At 07:34 PM 10/2/2008, you wrote: and this is cross posted here becuase? Thanks for asking. The Vortex list is, in my opinion, a group of fairly enlightened and aware group of individuals who have an interest in CMNS and free speech. Here's the background: I do not have a problem with McKubre and there is no message of
Re: [Vo]:Freedom of Information and Open Science
Hi Ed, Thanks for your reply. First of all, the CMNS list is not protected from the media. The media can, as I explained previously, learn of anything that is said. If a reporter wants to publish anything, he can do this and we cannot stop him. You, on the other hand are not the media and you are not any ordinary reporter. You are trying to help the field. In addition, you have important friendships and relationships in the field based on trust and respect. When you propose to act like an ordinary reporter, you damage that trust. You've expressed some interesting ideas about who and what I am. I'll have to think about that a bit before responding further on that point. As for the advantage to the CMNS list to maintain privacy, this is a requirement for open, frank and sometimes critical discussion. For example, I would want to be able to tell a person that his data is wrong without that information being made public. Such public disclosure might cause embarrassment to the person or his loss of support. I would want to discuss the situation and have my concerns addressed so that the work could be improved in the future. But Ed, that makes no sense at all. Why on earth would you send something potentially embarrassing to an Internet list which is so loosely regulated as the CMNS list instead of sending the email directly to the person and only that person? On the other side of the coin, I want criticism from other people about my work without having to feel the risk of a public display of my faults. I could do this by private e-mail, which I sometimes do, but the list takes advantage of the different ideas and experiences that a group provides. I certainly see and agree with that benefit of the list. But you say, you would not reveal such information. Perhaps not, but you are already blaimed for shutting down Ross' work by showing its flaws in public. While I agree, you were not the cause of Ross' problems, nevertheless you showed a policy that other people fear. What policy was that? An ordinary reporter can get away with this because he works on a broad range of issues and with a large group of people. You, on the other hand, are in a narrow field and have to maintain relationships with a small group of people. This requires a more careful and nuanced approach. Careful and nuanced approach: You mean like what you told me on July 19? Your article about George and later about Macy created an impression that you are more concerned with the 'truth' than with people. This makes people uncertain about who might be next. Consequently, you need to be more careful in how you reveal the truth about the field. Eventually, the field will be big enough and so well accepted, a little plainly spoken truth would not cause you any problem. I hope this makes sense without the distraction of feeling that I'm being hostile. Well, I'm not sure about your personal assessment of who and what I am (media,) - I will need to ponder that a bit - but in general I do appreciate your polite message. Normally, I would send this as a private response, since it does not concern anyone on Vortex. However, you sent this to me through Vortex so I'm responding the same way. I apologize to people who find this exchange unimportant. I think this is a valuable topic to be discussed on Vortex since it pertains to some key aspects of how CMNS is reported. I for one, benefit from the ideas and critiques from the members of this list. And I certainly have nothing to hide. Best regards, Steve
Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity?
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Sat, 4 Oct 2008 08:12:26 +0200: Hi, [snip] As I recall, those jets are satisfactorily explained without resorting to matter creation. The jets' matter comes from the internal edge of the accretion disk orbiting around the BH and failing to fall into it (slingshot effect I believe) Michel That seems a little odd to me. Why would it all be axial? I would expect at least some mass (if not all of it) subject to a slingshot effect to remain in the plane of the accretion disk. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Freedom of Information and Open Science
On Oct 4, 2008, at 7:20 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Hi Ed, Thanks for your reply. As for the advantage to the CMNS list to maintain privacy, this is a requirement for open, frank and sometimes critical discussion. For example, I would want to be able to tell a person that his data is wrong without that information being made public. Such public disclosure might cause embarrassment to the person or his loss of support. I would want to discuss the situation and have my concerns addressed so that the work could be improved in the future. But Ed, that makes no sense at all. Why on earth would you send something potentially embarrassing to an Internet list which is so loosely regulated as the CMNS list instead of sending the email directly to the person and only that person? Well Steve, a compromise has to be made. If the issue I had with another person were serious, I would, as you suggest, use private e- mail. However, a discussion within a group can frequently get more information to the person and in a more acceptable form than a private discussion. We all count on privacy being maintained by no one outside of the group taking an interest in what is said. You have taken an interest. As a result, you have created an issue we have to resolve. On the other side of the coin, I want criticism from other people about my work without having to feel the risk of a public display of my faults. I could do this by private e-mail, which I sometimes do, but the list takes advantage of the different ideas and experiences that a group provides. I certainly see and agree with that benefit of the list. But you say, you would not reveal such information. Perhaps not, but you are already blaimed for shutting down Ross' work by showing its flaws in public. While I agree, you were not the cause of Ross' problems, nevertheless you showed a policy that other people fear. What policy was that? The policy I'm referring to is to publish information that is potentially damaging to an individual. While I agree, some branches of journalism do this for a living and they do a great service when the information impacts on us all. Nevertheless, not all information has a general impact, hence does not need to be made public. Generally, a good reporter makes a judgement based on the desired result. An ordinary reporter can get away with this because he works on a broad range of issues and with a large group of people. You, on the other hand, are in a narrow field and have to maintain relationships with a small group of people. This requires a more careful and nuanced approach. Careful and nuanced approach: You mean like what you told me on July 19? Yes, this is one consideration. However, each potential public revelation will have different nuances, some of which are important and some can be ignored. I can't anticipate all possibilities. If publication is done with permission of the individual, the nuance no longer matters. Your article about George and later about Macy created an impression that you are more concerned with the 'truth' than with people. This makes people uncertain about who might be next. Consequently, you need to be more careful in how you reveal the truth about the field. Eventually, the field will be big enough and so well accepted, a little plainly spoken truth would not cause you any problem. I hope this makes sense without the distraction of feeling that I'm being hostile. Well, I'm not sure about your personal assessment of who and what I am (media,) - I will need to ponder that a bit - but in general I do appreciate your polite message. Normally, I would send this as a private response, since it does not concern anyone on Vortex. However, you sent this to me through Vortex so I'm responding the same way. I apologize to people who find this exchange unimportant. I think this is a valuable topic to be discussed on Vortex since it pertains to some key aspects of how CMNS is reported. I for one, benefit from the ideas and critiques from the members of this list. And I certainly have nothing to hide. I respect this approach and hope to continue the discussion. Perhaps to save other people from the need to delete this, we continue in private. Best regards, Ed Best regards, Steve
Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity?
yeah, I was using the term 'black hole' loosely. Googling shows the correct term the Newtonian object is 'dark body'. I wonder how a dark body would differ observationally from a black hole. Perhaps much of the observational evidence supporting the existence of black holes might also support the existence of dark bodies. Harry - Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity? Newtonian theory predicts black holes but they're not quite like relativistic black holes: There's no singularity in a Newtonian black hole. The funky thing about a relativistic black hole is not the fact that light can't escape, which a Newtonian black hole shares; it's that theyundergo runaway collapse. The reason for the runaway collapse, in simple terms (which is the onlyway I can approach this topic!!) is that the *PRESSURE* inside the star contributes to the GRAVITY, which certainly doesn't happen in Newtoniantheory. Consequently, the gravitational field of a relativistic star is *stronger* than the field of a Newtonian star. In general, the thing which keeps a (non-black-hole) star from collapsing is its internal pressure. As the gas in the outer layers squishes down, the pressure goes up, and at the point where the internalpressure equals the weight of the overlying layers the collapse stops. But in relativity, as the pressure goes up, the gravitational field goes up, too. Consequently, for a sufficiently massive star, there cancome a point where an increase in the pressure results in an corresponding increase in the gravitational field -- and at that point,the star collapses irreversibly, and it *doesn't* *matter* what it's made of: A stiffer material (like neutronium, or quarkium, or whatever), which produced higher pressure inside the star, would just result in a correspondingly higher gravitational field, and the collapsewould still proceed. Because the collapse increases the pressure, it increases the field, and that results in the runaway, with no equilibrium being possible with a radius greater than zero. Harry Veeder wrote: Wouldn't Newton Gravity predict something akin to the black holes of General Relativity if the escape velocity of a massive body exceeds the speed light? harry
[Vo]:thixotrophy and the aether
Jones posted; /drilling mud is pumped during a drilling process. Honey in a comb does not flowas when it's removed. Strange , the hex structure of the comb is often given credit for this anomaly. Interesting observation Jones. The anomaly seems to be related to the interaction of matter and shape as mentioned in torsion field physics. / --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
[Vo]:Subscribe page causes problems
You may not realize it, but while using Firefox 2.x when I tried to subscribe I got about 50 screen pop-ups. I have no idea why. I then copied the subscribe address and did the subscription via Thunderbird. Hopefully, that works.
