Re: [Vo]:ordinary matter-mirror matter bound states: RT Foot S. Mitra 2002.07.30: Rich Murray 2010.01.08
On Jan 8, 2010, at 9:10 PM, Rich Murray wrote: [snip] http://www.cav er.com/crf/labe98.htm The above reference is to an article Lava Beds Projects, by Janet Sowers, Project Manager. The above article mentions nothing about either Robert Foot or Rich Murray. Monitoring We continued with long-term monitoring of ice levels in the ice caves, and winter bat population counts. An interesting phenomena in Merrill Ice Cave was observed this fall. The ice at the base of the ice pond apparently melted and drained out, leaving a small ice cavern beneath the ice slab that once was the top of the pond. As far as we know this has not been observed at Lava Beds before. This coming February we will thoroughly document the status of the ice in Merrill and try to understand what happened. worth keeping in mind re exotic impacts -- mirror matter proposals, Robert T Foot: Rich Murray 2010.01.06 It appears there are quotation marks missing above. Was the above statement, worth keeping in mind re exotic impacts -- mirror matter proposals, Robert T Foot: Rich Murray 2010.01.06, issued by Robert T Foot and Rich Murray jointly, as it is made to appear? Does this mean Robert T Foot and Rich Murray are collaborating in a joint project, as it appears? Are Robert T Foot and Rich Murray members of the Cave Research Foundation (CRF)? http://rmfo rall.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.htm Wednesday, January 6, 2010 http://gro ups.yaho o.com/group/AstroDeep/33 [snip] The above URLs do not reference current web pages. Note. I added the spaces to all the referenced URLs above so my ISP spam filter will not stop me from sending this email. While the subject matter is very interesting, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what is being said and by whom. Please clarify. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:ordinary matter-mirror matter bound states: RT Foot S. Mitra 2002.07.30: Rich Murray 2010.01.08
I don't understand why the distribution of MM would not be homogeneous. Why would lava have a higher concentration? Anyway, I would have to agree with the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cave explanations for ice caves. I would find MM a more convincing argument were the temperature something more extreme than 31 deg F.
RE: [Vo]:ordinary matter-mirror matter bound states: RT Foot S. Mitra 2002.07.30: Rich Murray 2010.01.08
Think about this, cool-cats - in terms of the one site which is suspected to NOT be homogenous for MM. Assuming mirror matter does promote coldness in some unknown way (Yes, we can doubt that there is any real proof, but for the sake of argument) then ... Siberia has always been frigid, due to its latitude, but could that average low temperature be acerbated by some small amount - due to the event itself, and the tons of MM left behind in the soil ? The asteroid could have been hundreds, even thousands of times larger in mass - than anyone now suspects *IF* during its breakup, the debris actually attenuated the explosion and fireball which was seen, due to this property of inverse heating. And thereafter the MM was spread out to such an extent that the average temperature was even lower than before. Even a fractional degree would be relevant. Heck, we might as well go ahead and call it the Ice-9 effect, no? Are the statistics which indicate that Siberia is significantly colder than say, the same latitudes in Canada - linked to an incorrect explanation? http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/2003-12-05-answers-siberia n-cold_x.htm That determination would be a starting point. Take temp readings at ground zero in Siberia and compare them with the same latitude a few hundred miles east and west of there - over a year, say. I always suspected that Vonnegut was 'touched' as they say... -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton I don't understand why the distribution of MM would not be homogeneous. Why would lava have a higher concentration? Anyway, I would have to agree with the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cave explanations for ice caves. I would find MM a more convincing argument were the temperature something more extreme than 31 deg F.
Re: [Vo]:ordinary matter-mirror matter bound states: RT Foot S. Mitra 2002.07.30: Rich Murray 2010.01.08
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Are the statistics which indicate that Siberia is significantly colder than say, the same latitudes in Canada - linked to an incorrect explanation? Leave it to Jones to put a new twist on things. If what you say is true, then we have a significant MM gap between us and the ruskies! Mr. President, there must not be a mirror matter gap. Seriously, such a negative entropy source would be remarkably valuable.
Re: [Vo]:ordinary matter-mirror matter bound states: RT Foot S. Mitra 2002.07.30: Rich Murray 2010.01.08
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote The precise way in which a anomalously lossy material could be valuable (in addition to free 'air conditioning' ;) would surely be as an instant heat sink for ambient. You could run your Stirling engine automobile on rocks! T
Re: [Vo]:Casimir effect and SR to explain fractional states
Jones Beene wrote: ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion Hi The referenced paper in Note 9 Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance of c. D Gezari. NASA. Dec '09.[2] http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934v2 is a very interesting paper. Thanks again, Jones. It provides a (relatively) simple experiment to test a first order postulate of Special Relativity(invariance of c). Sadly, the analysis seem to be flawed(btw, can you see why?). I'm actually discussing this with the author. As the analysis is flawed, the conclusion is not correct. But fortunately, a right analysis (and its related conclusion) falsify other of the postulates of SR(can you tell which one?) Best regards, Mauro
RE: [Vo]:Casimir effect and SR to explain fractional states
No, I cannot see the flaw, but I do find the conclusions very provocative - and, given the extreme minority conclusion - there is a great incentive for everyone who disagrees to assert a flaw: 1) This is an apparent first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance; light propagates in an absolute or preferred reference frame, a conclusion that physicists will be reluctant to accept. 2) The speed of light seems depend on the motion of the observer after all 3) This implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of light. 4) However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical system to which such a reference frame might be tied. It will be interesting to hear your assessment of the situation - and whether the author agrees with it . From: Mauro Lacy Sadly, the analysis seem to be flawed (btw, can you see why?). I'm actually discussing this with the author. As the analysis is flawed, the conclusion is not correct. But fortunately, a right analysis (and its related conclusion) falsify other of the postulates of SR(can you tell which one?) Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Casimir effect and SR to explain fractional states
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No, I cannot see the flaw, but I do find the conclusions very provocative – and, given the extreme minority conclusion - there is a great incentive for everyone who disagrees to assert a flaw: From my POV, the speed of light in a medium is no different than the speed of sound in a medium. Granted the difference between compression and transverse waves; however, still, if one considers Dirac's epo interactions as the mechanical method of propagation, the closer the pairs, or the denser the medium, the faster the propagation. There is really no reason to believe that space is isotropic and homogeneous. We have never ventured outside a gravitational field. We do have some probes which are approaching such as they leave the solar system. Maybe space is less dense outside a gravitational field and the SoL is slower. This would make things seem farther than they really are. And maybe, under the right conditions, the metric is more dense and things are farther they seem because the speed of light is faster. Sometimes my mind is so open my brain falls out. T
Re: [Vo]:Casimir effect and SR to explain fractional states
Jones Beene wrote: No, I cannot see the flaw, but I do find the conclusions very provocative – and, given the extreme minority conclusion - there is a great incentive for everyone who disagrees to assert a flaw: Indeed. 1) This is an apparent first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance; light propagates in an absolute or preferred reference frame, a conclusion that physicists will be reluctant to accept. 2) The speed of light seems depend on the motion of the observer after all 3) This implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of light. 4) However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical system to which such a reference frame might be tied. It will be interesting to hear your assessment of the situation - and whether the author agrees with it … I'll post about all that after the author answers my comments, addressing or acknowledging the issues (and conclusions) I have raised. Maybe I'm wrong, and there'se no flaw in his reasoning. Anyway, SR is falsified in both cases, as far as I can tell. Gezari has recently sent me a message saying that he'll look at my comments carefully, and see if he can come up with a response. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Request claque support
At 04:15 PM 1/8/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I don't necessarily agree that cold fusion is economically viable, it's possible that huge sums could be spent with no commercial result, but at this point, huge sums aren't needed; rather what is needed is what Kowalski suggests, and what a DoE panel also recommended in 2004, and even recommended back in 1989, though it was half-hearted in 1989. Targeted research to establish more firmly the basic science. Not hundreds of millions of dollars. I think tens of millions would be appropriate now, but as soon as someone demonstrates a 10 W stand alone Arata effect device that continues for a month, I would recommend hundreds of millions per year. Reasonable, I'd say, if the 10W experiment looked like it had a prayer of being scalable. If not, it would still be worth substantial continued support, depending on such things as the economics. If one needs $100,000 worth of palladium to generate 10 W, it may be striking as a phenomenon, but not as a commercial product. Yet. As to tens of millions now, I'm not certain. Proposals should be entertained, as they said. It's about time for the DoE to follow its own panel's recommendations, instead of the private political maneuvering and contrary influence from the entrenched. The priority at first should be exploring the science, WTF is happening in there? Without knowing, speculating about commercial applications is just that: speculating. Not engineering. We need to know the science, period, regardless of practical applications. But applications will quite reasonably follow, either specialized or general.
Re: [Vo]:Casimir effect and SR to explain fractional states
Can someone tell me how to describe the virtual particles giving rise to the Casimir effect? I assume it can be described in simple terms like densities of electron positron pairs and other particles. Would one way to determine them be to calculate what electron positron densities gives rise to the vacuum constants € and µ? Under the assumption that space with no virtual particles have €=µ=0. Please give me a clue how to make these calculations. I have seen it once but I have forgotten. A simple way I can imagine is to assume a capacitor and apply a field and find out what particles need to be there to give the field energy u=½€E^2 Lets assume the capacitor plates are each one sqaremeter and one meter apart with one Volt applied. E=1 V/m The force on an electron is F=q*E=-e*E and on the positron F=e*E The same force separates the positron and electron from each other according to Coulombs law F=1/4/pi/€*e*(-e)/r^2 The separation distance thus becomes r= sqrt(e/(4*pi*€*E)) And this value can be determined to investigate how much energy is spent to separate the positron from the electron. This would be the field energy. But how can I know how far apart the electrons were from the positrons initially? Is their ground state determined by the zero point energy? David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370 On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: Jones Beene wrote: No, I cannot see the flaw, but I do find the conclusions very provocative – and, given the extreme minority conclusion - there is a great incentive for everyone who disagrees to assert a flaw: Indeed. 1) This is an apparent first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance; light propagates in an absolute or preferred reference frame, a conclusion that physicists will be reluctant to accept. 2) The speed of light seems depend on the motion of the observer after all 3) This implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of light. 4) However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical system to which such a reference frame might be tied. It will be interesting to hear your assessment of the situation - and whether the author agrees with it … I'll post about all that after the author answers my comments, addressing or acknowledging the issues (and conclusions) I have raised. Maybe I'm wrong, and there'se no flaw in his reasoning. Anyway, SR is falsified in both cases, as far as I can tell. Gezari has recently sent me a message saying that he'll look at my comments carefully, and see if he can come up with a response. Best regards, Mauro
