Re: [Vo]:does classical mechanics always fail to predict or retrodict for 3 or more Newtonian gravity bodies? Rich Murray 2011.02.18
Yes, the Devil is in the details. It pays to know just how much Devil is in there, and in old school 8 bit BASIC, there is much. Classical Mechanics gives results that are reversible. So if the model isn't, it's just a numerical flaw, and not a profound fact about physics. Sent from my iPhone. On Feb 19, 2011, at 1:57, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: The only access to the physics itself we have with finite nervous systems is by using digital approximations with finite number strings, processed by algorithms of finite instruction size, so there are always round-off errors, which always diverge without limit, even if there are no close encounters. So, it's a huge leap of faith to assume that the present data for a certain finite time interval actually allows prediction of a single future path or retrodiction of a single past path -- ie, classical mechanics probably can be proved to be incurably flawed, while allowing a certain amount of qualified estimation of probable paths forward and backward in time for the first 3 orbits or so... I've read that actually the 3-body problem does have exact general solutions, which involve such long, very slowly converging sequences of terms, as to be practically unworkable in practice. Probaby, it can be shown that the energy needed to run an ideal finite digital computer until a certain limit of accuracy is reached (testable by running the same problem in parallel with identical computers, watching to see at what point the results start to scatter) will grow so fast with time and accuracy as to exhaust the energy available in any universe that supports the computer... Probably someone has already studied this... It's not just that shit happens -- happens happens... So, in reality, the present interval, however brief in time and tiny in space, necessarily in complex interaction with a possibly infinite external universe or hyperverse, must be inexplicable, causeless, ie, totally magical... This has in recent thousands of years been a common insight for advanced explorers of expanded awareness in many traditions. Rich Murray lookslikeallthoughtiswrong@godmail.com On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: I'm thinking your findings of irreversibility reflected the idiosyncrasies of floating point math represented in binary numbers, and not the physics itself. Sent from my iPhone. On Feb 18, 2011, at 22:17, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: does classical mechanics always fail to predict or retrodict for 3 or more Newtonian gravity bodies? Rich Murray 2011.02.18 Hello Steven V Johnson, Can I have a free copy of the celestial mechanics software to run on my Vista 64 bit PC? In fall, 1982, I wrote a 200-line program in Basic for the Timex-Sinclair $100 computer with 20KB RAM that would do up to 4 bodies in 3D space or 5 in 2D space, about 1000 steps in an hour, saving every 10th position and velocity -- I could set it up to reverse the velocities after the orbits became chaotic after 3 1/2 orbits from initial perfect symmetry as circles about the common center of gravity, finding that they always maintained chaos, never returning to the original setup -- doubling the number of steps while reducing the time interval by half never slowed the the evolution of chaos by 3 1/2 orbits -- so I doubted that there is any mathematical basis for the claim that classical mechanics predicts the past or future evolution of any system with over 2 bodies, leading to a conjecture that no successful algorithm exists, even without any close encounters. Has this been noticed by others? Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com 505-819-7388 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:30 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Just a brief side-comment... Some of this lingo is fascinating stuff to me. Having performed a lot of theoretical computer simulation work on my own using good'ol fashion Newtonian based Celestial Mechanics algorithms, where typically I use a = 1/r^2, I noticed orbital pattern behavior transforms into something RADICALLY different, such as if I were to change the classical algorithm to something like a = 1/r^3. You can also combine both of them like a = 1/r^2 +/- 1/r^3 within the same computer algorithm. That produces interesting side effects too. I'm still trying to get a handle on it all. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT (But Not Entirely) - Wisconsin Public Employees Continue Protesting. State Senators AWOL
Why don't you send this stuff to vortex-b which is the forum for OT subjects?
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 14:06 in response to Terry Blanton, Jones Beene wrote [snip]Based on what is admittedly too little evidence my feeling is that first you want densify or convert molecules to pycno or the inverse Rydberg state which is even denser. For some strange reason the molecule does not permit this, but the monatomic atom does permit it and at the normal ground state. Go figure.[/snip] Jones, are you talking relativistic? If molecular bonds oppose conversion to pycno but monatomic atoms do permit the formation of pycno molecules then the only way it could accomplish this and still remain at the normal ground state would be from a local perspective in an equivalent relativistic environment. I happen to agree with that interpretation but if you really meant the atom remains at normal ground state from any perspective then I would counter that the pycno or dense molecules are also at normal ground state from their local perspective. [snip]A good spillover catalyst (in terms of promoting secondary densification) merely makes the molecule monatomic but without bonding, or without ionization. This molecule splitting process is energetically unfavorable at STP, and is a near-field phenomenon on the catalyst itself, so usually these catalysts work better at moderate but not high temperature; and in a situation where the atom can be spilled onto a ceramic. [/snip] Ok - I can see where this would allow the atom to assume a fractional value (from our perspective not locally) based on the local energy density but being ceramic it is dependent on the suppression of the surrounding grains of metal powder still being of nano geometry. I only recently discovered that zeolites of microporous 2nm and possibly even mesoporous 2-10 nm could meet this requirement in a mix of nano powders. I am not saying that dihydrinos or f/h2 can't form in the smaller cavities where zeolites don't fit - in fact I would suspect the smaller cavities could produce the most dense f/h2 but an interim ashless chemical reaction of f/h1f/h2 might benefit from the added surface area where the geometry doesn't effect the ambient suppression or threaten ionization. My guess is that it accelerates relative motion to the suppression gradient which the covalent bonds oppose leading to disassociation. I also suspect the ceramic might help the f/h2 to migrate into the lattice structure just like a normal ground state atom during gas loading. At this point any mechanical oscillation or heat in the lattice structure could threaten to release the f/h2 from confinement and let it slowly leach out as h1. Life after death? Regards Fran
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
No, not relativistic. This is an interpretation of Miley, with respect to Lawandy. It is a dimensional thing. Dense hydrogen only accumulates in two dimensions. After it accumulates, it may move in 3-space as a bound unit, but the effect would be similar to the way Mills' describes the 'orbitsphere' which is 2D but encompassing 3-space as a wrap-around, essentially. Now let me backtrack - it is possible that time itself is also distorted in 2D, but that is not part of picture, at least not so far. It is fair to ask why an proton can be considered 2D while an H2 molecule is 3D. The best I can tell, this relates to freedom of movement. Lawandy seems to be saying that the proton which is about 1.6 fm in diameter, is essentially 2D since its attachment to a dielectric is via a mirror charge in the dielectric and not really atomic at all. Miley takes this further with IRH where electrons do intersperse with protons but NOT in orbitals. It would be helpful if he had used the term 'deflation', but if he did - I missed it. In contrast the Bohr radius is 53 pm, which in effect makes a molecule thicker by a factor of 50,000 or far more, depending on orientation. Yes - technically speaking even femtometers is not 2D, since there is some thickness, but apparently it is close enough for practical applications [snip]Based on what is admittedly too little evidence my feeling is that first you want densify or convert molecules to pycno or the inverse Rydberg state which is even denser. For some strange reason the molecule does not permit this, but the monatomic atom does permit it and at the normal ground state. Go figure.[/snip] Jones, are you talking relativistic? If molecular bonds oppose conversion to pycno but monatomic atoms do permit the formation of pycno molecules then the only way it could accomplish this and still remain at the normal ground state would be from a local perspective in an equivalent relativistic environment. I happen to agree with that interpretation but if you really meant the atom remains at normal ground state from any perspective then I would counter that the pycno or dense molecules are also at normal ground state from their local perspective.
RE: [Vo]:OT (But Not Entirely) - Wisconsin Public Employees Continue Protesting. State Senators AWOL
PeatBog, The subject thread of my posts clearly state OT Off Topic. You are free to view OT posts or not. Incidentally, this is not entirely off-topic. These political protests, what is currently happening in Wisconsin, just like what's happening in the Mid East are the result of the fact that economies have hemorrhaged so badly that the population bases have finally started to fight back at those who have been bleeding money out of the lives of the general population. The general population is no longer willing to accept blame for causing the economies' problem. And now, for those who remain curious about this particular OT topic, a situation which is partly due to the fact that high energy prices have consistently been bleeding money out of already stressed-out economies I give you the following shots taken last Friday: * * * * I haven't had time to organize the videos I've been shooting since Tuesday concerning the on-going protesting going on in Madison, Wisconsin on the state square and inside the capital building. Here's a good video taken Friday around 11:45 AM of me walking from outside the state capital and into the capital building. It should give viewers some sense of the size and dynamics of event: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrionworksVideos#p/u/13/q_xKpICl-Hw Later today, Saturday, we have been told that the first organized counter-demonstration, a pro Scott Walker tea party backed rally will be held near the Capital. Police will be nearby to help maintain the peace. Incidentally, the police as well as firemen, both public professions who are independently covered by their own unions AND WHO HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DISTINCTLY EXCEMPT FROM SCOTT WALKER'S UNION BUSTING MEASURES, have come out in full support for the rest of public employees. They perform their day job, then go home and put on their civilian clothing and join the protesting. Additional Footage: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrionworksVideos#p/u/10/rXcg2k09jjo Just a small sampling. Regards Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT (But Not Entirely) - Wisconsin Public Employees Continue Protesting. State Senators AWOL
PeatBog, The subject thread of my posts clearly state OT Off Topic. You are free to view OT posts or not. I skimmed a few but have largely skipped them. The point is, though, that vortex-b was created for ot posts. Why not use it?
RE: [Vo]:OT (But Not Entirely) - Wisconsin Public Employees Continue Protesting. State Senators AWOL
From PeatBog, The subject thread of my posts clearly state OT Off Topic. You are free to view OT posts or not. I skimmed a few but have largely skipped them. The point is, though, that vortex-b was created for ot posts. Why not use it? You ask a reasonable question. My answer: As you may recall not too long ago a troll (someone who shall remain nameless) attached itself to the primary vortex-l group and began spewing disrespectful commentary combined with political vitriol towards the members. No one was spared his hatred and condemnation. He who shall remain nameless was eventually relegated to the vortex-b no-holds-barred group, where subscribers quickly got tired of his continued rants and quickly unsubscribed. It would do me very little to post in vortex-b where many I suspect continue to remain unsubscribed. In my experience, the Vort Collective is a tolerant and eclectic group of curious individuals who come from all walks of life, many whom are sincerely interested our planet's dwindling energy issues and how might we go about solving them. Whether we like it or not part of the solution is political in nature. In my experience, the Vort Collective continues to be managed by a benevolent and highly respected dictator, Bill Beaty, who continues to maintain what might be considered a low profile over his subjects, subjects who occasionally get a little rambunctious in their posting predilections. (This includes me - guilty as charged.) If Mr. Beaty decides that my clearly designated OT off topic subject additions should not be posted in vortex-l I will certainly consider his reasoning. In the meantime, I continue to post to vortex-l with the subject thread prefixed with OT as Off Topic so as not to confuse anyone. Besides, and IMHO, this political subject is not entirely off topic. I hope this gives a reasonable explanation as to my personal motivations. http://www.youtube.com/user/OrionworksVideos Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT (But Not Entirely) - Wisconsin Public Employees Continue Protesting. State Senators AWOL
Your reasons for posting in vortex-b are clear, but I have to disagree with what you are doing. If you want to post ot stuff, and you want to play by the vortex rules, I suggest that you announce in vortex-l that you have a bunch of stuff that is dear to your heart that you want to post, but that it is ot so you are going to post it in vortex-b. You might add a little teaser to make it sound exciting. Remind the vortex-l readers that they can subscribe to vortex-b by sending an email to vortexb-l-requ...@eskimo.com, with a subject of: subscribe. Then mention that vortex-b is not being used to speak of and that if they subscribe they will not be bombarded with anything except the really interesting stuff that you are going to post there. Reading that, it sounds like a poor way to convince anybody to read your stuff, but what can you do if you are going to follow the vortex rules?
[Vo]:Heavy Electron Metals/ Heusler
Interesting 24 year old paper http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ms.17.080187.000305 It has been known for some time that the effective mass of electrons can appear to have a value much greater than free or valence electrons. This can be a factor of 10,000:1 in some circumstances, perhaps higher. Heavy electrons can be associated with superconductivity and exotic forms of magnetism. The Heffner LENR theory incorporates this: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf It could be an open question whether or not such an electron can nucleate a large number of protons at moderate temperatures into a dense form. There are a number of terms used to describe such clusters including pycno and IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen). The number of bound protons can be estimated based on the available surface area on dielectrics, where the species is formed. Excess energy using IRH, unlike other models, can happen with no primary nuclear reaction, and be based on ZPE - even if secondary nuclear reactions do happen eventually Jones BTW - a most intriguing cross-connection to heavy electrons is the Heusler alloy. This alloy is a ferromagnetic alloy based on a special phase called the Heusler phase. Palladium is a constituent of some of these alloys, and there are many yet to be discovered. I have never seen Ni-Pd listed as a Heusler alloy, but it could be one. Heusler phases are face-centered cubic crystal structure and ferromagnetic even when the constituting elements are not. There are strong coincidences with LENR and with heavy electrons - and Heusler phases. I think that the Ben Breed patent app. is attempting to exploit this, but with incomplete understanding of the dynamics. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0122940.html Ben Breed is mentioned in two papers on the LENR website, but none as the primary author. He appears to be a professor at the U S Naval Postgraduate School in Monterrey. He has a theory of the mechanisms by which the Pons-Fleishman effect works in deuterated transition metals that has won sparse but at times enthusiastic acceptance.. He provides aid to M. Melich when appropriate.
[Vo]:test test 1
This test is to see if I am subscribed by donemitch...@groupkos.com (personal), or d...@groupkos.com (forums) Sent from donemitch...@groupkos.com I made some early mistake and somehow the list deletes me from one and seems to switch me from the other. All attempts to unsubscribe are rejected, and the mail keeps coming. Sometimes they're accepted, and the mail keeps coming. The root of this issue is likely because I send mail from my rented server at bluehost.com, so the envelop may have multiple email addresses.
Re: [Vo]:does classical mechanics always fail to predict or retrodict for 3 or more Newtonian gravity bodies? Rich Murray 2011.02.18
On 02/18/2011 10:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote: does classical mechanics always fail to predict or retrodict for 3 or more Newtonian gravity bodies? Rich Murray 2011.02.18 [ ... ] In fall, 1982, I wrote a 200-line program in Basic for the Timex-Sinclair $100 computer with 20KB RAM that would do up to 4 bodies in 3D space... [ ... ] so I doubted that there is any mathematical basis for the claim that classical mechanics predicts the past or future evolution of any system with over 2 bodies, leading to a conjecture that no successful algorithm exists, even without any close encounters. Has this been noticed by others? See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System#Digital_Orrery There are also far better algorithms than what you were using, which, I'm sure, was a simple integrator of the nonlinear system of equations. Simply cutting the time step doesn't do much for you if the basic algorithm isn't very accurate. See, for example, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL_udi=B6TJ5-46DFTHW-8W_user=10_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1987_rdoc=1_fmt=high_orig=search_origin=search_sort=d_docanchor=view=c_acct=C50221_version=1_urlVersion=0_userid=10md5=59646ea61335b206d3a7cea0bed0ce8dsearchtype=a http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL_udi=B6TJ5-46DFTHW-8W_user=10_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1987_rdoc=1_fmt=high_orig=search_origin=search_sort=d_docanchor=view=c_acct=C50221_version=1_urlVersion=0_userid=10md5=59646ea61335b206d3a7cea0bed0ce8dsearchtype=a (sorry, I don't have the full text, but the abstract sounds interesting.)
Re: [Vo]:OT (But Not Entirely) - Wisconsin Public Employees Continue Protesting. State Senators AWOL
Most of us don't mind OT posting as long as it is so labeled. Some of us enjoy OT posts. Virtually everyone is guilty on occasion. I see that Peaty is posting from a site called teksavvy.com. One would think that he would know how to create a filter which will direct [OT] posts to a particular fodder folder or trash 'em. I, for one, agree that the subject is somewhat on topic since it is the diversion of food to make ethanol for transportation that is, er, fueling unrest by the great unwashed. Don't get me wrong, I am holy in support of making ethanol from corn; but, for cornsumption only! Oh, and the higher price of corn drives up the price of dairy products from Wisconsin which I love so well. Warm regards, T
Re: [Vo]:Heavy Electron Metals/ Heusler
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:43:01 -0800: Hi, [snip] Interesting 24 year old paper http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ms.17.080187.000305 It has been known for some time that the effective mass of electrons can appear to have a value much greater than free or valence electrons. This can be a factor of 10,000:1 in some circumstances, perhaps higher. Heavy electrons can be associated with superconductivity and exotic forms of magnetism. The Heffner LENR theory incorporates this: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf It could be an open question whether or not such an electron can nucleate a large number of protons at moderate temperatures into a dense form. There are a number of terms used to describe such clusters including pycno and IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen). I think the effects they are talking about are due to the fact that the electron sea in a metal, to some extent, acts as a rigid mass (this is one step further than a liquid, but conveys the concept better). IOW the repulsive force between the tightly packed electrons means that when you try to move one, you actually need to move several, so the one you are trying to move appears to have a larger mass. If my understanding is correct, then I don't see how this would make it more effective in nucleating condensation of protons, because the extra mass is not collocated with the original electron, so it's not as though it's actually a heavy electron that can by analogy substitute for a negative muon. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:OT (But Not Entirely) - Wisconsin Public Employees Continue Protesting. State Senators AWOL
Most of us don't mind OT posting as long as it is so labeled. Some of us enjoy OT posts. Virtually everyone is guilty on occasion. Sure. Maybe I'll block the subject, but I want to wait a bit to see if Bill Beatty weighs in: I enjoyed his hammering of the ot posters the last time.
Re: [Vo]:OT (But Not Entirely) - Wisconsin Public Employees Continue Protesting. State Senators AWOL
On 02/19/2011 10:57 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: PeatBog, The subject thread of my posts clearly state OT Off Topic. You are free to view OT posts or not. Don't sweat it, Steve. I don't know what's got Peaty in a huff about it, but this series of posts has been extremely interesting and relevant to a lot of stuff going down these days, as I'm sure most Vorts would agree. And it hasn't even been contentious. I'd be really surprised if Bill Beatty decided to chase you away for this. Thanks for posting it! (As to Vortex-B? Pfui. Never touch the stuff.)
RE: [Vo]:Heavy Electron Metals/ Heusler
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com If my understanding is correct, then I don't see how this would make it more effective in nucleating condensation of protons, because the extra mass is not collocated with the original electron, so it's not as though it's actually a heavy electron that can by analogy substitute for a negative muon. It is true that the verbalization is misleading, based on underlying assumptions. The same is true for deflated. A term that has also been used is heavy quasiparticle or heavy fermion. Even the heavy part is unclear. Heavy compared to what? There is also some relevance to Ken Shoulder's EVO concept, in that there is an appearance of what looks like negatively charged space which is not as mutually repulsive as real electrons would be. Could the EVO be the corresponding condition that exists in a vacuum, where no protons are available? The gluball is another term which seems strangely applicable. At any rate, in describing IRH or hydrogen clusters, there is an emerging picture of a real phenomenon where lots of protons appears to be nucleated and bonded by something similar to electrons but exotic in other ways . Jones
[Vo]:54 Goldilocks
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/19/scientists-pleasantly-surprised-by-number-of-earth-sized-distant-planets/?hpt=C2 Scientists pleasantly surprised by number of Earth-size, distant planets The planet Kepler-10b orbits a star similar to our own Sun in its temperature, mass and size. February 19th, 2011 Where might extraterrestrials live? The first step is figuring out what other planets out there have conditions like our own. Scientists using NASA's Kepler space telescope are working hard to find candidates for inhabitable planets. So far, it seems that for approximately every two stars in the galaxy, there is one possible planet, NASA's William Borucki said Saturday at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Washington. Researchers have found some 1,200 candidate-planets and, of them, about 54 are earth-size candidate planets in habitable zones - in other words, perhaps at a distance from their stars that may be suitable for life. Earlier this month officials at NASA announced the discovery of five probable planets about the size of Earth, as well as six larger than our planet that are orbiting a single star. But bear in mind that Venus is also considered an Earth-sized planet, and clearly no lifeforms live there (as far as we know). Scientists on the Kepler mission revealed Saturday that you're probably going to have to wait until at least 2012 to find out anything substantial about the habitability of what appear to be Earth-sized planets. That's because scientists need to be able to see three transits of a planet around a star in three years before they'd be willing to say too much about them, and the project has only been going since 2009 (after all, our planet goes around the sun three times in three years). And even then, Kepler wasn't designed to look at individual planets. But it might identify some that the James Webb Space Telescope, which will launch in 2014, can probe in further detail, looking at atmospheres and such. And note that the probability of having found our own particular planet using Kepler technology is only 12%. And we won't be traveling to meet our potential new neighbors anytime soon. The stars about the size our sun that Kepler has been looking at are about 1,000 to 3,000 light years away, where one light year is about 6 trillion miles. But there have been some fascinating surprises from the Kepler mission. One of them is that there appear to be a remarkable number of planets about the size of Neptune, which has a diameter four times that of Earth, said Sara Seager, physicist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The planet Kepler-10b, shown in the photo above, is a particularly interesting find because it likely has no atmosphere, but does have liquid oceans that are essentially lava lakes, she said. The existence of many small planets in the galaxy that Kepler has found also amazed scientists, because there was a possibility that they would have been destroyed by larger planets long ago. It was a wonderful surprise to see this large number of small planets we have found, Borucki said. end
[Vo]:Efficacy of Al Brainshields
http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/ Abstract Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet designs on a sample group of four individuals. Using a $250,000 network analyser, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either directions (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified. These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We speculate that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason. more with piccys! Jones, I don't think they were well grounded. T
Re: [Vo]:Heavy Electron Metals/ Heusler
On Feb 19, 2011, at 12:19 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:43:01 -0800: Hi, [snip] Interesting 24 year old paper http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ms. 17.080187.000305 It has been known for some time that the effective mass of electrons can appear to have a value much greater than free or valence electrons. This can be a factor of 10,000:1 in some circumstances, perhaps higher. Heavy electrons can be associated with superconductivity and exotic forms of magnetism. The Heffner LENR theory incorporates this: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf It could be an open question whether or not such an electron can nucleate a large number of protons at moderate temperatures into a dense form. There are a number of terms used to describe such clusters including pycno and IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen). I think the effects they are talking about are due to the fact that the electron sea in a metal, to some extent, acts as a rigid mass (this is one step further than a liquid, but conveys the concept better). IOW the repulsive force between the tightly packed electrons means that when you try to move one, you actually need to move several, so the one you are trying to move appears to have a larger mass. If my understanding is correct, then I don't see how this would make it more effective in nucleating condensation of protons, because the extra mass is not collocated with the original electron, so it's not as though it's actually a heavy electron that can by analogy substitute for a negative muon. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html When I first read about virtual mass m* of electrons in semiconductors, I found it surprising that heavy electrons could act with this collective virtual mass m* even when performing cyclotron motion in a magnetic field. The virtual mass precisely determines the cyclotronic frequency. Like you, I don't expect this means a large m* electron has the capacity to act as a muon catalyst replacement, however. And, even if it did, there would be no reason to expect the branching ratio anomalies we see, lack of typical signature radiation, or heavy element LENR, to manifest. It thus provides little explanation of CF phenomena. There should be little difference in results from those observed during muon catalyzed fusion. I do think collective electron activity, especially surface activity, and collective electron quantum states, are important to and related to achieving high electron fugacity, and thus important to some experimental modes I suggested in my papers. However, I want to be very clear that this kind of virtual (group) mass m* is not key to describing the deflated state itself. My theory does rest on the feasibility of extreme electron mass near the hydrogen nucleus, specifically in the deflated state, but this has nothing to do with the group virtual mass m*. This increased relativistic mass, of both the involved electron and hydrogen nucleus, comes from the conversion of field potential energy into kinetic energy at relativistic speeds and high gammas. Some approximate physical values were provided and referenced by my papers in tables located here: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf Despite the extreme mass and kinetic energy changes between the states, the total potential plus kinetic energy of the deflated state remains that of the ground state or near ground state from which and to which the electron jumps, and thus the deflated state is a quantum degenerate state. All that said, I do think it is possible the rigidity to location, i.e. high apparent inertia, provided my a large m*, makes a heavy electron a potential wavefunction collapse target for hydrogen nuclei, and a simultaneous tunneling target for a pair of nuclei. The high inertia I think expands the amount of difference in range, momenta, and energy the two tunneling hydrogen nuclei can possess pre- tunneling, and thus the probability of such dual tunneling. The catalyzing electron would be in the newly fused nucleus, just as it is in ordinary deflation fusion, and thus the high degree of initial de-energization would occur. There would therefore be similarly be expected, due to exactly the same rationale, the anomalous branching ratios, providing mainly for He production in the D+D case, orders of magnitude less probability of tritium production, and orders of magnitude yet again less probability of 3He production. Also provided for then, due to the presence of an electron in the fused nucleus, is the explanation for gradual release of energy in the form of low energy photons instead of one or two gammas. Best
Re: [Vo]:does classical mechanics always fail to predict or retrodict for 3 or more Newtonian gravity bodies? Rich Murray 2011.02.18
Hello Stephen A. Lawrence, Thanks for the informative answer. It'd be impressive if the most accurate methods since this review in 1987 agree with each other far into the future and past -- how can we find out the details about results for the 3-body problem, in commonsense terms? Is this accessible for PC users? Could a business sell the program and run a collaborative blog for users? Laskar #1 In 1989, Jacques Laskar of the Bureau des Longitudes in Paris published the results of his numerical integration of the Solar System over 200 million years. These were not the full equations of motion, but rather averaged equations along the lines of those used by Laplace. Laskar's work showed that the Earth's orbit (as well as the orbits of all the inner planets) is chaotic and that an error as small as 15 metres in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time. [edit]Laskar Gastineau Jacques Laskar and his colleague Mickaël Gastineau in 2009 took a more thorough approach by directly simulating 2500 possible futures. Each of the 2500 cases has slightly different initial conditions: Mercury's position varies by about 1 metre between one simulation and the next.[13] In 20 cases, Mercury goes into a dangerous orbit and often ends up colliding with Venus or plunging into the sun. Moving in such a warped orbit, Mercury's gravity is more likely to shake other planets out of their settled paths: in one simulated case its perturbations send Mars heading towards Earth.[14] 13. ^ Solar system's planets could spin out of control. newscientist. Retrieved 2009-06-11. 14. ^ Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth. Retrieved 2009-06-11. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Letter Nature 459, 817-819 (11 June 2009) doi:10.1038/nature08096; Received 17 February 2009; Accepted 22 April 2009 ARTICLE LINKS Figures and tables Supplementary info SEE ALSO News and Views by Laughlin Editor's Summary Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth J. Laskar 1 M. Gastineau 1 Astronomie et Systèmes Dynamiques, IMCCE-CNRS UMR8028, Observatoire de Paris, UPMC, 77 Avenue Denfert-Rochereau, 75014 Paris, France Correspondence to: J. Laskar 1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.L. (Email: las...@imcce.fr ). Abstract It has been established that, owing to the proximity of a resonance with Jupiter, Mercury’s eccentricity can be pumped to values large enough to allow collision with Venus within 5 Gyr (refs 1–3). This conclusion, however, was established either with averaged equations 1, 2 that are not appropriate near the collisions or with non-relativistic models in which the resonance effect is greatly enhanced by a decrease of the perihelion velocity of Mercury 2, 3. In these previous studies, the Earth’s orbit was essentially unaffected. Here we report numerical simulations of the evolution of the Solar System over 5 Gyr, including contributions from the Moon and general relativity. In a set of 2,501 orbits with initial conditions that are in agreement with our present knowledge of the parameters of the Solar System, we found, as in previous studies 2, that one per cent of the solutions lead to a large increase in Mercury’s eccentricity -- an increase large enough to allow collisions with Venus or the Sun. More surprisingly, in one of these high-eccentricity solutions, a subsequent decrease in Mercury’s eccentricity induces a transfer of angular momentum from the giant planets that destabilizes all the terrestrial planets ~3.34 Gyr from now, with possible collisions of Mercury, Mars or Venus with the Earth. Astronomie et Systèmes Dynamiques, IMCCE-CNRS UMR8028, Observatoire de Paris, UPMC, 77 Avenue Denfert-Rochereau, 75014 Paris, France Correspondence to: J. Laskar 1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.L. (Email: las...@imcce.fr ). So, with the most accurate methods, 1% of 5x10^9 Earth orbits lead to chaos -- but also occurring in the solar system in that time are changes via civilizations, solar evolution, major meteor impacts, intra solar system gas density and temperature changes, about 20 orbits around the Galactic center, with resulting encounters with dark matter flows and the Galactic plane, and things that go bump in the night... Rich On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 02/18/2011 10:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote: does classical mechanics always fail to predict or retrodict for 3 or more Newtonian gravity bodies? Rich Murray 2011.02.18 [ ... ] In fall, 1982, I wrote a 200-line program in Basic for the Timex-Sinclair $100 computer with 20KB RAM that would do up to 4 bodies in 3D space... [ ... ] so I doubted that there is any mathematical basis for the claim that classical mechanics predicts
RE: [Vo]:Efficacy of Al Brainshields
Hmm ... if true that our beloved gov (or elements within) is behind some kind of weird and contorted effort to control the conduct of the more susceptible, within the known population of crazies, then why waste the effort on helmets? ... just set out a few hundred unattended boom boxes in the right locations, with preprogrammed subliminal messages ... and duck and cover ... Or is some kind of new and more directed signal being carried on these so-called invasive radio frequencies? ... geeze I'm pretty sure that more than 30 seconds of rap music would compel me to do unimaginable things g so why do you even need the special treatment? The subliminal thing works especially well within certain groups ... Do you have any doubt that some shooter video games were not sponsored by Pentagon recruiters? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Abstract Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet designs on a sample group of four individuals. Using a $250,000 network analyser, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either directions (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified. These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We speculate that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason. more with piccys! Jones, I don't think they were well grounded. T
Re: [Vo]:Heavy Electron Metals/ Heusler
On Feb 19, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com If my understanding is correct, then I don't see how this would make it more effective in nucleating condensation of protons, because the extra mass is not collocated with the original electron, so it's not as though it's actually a heavy electron that can by analogy substitute for a negative muon. It is true that the verbalization is misleading, based on underlying assumptions. The same is true for deflated. I think the description of deflated, in the deflation fusion theory sense, is only misleading to you because you have not read the papers and references therein, at least not with any understanding. This admittedly may be the result of my bad writing style. However, in the case of most people I think they simply have not made any effort to understand the theory, because they dismiss it a priori. A term that has also been used is heavy quasiparticle or heavy fermion. Even the heavy part is unclear. Heavy compared to what? Heavy compared to its rest mass. There is also some relevance to Ken Shoulder's EVO concept, in that there is an appearance of what looks like negatively charged space which is not as mutually repulsive as real electrons would be. Could the EVO be the corresponding condition that exists in a vacuum, where no protons are available? The gluball is another term which seems strangely applicable. This is a different thing altogether. Two superimposed electrons with opposed spins represent a boson. Any number of them can theoretically be superpositioned. However, the binding energy for such bosons is very very small, so the smallest thermal energy perterbation results in loss of binding energy and explosion of the complex. The mystery to me is why the half life of such a complex could reach an observable amount. The extreme mass N*e in this case is simply due to multiple (N) superimposed electrons, not due to the interaction of an electron with those in a lattice nearby. At any rate, in describing IRH or hydrogen clusters, there is an emerging picture of a real phenomenon where lots of protons appears to be nucleated and bonded by something similar to electrons but exotic in other ways … Jones Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Efficacy of Al Brainshields
BTW - for anyone who wants to join the fun, we set this up as kind of an American Voices (The Onion) type of interview format, but on another level of sophistication... -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Hmm ... if true that our beloved gov (or elements within) is behind some kind of weird and contorted effort to control the conduct of the more susceptible, within the known population of crazies, then why waste the effort on helmets? ... just set out a few hundred unattended boom boxes in the right locations, with preprogrammed subliminal messages ... and duck and cover ... Or is some kind of new and more directed signal being carried on these so-called invasive radio frequencies? ... geeze I'm pretty sure that more than 30 seconds of rap music would compel me to do unimaginable things g so why do you even need the special treatment? The subliminal thing works especially well within certain groups ... Do you have any doubt that some shooter video games were not sponsored by Pentagon recruiters? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Abstract Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet designs on a sample group of four individuals. Using a $250,000 network analyser, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either directions (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified. These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We speculate that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason. more with piccys! Jones, I don't think they were well grounded. T
RE: [Vo]:does classical mechanics always fail to predict or retrodict for 3 or more Newtonian gravity bodies? Rich Murray 2011.02.18
At 11:12 PM 2/18/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Congratulations on your Sinclair project. I started on a TRS-80. Heh! Well, *I* -- the word is drawn out -- started on an Altair 8800. Pthtpthhh!
RE: [Vo]:does classical mechanics always fail to predict or retrodict for 3 or more Newtonian gravity bodies? Rich Murray 2011.02.18
Jacques Laskar and his colleague Mickal Gastineau in 2009 took a more thorough approach by directly simulating 2500 possible futures. Each of the 2500 cases has slightly different initial conditions: Mercury's position varies by about 1 metre between one simulation and the next.[13] In 20 cases, Mercury goes into a dangerous orbit and often ends up colliding with Venus or plunging into the sun. Moving in such a warped orbit, Mercury's gravity is more likely to shake other planets out of their settled paths: in one simulated case its perturbations send Mars heading towards Earth.[14] Based on my own heuristic studies of orbital characteristics it's very easy for me to speculate that all the planets in our solar system are in chaotic orbits, particularly if you factor in a sufficient amount of geological time into the equation. IOW, it's a very slow process, for the most part. Nevertheless, chaos may be the norm, not the exception. Seems to me that chaos could also explain a lot of dramatic climatic changes our planet has experienced since it first formed 4.5 billion years ago. Just another wobble, give or take several million years. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
