Re: [Vo]:Anyone recognizes this astronomy integral?
On 10/11/2010 01:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Hi again, Today is a state-wide furlough day for most state of Wisconsin employees, like me. ... How nice to have an extra holiday to explore some of Mile's concepts. I'll rake the lawn later... Regarding the distinction between using particles or waves to explain how the universe works, including the nature of gravity, I place far more faith in the proclivity of wave theory than I do in individual particles. Putting my faith in particles, to me, would seem to be nothing more than worshipping a static snap shot in time of what is actually happening in the universe on an infinitely dynamic scale. It might seem contradictory for me to say this, particularly since my own computer simulations could easily be perceived primarily as examples of the nature of particle theory. Not true! What I find far more interesting is the gradual build up of millions and trillions of individual point/particles as they gradually construct computer generated graphic patterns. These graphic patterns end up looking more like the influences of dynamic wave theory in action. It just takes time, and a lot of particle build up! ;-) As of Sunday evening I've managed to plow through Mile's Explaining the Ellipse paper - twice. Rather mind-bending at times. I also ordered his book through Amazon. It is obvious to me that my own CM computer simulations are completely mechanistic heuristic in nature. They don't necessarily explain how gravity truly works. While I'm willing to explore Miles' premise that tangential velocity shouldn't be confused with orbital velocity, the distinction Miles attempts to paint between the two concepts still eludes me to a large extent. Fortunately, Miles is aware of the fact that the distinction tends to baffle most of his readers. He attempts to compensate by giving additional examples. If I understand Mile's commentary, it seems obvious to me that my own CM computer simulations, which are obviously heuristic in nature, involve the feeding back of orbital velocities (not tangential) into the algorithm in order to get the next x,y coordinate position of the orbiting satellite. It's a simple algorithm to compute, and I've done this for years. Nevertheless, in my heuristic oriented computer programs there is no need to incorporate a third factor - a repulsive E/M (1/r^4) function. Granted I could easily incorporate the additional function of (1/r4) - and I HAVE incorporated similar exploratory repulsive functions in the past just to see what would happen, such as 1/r^3 in repulsive mode. As far as I can tell, however, there does not appear to be any practical/heuristic need to do so. Also the 1/r^4 force will QUICLY become negligible in most cases -- which I gather is precisely what Mathis is saying as well. It would only begin to possibly influence the position of an orbiting satellite as it approaches main attractor gravitational body. In fact, it would have to be VERY close indeed to the main attractor body for the repulsive forces to begin visibly manifesting. Well... maybe I need to rethink that! (I'm thinking out loud here.) I must confess that my own CM computer simulations based strictly on using 1/r^2 (with no additional algorithmic enhancements) have indicated to me a strong suspicion that all computed orbital ellipses are inherently unstable -- given enough time to let the simulation run its course. Err... Well... this gets even messier! I think it would be more accurate to state the fact that my orbits become unstable when the feed-back values become too large (or too coarse) between iterative feed-back steps, particularly as one approaches the central orbiting body and the individual vector values increase geometrically. This is where I've noticed that chaos will be entered into my computer simulations. The introduction of what is presumed to be unwanted chaos is also precisely what has fascinated me for years, even if the introduction of such chaotic behavior has absolutely nothing to do with accurately predicting true CM orbital behavior. Incorporating a repulsive 1/r^4 function into the original equation might help ameliorate the chaotic blow a bit, but I don't tend to think of it as the real solution, particularly since my algorithms are strictly heuristic in nature anyway and probably don't really explain the actual effects of gravity. A question for you, Mauro: I would nevertheless love to computer simulate a so-called authentic elliptical orbit that is more accurately based on Miles' three-part gravity model, one that incorporates both the attractive 1/r^2 force and the repulsive E/M 1/r^4 forces. At present I'm at loss as to how I might do that -- that is without my computer simulations reverting back to nothing more than another mechanistic heuristic exercise. Maybe that's all one can really do in our
RE: [Vo]:Anyone recognizes this astronomy integral?
The core of my heuristic-based CM simulations can be represented by the following algorithm. The code has been simplified for your viewing pleasure. The code/algorithm is represented in Visual Basic .NET (2008). I've also performed MC simulations using C#. But VisualBasic, in many ways is an easier language to use particularly since it automatically takes care of a lot of clerical details that can end up consuming much of a programmer's time. Using VB helps me focus on the primary task at hand. Using Microsoft's .NET architecture to generate graphics has also turned out to be a powerfully useful tool. ** ** ** '=== == 'Perform Basic Orbit Calculations: A FEED-BACK LOOP! '=== == For i = 1 To itterationCount Step 1 'Move current coordinates into previous vector settings 'in preparation to generate next itterative step in loop. prevXPos = currXPos prevYPos = currYPos prevXVec =.currXVec prevYVec = currYVec 'Determine current radius length/distance... based on distance starting at (0,0) origin. currAttractRadius = util.length(0.0, 0.0, currXPos, currYPos) 'Determine current attractive force, based on current determined distance, i.e. F = 1/r^2 etc... currAttractForce = util.force(currForceConstant, currAttractRadius, attractionPower) 'Generate current vector coordinates currXVec += (-1) * currAttractForce * (CurrXPos / currAttractRadius) currYVec += (-1) * currAttractForce * (CurrYPos / currAttractRadius) 'Feed current vectors back into x,y coordinates currXPos += CurrXVec currYPos += CurrYVec 'DO OTHER STUFF HERE...like plot the coordinate on an (x,y) graphic, generate statistics, etc... Next ** ** ** Again, the above code has been stripped to its core simplified. For example I don't explicitly show how I determine distance or the current Attractive Force. I placed the inner workings of that code in a utility class. Nevertheless, this is an accurate representation of what much of my research has been based on. I've been playing around with stuff like this for years. I've also experimented with oodles of interesting permutations and hybrid formulas, just to see what pops up. Occasionally I have been surprised, if not totally baffled. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:06 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anyone recognizes this astronomy integral? On 10/11/2010 01:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Hi again, Today is a state-wide furlough day for most state of Wisconsin employees, like me. ... How nice to have an extra holiday to explore some of Mile's concepts. I'll rake the lawn later... Regarding the distinction between using particles or waves to explain how the universe works, including the nature of gravity, I place far more faith in the proclivity of wave theory than I do in individual particles. Putting my faith in particles, to me, would seem to be nothing more than worshipping a static snap shot in time of what is actually happening in the universe on an infinitely dynamic scale. It might seem contradictory for me to say this, particularly since my own computer simulations could easily be perceived primarily as examples of the nature of particle theory. Not true! What I find far more interesting is the gradual build up of millions and trillions of individual point/particles as they gradually construct computer generated graphic patterns. These graphic patterns end up looking more like the influences of dynamic wave theory in action. It just takes time, and a lot of particle build up! ;-) As of Sunday evening I've managed to plow through Mile's Explaining the Ellipse paper - twice. Rather mind-bending at times. I also ordered his book through Amazon. It is obvious to me that my own CM computer simulations are completely mechanistic heuristic in nature. They don't necessarily explain how gravity truly works. While I'm willing to explore Miles' premise that tangential velocity shouldn't be confused with orbital velocity, the distinction Miles attempts to paint between the two concepts still eludes me to a large extent. Fortunately, Miles is aware of the fact that the distinction tends to baffle most of his readers. He
[Vo]:tungsten and atomic hydrogen
http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32162/tungsten-and-atomic-hydrogen/
[Vo]:Miles Mathis' work on The Electron Orbit
FYI, A couple of days ago I sent a message off to Miles Mathis, mentioning the fact that I just finished reading his paper on The Electron Orbit. See: http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html In this paper Miles has presented interesting concepts pertaining to what he believes is actually repulsive behavior that manifests BETWEEN THE PROTON AND ELECTRON. However, due to sizes, ratios, and distances involved the interactive dance occasionally manifest as attractive behavior, i.e. the electron orbit. His take on the matter does seem to make some sense, even though I'm sure I'm simplifying the matter. Kind of mind bending in a way. One thing for sure, Mathis' perception on the electron orbit seems to hearken back to a more traditional mechanistic way of running the universe. (BTW, Mathis' writing occasionally displays a dry sense of humor which can help the reader through the droll times. I've enjoyed his wit.) I've attempt to alert Miles to Dr. Mills' web site, suggesting the possibility that he might find it interesting comparing notes between his version of the Electron Orbit and Mills' Orbit Sphere. Perhaps Miles could also appreciate the fact that Mills' like himself, has been marginalized, relegated to the outside, an outcast of the physics society. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Who is Kemosabe?
At 10:13 PM 10/13/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: It does not matter who he is. Yes and no. Once I recognized the style, even if it isn't ScienceApologist, I can see where this would go. He would never give up. And he knows arguments that he hasn't presented yet. He's been doing this for years. Kemosabe shows strong familiarity with this set of arguments, and the editor at Naturwissenschaften is very new. SA raised that less than two weeks ago. It is typical of a skeptic at Naturwissenschaften that big news in terms of the acceptance of cold fusion, the appointment of Edmund Storms as LENR editor at NW, is turned around into a reason to discount the paper as being written by an editor. Yet, of course, they'd have no trouble with a frank editorial at Nature, when was it? 1989 or 1990? I'm sure Storms did not review his own paper, it would be extraordinarily foolish for Springer-Verlag to allow that. (Or they would have it be a signed editorial, perhaps, a pure opinion piece, not a review of the field, as it was.) But I would not approach the newspaper. They could tell, if they wanted to, from the IP. ScienceApologist is apparently Joshua Schroeder, a graduate student in astronomy at Columbia University, the IP would be likely to geolocate there, I doubt he'd use a proxy. It is not important enough to trouble them with it.
Re: [Vo]:Who is Kemosabe?
At 10:45 PM 10/13/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: The temperature difference involved with excess heat is *usually* -- except for so-called heat-after-death -- a matter of a few degrees at most. In other words, it should have almost no effect on permeation, and, as well, this would not at all explain the time behavior, which approaches and exceeds ambient with no sign of the asymptotic approach that would be expected. Miles pointed out that some of the control experiments and blank experiments (deuterium but no heat) ran at higher power and higher temperatures than the experiments that produced excess heat. Yet no helium was produced in the control and blank runs. Therefore, temperature had no effect on permeation. There is no correlation between temperature and helium. What I'd expect. What skeptics like Kemosabe do is to figure out some explanation they can assert that sounds reasonable. They are after those who won't pay close attention, who will just swallow it whole. It doesn't matter if the explanation is contradicted by other evidence in the same report. The whole ambient helium argument is really like this, the behavior of ambient helium leakage would be very different than the behavior of helium in these reports, and that levels of helium are being reported near ambient is actually a very strong sign of helium generation, since it takes quite a bit of fusion to get up that high. By confusing amibent woith background, they create a ready appearance of plausibility. Background, of course, would be what's seen with no energy generation. Blanks. In this case, the blanks are beautifully controlled. They are the dead cells, otherwise identical, as identical as could be made, sometimes, to the cells showing heat. I'm going to keep flogging the meme that this is the repeatable experiment that was supposedly missing. Repeatability was confused with reliability. It is not necessary to have reliability to have repeatability. Rather, correlation cuts through this. The very unreliability becomes a generator of controls. And that some of these control cells ran at higher temperatures is frosting on that cake. Skepticism in 1989 was appropriate. Would, in fact, that there had been a bit more of it, less rush to replicate with inadequate information. Let others waste their time, and keep silent when you don't know! But converting experimental failure, and failure to replicate is, in fact, a failure, into a reason to reject was Bad Science. N-rays and polywater were conclusively debunked by replication successes that demonstrated the prosaic cause. Not by failures. I.e., not by someone saying I looked and I didn't see anything. My daughter nailed it when I told her that other people could find what Fleischmann and Pons found. They didn't try hard enough, daddy! Eight years old at the time. I had told her very little, but she had the idea down that if someone says they found something, it was rude to say, No, you didn't! unless you could prove it.
Re: [Vo]:Who is Kemosabe?
At 09:25 PM 10/13/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: It goes on. http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/oct/11/cold-fusion/ Good place for me to stop. Kemosabe has obsessively added many responses, that demonstrate to anyone who is watching, and who is netural, the bankruptcy of his position. His last post asserts that Naturwissenschaften published the Cold fusion review as a Hail Mary play, desperate to come out on top. Yeah, right. Springer-Verlag, pretty much King of the Heap, overall, is going to risk their reputation on flogging bogus, fringe nonsense. No, this skepticism is a Hail Mary play, showing just how dead the skeptical position is on cold fusion. He'd never get this garbage past peer review. And that is what some skeptics will attempt. We'll see what NW publishes.
[Vo]:Volt Mileage Dismal
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/10/volt-deathwatch-first-extended-volt-test-yields-33-mile-ev-range-and-35-mpg/ Ouch! First Extended Volt Test Yields 33 Mile EV Range and 32 MPG By Paul Niedermeyer on October 10, 2010 Popular Mechanics has just published the results of the first extended test of the Volt, covering 900 miles. The results are spectacularly unimpressive: Three different drivers drove the Volt on three successive days, starting with a full charge. The EV ranges were 31, 35 and 33 miles, for an average of 33 miles. Normal driving styles were employed. That’s well below GM’s endlessly proclaimed 40+ mile range, but not exactly terrible. We’ll save that word for the fuel economy numbers: PM was able to measure fuel economy in the CS (charge sustaining mode) after the battery was fully depleted. In the city, the average was 31.67 mpg. On the highway, 38.15 mpg. That averages to about 35 mpg! And on premium fuel, which GM deemed necessary to try to optimize the efficiency of the gas engine. Adjusting for the higher cost of premium, that works out to an equivalent of 32 mpg on regular fuel. The Prius gets 50 mpg on regular, and many tests of the new Hyundai Sonata are coming in at 35 mpg on the highway. The new Cruze is to get 40 mpg. What happened to GM’s claims of 50 mpg for the Volt? So what about the combined mileage, factoring in the EV range? PM’s number are 37.5 mpg city and 38.15 mpg highway. Here’s PM’s bottom line: As for the rather unremarkable fuel economy, it’s useful to remember that the Volt carries two powertrains—electric and gas—and thus suffers a weight penalty that effects overall efficiency. But of course, those two powertrains are why the Volt can be a primary vehicle that doesn’t ask the owner to compromise driving cycles like a pure EV. Consider the Volt a well-engineered first step on the path to electrified vehicles. Shall we call that a baby step, and a mighty expensive one ($43k with charger) at that? end I suppose if you have a 15 mile commute, you might opt for the Volt. T
Re: [Vo]:Volt Mileage Dismal
From Terry: ... Shall we call that a baby step, and a mighty expensive one ($43k with charger) at that? ... I suppose if you have a 15 mile commute, you might opt for the Volt. I work for Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and I walk to work. Takes me approximately 15 minutes. I think I'll opt for a new set of Reebok walking shoes. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Who is Kemosabe?
-Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Good place for me to stop. Kemosabe has obsessively added many responses, that demonstrate to anyone who is watching, and who is neutral, the bankruptcy of his position. Of interest: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/06/20/inside_the_mi nd_of_the_anonymous_online_poster/ There is no legal right to individual anonymity online in a public forum, as far as I can tell in the case law ... which is all comparatively new; but anonymity will generally be protected vis-a-vis third parties (the newspaper) up to the point of apparent defamation. http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2010/nc-judge-unmasks-pseudonymous-blog-comm enters?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+CitizenMed iaLawProject+%28Citizen+Media+Law+Project%29 Since you personally were not defamed, then anonymity would probably be maintained if it ever came to push-and-shove. Anonymity is a proposed derivative of freedom of speech, which is a right - but obviously the dynamics are different online, compared to on a soapbox in Central Park. There is nothing unethical, in any way, shape, or form - about trying to unmask the identity of an anonymous poster to a public forum, using legal means. Public comments are like garbage (in more ways than one) - once you put it out on the curb, it is no longer your property. Closely held beliefs, theories, ideas, religious dogma will likely never be protected against ridicule in the USA ... which will allow the nuts who want to burn and insult the Bible, the Koran, the Torah etc to have leeway for doing so with impunity, but not anonymity. There's no accounting for bad taste - but these creeps have zero guaranteed right to remain anonymous when they go public on an open forum, so long as legal means are used to find their identity. The two are distinctly different issues. The key phrase: when they go public. Cowardice - when one publishes detailed arguments about complex issues, where their personal knowledge, education, credibility or skill can be a major issue, is not overlooked by most viewers; and if Kemo really wanted to sway more of them, he would realize that problem. He is probably a well-read grad student with a personality disorder.
Re: [Vo]:AIP abruptly cancels proceedings
Go to Hulu and watch the Six steps to Avert the Collapse of Civilization. by Davd Eagleman. what is the cause of collapse. 1. Running of of energy 2. The censor of information (in our case by the science police) enjoy Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:We'll Never Make 2012
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:41:18 -0400: Hi, [snip] Well, I'll be damned. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/13/2010-10-13_mystery_shiny_objects_floating_over_manhattan_spark_ufo_frenzy.html What's the matter with these aliens, these were barely visible, haven't they seen Independence Day? ;) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:We'll Never Make 2012
Robin sez: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/13/2010-10-13_mystery_shiny_objects_floating_over_manhattan_spark_ufo_frenzy.html What's the matter with these aliens, these were barely visible, haven't they seen Independence Day? ;) This reminds me of Douglas Adam's brief tragic tale of two warring extraterrestrial civilizations. It all started when apparently something back on planet Earth was inadvertently broadcast across the universe towards two peacefully coexisting civilizations. The message when it arrived at the doorstep of these two civilizations was considered highly insulting by both sides. They also mistakenly assumed the other side had sent the offensive message. They immediately went to war against each other. Half way through the bloody ordeal they suddenly realized the insult had actually originated from our planet. They henceforth quickly settled all remaining disputes amongst each other and then launched a highly coordinated fleet of attack ships toward Earth to wipe us out. As the entire fleet bore down on Earth, as they entered our atmosphere, they were eaten by a dog. Size does matter. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis' work on The Electron Orbit
In reply to OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson's message of Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:10:10 -0500: Hi, [snip] FYI, A couple of days ago I sent a message off to Miles Mathis, mentioning the fact that I just finished reading his paper on The Electron Orbit. See: http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html Unfortunately this is wrong. He talks about electrons appearing to swim upstream because they are smaller and lighter than protons, however positrons and electrons also attract one another, and they have equivalent mass. Also, he fails to ask the question: What would happen if the electron did hit the proton?. The answer of course is that it would be deflected, and keep right on going. The only other options are that it sticks to the proton (impossible because of conservation of energy and momentum), or that it combine with the proton to form a neutron, also impossible because the two of them combined don't have enough relativistic mass to form a neutron. So his entire spiel is irrelevant. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:We'll Never Make 2012
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:18 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: As the entire fleet bore down on Earth, as they entered our atmosphere, they were eaten by a dog. Being an dyslexic atheist, Doug was clearly ashamed to admit that it is a god which protects us. :-) “I contend that we are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts” I love the militant agnostic bummer sticker: I don't know, AND NEITHER DO YOU! Me, I play it safe and believe in all gods. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke, Profiles of The Future, 1961 (Clarke's third law) After all, we are a very young species in a very old universe. T
