Re: [Vo]:radio interview..its is really good...take a minute to look at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-publishing I think Jed has experience with this. On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:00 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: 1.094 million meters per second is the velocity of sound with the nucleons. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterb.html#Pg10 I would like to get a book out and, make, not loose, money. Any ideas. Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:Encyclopedia Britannica article on cold fusion
At 06:00 PM 1/27/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: I guess I would have to say that despite its many faults, the Wikipedia article is better. [than the Britannica article]. Yes. The Britannica is depending on old information that was never really accurate, but it's not surprising that this is what they'd have if they consulted nuclear physicists for an article on fusion, but the effect they claim couldn't be confirmed is not a nuclear effect as such, rather fusion is simply one hypothesis as to what causes the anomalous heat. And the nuclear physicists, after finding that it was not simple to confirm (then) were not about to consider the excess heat claim legitimate until tea could be brewed on demand, and I'd bet that they would reject even that. And, in fact, they did. Mizuno evaporated a lot of heavy water (But that was tough to replicate... the whole tea thing was a huge red herring. Don't brew tea with muon-catalyzed fusion unless you sit it on your muon generator Might as well use the heat for something!) Hey, that's an idea! Build a device for heating tea into my CF kits. All it would take is a bit more power from the power supply Okay, a lot more power. I think what Wikipedia needs most is competition. If something like Citizendium were to become as popular -- or nearly as popular -- as Wikipedia, and if the governing philosophy of both remained distinctly different, that would be good for both. There would be no point in having two anonymous crowd-sourced reference books, both governed by free-for-all rules. You want one to be more traditional. Probably. The Wikipedia model is potentially more powerful, but it needs to become a hybrid. I'm suggesting a fractal structure for governance that would escalate disputes gradually until a level is found where there is consensus (or possibly rejection of a dispute as trivial piffle, many of them are.) Wikipedia needs to respect experts, and, instead, it bans them, if it happens that the expert knows more than the editors and contradicts them. So Pcarbonn is topic-banned (so far, I haven't begun to do anything about it except talk it up a little bit at Wikipedia Review), I'm topic-banned, and Jed is indefinitely blocked which is similar to being banned without a formal ban finding. Steven Krivit is not blocked or banned because he was nicer than Jed and doesn't tilt at windmills. Of course with regard to the search term cold fusion Wikipedia does have competition: Cold Fusion Times, New Energy Times and (far down the list, alas) LENR-CANR.org (by Google ranking and also Bing.com ranking). You serve a serious purpose, Jed. New Energy Times is more like a popular magazine, but on-line. To each his own. People who look at Wikipedia only are not seriously interested in a subject. That's right. They just want some quick information, ordinarily. I use it all the time. *Usually* it is more-or-less right. And even where there is some pretty bad and biased editing, there is a limit to what the cabal can get away with, which is why the article on Cold fusion is as good as it is. And it would be quite a bit better if not for snap judgments by some Arbitration Committee members. I had actually gotten some of the notable theories into the article, which until then had only a claim that there weren't any serious theories, only ad hoc attempts at explanations. I'd done this in spite of revert warring from an editor aptly called Hipocrite; but the administrator William M. Connolley reverted the article back, violating policy; ultimately, he lost his administrative privileges over that and some related actions, like banning and blocking me, but ArbComm does not, supposedly, make content decisions, it only adjudicates behavior, and it also decide that I had violated the policy against being a Pain In the Ass and tempting Reputable Administrators into breakling policy to get rid of me. Of course, WMC is now getting serious attention and my guess is he'll be banned soon himself. That's the WikiDrama. Seriously dysfunctional. Fixable? I think so, but it is certainly not guaranteed! The same forces that make Wikipedia grossly inefficient and often lead it quite astray are the same forces, in kind, as led to a silly and premature rejection of cold fusion. Science runs on consensus, in the long run, a consensus produced by deep study of what's controversial or new or unexplored, and that broke down with CF, and experimental results were rejected and even impeached based on little more than theory, and definitely not on conclusive demonstration of artifact, incompetence, or fraud, as to the critical excess heat findings. For some electrochemists to make an error with respect to neutraon radiation detection was one thing, but it was quite another to infer from this that the world's foremost electochemists, expert in calorimetry, had made bonehead errors in what they were really good
Re: [Vo]:Spam has been eliminated? Robin posts considered spam (was Re: OFF TOPIC Davos predictions: predictably wrong?)
Robin, have you watched the Youtube video Terry linked to? Here is the link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE It's the 1970 Monty Python sketch, Spam, which is the actual origin of the use of the word for unsolicited email, due to the high number of times the word is repeated in the sketch, in spite of one of the characters vehemently not wanting any Spam: I don't like Spam!. Absolutely hilarious :) Michel PS Strange how Gmail's algorithms consider some messages are spam for some people and not for others. Personalized spam blocking! 2010/1/27 mix...@bigpond.com: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:09:31 -0500: Hi, [snip] On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: SPAM - SPurious Advertising Material. Also SPiced hAM: That was the original definition before the advent of the Internet. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Contropedia
At 06:41 PM 1/27/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: It's really an aspect of the problem of scale. Those who could do something about it are overwhelmed and must make snap judgments, so when an issue is complex, really bad decisions are made. This is true, and it is difficult problem. Sometimes, this is what causes capable people in the top ranks of huge organizations to make horrendous errors. For example, in the Federal Gov't, or at IBM or GM. It seems likely to me that Obama or the head of the DoE have no knowledge of cold fusion, for example, because they have so much else on their plates, and so many people giving them advice. They have no time to hear about cold fusion. No one in their office happened to see 60 Minutes last April. (I suppose . . .) What I've been suggesting is to understand the mechanisms by which a general consensus is overthrow, the ways in which fringe ideas that have an actual basis can (and do, eventually) gain wider consideration. Instead of going for Obama, find who has Obama's ear and who might be willing to take the time to understand the topic. And if you can't find any such person with the time (good chance), then someone who has the ear of the one who has the ear. And then another, so that it comes in from two different sources. When several people start mentioning Cold fusion to people close to Obama, the message starts to punch through the noise. This also explains why skilled generals in the heat of battle sometimes make huge mistakes that are out of character. The press of events, fatigue, or the need to make snap decisions without enough information causes them to make mistakes they would not normally make. Right. Hence a truly skilled general surrounds himself with people who criticize his proposals. By nature, the office of general is one where a decision must be made, but to fool a well-advised general is much more difficult than to fool one who only surrounds himself with sycophants. You have to sympathize with the Wikipedia Foundation in this regard. When a method generally works but occasionally causes disastrous failures it is hard to say they should abandon it. That's right. And, in fact, they should not abandon the method. They should modify it with structure that detects the errors and escalates efficiently when it's needed. They also need to stop requiring Sisyphus to roll the boulder up the hill over and over, and the software tools exist for what's called Flagged Revisions. But Flagged Revisions requires a set of editors trusted to be able to set the flags, and the community has become paralyzed, unable to make decisions on a large scale. And there is no mechanism for doing it, in fact, because the whole of Wikipedia operates as an adhocracy or ochlocracy, avoiding the making of actual deliberated collective decisions. It can be fixed, but the conservative forces on Wikipedia, clinging fervently to the status quo, are formidable. The free-for-all technique does not work for an article on cold fusion, but it works for hundreds of thousands of other articles, and many of these would not even be written in the first place with a tighter set of rules. Articles about Japanese comic book characters, for example, would not be written. They have some social and literary value for people who want to learn about Japan. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maison_Ikkoku Not important, you say? Maybe not, but neither is most literature. It is a good way to learn about what it was like living as a college student in Japan in the 1980s. If I didn't think Wikipedia was important, I'd not have devoted several years to it I do believe I know how to fix it, which doesn't translate to instant fix. I just suggested on the major Wikipedia mailing list a solution to what has become a huge flap over unsourced biographies of living people. A bot was developed to find these articles and automatically delete them. Bad idea, actually, but there is a good idea which is very close to it! There may be something like 80,000 of these biographies, with more being created all the time. The idea isn't a new one, it's called Pure Wiki Deletion, which refers to blanking content rather than actually deleting it. Strictly, with these, the content would not be blanking, it would instead be redirected to a page which explains the problem with the article, and which then provides instructions to how to read what was there, and to restore the article. A bot could do this in a flash, it fixes the legal problem with the articles immediately, it leaves the content where anyone can read it, warned about the unreliability, and anyone can fix it, and, then, activity fixing these articles can be monitored. Note that actual deletion isn't really the case with Wikipedia, content is not deleted, it is, rather, hidden from all but those with administrative privileges. There is true
Re: [Vo]:Spam has been eliminated? Robin posts considered spam (was Re: OFF TOPIC Davos predictions: predictably wrong?)
On 01/28/2010 11:57 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: PS Strange how Gmail's algorithms consider some messages are spam for some people and not for others. Personalized spam blocking! This goes to the heart of the Spam problem. The worst difficulty isn't the ladies from China who supposedly want to crawl into bed with anyone who can read a few kanji characters. They can be blocked across the board, and nobody will complain; furthermore, spam filters can recognize them without a lot of trouble. Rather, the big problem is the legitimate businesses that are just a little too enthusiastic about sending adverts through email. One piece of commercial email from every legitimate business in the United States, sent to every email address in the United States, would be tantamount to a DOS attack on the entire Internet. But, a lot of that commercial email is considered *useful* by a lot of people, at the same time that a lot of other people consider it SPAM. So, one-size-fits-all spam filters simply can't work. Furthermore, since the fringier businesses include word salad in their spam, trainable filters are hard to make work, quite aside from the tedious training required and the high false-positive rate of such filters. T-bird's built in spam filter, for instance, is totally worthless; it worked acceptably when first released but the use of word salads, which was discovered some time after T-bird's filter was added, have completely killed its value. Finally, I don't know what planet you guys who think the spam problem has abated are living on. I just checked my spam reports from PObox and I'm seeing about 50 or 60 rejects a day. That's too many to go through comfortably on a daily basis, and the false-positive rate is *very* low, so I inevitably let the hand-checking slide. But the false-positive rate isn't zero. An unfortunate consequence is that I've lost important messages to mis-tuned spam filters; that's happened within the past year. My webmaster box, which comes directly to me without filtering, gets spam traffic on the same order, and it's almost impossible to pick anything useful out of it. I just had a lengthy *phone* exchange with someone this morning who had failed to receive an important email from me. After sending him about six more copies (with the important document attached each time), none of which made it through, he finally had the wit to send me a message, to which I replied, with said document attached once more. That *finally* made it through. It seems pretty obvious that some spam filter somewhere was blocking all my email to him, until he finally emailed me; then whatever filter it was decided I was a friend rather than foe and let my mail through. He doesn't realize that what he's got is a SPAM problem, but that's surely what it is. All in all, things haven't collapsed completely, the way many people expected; they're still limping along. But none the less, this situation sucks royally, and as far as I can see from the reject counts, the volume has *not* decreased. If anything, it's rising.
[Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that moves with respect to space yet SR uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be perpindicular to C . Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether? My point is that the ether may be moving at C perpindicular to space but the MM experiment has no way to physically place the second mirror on the time axis. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Spam has been eliminated? Robin posts considered spam (was Re: OFF TOPIC Davos predictions: predictably wrong?)
eSpam etymology: http://www.templetons.com/brad/spamterm.html http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2635
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote: I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that moves with respect to space yet SR uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether? The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at this time. Gamma is considered proof that the length and time contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or 'real' or anyway 'measurable'. However, the assertion that the geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1] is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions. In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and (theoretically) unprovable assumption. Consequently, Lorentz ether theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory. The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course. But it apparently can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's most mature version of ether theory). My point is that the ether may be moving at C perpindicular to space If you can come up with a way to test that assertion, great. If you can't test it or measure it, however, then it doesn't rise above the level of 'speculation'. If you can't make testable predictions from a set of assumptions, then they don't form a valid theory. but the MM experiment has no way to physically place the second mirror on the time axis. Regards Fran //
[Vo]:[Humor] Let the iPad Jokes Begin
http://i.gizmodo.com/5458497/lets-get-the-ipad-jokes-out-of-our-systems-cause-steve-doesnt-care
Re: [Vo]:Contropedia
John Berry wrote: The article on cold fusion is (without checking I feel confident in saying) decent. I'm sure many well established physicists would agree with it. Naa. It is indecent. Seriously, I will grant it is thorough, but it is so filled with unfounded, torturously argued skeptical assertions -- or forlorn skeptical hopes, they should be called -- that the overall effect is to make it biased. It strains to give a false impression of the status of the research. The authors bring up every known argument to doubt the results, with practically no indication that these arguments have no merit, and were proven wrong years ago. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Non-nuclear_explanations_for_excess_heat This kind of argument resembles that of Richard Garwin on 60 Minutes. See: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#CBS60minutes This is so over-the-top it goes beyond skeptical doubts well into disingenuousness. Or insincerity. Or lying, to put it bluntly. Garwin knows as well as I do that his arguments have no merit, for the reasons I listed there. The Wikipedia skeptics, on the other hand, are unfamiliar with the literature and have not observed an experiment the way Garwin has, so they are probably sincere. The Wikipedia skeptics I have communicated with sincerely believe that all experiments are wrong. One of them urged me to stop devoting any effort to the field because it is so obviously bogus. This was after he spent several days reading papers, including McKubre's. For a while he thought he had found an error in McKubre's paper. He then admitted it was his mistake, but he remains certain that there must be a mistake somewhere in that paper. I pointed out that 'there may be an invisible or undiscovered mistake' cannot be falsified and therefore it is not a valid assertion. That did not compute. The guy is a professional scientist but he never learned that. Kind of like a programmer who never learned you are supposed to give variables logical and consistent names. (I have met such programmers.) Most of the mistakes made in the analysis of cold fusion are at the logical level, rather than technical or factual. I mean assertions that cannot be falsified or logical fallacies. Before people get to the point where they try to prove that McKubre's flow calorimetry is wrong, they go off the tracks with assertions that don't even make the cut logically. Garwin did not make any logical errors, by the way. His assertion is plausible and if it were correct, it would disprove cold fusion. But it's wrong. The Sci. Am.'s assertion that not all chemical explanations for the excess heat were eliminated is also plausible and logical but factually wrong. Generally speaking, professionally written critiques have technical errors rather than logical errors. However, the 2004 DoE reviewers comments had every strain of error, from soup to nuts. Melich and I tallied up errors in the reviews for a day or two, and we found dozens, even without an exhaustive review. A lot of those people would fail an undergrad course in the scientific method. It is appalling to me that celebrated, highly respected professional scientists could be so badly educated, and inept. I am no scientist, but I would not have made such errors back in junior high school. That's no great credit to me: I had a rigorous old-fashioned training in logical thinking. If no one ever sits you down and teaches you what an appeal to consequences of a belief means, or confusing cause and effect, you are not likely to know. (Newt Gingrich, for example, often makes these two errors. He is a smart guy but it is clear to me he has about as much education as a 12th century peasant. He knows facts galore but he has no training in the elementary rules for thinking.) Chris Tinsley also had a rigorous education. He and I often said we felt like time travelers from the 19th century, let loose in some decadent future in which people no longer actually learn anything in school. The other thing that is missing from the modern era is the notion that you should test things by experiment or observation. See for yourself. The other day I got the sense that our civilization is in peril while reading at Dear Abby column. Some woman wrote that she and her husband are arguing about which direction a light bulb screws in, and please tell us, Dear Abby. Abby told the woman clockwise and added lefty-loosy, righty-tighty. Now that is a fine ditty to keep in mind, and I have often recalled it, especially when upside-down under the sink or in some other confusion-inducing pose. But, I wish I could have reached to both Abby and her reader, shaken them by the lapels, and shouted, for crying out loud, TRY UNSCREWING A LIGHT BULB! Find out for yourself!!! Or just look at the threads! Cold fusion skeptics often suffer from this syndrome. In the early days of the Internet I recall an argument that
Re: [Vo]:Contropedia
But that's my point, it's decent as an article and for a biased piece of crap it's a shining example. My point is only that it would get the tick of approval of say Parksie (I assume) or any other pathological skeptic. It's not of poor quality and you agreed that Britanica is worse. If Nature printed a similar piece you might be disappointed but I doubt you'd be greatly surprised. I think the only issue is that people would assume that Wikipedia may be free of the influences of corruption, power and academic dishonestly to a greater extent than the above and oddly it is not, that's the issue not the quality but the bias and only because Wikipedia would be hoped to be better but it's not. On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: John Berry wrote: The article on cold fusion is (without checking I feel confident in saying) decent. I'm sure many well established physicists would agree with it. Naa. It is indecent. Seriously, I will grant it is thorough, but it is so filled with unfounded, torturously argued skeptical assertions -- or forlorn skeptical hopes, they should be called -- that the overall effect is to make it biased. It strains to give a false impression of the status of the research. The authors bring up every known argument to doubt the results, with practically no indication that these arguments have no merit, and were proven wrong years ago. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Non-nuclear_explanations_for_excess_heat This kind of argument resembles that of Richard Garwin on 60 Minutes. See: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#CBS60minutes This is so over-the-top it goes beyond skeptical doubts well into disingenuousness. Or insincerity. Or lying, to put it bluntly. Garwin knows as well as I do that his arguments have no merit, for the reasons I listed there. The Wikipedia skeptics, on the other hand, are unfamiliar with the literature and have not observed an experiment the way Garwin has, so they are probably sincere. The Wikipedia skeptics I have communicated with sincerely believe that all experiments are wrong. One of them urged me to stop devoting any effort to the field because it is so obviously bogus. This was after he spent several days reading papers, including McKubre's. For a while he thought he had found an error in McKubre's paper. He then admitted it was his mistake, but he remains certain that there must be a mistake somewhere in that paper. I pointed out that 'there may be an invisible or undiscovered mistake' cannot be falsified and therefore it is not a valid assertion. That did not compute. The guy is a professional scientist but he never learned that. Kind of like a programmer who never learned you are supposed to give variables logical and consistent names. (I have met such programmers.) Most of the mistakes made in the analysis of cold fusion are at the logical level, rather than technical or factual. I mean assertions that cannot be falsified or logical fallacies. Before people get to the point where they try to prove that McKubre's flow calorimetry is wrong, they go off the tracks with assertions that don't even make the cut logically. Garwin did not make any logical errors, by the way. His assertion is plausible and if it were correct, it would disprove cold fusion. But it's wrong. The Sci. Am.'s assertion that not all chemical explanations for the excess heat were eliminated is also plausible and logical but factually wrong. Generally speaking, professionally written critiques have technical errors rather than logical errors. However, the 2004 DoE reviewers comments had every strain of error, from soup to nuts. Melich and I tallied up errors in the reviews for a day or two, and we found dozens, even without an exhaustive review. A lot of those people would fail an undergrad course in the scientific method. It is appalling to me that celebrated, highly respected professional scientists could be so badly educated, and inept. I am no scientist, but I would not have made such errors back in junior high school. That's no great credit to me: I had a rigorous old-fashioned training in logical thinking. If no one ever sits you down and teaches you what an appeal to consequences of a belief means, or confusing cause and effect, you are not likely to know. (Newt Gingrich, for example, often makes these two errors. He is a smart guy but it is clear to me he has about as much education as a 12th century peasant. He knows facts galore but he has no training in the elementary rules for thinking.) Chris Tinsley also had a rigorous education. He and I often said we felt like time travelers from the 19th century, let loose in some decadent future in which people no longer actually learn anything in school. The other thing that is missing from the modern era is the notion that you should test things by experiment or observation. See for yourself. The
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote: I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that moves with respect to space yet SR uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether? The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at this time. Gamma is considered proof that the length and time contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or 'real' or anyway 'measurable'. However, the assertion that the geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1] is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions. In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and (theoretically) unprovable assumption. Consequently, Lorentz ether theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory. The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course. But it apparently can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's most mature version of ether theory). The Michelson Morley experiment did in fact detected an ether drift. Only smaller than expected, of around 8 km/s, instead of the expected 30 km/s. In a curious travesty of the scientific method, that fact was later taken as evidence for the inexistence of the ether... Read the Gezari paper Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818 for a very good summary of the experiments and effects that supposedly confirm Special Relativity... The M. Consoli and E. Constanzo paper, The motion of the Solar System and the Michelson-Morley experiment http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576 gives an impressive explanation for the divergences between observed vs. real velocities, which also accounts for the different experimental results obtained in different experiments, including the extensive and careful experiments done by Miller. The proposed explanation belongs originally to Cahill and Kitto, and its consequences are mind boggling, if you take the care and time to reflect about them. All this is published since at least five years in the arxiv. Maybe it's time to start taking notice.
Re: [Vo]:Contropedia
John Berry wrote: I think the only issue is that people would assume that Wikipedia may be free of the influences of corruption, power and academic dishonestly to a greater extent than the above and oddly it is not, that's the issue not the quality but the bias and only because Wikipedia would be hoped to be better but it's not. Excellent point. I guess the underlying assumption is that Democracy is good. Or that many people cooperating together are likely to come up with the right answer. Also, I guess they thought that people who are not professional academics have less of a stake in the outcome and will be more objective. There is some truth to that but it isn't a panacea. Come to think of it, people working in opposition or competition are more likely to come up with the right answer than people working together. To be precise: one group will be right, and the others wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm perhaps we could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his equations work? That's unlikely to occur, why throw out SR when you can keep chasing a fantasy for billions of dollars year. It is not in the best financial interest of the current pack of Space/Time theorists, String theorists, and CERN would like get a multi billion dollar black eye. Lets just wait for the GOD particle NOT be found and see what other absurd theory rises. I will never be able to stomach Quantuim mechanics or any other system that violates rules simply because of scalar effects. The whole of SR only applies to observation, it does not prove that changing your speed effects time, except in thought experiments, the twins theory is bogus, and cesium clocks have been proven to change rates when you change gravity, or rather the proximity to gravitational field center. Ether is consumed by mass, that's gravity, a pretty measurable effect in my book! Gamma is just a near final decay state of matter when run through a grinder such as a Black hole which is a simple either cyclone or what current flock refers to as Dark Matter. I rant, and this will all come out soon anyway. And hey without peer reviewed materials none will take this seriously anyway, so why do I bother? just frustration I guess. Let time be the final judge... Gibson From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010, 4:26 PM Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote: I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that moves with respect to space yet SR uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether? The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at this time. Gamma is considered proof that the length and time contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or 'real' or anyway 'measurable'. However, the assertion that the geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1] is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions. In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and (theoretically) unprovable assumption. Consequently, Lorentz ether theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory. The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course. But it apparently can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's most mature version of ether theory). The Michelson Morley experiment did in fact detected an ether drift. Only smaller than expected, of around 8 km/s, instead of the expected 30 km/s. In a curious travesty of the scientific method, that fact was later taken as evidence for the inexistence of the ether... Read the Gezari paper Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818 for a very good summary of the experiments and effects that supposedly confirm Special Relativity... The M. Consoli and E. Constanzo paper, The motion of the Solar System and the Michelson-Morley experiment http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576 gives an impressive explanation for the divergences between observed vs. real velocities, which also accounts for the different experimental results obtained in different experiments, including the extensive and careful experiments done by Miller. The proposed explanation belongs originally to Cahill and Kitto, and its consequences are mind boggling, if you take the care and time to reflect about them. All this is published since at least five years in the arxiv. Maybe it's time to start taking notice.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
Stephen, Thank you for the explanation, I wasn't aware of anything called Lorentz ether theory existed but will be investigating it shortly. At least I am not crazy - someone with chops came to similar conclusion and now I can just reference LET instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. I am aware that my speculation is only just that without predictions and confirmation but as must be obvious from my lack of familiarity with LET I am still gathering my arguments. Can I take it then that Gamma proves the extra dimension is there and the controversey regarding LET is only whether it is occupied by ether or a true vacuum? I just peeked at Wikipedia and Lorentz was promoting a stationary ether, I can see him saying no spatial motion but stationary? this doesn't seem to agree with V^2/C^2 My thoughts aside on LET, I approached this from relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect based on Cavity QED and a new book advances in Casimire effect 2009 from Oxford press, The book makes a case for Casimir plates being treated as a field source (big sail with a little hole creates a vortex). I combined this with the relativistic interpretation of the Casimir effect and suddenly had a new perspective on catalytic action- Am I way out on a limb describing catalytic action as time dilation ? Again there is no ether to measure but we appear to have reactants exhibiting time dilation. What if we found a way to resist the acceleration such that the casimir effect did useful work in place of time dilation? could that be considered proff of a LET or LET like theory? Best Regards Fran The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at this time. Gamma is considered proof that the length and time contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or 'real' or anyway 'measurable'. However, the assertion that the geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1] is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions. In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and (theoretically) unprovable assumption. Consequently, Lorentz ether theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory. The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course. But it apparently can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's most mature version of ether theory). My point is that the ether may be moving at C perpindicular to space If you can come up with a way to test that assertion, great. If you can't test it or measure it, however, then it doesn't rise above the level of 'speculation'. If you can't make testable predictions from a set of assumptions, then they don't form a valid theory.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
Perhaps y'all could enlighten me. I never understood the blanket rejection of 'ether' when radiation resistance is an engineering fact. In the design of RF antennas, there is a radiation resistance of about 328 ohms. Clearly, something out there is 'resisting' the emission of RF. In addition, there is also permitivity in a vacuum. Is this a case of 'if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck'?
Re: [Vo]:Contropedia
Interestingly if you pitched the idea of Wikipedia to anyone before it existed and assured them there would be enough interest, the main objection would be that there would be too much freedom and that it would be full of far too much crazy out there and just plain moronic info. Instead of Wikipedia being a Hippie I guess due to the audience it attracted initially most to become editors tend to be more conservative and really quite skeptical and that is how Wikipedia is. I think it might well have been the fear it would become full of fringe and crackpot info causing no one to respect it that has stopped these people from being corrected, Wikipedia might be overcompensating. Of course even if Wikipedia were to be corrected where the correct balance would be for Jed would be different to where I would insist it is. An encyclopedia can either give a biased answer/opinion/pov/conclusion that the reader should ignore, or give no answer/opinion/pov/conclusion presenting all sides letting reader choose. Perhaps as I suggested earlier Wikipedia is mostly fine as it is but should have a notice on all articles that cause controversy stating that the reader should not blindly assume the conclusion in the article is the right one as this article may be permanently biased and that only in depth research may assure the reader of his or her own answer.. I have one other thought, people don't always expect to get the truth from an encyclopedia, people expect to get the official story to a degree, it's not a place you look for the hidden secrets, the newest breakthrough, it's not where you find original research. No, it's when you expect to find the most official, most consensus view of what is even if it's a fabrication as it so often is. On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry wrote: I think the only issue is that people would assume that Wikipedia may be free of the influences of corruption, power and academic dishonestly to a greater extent than the above and oddly it is not, that's the issue not the quality but the bias and only because Wikipedia would be hoped to be better but it's not. Excellent point. I guess the underlying assumption is that Democracy is good. Or that many people cooperating together are likely to come up with the right answer. Also, I guess they thought that people who are not professional academics have less of a stake in the outcome and will be more objective. There is some truth to that but it isn't a panacea. Come to think of it, people working in opposition or competition are more likely to come up with the right answer than people working together. To be precise: one group will be right, and the others wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
Gibson Elliot wrote: Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm perhaps we could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his equations work? I know that LR is flawed also. I very much would like to hear your explanation. That's unlikely to occur, why throw out SR when you can keep chasing a fantasy for billions of dollars year. It is not in the best financial interest of the current pack of Space/Time theorists, String theorists, and CERN would like get a multi billion dollar black eye. Lets just wait for the GOD particle NOT be found and see what other absurd theory rises. I will never be able to stomach Quantuim mechanics or any other system that violates rules simply because of scalar effects. The whole of SR only applies to observation, it does not prove that changing your speed effects time, except in thought experiments, the twins theory is bogus, and cesium clocks have been proven to change rates when you change gravity, or rather the proximity to gravitational field center. Ether is consumed by mass, that's gravity, a pretty measurable effect in my book! Gamma is just a near final decay state of matter when run through a grinder such as a Black hole which is a simple either cyclone or what current flock refers to as Dark Matter. I rant, and this will all come out soon anyway. And hey without peer reviewed materials none will take this seriously anyway, so why do I bother? just frustration I guess. There's no reason to be frustrated. Time for some quotes? Understanding. n. A cerebral secretion that enables one having it to know a house from a horse by the roof on the house. Its nature and laws have been exhaustively expounded by Locke, who rode a house, and Kant, who lived in a horse. Ambrose Bierce For in thy Naught I trust to find the All. Goethe. Faust. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:new Infinite Energy combustion engine using inert gases
If we want to go all ad hominem (on Papp,) we could throw in Feynman's sleazy advice on how to pick up sluts in bars, among other stuff. He was a great man but far from flawless. Infinite Energy ran a story that claimed that Feynman's account about the Papp explosion was itself false, as per a surviving witness. Also, that the Dept. of the Navy had already tested Papp's discovery for its extreme explosive potential and was astounded. I also note Graneau's careful work regarding the cause of thunder in splitting N2 and O2. Given that, I see the Papp legacy as worth pursuing, regardless of submarine hoaxes.
[Vo]:We Need An Energy Miracle
Please read this blog from Seeking Alpha: http://seekingalpha.com/article/185030-jobs-of-the-future?source=article_lb_articles If you're not frightened and depressed, you should be. We need an energy miracle to save us and the clock is ticking. It will soon be obvious even to the cheerleaders on CNBC that we are in a Depression with no end in sight.
Re: [Vo]:We Need An Energy Miracle
Message to Chris Zell: Pay very close attention to BlackLightpower.com and ***do your homework*** There comes Power from Water Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Chris Zell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 9:54 PM Subject: [Vo]:We Need An Energy Miracle Please read this blog from Seeking Alpha: http://seekingalpha.com/article/185030-jobs-of-the-future?source=article_lb_articles If you're not frightened and depressed, you should be. We need an energy miracle to save us and the clock is ticking. It will soon be obvious even to the cheerleaders on CNBC that we are in a Depression with no end in sight. This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:new Infinite Energy combustion engine using inert gases
If you want an understanding of the Papp engine, **study** the work of Randell Mills and the evolution of Balcklight Power. The idea of anengine running off nolble gases seems absurd, but argon, helium and water vapor can for a catalutic system which releases *very significant * amounts of energy. Papp performed a secret process to prepare his gases for the engine. We lack details, but the findings of Mills point to phenomena that perhaps Papp used. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Chris Zell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 9:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:new Infinite Energy combustion engine using inert gases If we want to go all ad hominem (on Papp,) we could throw in Feynman's sleazy advice on how to pick up sluts in bars, among other stuff. He was a great man but far from flawless. Infinite Energy ran a story that claimed that Feynman's account about the Papp explosion was itself false, as per a surviving witness. Also, that the Dept. of the Navy had already tested Papp's discovery for its extreme explosive potential and was astounded. I also note Graneau's careful work regarding the cause of thunder in splitting N2 and O2. Given that, I see the Papp legacy as worth pursuing, regardless of submarine hoaxes. This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:We Need An Energy Miracle
I'm aware of Mills work and have hope for his success. I hope he can expand beyond utilities towards portability as lithium batteries may be too expensive for a long time.
