Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Friday, December 28, 2012, Peter Gluck wrote: but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... [mg]
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
The Papp reaction will be revealing to those who are interested in the DGT LENR reaction in that it is similar to the spark discharge that is being used in the DGT reaction. If it is true that we know nothing about the Papp reaction, then the same must be said about the function of spark energy discharge into the hydrogen envelope of the DGT reactor. Consider the formation of atomic hydrogen and hydrogen atomic crystals using a spark discharge considered in this thread. Could a study of the workings inside the Papp cylinder be useful in understanding the *REAL* mechanism that is occurring in the DGT reactor? I think this is so. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 09:55 AM 12/28/2012, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Axil, etc. This is Vortex, and you guys are certainly free to speculate at the drop of a hat or a popper. However, I'm also free to note that trying to figure out what is going on with Russ's popper, when we have just about zero information about anything unusual happening, it like trying to see what is in a closed black box in a coal mine at midnight. And no light. What's in there? *Anything* could be in there. Boo! If Russ really wants to do something useful, he can start measuring the work done by that piston. It should be simple to do. Since it is reported that the thing doesn't heat up, no calorimetry is necessary, at least not yet. One regular characteristic of Papp engines is that they reportedly don't generate much, if any, heat. Just, allegedly, work. Okay, how much work with hou much energy input. A popper is perfect for testing this, avoiding all the complications of cycling engines. If there is no excess power in a single cycle, why would we even be interested in seeing if power can be sustained?
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
By tinkering with this junk DNA, genetics experts have reawakened long suppressed dinosaur-like traits in a modified chicken. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: Genetics experts stopped calling the non-coding regions 'junk' some time ago. They might say something like 'what used to be called junk DNA'. I have been wondering whether certain aspects of the information that defines an organism is not contained in the DNA, but instead certain specific regions of the DNA are able to 'tune into' information from previous generations of the organism which have similar sequences. Nigel On 28/12/2012 01:38, David Roberson wrote: It is funny when I hear of junk DNA as described by the genetics experts. Why choose to call something unknown as junk instead of just admitting that it is not understood? Reminds me of the old theory about the amount of one's brain that is being used. I just wish people would lay out the facts that they know and not judge the unknowns. I guess some would call LENR junk physics! Dave
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Dear Mark, Testable is a polysemantic and somewhat ambiguous word- really testable means it can be used for scaling up the process. First class theory predicts and suggests Second class theory prohibits Third class theory explains. LENR needs a 1st class theory and this goes MUCH beyond and above telling how a smart hydrogen isotope goes through the dangerous Coulomb Barrier. Valuable LENR (LENR+) is an invention not a discovery and it will enter the list soon. Peter On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: On Friday, December 28, 2012, Peter Gluck wrote: but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... [mg] -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Axil, I think you mentioned this before. The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant. For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. It is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We don't know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself. People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We can not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning. The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. During microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes. The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always confuse the issue. They think that just because we see changes, that that automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA By tinkering with this junk DNA, genetics experts have reawakened long suppressed dinosaur-like traits in a modified chicken. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: Genetics experts stopped calling the non-coding regions 'junk' some time ago. They might say something like 'what used to be called junk DNA'. I have been wondering whether certain aspects of the information that defines an organism is not contained in the DNA, but instead certain specific regions of the DNA are able to 'tune into' information from previous generations of the organism which have similar sequences. Nigel On 28/12/2012 01:38, David Roberson wrote: It is funny when I hear of junk DNA as described by the genetics experts. Why choose to call something unknown as junk instead of just admitting that it is not understood? Reminds me of the old theory about the amount of one's brain that is being used. I just wish people would lay out the facts that they know and not judge the unknowns. I guess some would call LENR junk physics! Dave
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: These are positions that require integrity and some level of skill, but mostly the former. My two cents worth: The integrity required is the self control to not respond to trolls. I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced threads lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond to the troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should be banned also. Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll? It is clearly an option to automatically trash emails from pesky people, or, if you are afraid you'll miss something to simply read you want, but - to respond to a troll shows an obvious lack of integrity, a lack of an appropriate level concern for what you are doing to other members of the list. One of the greatest things about this list, and the internet in general, is the freedom of speech. List moderation should only be used in extreme circumstances. A little self control by list members is often enough to discourage trolls. I think Bill Beaty's laissez faire attitude with regard to moderation is a good and even necessary approach for this list, which encourages free discussion of science anomalies. If a roll tries to bully, control what you post, the best response is to simply go ahead and post what you want, and ignore any responses from the troll or bully. If numerous members of the list object, then that is another matter. If you feel action is warranted by an ISP, such as Microsoft, Google, etc. then a few simple googles will show you sites to directly report abuse to ISPs. Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down hill since a bunch of fake email names have showed up. This is a weak shield for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages behavior unbecoming a scientific list. There are many services that will provide reverse lookup information for email addresses, so it is ultimately an ineffective ruse. Sometimes merely googleing an email address will yield the identity. For example, google (jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124 http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in Atlanta. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To visit this topic, use this URL: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000124 Posted by Joseph Hao (Member # 3289) on June 14, 2004, 02:42 PM: Any folks out there studying for CCIE Voice Lab in Atlanta? [snip] Joseph CCIE #9273 jth...@hotmail.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw, and warn off victims. To bullies the response should be to do what you want and ignore the bully. The response to truly disruptive and egregious or unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by ISPs. The response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps to expose the identity - which has worked well here in the past to eliminate nonsense from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^) That's my 2 cents worth, from a member of the list for over 15 years. Resuming lurk mode. Best Regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo sapiens. This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand as 'Darwinian Evolution'. I am nevertheless always more than happy to discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked. The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds. It is possible that Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and relativity. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture. Ditto Darwinian evolution. Nigel On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote: Axil, I think you mentioned this before. The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant. For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. It is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We don't know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself. People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We can not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning. The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. During microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes. The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always confuse the issue. They think that just because we see changes, that that automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
I couldn't agree more. I even tried to call myself a turd to try to bring home the point that it is not worth the effort to insult me. But still, Lomax and others see it fit to play with the turd. LOL Heck, I want nothing more than for people to ignore me if they disagree, but I have as much right to express an opinion without insults. And as a matter of fact, I was discussing calmly with civility before Lomax started insulting again. That is a fact that you can verify. As for Joseph Hao, he is a good friend. We used to work together on some free energy projects most notably on some HHO and Veg Oil/ Biodiesel projects and we were co-workers for a while. We went to graduate school together in San Diego State (MS Computer Science) a long time ago. This was a common email we used on all our free energy projects correspondence. He was the one who first subscribed this account to Vortex-LI have been exclusively using this email since I left the country. Yes, he is in Atlanta and he is in fact a CCIE RS and is studying for his CCIE Voice. Jojo . - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced threads lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond to the troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should be banned also. Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll? Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down hill since a bunch of fake email names have showed up. This is a weak shield for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages behavior unbecoming a scientific list. There are many services that will provide reverse lookup information for email addresses, so it is ultimately an ineffective ruse. Sometimes merely googleing an email address will yield the identity. For example, google (jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124 http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in Atlanta. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To visit this topic, use this URL: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000124 Posted by Joseph Hao (Member # 3289) on June 14, 2004, 02:42 PM: Any folks out there studying for CCIE Voice Lab in Atlanta? [snip] Joseph CCIE #9273 jth...@hotmail.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw, and warn off victims. To bullies the response should be to do what you want and ignore the bully. The response to truly disruptive and egregious or unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by ISPs. The response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps to expose the identity - which has worked well here in the past to eliminate nonsense from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^) That's my 2 cents worth, from a member of the list for over 15 years. Resuming lurk mode. Best Regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Nigel, I would love to discuss DNA sequences with you. Honestly, I would like to really understand why people say that Darwinian Evolution is true. For example, I would like to know which basic tenet of Darwinian Evolution you're referring to. But, before we begin, I need a promise that no matter how heated our disagreement becomes, that no insults be thrown. If you are capable of doing that, I would love to discuss this with you. Are you a Microbiologist? If so, I am looking forward to asking a bunch of questions. What is your field of training if you don't mind me asking. As for me, I have degrees in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Recently, I've dabbled in Agriculture and Animal Science. Jojo - Original Message - From: Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo sapiens. This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand as 'Darwinian Evolution'. I am nevertheless always more than happy to discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked. The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds. It is possible that Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and relativity. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture. Ditto Darwinian evolution. Nigel On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote: Axil, I think you mentioned this before. The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant. For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. It is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We don't know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself. People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We can not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning. The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. During microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes. The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always confuse the issue. They think that just because we see changes, that that automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:LENR was mentioned again in the Italian parliament last week
One thing to take into account is the rationality of the system... if too rational no eccentric ideas is tolerated. if a system is too strict about what is tolerated it will block innovation. it is where Tenure system can help, or the fellowship that you find in some big corps... it is probably what is allowing ST microelectronics, Technova, MHI, to go on in LENR... it is what was finally too weak at SPAWAR... allowing a minority of irrationality, of lack of responsability, lack of watching, lack of need to prove is a way to allow creativity to survive... I agree also that english language, anglosaxon liberalist (european meaning, opposed to mediaval) way of mind have make the occident science as a monolith of groupthink... mostly rational but sometime locked... island of insulated culture are needed. it allow speciation, like darwin found... 2012/12/29 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Another factor to consider is the influence of the english language publications Nature and Scientific American. They have less infleunce non-english speaking communities so their dim views on LENR carry less weight in non-english speaking nations like Italy. Harry On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 7:46 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: That's one way to view it. An alternative that isn't necessarily exclusive: I recall holding a public debate at the Ruben H. Fleet Science Center in San Diego during the 1980s -- before the collapse of the Soviet Union -- regarding NASA's role in launch services vs the fledgling private launch services. During the debate an engineer from General Dynamics who had worked on the Atlas got up and declared that the reason the US government couldn't get its launch services running as well as the communists was that the communists executed corrupt bureaucrats, and that was what was needed if the public sector was going to be in charge of launch services. In short: The commies were good at communism because they had no private sector to tax, so they had to make communism work. The us public sector is the worst of both worlds because it has a private sector to tax and so doesn't have to execute it corrupt bureaucrats to stay alive. On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: To what do you attribute Italy's relatively-functional immune system? A laid-back attitude. I mean it. They don't take themselves as seriously as we do. They know their institutions are far from perfect. The U.S. is burdened by too much self-respect. We take ourselves too seriously. We have too much high regard for out place in the world and our institutions. (Other than the Congress.) All this blather about being the best place on earth leads us to act like the world's policeman, and to imagine that our universities and scientists are the best of the best. When experts at the DoE or the major journals say that cold fusion does not exist, ordinary people give their opinions far too much credibility. Too much respect. Japanese people tend to be even worse in that regard. They have waa-a-a-y too much respect for experts. The fact is, many scientists are incompetent screw-ups. It is the human condition. Farmers, programmers, stock brokers, bank presidents, army generals . . . people everywhere make mistakes. Half the population is below average, as an army general was once horrified to discover. I think the Italians are more aware of that. It helps that they lost several wars in a row. It helps to be a smaller country, less full of yourself. See the novel Catch 22 for details. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR was mentioned again in the Italian parliament last week
Theory/theology prevailing over experiment/reality is pre-enlightenment and it is highly irrational. On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: One thing to take into account is the rationality of the system... if too rational no eccentric ideas is tolerated. if a system is too strict about what is tolerated it will block innovation. it is where Tenure system can help, or the fellowship that you find in some big corps... it is probably what is allowing ST microelectronics, Technova, MHI, to go on in LENR... it is what was finally too weak at SPAWAR... allowing a minority of irrationality, of lack of responsability, lack of watching, lack of need to prove is a way to allow creativity to survive... I agree also that english language, anglosaxon liberalist (european meaning, opposed to mediaval) way of mind have make the occident science as a monolith of groupthink... mostly rational but sometime locked... island of insulated culture are needed. it allow speciation, like darwin found... 2012/12/29 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Another factor to consider is the influence of the english language publications Nature and Scientific American. They have less infleunce non-english speaking communities so their dim views on LENR carry less weight in non-english speaking nations like Italy. Harry On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 7:46 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: That's one way to view it. An alternative that isn't necessarily exclusive: I recall holding a public debate at the Ruben H. Fleet Science Center in San Diego during the 1980s -- before the collapse of the Soviet Union -- regarding NASA's role in launch services vs the fledgling private launch services. During the debate an engineer from General Dynamics who had worked on the Atlas got up and declared that the reason the US government couldn't get its launch services running as well as the communists was that the communists executed corrupt bureaucrats, and that was what was needed if the public sector was going to be in charge of launch services. In short: The commies were good at communism because they had no private sector to tax, so they had to make communism work. The us public sector is the worst of both worlds because it has a private sector to tax and so doesn't have to execute it corrupt bureaucrats to stay alive. On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: To what do you attribute Italy's relatively-functional immune system? A laid-back attitude. I mean it. They don't take themselves as seriously as we do. They know their institutions are far from perfect. The U.S. is burdened by too much self-respect. We take ourselves too seriously. We have too much high regard for out place in the world and our institutions. (Other than the Congress.) All this blather about being the best place on earth leads us to act like the world's policeman, and to imagine that our universities and scientists are the best of the best. When experts at the DoE or the major journals say that cold fusion does not exist, ordinary people give their opinions far too much credibility. Too much respect. Japanese people tend to be even worse in that regard. They have waa-a-a-y too much respect for experts. The fact is, many scientists are incompetent screw-ups. It is the human condition. Farmers, programmers, stock brokers, bank presidents, army generals . . . people everywhere make mistakes. Half the population is below average, as an army general was once horrified to discover. I think the Italians are more aware of that. It helps that they lost several wars in a row. It helps to be a smaller country, less full of yourself. See the novel Catch 22 for details. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 07:48 PM 12/28/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.comja **nap...@gmail.com janap...@gmail.com wrote: Heat output can be neglected. I strongly disagree. If there is no excess energy, expressed in motion, then the lack of heat is *not* an anomaly. A triple negative. How about this: If there is excess energy, expressed in motion, then the presence of heat is *not* an anomaly. That is true enough on its face. However it does fly in the face of Papp's claims. I'm looking at heuristics here. What approaches will most efficiently resolve claims? Axil is proposing 3 quantitative measurements that, in the absence of Papp's claim of absence of substantial heat, are clearly needed. I'm looking merely to falsify one claim by Papp with one qualitative measurement. Now, it is true that the accelerometer measurements have been made much more economically accurate than in the past and that my intuition may be off in this area. However, we _are_ dealing with discontinuous phenomena here and it isn't always the case that the time constants on measurement instruments are well specified.
[Vo]:Apple energy patent - wind of hot air?
http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/27/apple-exploring-alternative-wind-power-tech nology-and-motion-control-mac-mice/ attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant nonsense. Cold fusion is far closer to being a practical device than things like plasma fusion or HTSC, and -- needless to say -- the Top Quark and the Higgs boson will never have any practical use. Yet no journalist would say these are will-o-the-wisp findings. Everyone knows they are real, even though they are of no practical use. Nearly every breakthrough in the history of science and technology has gone through a long period of gestation as a useless laboratory curiosity. Sometimes this lasts for years, sometimes for decades. You see this in the history of steam engines, telegraphy, photography, electric motors, incandescent lighting, Diesel engines, aviation, rocketry, DNA, computers, the laser, and countless others. Oersted demonstrated the principle of induction and electromagnets in 1820. Electric telegraphs had to wait for Henry to improve the electromagnet. Edison made the first practical electric motors in 1880. It took biologists 50 years to figure out that the genome is in nucleic acid, and not protein. *Fifty years*! The Curies discovered radioactivity in 1898. The first practical use of this was in the atomic bomb in 1945, and the first commercial nuclear reactor was made in 1950. If people had ignored or dismissed these subjects because they were unfinished scientific research, we would still be living with 18th century technology. It is the height of arrogance, and *gross ignorance of history*, to dismiss a laboratory finding because it seems to have no immediate, short-term practical use. Frankly, it is incredible to me that a science journalist such as Gibbs does not realize this. Have you read *nothing* about history?!? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
Are you stating that the President is Muslim? On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything related to previous and current presidents. Anything about this current president is covered by this order. IF anyone wants to release information about Obama's BC, they have to go thru Eric Holder (the corrupt right henchman) or thru the Presidential counsel; for approval. This is the veil of corruption surrounding this usurper-in-thief and people like lomax are gving him a pass. I'm not surprised as lies are OK for Lomax as long as it helps prop up his illegitimate usurper muslim president. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies At 03:50 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Here is the actual Executive Order that Obama issued immediately after he took power. The Media spins this as rescinding a Bush Executive Order 13233. But in fact, it is a new Executive Order to specifically require his approval before release of any information, obstensively because of Executive Privelege. Obstentively? Took me a moment. Ostensibly. Release of any information. Sure. Any information of what type, where located, and by whom? Now, Lomax, who is lying now. Do I get my apology now? What exactly have you debunked? you blatant liar. No, no apology, unless you show that the Executive Order does what you claimed. I not only never claimed that this *particular* Exectuive Order did not exist, I linked to it and discussed it specifically. [...] Go Ahead, take you best spin shoot. Let's see what spin and lies you'll come up next. You've acknowledged all along that what you are doing is spinning. You have acknowledged that you say things that aren't true to create a dramatic image. That's spin. But I'll give you a fair chance here. You claimed that this document is an Executive Order which blocks access to Obama's vault BC. Below, I quote a bit of what I wrote, to which you are responding. I wrote, in more than one way, If he fails to apologize, or point to an actual order doing what he claimed, he is, effectively, a liar. Okay, how does this Order do that? What would cause this document to apply to birth records held by Hawaiian state officials? It's all here right in front of us, no more research should be necessary. But, also for the record, I'll say it again: There is no Executive Order that blocks public access to the vault birth certificate. That access is blocked by Hawaiian law on the privacy of records (as is true, I think, in all states). Some access to records is blocked by HIPAA, a federal law relating to the privacy of medical records, and there are other laws protecting the privacy of certain records, but no relevant Executive Order that does what Jojo claims. He lied, and he is continuing to lie. But ... his turn. THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release January 21, 2009 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 - - - - - - - PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) Archivist refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee. (b) NARA refers to the National Archives and Records Administration. (c) Presidential Records Act refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207. (d) NARA regulations refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270. (e) Presidential records refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records. (f) Former President refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created. (g) A substantial question of executive privilege exists if NARA's disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch. (h) A final court order is a court order from which no appeal may be taken. Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records. (a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
FURTHERMORE, the notion that cold fusion results are unconvincing or close to the noise is also gross ignorance. People who say this know nothing about experimental significance. The tritium findings alone are definitive. After Storms, Bockris and Will published in 1989 and 1990, all doubts about the existence of cold fusion were erased. Any scientist who questions this either knows nothing about the results, or he is an ignorant fool such as Taubes or Huizenga. This is like questioning the existence of radioactivity or X-rays in 1900. After Fleischmann and McKubre published their calorimetric data, all doubts about the excess heat were put to rest. If you think it might be chemical, the way D. Morrison did, you are innumerate. You do not appreciate the difference between 1 and 1,700 (the factor by which Fleischmann's results exceed the limits of chemistry). I assert categorically: anyone who questioned these things after 1990 is either irrational or an ignorant fool. I do not care how many scientists say they doubt these findings. I do not care whether these scientists are distinguished leaders such as Steven Chu. They may be objective scientists regarding their own areas of expertise, but if they reject the tritium findings or calorimetry, then with regard to this particular subject, they are flat-out ignorant, wrong, idiotic and as misguided as the worst faith-healing creationist nitwit in Georgia. People are often right about one thing but wrong about another. Or objective and careful about one subject, and bigoted fools about another. The human mind is not uniform or consistent. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has been tested and falsified by experiment. That's the way science works, Mark. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: FURTHERMORE, the notion that cold fusion results are unconvincing or close to the noise is also gross ignorance. People who say this know nothing about experimental significance. I never said the results were unconvincing ... as I've written before, there appears to be something going on but what that something is and a theory about what causes it is missing. The tritium findings alone are definitive. After Storms, Bockris and Will published in 1989 and 1990, all doubts about the existence of cold fusion were erased. Any scientist who questions this either knows nothing about the results, or he is an ignorant fool such as Taubes or Huizenga. This is like questioning the existence of radioactivity or X-rays in 1900. Again, I was talking about testable theories not about observations. After Fleischmann and McKubre published their calorimetric data, all doubts about the excess heat were put to rest. If you think it might be chemical, the way D. Morrison did, you are innumerate. You do not appreciate the difference between 1 and 1,700 (the factor by which Fleischmann's results exceed the limits of chemistry). I assert categorically: anyone who questioned these things after 1990 is either irrational or an ignorant fool. Again with the emotionally charged rhetoric. This is the kind of inappropriate response that allows this list to veer off course into incivility. (snip, snip, snip) People are often right about one thing but wrong about another. Or objective and careful about one subject, and bigoted fools about another. The human mind is not uniform or consistent. Opinions about the irrationality and inconsistency of the human mind are not what we're talking about. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
James, Which theory is that? [mg] On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has been tested and falsified by experiment. That's the way science works, Mark. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
From the preamble to the DoE's 1989 cold fusion review. Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, *even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary*. The theory tested was the standard interpretation of physics which states that it should be impossible for nuclear reactions to occur in systems such as those created by PF. This interpretation is testable. It was tested. It was falsified. Dr. Norman Ramsey was co-chair of the DoE's cold fusion review panel. He was was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. He was also the only Nobel laureate. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble to the DoE panel's report as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: James, Which theory is that? [mg] On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has been tested and falsified by experiment. That's the way science works, Mark. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant nonsense. Alas, you really aren't sorry. That's just a technique to try to avoid being called out for incivility. No, it is pro-forma, Japanese style. It is what you say before you are forced to be uncivil. Far closer? How close? Next week? Next month? That would depend on academic politics and funding. It is not a scientific question. If a reasonable level of funding had been made available in 1990 we would probably have cold fusion automobiles by now. To address the technical issues: let us compare cold fusion to plasma fusion. A tokamak reactor costs $1 billion to $15 billion. The longest, most powerful plasma fusion reaction in history at the PPPL was 10 MW lasting 0.6 s; 6 MJ. It took far more input energy to sustain the reaction than it produced. Cold fusion reactions have produced 150 MJ at 100 W or more, lasting up to 3 months. In some cases it takes not input energy to sustain the reaction. That is, by any measure, more practical than plasma fusion. The only thing lacking in cold fusion is control over the reaction. If we had that, we could easily make prototype devices. Plasma fusion research has continued for 60 years. It costs more every month than the entire amount of money spent on cold fusion since 1989. So, cold fusion has made far more progress per dollar and per man-hour of work. And throwing in other scientific experiments - no matter what their payoff might or might not be - is simply setting up a straw man argument ... A scientific experiment cannot be evaluated by payoff but only by the s/n ratio and the knowledge it contributes to science as a whole. Science is not a practical or useful endeavor. It sometimes contributes practical results to daily life, but this is never assured, it is cannot be used as a metric to evaluate the results. Some of the most important scientific breakthroughs of all time, such as Newton's, had no practical use for decades. There is no practical device yet, merely a lot of unverified claims and overdue promises. The claims have been verified thousand of times in hundreds of major laboratories. 14,000 times, according to the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Normally, when a claim of this type is confirmed by Los Alamos and 3 or 4 other major labs, every scientist on earth accepts it. This one has been confirmed time after time, in experiments published in hundreds of peer-reviewed papers. For a scientist not to believe it is lunacy. It is the betrayal of the scientific method, and the abandonment of all rational standards of belief. If you don't believe replicated experiments you have no basis to believe or reject anything in science. Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Theory has no bearing on the validity of a scientific claim. There was not theory for nuclear reactions in the sun before 1939, and no theory at all describing cellular reproduction (DNA) before 1952, but there was not a scientist on earth who denied that the sun shines and that cells reproduce. I'm not asking for a handwaving kind of explanation, I'm asking for a theory that can be tested. You are asking for something that has never, in the history of science, been considered a valid criterion to reject an experimental claim. NEVER. You turn the scientific method upside-down. First we discover things by experiment. Then we explain them. Not being able to explain them is never a reason to reject experiments. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:List integrity
Good to see you're on-line, Horace... even if 'cloaked'. Just wanted to support your wise words about why the recent exchange got out of control... some people just can't keep their fingers off the keyboard. To all Vorts, Personal attacks are specifically forbidden on this forum, and I would hope that one has the conscious self-awareness and restraint to reread your posting before hitting 'Send', and *PURGE* it of all forms of name-calling and veiled derogatory implications... especially when it comes to belief systems. That's not too much to ask of rational human beings, is it? -Mark Iverson -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:06 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: These are positions that require integrity and some level of skill, but mostly the former. My two cents worth: The integrity required is the self control to not respond to trolls. I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced threads lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond to the troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should be banned also. Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll? It is clearly an option to automatically trash emails from pesky people, or, if you are afraid you'll miss something to simply read you want, but - to respond to a troll shows an obvious lack of integrity, a lack of an appropriate level concern for what you are doing to other members of the list. One of the greatest things about this list, and the internet in general, is the freedom of speech. List moderation should only be used in extreme circumstances. A little self control by list members is often enough to discourage trolls. I think Bill Beaty's laissez faire attitude with regard to moderation is a good and even necessary approach for this list, which encourages free discussion of science anomalies. If a roll tries to bully, control what you post, the best response is to simply go ahead and post what you want, and ignore any responses from the troll or bully. If numerous members of the list object, then that is another matter. If you feel action is warranted by an ISP, such as Microsoft, Google, etc. then a few simple googles will show you sites to directly report abuse to ISPs. Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down hill since a bunch of fake email names have showed up. This is a weak shield for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages behavior unbecoming a scientific list. There are many services that will provide reverse lookup information for email addresses, so it is ultimately an ineffective ruse. Sometimes merely googleing an email address will yield the identity. For example, google (jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124 http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in Atlanta. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To visit this topic, use this URL: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000124 Posted by Joseph Hao (Member # 3289) on June 14, 2004, 02:42 PM: Any folks out there studying for CCIE Voice Lab in Atlanta? [snip] Joseph CCIE #9273 jth...@hotmail.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw, and warn off victims. To bullies the response should be to do what you want and ignore the bully. The response to truly disruptive and egregious or unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by ISPs. The response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps to expose the identity - which has worked well here in the past to eliminate nonsense from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^) That's my 2 cents worth, from a member of the list for over 15 years. Resuming lurk mode. Best Regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as PF's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion. [mg] On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:16 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: From the preamble to the DoE's 1989 cold fusion review. Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, *even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary*. The theory tested was the standard interpretation of physics which states that it should be impossible for nuclear reactions to occur in systems such as those created by PF. This interpretation is testable. It was tested. It was falsified. Dr. Norman Ramsey was co-chair of the DoE's cold fusion review panel. He was was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. He was also the only Nobel laureate. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble to the DoE panel's report as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: James, Which theory is that? [mg] On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has been tested and falsified by experiment. That's the way science works, Mark. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
I agree that it is not very good politic to convince. however it is clear and true. you should read the facts. i don't even understand how people can express so much doubt, when not simple usual denial. just read the data, and remind that consensus can be pathologic... history says so. the maximum that seems rational given the data (that I just survey in 1993 and in 2012) is not to be absolutely sure... I feel irrational to be rejecting LENR as a fact. for the rest it is well explained, and I'm always shocked that so many people ignore the history of science and engineering (engineers being the first to get into reality, because they get a practical advantage seeing the reality, unlike scientists who get a practical advantage following the consensus)... only recently, since the 50s with laser, GPS, were there no real invention obtained from flat theory... Theory was used only to improve existing engineering. even some example of theory driven invention like semiconductors were in fact driven by experiment , and delayed by denial... see the germanium junction ... Capacity of scientist to rewrite the history is so funny. all the bullshit about LENr being impossible according to QM, is simple stinky busllshit for any engineer in semiconductors, in superconductors... that scientist, especially physicist might have said that LENR was impossible in room temp lattice should be taken as a proof of incompetence... I don't know is some physicist said that LENr was breaking thermodynamic laws, hope no, but is yes they should be fired instantly... because any one with a science bachelor know that nuclear reaction don't break TD laws. Even is LENR is finally disproved (which should call for a new physics, alien intervention, international conspiracy) all that have been said and done, like Nature report 42 rejection, should be studied as a pathologic event. This why i'm so supportive of Roland Benabou Groupthink and collective denial theories ( http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf)... because instead of psychiatry, it uses an interpretation as semi-rational psychology. if not, we will have to call psychiatry. just try to find an interpretation of ENEA paper about crystallography impact on LENR effect. add McKubre isothermal calorimetry, nasaothers gas permeation experiments, tritium findings, ENEA report 42... and try to find a coherent explanation for all as artifacts, correlated to cristallography, he4... of course you can invoke fraud, but for know the fraud and conspiracy is clearly proved at MIT, Nature Science... Occam razor give a clear scenario: LENr is real, complex, and since few months usable... otherwise we should invoke some much more irrational explanations... to find many proof of current pathology, try that forum http://www.lenr-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?29-Scientific-community there are pile of stoky evidence... and for the rest, look at other business and scientific data. many data come from jed, which explain why he is so confident. he just know the data. Me I just got them in 93, and updated in 2012... 2012/12/29 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant nonsense. Alas, you really aren't sorry. That's just a technique to try to avoid being called out for incivility. Cold fusion is far closer to being a practical device than things like plasma fusion or HTSC, and -- needless to say -- the Top Quark and the Higgs boson will never have any practical use. Yet no journalist would say these are will-o-the-wisp findings. Everyone knows they are real, even though they are of no practical use. Far closer? How close? Next week? Next month? And throwing in other scientific experiments - no matter what their payoff might or might not be - is simply setting up a straw man argument ... (snip, snip, snip) It is the height of arrogance, and *gross ignorance of history*, to dismiss a laboratory finding because it seems to have no immediate, short-term practical use. Frankly, it is incredible to me that a science journalist such as Gibbs does not realize this. Have you read *nothing*about history?!? Gibbs? Are you replying to me or simply grandstanding to the list? I think your passion for cold fusion is getting in the way here. There is no practical device yet, merely a lot of unverified claims and overdue promises. Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? I'm not asking for a handwaving kind of explanation, I'm asking for a theory that can be tested.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as PF's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. That is not a theory. It is an assertion. nuclear reaction cannot occur. It is based on various theories, but that statement by itself does not constitute a theory. An assertion can be proved or disproved by a single experiment. It can be voted up or down, as it were. A theory is usually too multifaceted for that. For example, cold fusion does not prove that plasma fusion theory is wrong; it only proves that the theory does not apply to a lattice. That assertion was proved wrong when cold fusion experiments produced tritium and heat beyond the limits of chemistry. As Abd emphasizes, later on it was shown that cold fusion produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does, which proves it is fusion. Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion. There is no theory, but there is a clearly stated set of claims which were confirmed. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf EPRI PERSPECTIVE This work confirms the claims of Fleischmann, Pons, and Hawkins of the production of excess heat in deuterium-loaded palladium cathodes at levels too large for chemical transformation. However, the phenomena were obtained in only about half the cells. From the conditions of loading, initiation time, and current density on the successful observations of excess heat, it is understood why the phenomena are so difficult to attain. There are no statements relating to theory here, except conventional chemical theory which shows that a chemical reaction occurs with electron bonds and is limited to ~4 eV per atom. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
I I can be critic on LENR community, like on mainstream science community, is that FG mania to focus on THEORY... NOT HAVING A THEORY IS NOT A REASON TO IGNORE A FACT you learn that when you are a kid interested in science... Me too I want to be abrasive because it seems that most science community is incompetent... or simply badly educated. the worst is that being intelligent and competent they can be toxic. what I have seen in science around LENR is LAZY people... some reject facts because they don't find a theory to explain them. some invent an ad-hoc theory that have no real foundation, because they don't find a theory... the fact is that today we need more experimental results, and more physicists who dare to work on LENR, to make a better theory... today QM is so badly mastered that QM is not incompatible with LENR... we don't know and we should accept it... and it have NO RELATION with usability, and hope to make it working... just need engineers... we have it, and it will take 5 years to be put on the market at usual speed... still 3 years to go. hope less. 2012/12/29 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has been tested and falsified by experiment. That's the way science works, Mark. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as PF's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion. Close. It is the most widely-accepted *interpretation* of currently accepted physical theory that was falsified. The theory itself is subject to many interpretations, otherwise known as *conjectures* in more rigorous fields such as mathematics. The conjecture Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as PF's. is no more a product of theory than is the conjecture Nuclear reactions can occur in systems such as PF's. So it is not the theory that has been falsified -- because as an axiomatic system there is no proven theorem of modern physics which asserts Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as PF's. One can, of course, posit any number of arbitrary axioms and then call the hodge-podge a theory in which one of the axioms is trivially proven true because it is axiomatic. This appears to have been the approach to science taken by folks who receive the vast majority of funding for science and technology.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant nonsense. Alas, you really aren't sorry. That's just a technique to try to avoid being called out for incivility. No, it is pro-forma, Japanese style. It is what you say before you are forced to be uncivil. One is never forced to be uncivil. (I was going to continue using one but that sounds stuffy ... in the following you should be read as people generally and not as you, Jed Rothwell) You choose to resort to incivility in an attempt to add emotional force to your arguments or because you are so attached to your viewpoint and so enraged by the unwillingness of others to agree with you that you attempt to bully them into agreeing or leaving the argument. What the Japanese do is neither here nor there and doesn't justify incivility. Far closer? How close? Next week? Next month? That would depend on academic politics and funding. It is not a scientific question. If a reasonable level of funding had been made available in 1990 we would probably have cold fusion automobiles by now. Far closer was you assertion, not mine. So, your assertion really is it could be closer. To address the technical issues: let us compare cold fusion to plasma fusion. A tokamak reactor costs $1 billion to $15 billion. The longest, most powerful plasma fusion reaction in history at the PPPL was 10 MW lasting 0.6 s; 6 MJ. It took far more input energy to sustain the reaction than it produced. Cold fusion reactions have produced 150 MJ at 100 W or more, lasting up to 3 months. In some cases it takes not input energy to sustain the reaction. That is, by any measure, more practical than plasma fusion. Great. When can I heat my house with one? That's what I'm getting at: Practical application. The only thing lacking in cold fusion is control over the reaction. If we had that, we could easily make prototype devices. But we don't have that so we don't have prototypes. Plasma fusion research has continued for 60 years. It costs more every month than the entire amount of money spent on cold fusion since 1989. So, cold fusion has made far more progress per dollar and per man-hour of work. OK, but where's the beef? And throwing in other scientific experiments - no matter what their payoff might or might not be - is simply setting up a straw man argument ... A scientific experiment cannot be evaluated by payoff but only by the s/n ratio and the knowledge it contributes to science as a whole. Science is not a practical or useful endeavor. It sometimes contributes practical results to daily life, but this is never assured, it is cannot be used as a metric to evaluate the results. Some of the most important scientific breakthroughs of all time, such as Newton's, had no practical use for decades. But you have consistently argued that cold fusion *will* have a world-changing payoff ... you're not in it just for the science, you're in it for the payoff. There is no practical device yet, merely a lot of unverified claims and overdue promises. (snip, snip, snip) Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Theory has no bearing on the validity of a scientific claim. There was not theory for nuclear reactions in the sun before 1939, and no theory at all describing cellular reproduction (DNA) before 1952, but there was not a scientist on earth who denied that the sun shines and that cells reproduce. In the case of cold fusion, phenomena have been observed that are believed to be the result of a novel physical process. No one has been able to explain what causes the phenomena and no one has been able to produce a device that is useful that uses whatever the phenomena is. I'm not asking for a handwaving kind of explanation, I'm asking for a theory that can be tested. You are asking for something that has never, in the history of science, been considered a valid criterion to reject an experimental claim. NEVER. You turn the scientific method upside-down. First we discover things by experiment. Then we explain them. Not being able to explain them is never a reason to reject experiments. What did Peter originally ask? when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]? My answer was When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. I wasn't asserting that LENR doesn't exist, I was answering Peter's question. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say what God’s plan of creation is? Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect life from the whims of the universe. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo sapiens. This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand as 'Darwinian Evolution'. I am nevertheless always more than happy to discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked. The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds. It is possible that Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and relativity. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture. Ditto Darwinian evolution. Nigel On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote: Axil, I think you mentioned this before. The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant. For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. It is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We don't know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself. People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We can not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning. The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. During microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes. The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always confuse the issue. They think that just because we see changes, that that automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Close. It is the most widely-accepted *interpretation* of currently accepted physical theory that was falsified. The theory itself is subject to many interpretations, otherwise known as *conjectures* in more rigorous fields such as mathematics. Correct. Although I think everyone agrees that conjecture was solidly based. Even FP themselves were astounded at the results. In a sense, cold fusion disproves this conjecture, or this instance of it. But most theoreticians I know prefer to say it shows the limitations of present theory. It shows that the theory does not extend from plasma to the solid state lattice. That does not mean the whole theory goes down the tubes. It means the theory applies to a special case, rather than begin universal. Along the same lines, special relativity did not disprove Newtonian physics; it showed that at a significant fraction of the speed of light you have to modify Newtonian physics. The difference is not observable at ordinary speeds, and you cannot discover it until you know that the speed of light is invariant. So it makes no sense to say that Newton was wrong. You can't be wrong about an observation no one has made yet! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Close. It is the most widely-accepted *interpretation* of currently accepted physical theory that was falsified. The theory itself is subject to many interpretations, otherwise known as *conjectures* in more rigorous fields such as mathematics. Correct. Although I think everyone agrees that conjecture was solidly based. Even FP themselves were astounded at the results. In a sense, cold fusion disproves this conjecture, or this instance of it. But most theoreticians I know prefer to say it shows the limitations of present theory. It shows that the theory does not extend from plasma to the solid state lattice. That does not mean the whole theory goes down the tubes. It means the theory applies to a special case, rather than begin universal. Along the same lines, special relativity did not disprove Newtonian physics; it showed that at a significant fraction of the speed of light you have to modify Newtonian physics. The difference is not observable at ordinary speeds, and you cannot discover it until you know that the speed of light is invariant. So it makes no sense to say that Newton was wrong. You can't be wrong about an observation no one has made yet! Not to be pedantic but I think that one could reasonably state that pre-Maxwell Newtonian physics could reasonably be treated as an axiomatic system that had theorems -- not conjectures -- about conditions at relativistic velocities that were subsequently falsified by experiment. I think this is where the difference between a conjecture and an hypothesis comes into play. Conjectures are about the outcomes of formal proofs. Hypotheses are about the outcomes of experimental conditions. Hypotheses may be based on theorems or conjectures.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: No, it is pro-forma, Japanese style. It is what you say before you are forced to be uncivil. One is never forced to be uncivil. I cannot describe the facts of the matter without showing that your assertions are ignorant nonsense. Your statements violate the principles of science described in junior high school introductory textbooks, such as the primacy of experiments over theory, and the fact that we do not need a theory to be sure that a phenomenon is real. You are not the only one who makes these mistakes. Huizenga's statements are wrong on so many levels, and they are so ignorant, they are appalling. The main conclusion in his book is breathtaking. See: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html Far closer was you assertion, not mine. So, your assertion really is it could be closer. I meant far closer than plasma fusion or clean coal. The remaining technical problems in cold fusion could be fixed if we had the funding spent on these fields in one week. That is not a sure thing. There can never be a sure thing in research. But most researchers expect that is the case, and so do I, and the researchers I know a lot about this, so our guess is better than yours. Great. When can I heat my house with one? That's what I'm getting at: Practical application. The answer depends on politics. I cannot predict if, or when, sufficient money will be made available for this research. Cold fusion may never be funded, in which case it will never come to fruition. I can describe the technical problems and the likely solutions to them. I can make a reasonable guess about scientific or engineering issues. But no one can say when people will come to their senses and stop denying experimentally proven facts. That should have happened in 1990. Who can say how much longer it will take?!? Human irrationality is not predictable. Look at the history of wars, or the decades of opposition to other scientific breakthroughs such as Helicobacter pylori. The only thing lacking in cold fusion is control over the reaction. If we had that, we could easily make prototype devices. But we don't have that so we don't have prototypes. Ah but there are many promising experiments that may well give us control. The problem seems solvable. Unfortunately, there is no funding to do these experiments. But you have consistently argued that cold fusion *will* have a world-changing payoff ... you're not in it just for the science, you're in it for the payoff. No, I have not argued that. I have said that if it is funded, and if we are fortunate enough to have a breakthrough, THEN it will be world-changing. I have shown that it has already achieved sufficiently high temperatures and power density for practical applications. Funding is necessary but not sufficient. Funding along cannot guarantee success. Cancer research has been funded lavishly for decades, but unfortunately, public health epidemiology shows that there has been no measurable decrease in mortality rates from cancer. The diagnosis is made sooner, but the prognosis has not improved, and longevity has not increased. (Farley and Cohen) In the case of cold fusion, phenomena have been observed that are believed to be the result of a novel physical process. Not believed, *proved* beyond any doubt. Proved with as much certainty as anything in science can be proved. The tritium and heat prove it. No chemical process can generate tritium. No one has been able to explain what causes the phenomena . . . You do not need to explain something to prove that it exists. Please try to understand that! and no one has been able to produce a device that is useful that uses whatever the phenomena is. Because there is no funding. We have often made technology work without a theory. What did Peter originally ask? when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]? My answer was When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. You are wrong. Countless important inventions could not be explained by theory at first. Examples include radioactivity in 1898, airplanes in 1908, and HTSC today. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: No, it is pro-forma, Japanese style. It is what you say before you are forced to be uncivil. One is never forced to be uncivil. I cannot describe the facts of the matter without showing that your assertions are ignorant nonsense. So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to attack the man while you address the argument? If you want to promote understanding of LENR and be respected as a proponent you need to stop being emotional and ritualistically antagonistic. If someone insults your mother, sure, feel free to lash out if you must but no matter how much you feel people are ignorant, uninformed, or, for that matter, disagree with you about the existence or reality of LENR, that's hardly an excuse to be unpleasant. Moreover, aggression and incivility won't get LENR funded any quicker ... it will simply turn off those people who don't believe in LENR from engaging with you. I'm sure you'll reply with but I've had it with fill in insult like you who don't get it!! I'm sure you have but let's say that you are completely right about LENR. Will being uncivil get you anywhere faster? Is it a mature way to get what you want? If you haven't got the stamina for the long game better it's usually better not to play. [mg]
[Vo]:Message from Storms to Gibbs
[Ed Storms sent this message to Mark Gibbs. He sent a copy to me, and asked me to post it here.] Mark, I don't know if you read my e-mail or not, but I do not post to vortex, so this is my way of communicating. Jed, is right, the effect has been proven beyond doubt. You are correct in stating that the effect has not resulted in a useful product yet. My question is, so what? What do you propose do do about this? Do you propose to ignore the effect and reject the claims or to work at getting enough funding so that the effect can be made useful? As for a testable theory, dozens of theories have been proposed to explain CF. Most are not testable. I have suggested one that provides 12 testable predictions. What more do you want? Now, money and time must be provided to make the tests. Are you willing to encourage such tests? Ed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
A simplified experiment is the most elegant, the most understandable, and the most convincing. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax is wise to suggest that the pressure of air compression by the piston in the popper is best removed as an experimental variable. His astute suggestion about the addition of weight resistive to piston movement in a vertical direction of proper design can greatly simplify the over unity energy experiment for the popper. So sorry please excuse me, why did I not see this wisdom to begin with? See this Khan lecture to see the theory behind the simplest experiment for over unity energy determination that can be executed. http://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/mechanics/v/work-and-energy--part-2 The height that the weighted piston travels upward to a stop determines the output energy of the popper. Unavoidably, the energy associated with the feedback current must be determined and added to the energy imparted to the piston. This experimental approach must be the simplest and cheapest one that can be run to prove over unity energy production. This experiment should be the one first run to evaluate the popper. Cheers: axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 07:34 PM 12/28/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Your opinion is most valuable. What do you recommend in terms of experimental detail? I posted previously that an accelerometer installed on the piston would provide the finest grained experimental detail. Yes. I think I said the same. But if we know the mass of the piston, and if a video is taken with a screen behind the piston with calibrations on it, and time references, it might be simpler. The higher speed the video, the better. If a computer data aquisition system is being used, the motion could be captured in any of various ways. From the mass and motion, in time, of the pistion, one can calculate the force and the weight. If the piston is held back by a spring, that force can be calibrated, etc. A graphic profile of the piston's movement plotted against time could be converted to energy output by integrating the area under the piston's movement curve. The force of gravity must also be accounted for in this calculation. Yes. Or the experiment is run horizontally, as in the advertised popper kits. A spring is then used to retard the motion. That spring can be calibrated so that the force exerted for every point of motion is known. An accelerometer may also provide data that can be used to determine torque that may be expected from an engine application. That's premature, not really necessary until it is time to design an engine, which could be way down the road, and is speculative. The original purpose of poppers was to compare the results for different formulations of the operating gas. Great idea. But without knowing the actual energy released, one doesn't know if there is any effect of value. All one is getting is relatively good ways of creating an apparent artifact. Measure the energy, one will see if one is actually optimizing a real energy release, or merely getting more efficient at transferring energy from excitation to piston motion. There is also a compression of gas(air) above the piston that acts as a shock absorber so that the piston does not hit the metal stops at the top of the piston rod. That's all what would be considered. That's a relatively complicated way to do it. A simpler way is to make the piston heavy enough -- put weight on the top -- so that it doesn't reach the stops. Let it free fly, only deaccelerated by gravity -- or a spring that is calibrated. This compression of the gas can be measured by a pressure sensor whose output can also be plotted against time. This data can also be converted to energy using the area under the curse technique. Yes. There is also the feedback current that must be considered in the detailed energy output accounting. This current must be captured and measured in terms of joules of electric energy output from the popper. Yes. The basic claim, though, is that there is *lots* of energy being released. How accurate one must be in measuring input power, then, is a question. The more accurate, the better, and lots of Free Energy demonstrations seem to depend on faulty estimations of input power. The Naudin MAGH study is a totally blatant example. Really, really embarrassing, but the *most* embarrassing thing is that Naudin never said, Oops! What was I thinking! Sorry guys! I won't do that again! Pons and Fleischmann screwed up on neutron measurments, but they retracted their report. That's what a real scientist does when they make a mistake. They correct the record, as soon as possible. Since a real scientist is *trying to falsify their conclusions*, they will eagerly investigate it. Yes, human beings often do otherwise, but ... that's when we are not scientists, we have gotten trapped in belief.
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
At 05:06 AM 12/29/2012, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: These are positions that require integrity and some level of skill, but mostly the former. My two cents worth: The integrity required is the self control to not respond to trolls. The positions are that of moderator and owner. Moderators and owners have different reponsibilities from list members, and one of the duties of a moderator is to *act* with respect to trolls. For a moderator to engage a troll in debate is a Bad Idea. Rather, a moderator will do one of several things: warn the troll, on or off-list, put the troll on moderation, or ban the troll. If others complain about an alleged troll, a responsible moderator will accept or reject the complaints, not just ignore them. This list apparently has an owner/moderator whe is absent for extended periods, and who has then, seeing a problem, acted without warning. I don't think that is best practice, but *it's his list.* I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced threads lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond to the troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should be banned also. This is a common opinion among kibbitzers. Just ignore it. I remember such opinions about spam. What's the harm, just delete it! It's naive. There is harm from trolling. Trolls become expert at angering and enraging. People who do not care to engage with trolls may well use killfiles, or just ignore messages. But that does nothing to stop the trolling, and sometimes a troll will continue even if nobody responds, and, sooner or later, someone bites. Someone new thinks there is a real question or issue to be addressed. The list archive is public and googleable. A user may have no intention and not care what people on the list think, and may be playing to Google. Lists *do* lose members because of trolls. Blaming those who respond is short-sighted. It really is up to the list moderator, and, supposedly, this is a moderated list. If responding to a troll is considered the problem, the moderator can warn. Though it would be a bit weird. Trollface can post, but you may not respond. Think it through, Horace. Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll? Neither one is necessarily a fool. Horace, your thinking *sucks.* Trolls have a purpose (or it wouldn't be trolling). If the troll gets people upset, whether they are upset directly or from others responding, *that's the purpose.* [...] Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down hill since a bunch of fake email names have showed up. This is a weak shield for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages behavior unbecoming a scientific list. There are many services that will provide reverse lookup information for email addresses, so it is ultimately an ineffective ruse. Sometimes merely googleing an email address will yield the identity. For example, google (jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124 http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in Atlanta. [...] In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw, and warn off victims. Wait! Is Jojo a troll or a fraud? If he's a troll, you just violated your own should. If he's a fraud -- and he does promote fraudulent memes -- your suggestion does require response. To bullies the response should be to do what you want and ignore the bully. The response to truly disruptive and egregious or unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by ISPs. The response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps to expose the identity - which has worked well here in the past to eliminate nonsense from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^) Is it a fake identity? Jojo responded to this mail. As for Joseph Hao, he is a good friend. We used to work together on some free energy projects most notably on some HHO and Veg Oil/ Biodiesel projects and we were co-workers for a while. We went to graduate school together in San Diego State (MS Computer Science) a long time ago. This was a common email we used on all our free energy projects correspondence. He was the one who first subscribed this account to Vortex-LI have been exclusively using this email since I left the country. Yes, he is in Atlanta and he is in fact a CCIE RS and is studying for his CCIE Voice. The story is not fully consistent with the record. Look at it on the face: jthao is Joseph Hao, yes. Jthao would be internet-sophisticated, as would Jojo. So they would share a hotmail account? Why? Surely they would realize the risks! Now, given that they are sharing, they are *really good friends*, Jojo has decided to tell the truth
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to attack the man while you address the argument? Look, I am sorry, but your statements violate the scientific method at an elementary level. I cannot think of a way to say that politely. When I say elementary I mean it literally: elementary school and junior-high introductory textbooks all say: * Science is based on experiments. When replicated experiments conflict with theory, theory must be revised. * Most phenomena are first discovered by experiment and confirmed, and only later explained by theory. * It is NEVER necessary to explain something by theory before you accept that it is real. Experiments prove it is real. Theory explains it. Those are two different things. This is *absolutely fundamental* to the scientific method. If we reject a finding because we have no theory, or ignore it, or refuse to fund it, scientific progress will come to halt. You have failed to grasp this! Again and again, you have ignored these fundamentals. You need to stop, read what the people at EPRI wrote, and think carefully. Pay close attention to this! EPRI said *nothing* about theory. Fleischmann, Pons and the others said nothing about theory. This is not about theory. Theory does not enter into this discussion. This is experimental science, not theory-based science. (There are theory-based sciences, but this is not one of them.) You cannot demand that an experimentalist propose a theory before you accept his results. That is not his job. That is not how it is done. When penicillin and other antibiotics were discovered, no one had any idea how they worked. If we had followed your standard for cold fusion, we would not have funded, developed, or used them until 30 years later when biologists finally explained them. We would not have developed the airplane until the mid-1920s when the first comprehensive theories explained wing lift. The Wrights used pragmatic engineering models based on instrument reading from their wind tunnel. They made no effort to develop a physics theory, although they were first-rate physicists. They were engineers, not fluid-dynamics physicists. You cannot demand a practical device before you accept a scientific observation. You can't demand practical devices when we are still trying to control the reaction in the laboratory. That is like demanding a fully cooked wild turkey dinner before we leave the house with the shotgun. We have to find the bird and shoot it before we cook it!!! Why is that so hard for you to grasp? FIRST we do the research. THEN if we are skillful and lucky we will have the technology. Research is expensive. You have to have dozens of complicated machines, as you see in the photos here: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=187 You want to know how much research costs? Take the best estimate, multiply by 3, multiply again by 6, and add in a fudge factor of 80%. You want to know how long it will take? Longer. Just . . . longer. How hard it is? Much harder than anything that most people do their whole lives. It is like taking final exams in college level chemistry *every single day*. It is a miracle that any scientist succeeds at this game. Do scientists make mistakes? Yeah. As Stan Pons says, if we are half right we are doing great. They have made good progress despite the difficulties. Give them the tools and the money and they will probably succeed. If you want to promote understanding of LENR and be respected as a proponent you need to stop being emotional and ritualistically antagonistic. If you want to be taken seriously you will try to understand the roles of theory and observation, and the fact that an observation can be proved without a theory. You need to read what the experts at EPRI wrote, and you need to understand what they meant. Stop demanding a theory. Stop re-inventing the rules of the scientific method. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Apple energy patent - wind of hot air?
I'm extremely interested in how this will work with their other patents (especially the hydrogen fuel cell patent for portable mobile devices). As always, Patentlyapple is an amazing source for Apple Patents, especially the hydrogen fuel cell + solar + wind power tech patents they are applying for and being granted. here's another one on the wind-heat-electricity thing. http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/12/27/apples-wind-turbine-technology-uses-heat-not-kinetic-energy-to-generate-electricity http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/12/apple-to-harness-stored-wind-energy-via-new-on-demand-system.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/01/apple-reinvents-the-ionic-wind-generator-cooling-system.html I'd love to know what the vorts think about that Ionic wind generator cooling system that Apple have patented and have been working on. It seems that Apple have been working on solar-panel-layering for the touchscreens for future iDevices for quite some time. So if you put all of these together (wind turbines to harness heat to electricity, new iDevices with touchscreens with a solar panel layered into the screen, and the hydrogen fuel cells -- are future Apple devices going to be completely off-the-grid, recharging etc? That would really blow Android out of the water - especially if they added insult to injury by producing a keynote where they graciously charge an android phone with an iPhone ;) ) On 29 December 2012 17:51, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/27/apple-exploring-alternative-wind-power-tech nology-and-motion-control-mac-mice/
[Vo]:Latest published LENR related patent
I found a new publiced LENR related patent application. This time a WO patent related to preparing nickel alloy powder and a reactor. The description of the alloy preparation has large resemblance with recent work of Celani. The inventor Nee, Han, H. is unknown by me, but he has quite some metal related patents filed and granted. http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/fusion-base/fusion-patents/ (top of the list) Link to the actual patent application : http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012166808recNum=264docAn=US2012040017queryString=evaporatorsmaxRec=193361
RE: [Vo]:Apple energy patent - wind or hot air?
Esa, This Apple story was kind of a lure. I was going to give a 'genius-of-day prize' to the first vortician who suggested that by using mechanical energy for heat - instead of electricity, one could possibly integrate something like the Griggs hydrosonic (cavitation) pump into the mix. There is decent evidence that the Griggs device was gainful, but a few null results as well. But in fact, they have made a commercial venture out of it. However, they do not claim overunity, and cavitation is not necessarily LENR - so apparently this would not meet Gibbs criteria for a commercial LENR device, even if some of it think it qualifies. However, this cavitation pump (and the Russian copies) does show that there is room around the edges of LENR to find commercial success manufacturing alternative energy devices. I would love to see the Griggs pump adapted to using a slurry of nickel oxide nanopowder, but until QSI lowers the price - that will have to wait. http://www.qsinano.com/new/qsi_nano_nickel_ni_5_oct_09.pdf Jones From: Esa Ruoho I'm extremely interested in how this will work with their other patents (especially the hydrogen fuel cell patent for portable mobile devices). As always, Patentlyapple is an amazing source for Apple Patents, especially the hydrogen fuel cell + solar + wind power tech patents they are applying for and being granted. here's another one on the wind-heat-electricity thing. http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/12/27/apples-wind-turbine-technology-use s-heat-not-kinetic-energy-to-generate-electricity http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/12/apple-to-harness-stored- wind-energy-via-new-on-demand-system.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/01/apple-reinvents-the-ioni c-wind-generator-cooling-system.html I'd love to know what the vorts think about that Ionic wind generator cooling system that Apple have patented and have been working on. It seems that Apple have been working on solar-panel-layering for the touchscreens for future iDevices for quite some time. So if you put all of these together (wind turbines to harness heat to electricity, new iDevices with touchscreens with a solar panel layered into the screen, and the hydrogen fuel cells -- are future Apple devices going to be completely off-the-grid, recharging etc? That would really blow Android out of the water - especially if they added insult to injury by producing a keynote where they graciously charge an android phone with an iPhone ;) ) On 29 December 2012 17:51, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/27/apple-exploring-alternative-wind-power-tech nology-and-motion-control-mac-mice/ attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Ed, On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Mark, I don't know if you read my e-mail or not, but I do not post to vortex, so this is my way of communicating. Jed, is right, the effect has been proven beyond doubt. You are correct in stating that the effect has not resulted in a useful product yet. My question is, so what? So hat?! We have had a number of companies and individuals making significant claims about productizing something that they contend is CF/LENR. Much excitement has been generated about this and many people contend, apparently without much evidence, that we'll have jam tomorrow. You might be in it just for the science but if CF/LENR can be turned into a product it will be, as many people contend, revolutionary. What do you propose do do about this? Er, nothing other than write about it and attempt to figure out who's on to something and who's simply hyping that market for whatever reasons. Rossi is a great example of the problem with the CF/LENR world. He's grandiose, evasive, makes unsubstantiated claims, and generally confuses the picture all the while promising jam tomorrow. Do you propose to ignore the effect and reject the claims Nope. And I haven't ignored the phenomena. Indeed, I admit that there appears to be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to find out what's real and what's fake. or to work at getting enough funding so that the effect can be made useful? Not my job. As for a testable theory, dozens of theories have been proposed to explain CF. Most are not testable. I have suggested one that provides 12 testable predictions. What more do you want? I'd love to see those tests made. Now, money and time must be provided to make the tests. Are you willing to encourage such tests? Sure, to the extent of writing about them if they're done ... I'm not in the business of fund raising for other people's projects ... I have enough on my plate as it is. That said, if someone with deep pockets should ask me what would be a good outlier project to invest in, I'd definitely tell him or her to talk to Ed Storms. So, what are you doing about getting funding for you or someone else to test your theories? Regards, Mark. On Dec 29, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: FURTHERMORE, the notion that cold fusion results are unconvincing or close to the noise is also gross ignorance. People who say this know nothing about experimental significance. I never said the results were unconvincing ... as I've written before, there appears to be something going on but what that something is and a theory about what causes it is missing. The tritium findings alone are definitive. After Storms, Bockris and Will published in 1989 and 1990, all doubts about the existence of cold fusion were erased. Any scientist who questions this either knows nothing about the results, or he is an ignorant fool such as Taubes or Huizenga. This is like questioning the existence of radioactivity or X-rays in 1900. Again, I was talking about testable theories not about observations. After Fleischmann and McKubre published their calorimetric data, all doubts about the excess heat were put to rest. If you think it might be chemical, the way D. Morrison did, you are innumerate. You do not appreciate the difference between 1 and 1,700 (the factor by which Fleischmann's results exceed the limits of chemistry). I assert categorically: anyone who questioned these things after 1990 is either irrational or an ignorant fool. Again with the emotionally charged rhetoric. This is the kind of inappropriate response that allows this list to veer off course into incivility. (snip, snip, snip) People are often right about one thing but wrong about another. Or objective and careful about one subject, and bigoted fools about another. The human mind is not uniform or consistent. Opinions about the irrationality and inconsistency of the human mind are not what we're talking about. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to attack the man while you address the argument? Look, I am sorry, No, you're not. You can't get over your emotionality. ... I cannot think of a way to say that politely. Oh, I'm sure you could if you tried. But you don't want to. You have failed to grasp this! Again and again, you have ignored these fundamentals. You need to stop, read what the people at EPRI wrote, and think carefully. Pay close attention to this! EPRI said *nothing* about theory. Fleischmann, Pons and the others said nothing about theory. This is not about theory. Theory does not enter into this discussion. This is experimental science, not theory-based science. (There are theory-based sciences, but this is not one of them.) Ye gods, man. Calm down. Nobody is going to die over this ... well, maybe you from a heart attack if you insist on being so wound up You cannot demand that an experimentalist propose a theory before you accept his results. That is not his job. That is not how it is done. Er, I didn't. I answered Peter's question. (snip, snip, snip) You cannot demand a practical device before you accept a scientific observation. You can't demand practical devices when we are still trying to control the reaction in the laboratory. That is like demanding a fully cooked wild turkey dinner before we leave the house with the shotgun. We have to find the bird and shoot it before we cook it!!! Why is that so hard for you to grasp? It's not hard to grasp and it's not what I wrote in response to Peter. (snip, snip, snip Let me state, once again, my understanding: 1. There are phenomena that people call CF or LENR or whatever. 2. No one yet has a theory about these phenomena that has been tested. 3. Whatever these phenomena are, they are apparently not explainable by conventional physics. 4. The phenomena are hard to control. 5. Despite many claims, as far as is known, the phenomena have not been turned into a useful technology. What's wrong about any of that? And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... he originally asked when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]? My answer was When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. Again, I wasn't asserting that LENR doesn't exist, I was answering Peter's question. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
The comparison to penicillin is instructive. Like most discoveries, this was developed and used extensively long before anyone understood how it worked in theory. Long before they could have understood it. Penicillin was developed in the 1940s, in a crash project to treat WWII casualties. Doctors soon confirmed that it worked by the simplest, most irrefutable method: they administered it to thousands of sick and wounded patients, and the patients recovered almost immediately, even in hopeless cases when they would have died without the drug. One or two recoveries might have been a coincidence. Ten or twenty, maybe. But not thousands. No sane doctor or scientist would have questioned the efficacy of penicillin after 1945, even though there was not theory to explain it until the 1960s. In exactly the same way, when Storms, Bockris and later Will working independently all detected high levels of tritium in cold fusion experiments, they knew at once that it is a nuclear effect. They proved there is a nuclear effect at room temperature in a hydride. They did not need a theory to prove that, and all the theory in the world cannot unprove it. It does not matter how many physicists refuse to believe it. Facts are facts, tritium is tritium, and it can only be produced by a nuclear reaction, by definition. Yes, it is possible for tritium to be contamination. It might be an instrument error, or some other radioactive element. As I said, it is possible that 5 or 10 patients might recover by coincidence after being given penicillin. You can only be absolutely sure the effect is real when you repeat it several times, and when experts rule out other causes. That is what happened with penicillin, and in 1989 with cold fusion. Storms et al. methodically ruled out things like external contamination. Storms showed that such contamination would have to be present at such high levels, the laboratory would be dangerous and the alarms would go off, forcing a permanent evaluation. The experiment was repeated dozens of times, later hundreds of times, with a high rate of success. Fritz Will et al. eventually saw tritium at 50 times background. They did hundreds of blank tests. The wrote: the probability that the tritium in the latter was due to random spot contamination is computed as 1 in 2,380. Eventually, the people at BARC, Amoco and over 100 other labs confirmed tritium production. The reactor safety group at the BARC power reactor confirmed this. As they said, if we did not know how to measure tritium, we would be dead. When the evidence piles up this high; when HUNDREDS of researchers confirm something in thousands of tests, and when they detect radioactive materials at levels that would be dangerous or deadly if the material was contamination coming from outside the cell, then you must put aside all doubts, and accept that the result is real. Any other evaluation is not just unscientific. Frankly, it would be lunacy. We know that tritium is the product of a nuclear reaction. Therefore we know that a nuclear reaction takes place in a cold fusion cell. There can be no doubt about it. The fact that we cannot explain this by theory has no bearing on the question. It does not reduce our confidence in the results. Rejecting this finding because there is no theory to explain it would be like withholding millions of doses of penicillin from the wounded soldiers on WWII battlefields because no one understood how penicillin worked. Because there was no theory. That would be criminal. It would be insanity. If the soldiers or civilians in 1945 learned that some doctor had made that decision, withheld the drug and cost the lives of 100,000 or more soldiers, they would be outraged. That doctor and everyone else involved would be tried for treason, and shot. Frankly, in my opinion, cold fusion is as important as penicillin. I am pretty sure that the decades-long delays caused by academic politics have cost far more than 100,000 lives. If people knew this, they would be outraged, justifiably so. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:List integrity
From Mr. Lomax: ... But Jojo's writings here also vary in quality. Sometimes his spelling is atrocious, sometimes accurate. I have been wondering if Mr. Jaro drinks. In fact, for some time now I have wondered if Mr. Jaro drinks a lot. It might help explain some of his occasionally caustic posting behaviors. Alcoholism, among other issues. It's possible that if one were to sift through the history of Mr. Jaro's postings one might begin to discern a distinct 24 hour pattern as to when his spelling tends to be accurate and when it becomes less so. Quite frankly, it's beyond my desire to care to find out. However there might be others on this list that might consider it an interesting challenge. I'm wondering if Jojo needs an intervention. (Not my department.) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon
After some additional reading, I agree with you, Abd. Or perhaps I should just say that my assertions from last evening were false and I'm now even more confused you are. Which I will take as step forward ... it is far better to be confused than to be wrong. Jeff On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 08:11 PM 12/28/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: I think a lot of the reasoning about photons, above, is wrong. The red shift has nothing to do with gravity, only the relative velocity of the photon source relative to the observer. Eek. Apparently not. If an event just outside the event horizon of a black hole emits a photon, an observer at rest relative to the black hole will observe no red shift regardless the strength of the black hole's gravitational field. Apprently this is not so, and it directly contradicts many sources that might be expected to get it right. The red shift is not a motion-related doppler shift, it is a gravitational shift, purely. If the observer then accelerates away from the black hole, similar photons emitted from the same source will appear to be red shifted. It's entirely an observational effect. There is no loss of energy from the photon and no need to store anything anywhere. This topic is a continual temptation to me to stick my foot in my mouth. What I'm getting is that there is a lot I don't understand about black holes and particularly about the event horizon. Essentially, I've felt that I have a decent understanding of special relativity, but general relativity is another animal, and gravitational effects on light are an aspect of general relativity. The event horizon, it is being said, is the point at which no path exists for the photon to escape, to travel away from the singularity. This is caused by the intensity of the gravitational field, which is a fixed value at the event horizon. That's the value that allows no escape. Just outide the event horizon, the photon may escape, but does not escape unscathed. It loses energy climbing the gravitational potential field. It red-shifts as it loses energy. (That energy is being converted to potential energy, just as with any object with momentum away from a gravity source loses momentum, trading it for potential energy.) The puzzle to me here is the statement made that an object travelling toward the black hole will not only be seen through a red shift, but will also appear to slow, such that it never passes the event horizon, it just gets closer, but more and more slowly, until it is red-shifted out of observability. It is alleged that this takes forever. And I don't understand that. To resolve this, part of what I'll need to look at are the equations for gravitational red shift, or the effect of gravity on light. Then I can look at what would happen with light emitted outside the event horizon (which I presume will fall out of the gravitational equations), and can construct a thought-experiment for an object approaching the event horizon, which was the original problem here. It *looks* to me like some material that is popularly stated about black holes and event horizons might be incorrect, but I certainly don't know enough to claim that with any clarity. I *do* imagine that I know enough to deny that the red shift being talked about here is the ordinary doppler shift, i.e., due to the relative velocity between the source and the reference frame.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
That's not correct. There is a theory that considers cold fusion as a variation of conventional hot fusion. This is Takahashi's TSC theory. TSC is a tetrahedron of hydrogens bound by coherent electrons, which also happen to be in a tetrahedral form, overlapping the protons. As you know, 2 tetrahedrons are shaped into an octahedron. Although this is a rare instance, it makes the hydrogena collapse all the way into atomic size. The electrons absorb the huge potential energies from the protons, so there is no emission of energy up to that point. There are several things that can happen after the collapse, but what happens in general is that in usual hot fusion you have the entrance of 2 particles, always, in TSC you everything is synchronized to 3 or more bodies to react. So, with several bodies, the energy levels of the system is extremely divided until it emitted in bundles of XUV to low energy xrays. That is, around 0.5KeV to 10KeV. This energy is extremely well absorbed by all kinds of matter, in fact, it is of the best absorbed wave bands and even something as thin as 1 micrometer or a few micrometers of air can absorb killowatts without any trace of the original radiation. This is why studies of the Solar Corona are mostly done in balloons or space given that they also happen to shine in this wavelength and any thin atmosphere may absorb all of the original photons. 2012/12/29 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as PF's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. [mg] -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Fwd: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
-- Forwarded message -- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic To: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote: Ed, On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Mark, I don't know if you read my e-mail or not, but I do not post to vortex, so this is my way of communicating. Jed, is right, the effect has been proven beyond doubt. You are correct in stating that the effect has not resulted in a useful product yet. My question is, so what? So hat?! We have had a number of companies and individuals making significant claims about productizing something that they contend is CF/LENR. Much excitement has been generated about this and many people contend, apparently without much evidence, that we'll have jam tomorrow. You might be in it just for the science but if CF/LENR can be turned into a product it will be, as many people contend, revolutionary. Yes Mark, I know. The question is, Does LENR produce useful energy or does it not? If it does, the potential to create ideal energy is revolutionary, as you say. And I'm not in it for the science. I'm in it to discover what is real and whether the promise will come about. What is your goal? What do you propose do do about this? Er, nothing other than write about it and attempt to figure out who's on to something and who's simply hyping that market for whatever reasons. That is my goal as well. To do this a person MUST understand the science and know all that has been discovered. That is one reason I wrote my book about the subject. That is the reason I still do experiments, hundreds by present count. That is why I'm now attempting to explain the observations. Rossi is a great example of the problem with the CF/LENR world. He's grandiose, evasive, makes unsubstantiated claims, and generally confuses the picture all the while promising jam tomorrow. Rossi is slightly crazy. So are many people in science. This does not stop them from making important discoveries. The only important question for me, Are any of the claims made by Rossi true? After much study, my answer is some are true and some are false. Only the true claims matter to me. Do you propose to ignore the effect and reject the claims Nope. And I haven't ignored the phenomena. Indeed, I admit that there appears to be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to find out what's real and what's fake. I have the same goal. The difference is that many people read what you write and only a few read what I write. or to work at getting enough funding so that the effect can be made useful? Not my job. Not you job but a result of what you write nevertheless. You have the power to influence support or cool interest. Your choice. People who are ignorant of what has been discovered and its implications generally write negative articles because the claims do not look real to them. In contrast, when all that is known is considered, a writer has reason to support the idea. This is common human nature. No article is truly objective but depends on the knowledge of the writer. Some writers are ignorant and some are well informed. This challenge is especially important in LENR because the science is so unknown even to well informed people. Jed is especially well informed and expects this to be true of anyone who writes about the subject. As for a testable theory, dozens of theories have been proposed to explain CF. Most are not testable. I have suggested one that provides 12 testable predictions. What more do you want? I'd love to see those tests made. Me too, but this requires money and interest by a major laboratory. All else is useless wishful thinking. Now, money and time must be provided to make the tests. Are you willing to encourage such tests? Sure, to the extent of writing about them if they're done ... I'm not in the business of fund raising for other people's projects ... I have enough on my plate as it is. That said, if someone with deep pockets should ask me what would be a good outlier project to invest in, I'd definitely tell him or her to talk to Ed Storms. Good, that is all I ask. Also, when you are tempted to write that no testable theories have been proposed, I hope you think again about what I said and have described in papers. So, what are you doing about getting funding for you or someone else to test your theories? Funding comes because someone who has a lot of money reads about an idea and then seeks out people who can explore and advance the idea, generally with a profit in mind. Such people contact me occasionally. Unfortunately, interest has not reached the level required to test theory. People want what Rossi promises, a working device that can make money. Ed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Ye gods, man. Calm down. I am calm. If you think I am exited you are projecting. This cognitive dissonance on your side. I am calm because I have been writing this sort of thing for decades; I can do it in my sleep. Also because I used to teach. I am quite used to dealing with students who do not do their homework. Er, I didn't. I answered Peter's question. Yes, but you answered it incorrectly. You failed to note that many important discoveries were acknowledged before anyone could explain them, such as airplanes and penicillin. Let me state, once again, my understanding: Below you have completely revised and restated your remarks. This is nothing like what you asserted before. 1. There are phenomena that people call CF or LENR or whatever. Right. 2. No one yet has a theory about these phenomena that has been tested. No theory is generally accepted. 3. Whatever these phenomena are, they are apparently not explainable by conventional physics. That remains to be seen. Many experts such as Hagelstein say it can be explained by conventional physics. 4. The phenomena are hard to control. Correct. Although considerable progress has been made in control. 5. Despite many claims, as far as is known, the phenomena have not been turned into a useful technology. There are not many claims of useful technology. No one has claimed this except perhaps Rossi. No researcher has said the phenomena have been turned into useful technology, or can be at this stage. They, and I, say that it has achieved most of the performance levels necessary for a practical device, such as temperature, power density, stability, longevity and a good input to output ratio. I also say it is far more practical than a Tokamak or clean coal -- a statement you have repeatedly ignored or misunderstood. On one hand we have a $100,000 experiment that produces 100 W of steady heat for 3 months. That was done a dozen times at Toyota. On the other hand we have $1 billion reactor that produced 10 MW for less than a second while it self-destructed. Which sounds more practical to you? Do you really have difficulty judging which is closer to becoming a useful source of energy? What's wrong about any of that? Nothing, but that is not at all what you claimed previously. Let's review a few of your statements: So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times at high s/n ratios in hundreds of major laboratories, and described in peer-reviewed journals. To call this a will-o-the-wisp phenomenon is a grotesque distortion of the facts. There is no practical device yet, merely a lot of unverified claims and overdue promises. The claims have been verified as well as any experimental claim can be. The s/n ratio is high. There are no overdue promises. No one has promised anything. We have only pointed out what the data proves: that with control this could become a practical source of energy. I'm not asking for a handwaving kind of explanation, I'm asking for a theory that can be tested. You have no reason to ask for a theory. No theory is needed at this stage to confirm the results. Theory is irrelevant. You and others have been demanding a theory and using the lack of theory as a reason to belittle, ignore, or disbelieve the results. That violates the scientific method. I never said the results were unconvincing ... as I've written before, there appears to be something going on but what that something is and a theory about what causes it is missing. Will-o-the-wisp implies unconvincing. The theory is missing but not necessary. Tritium and other evidence tells us what is going on perfectly well without a theory. Again, I was talking about testable theories not about observations. . . . Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? This is experimental science. It consists of observations. Theories come later. Great. When can I heat my house with one? That's what I'm getting at: Practical application. This is a political question. Practical applications can only come after the academic politics are overcome and funding is made available. I cannot predict when that might happen. Can you? You probably know more about about politics than I do, so you can answer this question better than I can. Theory is not relevant to practical applications. You can heat your house, fly an airplane or use penicillin even when you have no theory of combustion, fluid dynamics, or antibiotics. And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... he originally asked when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]? My answer was When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. And, as I said, this answer is wrong. You have not studied history. The airplane, the computer and many other devices were celebrated long before they
RE: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
From Mark Gibbs Look, I am sorry, No, you're not. You can't get over your emotionality. ... I cannot think of a way to say that politely. Oh, I'm sure you could if you tried. But you don't want to. Rothwell is what Rothwell does. I would suggest you get over it, particularly since who now seems to be showing just a pinch of emotionally charged defensiveness on their sleeve? ... And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... Peter's fault? Whatever... he originally asked when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]? My answer was When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. A demonstrably practical device, sure, yeah, I get that. I suspect everyone on this list gets that. But A demonstrable testable theory? Well, sure, it would be nice to have one of those things lying around in the laboratory. But in its absence I sure as hell wouldn't let it stop me from trying to put a little jam on my toast. That seems to be what lot of people are attempting to do these days. Obviously one of those individuals includes the highly controversial Italian, Rossi. Is Rossi and his little dog-and-pony show for real? I don't know. Hopefully, we'll know the answer to that soon. Again, I wasn't asserting that LENR doesn't exist, I was answering Peter's question. Can you at least understand, or at least appreciate why individuals, like Mr. Rothwell, occasionally get impatient with writers who seem oblivious to the fact that they propose we need to put the cart before the horse (meaning a testable theory) as a way to prove the existence of a controversial phenomenon, like LENR? There appears to be plenty of historical examples we can point to that proves such an assertion is false. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So what?! We have had a number of companies and individuals making significant claims about productizing something that they contend is CF/LENR. Rossi is the only one I can think of. I suggest you ignore him. He has not published any scientific data. The only way you can confirm his claims is to talk to people who tested his device independently when he wasn't there. (He was on another continent.) Unfortunately they do not wish to go public. Much excitement has been generated about this and many people contend, apparently without much evidence, that we'll have jam tomorrow. Not many people. One person: Rossi. Plus Defkalion, I guess. As I said, there is plenty of evidence but Rossi and his supporters wish to keep it secret, for reasons I find perverse. They are not the first inventors to do this. Edison and many others played this game, for similar reasons. You might be in it just for the science but if CF/LENR can be turned into a product it will be, as many people contend, revolutionary. Many people contend this. You can confirm their assertions by looking carefully at the scientific evidence. McKubre's data proves it. It is about a zillion times more convincing than anything Rossi every published! Okay, it is not dramatic. It is only a few watts at best. But drama and scale play no role in science. The s/n ratio is fabulous and no skeptic has ever found a fault in it, or ever will. The Curies detected only microwatts of heat from radium, but they proved radioactivity is real. Their results prove it no less than the first nuclear bomb did in 1945. People are more likely to be convinced by the bomb because it is big and impressive. That is understandable to it is not a scientific outlook. Assuming Rossi's 16 kW is real, that does prove cold fusion is close to commercialization. Much closer than McKubre's data indicates. However, if you are looking for proof that the phenomenon is real, look at McKubre, or at Fritz Will's tritium data. Do not confuse real with close to commercialization. Er, nothing other than write about it and attempt to figure out who's on to something . . . Read the literature to do determine this. You will never discover this by reading Rossi's blog! . . . and who's simply hyping that market for whatever reasons. That is unanswerable. You would have to read Rossi's mind. I can't even read his English. Rossi is a great example of the problem with the CF/LENR world. No he isn't. He is nothing like any other researcher. He is sui generis, and not an example of anything. The closest person in history to him is Edison. He's grandiose, evasive, makes unsubstantiated claims, and generally confuses the picture all the while promising jam tomorrow. True! But this is not a problem with the CF/LENR world. No one else in this business resembles Rossi. No one else confuses the picture or promises jam tomorrow. Look at the Italians or Pam Boss. Much as I love them, those people are NOT flamboyant. You are looking at Rossi, ignoring everyone else, and claiming that he sets the standard and he is the only one who counts. And I haven't ignored the phenomena. Indeed, I admit that there appears to be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to find out what's real and what's fake. Okay, so do your homework. Read the literature. Talk to Rob Duncan. Stop fretting about Rossi. Ignore the flamboyant nonsense and look at the science. Sure, to the extent of writing about them if they're done ... I'm not in the business of fund raising for other people's projects ... It would help if you would stop publishing mistakes and unscientific assertions. Also if you would look at the science and ignore Rossi and his nonsense. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From Mark Gibbs And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... Peter's fault? Whatever... I was joking. Of course it wasn't his fault ... this may not be the place for levity. When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. ** A demonstrably practical device, sure, yeah, I get that. I suspect everyone on this list gets that. But A demonstrable testable theory? Nope. I wrote a testable theory ... you even quoted me! Well, sure, it would be nice to have one of those things lying around in the laboratory. But in its absence I sure as hell wouldn't let it stop me from trying to put a little jam on my toast. That seems to be what lot of people are attempting to do these days. Obviously one of those individuals includes the highly controversial Italian, Rossi. Is Rossi and his little dog-and-pony show for real? I don’t know. Hopefully, we’ll know the answer to that soon. You miss my point ... it was or not and. Either would be the answer to Peter's question. At least that what I was suggesting. I give up. It seems you and Jed are committed to being right about the argument you want to have. [m]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
I am of the opinion that Anderson localization is among the many Quantum mechanical mechanisms that are central to and underlie the some lines of LENR technology. These lines involve hairy nickel nano-particles and cracks in metal lattices to be more specific. American physicist Philip W. Anderson won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1977, for his research into the electronic structure of magnetic and disordered systems, which led to the introduction of greatly advanced electronic switching and memory devices for computers. In 1958 he explored the phenomenon of electron localization, or Anderson localization, wherein beyond a critical amount of impurity scattering the diffusive motion of an electron halts. In 1959 he published a theory explaining superexchange, an interaction between the electrons of two molecular entities mediated by one or more molecules or ions. In 1961 he developed what is now called the Anderson model, to explain the behavior of heavy fermion systems. It is interesting to note that Anderson localization is at the forefront of experimental solid state and condensed matter Physics. After more than 60 years since its conception and after three decades after its recognition by the Nobel committee as a major field of physics has this quantum mechanical principle begin its demonstration in experimentation. In support of Jed’s point, some fields of knowledge advance at a very slow pace, especially as related to quantum mechanics, but this lack of speed should not discourage the recognition of their importance to scientific advance. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: On Friday, December 28, 2012, Peter Gluck wrote: but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... [mg]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Sent from my iPhone On Dec 29, 2012, at 16:42, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I was joking. Of course it wasn't his fault ... this may not be the place for levity. Levity is difficult to pick up on during a fine-grained discussion of details, unfortunately. About the sensationalizers and entrepreneurs who make claims, beyond Rossi and Defkalion there is Brillouin, and further afield, there are Lattice Energy, the Rohner brothers and Nanospire. We have a lot of fun analyzing their claims in great detail here. But one should resist putting them all in the LENR basket. Some make claims that what they're doing is LENR, some claim specifically that what they're doing is *not* LENR, some probably don't know much if anything about LENR. To further add to the confusion that exists in the wild and wooly world of free energy, some ambitious individuals have taken it upon themselves to make a distinction between LENR and cold fusion, and to discount the latter. All of this is a recipe for boundless and eternal confusion unless one carefully picks a reference point and proceeds from there. A respected researcher such as Ed Storms or Michael McKubre is a good place to start with regard to demarcating LENR, specifically. It is this smaller set of claims that Jed and Ed Storms are discussing. The subject matter of this list ranges much further than that and gets into claims that are delightfully ludicrous and even possibly fraudulent. Eric
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Faith is the most precious of God’s gifts. I envy the faith of the fundamentalist who can see beyond the human failings and cardinal sins of the men that seem to have come to universally affect the establishment, doctrine, practice, and liturgy of most established religions. As a human endeavor, religion is tainted by the weaknesses of man. I find it overwhelming to parse out God’s truth from the perversions that man has insidiously injected into the worship of God since the very dawn of history. This work to discover God’s truth is more than a lifelong pursuit that leaves little time for other important things. With this having been said, I view engineering in all it varied forms as an unselfish expression and practice of a high religion well-grounded in the golden rule, one of the most noble, yet simple philosophical concepts that has been revealed directly by God. The Ethic of Reciprocity -- often called the Golden Rule in Christianity -- simply states that we are to treat other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves. Almost all organized religions have such an ethic. In this teaching, this ethic is normally intended to apply to the entire human race. Unfortunately, due to the frailty of human nature it is too often applied by some people only to fellow believers. If engineering is practiced at a minimum to advance the human condition for the benefit of our neighbor, to eliminate poverty and ignorance, to enable contact, understanding, and dialog among people, to encourage reasoning, innovation and evaluation of theory, to feed, clothe, house, and nurture man in all his needs and wants, to cure his illnesses, discomforts and infirmities; and in general, to advance the assent of man, in every sense and context, engineering can be practiced as a high art in selfless praise and worship of God. To my way of thinking, Edison and Tesla are now raised to archangels in the heavenly host and the viceroys of the heavens. Rossi, Papp, Ed Storms, Leclair among many others may be someday canonized as saints if their work comes to its intended fruition for the benefit of all mankind who rightfully deserve to sit at the right hand of the Father. So now let us redirect our conversations to the only true religion that glorifies both man and God. Cheers: axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** How about some Klonopin or other treatments for OCD? That's what I'm seeing here ( yes, from my own experience). I can't imagine anything more pointless than arguments about religious dogma. Time would be better spent discovering/developing free energy - by which means the entire Middle East would become gloriously irrelevant. Build a Golden Age and forget about these distractions forever.
Re: [Vo]:Latest published LENR related patent
Thanks, Teslaalset - Good find. Excellent resource list of patent applications also. The same applicant (I believe) submitted an earlier patent application - METHODS OF MAKING AND USING PALLADIUM ALLOYS WIPO Patent Application WO/2012/141761 http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/wipo/Methods-making-using-palladium-alloys/WO2012141761.html In the 'BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION' section, the author identifies weaknesses in the Patterson device that made its performance sporadic: In WO 98/03699, Patterson discloses an energy producing device using nickel coated on palladium on a plastic ball as a cathode in an electrolytic cell. The cell operates between room temperature and near 100 degrees C. Patterson claimed a nuclear reaction driven by a chemical process. It had at least two substantial deficiencies, namely: 1) The coefficient of thermal expansion between the plastic and the metal coatings are at least an order of magnitude different. This causes stresses between the coating layers and the core of plastic ball. Repeated temperature changes of the metal coated ball will cause the coating to flake off and will stop the energy generation process. 2) The electrolytic process was done in aqueous solutions. This limits its temperature to about the boiling point of the solution, or about 100 degrees C. A chemical process normally is a function of temperature: the higher the temperature, the higher the reaction rate. Limiting the operating temperature to about 100 degrees C means a low reaction rate and low efficiency system. In US 2003/0230481 Al, Miley discloses an improved version of the above mentioned WO 98/03699 by Patterson, but the essential deficiencies of WO98/03699 were still there. -- Lou Pagnucco Teslaalset wrote: I found a new publiced LENR related patent application. This time a WO patent related to preparing nickel alloy powder and a reactor. The description of the alloy preparation has large resemblance with recent work of Celani. The inventor Nee, Han, H. is unknown by me, but he has quite some metal related patents filed and granted. http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/fusion-base/fusion-patents/ (top of the list) Link to the actual patent application : http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012166808recNum=264docAn=US2012040017queryString=evaporatorsmaxRec=193361
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Faith is the most precious of God’s gifts. I envy the faith of the fundamentalist who can see beyond the human failings and cardinal sins of the men that seem to have come to universally affect the establishment, doctrine, practice, and liturgy of most established religions. As a human endeavor, religion is tainted by the weaknesses of man. I find it overwhelming to parse out God’s truth from the perversions that man has insidiously injected into the worship of God since the very dawn of history. This work to discover God’s truth is more than a lifelong pursuit that leaves little time for other important things. With this having been said, I view engineering in all it varied forms as an unselfish expression and practice of a high religion well-grounded in the golden rule, one of the most noble, yet simple philosophical concepts that has been revealed directly by God. The Ethic of Reciprocity -- often called the Golden Rule in Christianity -- simply states that we are to treat other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves. Almost all organized religions have such an ethic. In this teaching, this ethic is normally intended to apply to the entire human race. Unfortunately, due to the frailty of human nature it is too often applied by some people only to fellow believers. If engineering is practiced at a minimum to advance the human condition for the benefit of our neighbor, to eliminate poverty and ignorance, to enable contact, understanding, and dialog among people, to encourage reasoning, innovation and evaluation of theory, to feed, clothe, house, and nurture man in all his needs and wants, to cure his illnesses, discomforts and infirmities; and in general, to advance the assent of man, in every sense and context, engineering can be practiced as a high art in selfless praise and worship of God. To my way of thinking, Edison and Tesla are now raised to archangels in the heavenly host and the viceroys of the heavens. Rossi, Papp, Ed Storms, Leclair among many others may be someday canonized as saints if their work comes to its intended fruition for the benefit of all mankind who rightfully deserve to sit at the right hand of the Father. So now let us redirect our conversations to the only true religion that glorifies both man and God. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** How about some Klonopin or other treatments for OCD? That's what I'm seeing here ( yes, from my own experience). I can't imagine anything more pointless than arguments about religious dogma. Time would be better spent discovering/developing free energy - by which means the entire Middle East would become gloriously irrelevant. Build a Golden Age and forget about these distractions forever.
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up evolution to preserve and protect life. It's called microevolution. God has put on the genone all the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt to stressess. The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already encoded in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new environment.And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect life. My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called microevolution. My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian Evolution theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation and that a species can evolve into another species. It's this whole nonsense of Tree of life that says we all came from single celled organisms; that I have a problem with. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say what God’s plan of creation is? Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect life from the whims of the universe. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo sapiens. This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand as 'Darwinian Evolution'. I am nevertheless always more than happy to discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked. The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds. It is possible that Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and relativity. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture. Ditto Darwinian evolution. Nigel On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote: Axil, I think you mentioned this before. The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant. For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. It is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We don't know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself. People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We can not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning. The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. During microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes. The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always confuse the issue. They think that just because we see changes, that that automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
I haven't insulted anyone for over 24 hours now and I thought that things would start to simmer down as people stopped insulting me; and yet out of the blue, a fresh insult pops up to stoke new heat on the dying embers of the conflict. SVJ has admitted openly that he does this intentionally to provoke a strong reaction from me. This is the pattern of behavior that is the problem here in Vortex-L. Not me. For somebody who's worst drinking was less than 5 bottles of beer spread over the first 2 decades of his life; an insinuation that I am an alcoholic is a grave insult. Please refrain from insults. Instead of acknowledging that my caustic postings are exclusively directed at people who insult me; SVJ comes up with an insult veiled as a crackpot theory of my alcoholism. This is the integrity of this list that has gone downhill. And contrary to some people's assertion, I am NOT the problem. I am the solution to this madness. I challenged anyone to sieve thru the archives to see if I have insulted people who have not insulted me. A few folks immediately come to mind. Have I insulted Axil, David Roberson, Fran Roarty, Jones Beene, Terry Blanton, Nigel Dyer, Mark Iverson, etc. These are some of the most intelligent scientific minds in this forum and they know how to behave like adults, unlike some self appointed experts and off-topic trolls here. So Lomax, SVJ, Rocha, Peter Gluck, Jouni and some thers don't like my opinions; as I don't like theirs. But I never start insulting them. They always start it. If I have a problem with them, I always direct it to personal email as I have done with Peter. That is the proper way for civilized individuals to act. Qutie obviously, Bill has examined the situation in Vortex-L and has seen that what I am doing here does not deserve banning like many of these trolls would like to advocate. But if he does ban me due to mob pressure, I will still not change my response to obvious bullies. Jojo - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 6:13 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:List integrity From Mr. Lomax: ... But Jojo's writings here also vary in quality. Sometimes his spelling is atrocious, sometimes accurate. I have been wondering if Mr. Jaro drinks. In fact, for some time now I have wondered if Mr. Jaro drinks a lot. It might help explain some of his occasionally caustic posting behaviors. Alcoholism, among other issues. It's possible that if one were to sift through the history of Mr. Jaro's postings one might begin to discern a distinct 24 hour pattern as to when his spelling tends to be accurate and when it becomes less so. Quite frankly, it's beyond my desire to care to find out. However there might be others on this list that might consider it an interesting challenge. I'm wondering if Jojo needs an intervention. (Not my department.) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
No, I am not stating that the President is a muslim. I am stating that the Usurper is a muslim. We currently don't have a legitimate president; we have a usurper sitting on the throne. Why doesn't he just come clean? He could do this with a single 2 minute phone call to the Hawaiian authorities to open access to his vault BC. He can quickly end this controversy, establish his legitimacy, kill the Birther movement and start the healing of the nation. He can do all that in 2 minutes, yet he spends over 4 million dollars of Tax payer's money to block access to this vault BC. Why block access to such an innocuous document? WHY indeed? He won't because he can't. This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:40 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies Are you stating that the President is Muslim? On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything related to previous and current presidents. Anything about this current president is covered by this order. IF anyone wants to release information about Obama's BC, they have to go thru Eric Holder (the corrupt right henchman) or thru the Presidential counsel; for approval. This is the veil of corruption surrounding this usurper-in-thief and people like lomax are gving him a pass. I'm not surprised as lies are OK for Lomax as long as it helps prop up his illegitimate usurper muslim president. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies At 03:50 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Here is the actual Executive Order that Obama issued immediately after he took power. The Media spins this as rescinding a Bush Executive Order 13233. But in fact, it is a new Executive Order to specifically require his approval before release of any information, obstensively because of Executive Privelege. Obstentively? Took me a moment. Ostensibly. Release of any information. Sure. Any information of what type, where located, and by whom? Now, Lomax, who is lying now. Do I get my apology now? What exactly have you debunked? you blatant liar. No, no apology, unless you show that the Executive Order does what you claimed. I not only never claimed that this *particular* Exectuive Order did not exist, I linked to it and discussed it specifically. [...] Go Ahead, take you best spin shoot. Let's see what spin and lies you'll come up next. You've acknowledged all along that what you are doing is spinning. You have acknowledged that you say things that aren't true to create a dramatic image. That's spin. But I'll give you a fair chance here. You claimed that this document is an Executive Order which blocks access to Obama's vault BC. Below, I quote a bit of what I wrote, to which you are responding. I wrote, in more than one way, If he fails to apologize, or point to an actual order doing what he claimed, he is, effectively, a liar. Okay, how does this Order do that? What would cause this document to apply to birth records held by Hawaiian state officials? It's all here right in front of us, no more research should be necessary. But, also for the record, I'll say it again: There is no Executive Order that blocks public access to the vault birth certificate. That access is blocked by Hawaiian law on the privacy of records (as is true, I think, in all states). Some access to records is blocked by HIPAA, a federal law relating to the privacy of medical records, and there are other laws protecting the privacy of certain records, but no relevant Executive Order that does what Jojo claims. He lied, and he is continuing to lie. But ... his turn. THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release January 21, 2009 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 - - - - - - - PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) Archivist refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee. (b) NARA refers to the National Archives and Records Administration. (c) Presidential Records Act refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207. (d) NARA regulations refers to the NARA
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
I recommend you this story, specially the animated version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urotsukid%C5%8Dji http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRfLQIjxvq8 BTW, this is not safe for work. It's very gruesome, although, it's just animation. 2012/12/30 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com He won't because he can't. This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces. Jojo -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
Oh, damn. This is a sequel. But the original is not hard to find. 2012/12/30 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com I recommend you this story, specially the animated version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urotsukid%C5%8Dji http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRfLQIjxvq8 BTW, this is not safe for work. It's very gruesome, although, it's just animation. 2012/12/30 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com He won't because he can't. This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces. Jojo -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is factually true and must be believed as written. You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth. This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as property. Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future. Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject to like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not for me. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up evolution to preserve and protect life. It's called microevolution. God has put on the genone all the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt to stressess. The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already encoded in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new environment. And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect life. My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called microevolution. My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian Evolution theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation and that a species can evolve into another species. It's this whole nonsense of Tree of life that says we all came from single celled organisms; that I have a problem with. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say what God’s plan of creation is? Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect life from the whims of the universe. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo sapiens. This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand as 'Darwinian Evolution'. I am nevertheless always more than happy to discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked. The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds. It is possible that Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and relativity. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture. Ditto Darwinian evolution. Nigel On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote: Axil, I think you mentioned this before. The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant. For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. It is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We don't know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself. People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We can not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning. The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. During microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes. The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always confuse the issue. They think that just because we see changes, that that automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Ethic of Reciprocity -- often called the Golden Rule in Christianity -- simply states that we are to treat other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves. Almost all organized religions have such an ethic. In this teaching, this ethic is normally intended to apply to the entire human race. Unfortunately, due to the frailty of human nature it is too often applied by some people only to fellow believers. This nice passage is also found here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
I hate to say Amen Brother, and sound cliche, but, Amen Brother! Alexander Hollins On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is factually true and must be believed as written. You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth. This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as property. Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future. Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject to like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not for me. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up evolution to preserve and protect life. It's called microevolution. God has put on the genone all the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt to stressess. The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already encoded in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new environment.And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect life. My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called microevolution. My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian Evolution theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation and that a species can evolve into another species. It's this whole nonsense of Tree of life that says we all came from single celled organisms; that I have a problem with. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say what God’s plan of creation is? Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect life from the whims of the universe. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo sapiens. This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand as 'Darwinian Evolution'. I am nevertheless always more than happy to discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked. The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds. It is possible that Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and relativity. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture. Ditto Darwinian evolution. Nigel On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote: Axil, I think you mentioned this before. The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant. For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. It is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We don't know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself. People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We can not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning. The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. During microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes. The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always confuse the issue. They think that
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
At 05:07 PM 12/29/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mailto:mgi...@gibbs.commgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to attack the man while you address the argument? Look, I am sorry, No, you're not. You can't get over your emotionality. ... I cannot think of a way to say that politely. Oh, I'm sure you could if you tried. But you don't want to. Mark, Jed is Jed. When I first became aware that LENR was a live field, in early 2009, I had correspondence with Jed and Steve Krivit, mostly abou the blacklistings of their web sites on Wikpedia. It became clear immediately that Jed is very firm in his opinions and very blunt. He has, shall we say, redeeming qualities. He is *usually*, on fact, right. He is also heavily involved with Japanese culture, and does a lot of translation from the Japanese. He *was* trying to be polite, without surrendering his point. I.e., he is also an American. If you want to participate here as an ordinary list member, that's fine. But you are also a journalist, and for a journalist to get involved in personal debates, when planning to report on the topic, is unprofessional. That, in fact, is what Steve Krivit did, and, as a result, many -- and possibly most -- of the scientists in the field don't trust him and won't talk to him. What Jed is telling you is partly fact, and partly informed opinion. If you want to be objective, you will need to sort thorugh it. Jed knows a great deal about this field. Ed Storms, who has commented here today, is probably the world's foremost expert on cold fusion. I suggest consulting them, actively. Both of them are opinionated, but both are very communicative, they are resources. They won't lie to you. You cannot demand that an experimentalist propose a theory before you accept his results. That is not his job. That is not how it is done. Er, I didn't. I answered Peter's question. Yes, you did. What you wrote was not wrong, but it pushes certain buttons. I'm setting all that interchange aside, and responding to the original issues raised by your comments. First of all, there is a confirmed theory of cold fusion. It's not complete. The *mechanism* is missing. Given how much effort has already been put into coming up with a mechanism and then attempting to test it, with little success, I don't expect any theory of mechanism to be widely accepted soon. This is an enormously difficult theoretical question. There are tools to use, the tools of quantum field theory, but the problem is that the environment is extremely complex and applying the tools of quantum field theory in complex environments takes mathematics that we don't have. The prior *expectation* that fusion would not occur in the condensed matter environment was based on approximating the problem as a two-body problem. It was thought that would be sufficient, but Pons and Fleischmann decided to test it. They were *not* seeking a solution to the energy problem. They were doing basic scientific research. They *expected* some deviation from the calculations based in the assumption, but also that they would not be able to measure it. When their experiment rather dramatically melted down, they then worked for another five years in secrecy, and were forced to announce prematurely, by University legal. By that time they knew that they were seeing nuclear-level heat. They had scaled *down* for obvious safety reasons, and that is still advisable for most cold fusion work. Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect devices, using palladium deuteride, electrochemically loaded, are famously unreliable, and that cuts both ways. Something shold be made crystal clear. There is no longer any real scientific controversy over the reality of the effect. Jed will point to tons of experiments that showed excess heat, but that's not what sealed it scientifically. What all those experiments -- there are 153 reports confirming the heat effect in peer-reviewed literature -- did was to show that *something* highly anomalous was occurring. There were lots of reasons to doubt that it was nuclear in nature. However, by 1993, Miles had done the necessary work to determine the correlation between excess heat and helium. That work has been confirmed with increasing accuracy. Helium is a nuclear ash. Yes, you could say it might be leakage, except that idea does not match the actual experimental results and leakage would occur whether there was heat or not, *and these experiments look for helium in FP experiments whether there is heat or not. The non-heat cells become controls. And when there is no heat, there is no anomalous helium. And, further, as accuracy improved, the ratio got closer to the figure for deuterium fusion to
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
“This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces.” This accusation is categorically true for G. W. Bush. His election was notorious for a controversy over the awarding of Florida's 25 electoral votes, and the subsequent recount process in that state, fourth election in U.S. history in which the eventual winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote. Later studies have reached conflicting opinions on who would have won the recount if it had been allowed to proceed. On December 12, the partisan Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling requiring a statewide recount of ballots was unconstitutional, and in a 5–4 vote that the Florida recounts could not be completed before a December 12 safe harbor deadline, and should therefore cease and the previously certified total should hold. It is my belief that G. W. Bush was not validly elected president of the U.S. in contravention of the will of the majority. Fortunately, all such injustices are remedied by the passage of time and a beneficent providence. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: No, I am not stating that the President is a muslim. I am stating that the Usurper is a muslim. We currently don't have a legitimate president; we have a usurper sitting on the throne. Why doesn't he just come clean? He could do this with a single 2 minute phone call to the Hawaiian authorities to open access to his vault BC. He can quickly end this controversy, establish his legitimacy, kill the Birther movement and start the healing of the nation. He can do all that in 2 minutes, yet he spends over 4 million dollars of Tax payer's money to block access to this vault BC. Why block access to such an innocuous document? WHY indeed? He won't because he can't. This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:40 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies Are you stating that the President is Muslim? On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything related to previous and current presidents. Anything about this current president is covered by this order. IF anyone wants to release information about Obama's BC, they have to go thru Eric Holder (the corrupt right henchman) or thru the Presidential counsel; for approval. This is the veil of corruption surrounding this usurper-in-thief and people like lomax are gving him a pass. I'm not surprised as lies are OK for Lomax as long as it helps prop up his illegitimate usurper muslim president. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies At 03:50 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Here is the actual Executive Order that Obama issued immediately after he took power. The Media spins this as rescinding a Bush Executive Order 13233. But in fact, it is a new Executive Order to specifically require his approval before release of any information, obstensively because of Executive Privelege. Obstentively? Took me a moment. Ostensibly. Release of any information. Sure. Any information of what type, where located, and by whom? Now, Lomax, who is lying now. Do I get my apology now? What exactly have you debunked? you blatant liar. No, no apology, unless you show that the Executive Order does what you claimed. I not only never claimed that this *particular* Exectuive Order did not exist, I linked to it and discussed it specifically. [...] Go Ahead, take you best spin shoot. Let's see what spin and lies you'll come up next. You've acknowledged all along that what you are doing is spinning. You have acknowledged that you say things that aren't true to create a dramatic image. That's spin. But I'll give you a fair chance here. You claimed that this document is an Executive Order which blocks access to Obama's vault BC. Below, I quote a bit of what I wrote, to which you are responding. I wrote, in more than one way, If he fails to apologize, or point to an actual order doing what he claimed, he is, effectively, a liar. Okay, how does this Order do that? What would cause this document to apply to birth records held by Hawaiian state officials? It's all here right in front of us, no more research should be necessary. But, also for the record, I'll say it again: There is no Executive Order that blocks public access to the vault birth certificate. That access is blocked by Hawaiian law on the privacy of records (as is true, I think, in
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Fair enough. Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it. There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men. However, many of the retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus Christ. That is the mark of a real teacher. The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property other than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness. I think you are confusing this with how islam treats women. You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham. And as Christians, we call these retrograde acts as sins and disavow it. Unlike some people who justify it. Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth. In my decades of studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot of things I still do not understand. These are the things that I take by faith for now. Yet, despite all that, I have not encountered a Biblical statement that I have found to contradict what we categorically know as fact in science. The Bible contradicts pseudoscience like Darwinian Evolution, but not true scientific facts like the Earth is round. One only needs to study it with objectivity to see it. The Bible is not the work of mere men. The Bible is written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is how the Bible could proclaim that the Earth was round thousands of year before science discovered such facts. The Bible proclaims this fact 3 times in 3 different books written over a span of over a thousand years, but all before man discovered the Earth was round. The Bible predicted the emerging of Global Live TV and the global Internet. In my opinion, it also predicts the emergence of a global surveillance system using autonomous UAV powered by cold fusion. Time will tell that the Bible is correct again and again. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is factually true and must be believed as written. You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth. This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as property. Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future. Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject to like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not for me. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up evolution to preserve and protect life. It's called microevolution. God has put on the genone all the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt to stressess. The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already encoded in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new environment.And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect life. My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called microevolution. My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian Evolution theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation and that a species can evolve into another species. It's this whole nonsense of Tree of life that says we all came from single celled organisms; that I have a problem with. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say what God’s plan of creation is? Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect life from the whims of the universe. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo sapiens. This
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
At 03:20 PM 12/29/2012, Axil Axil wrote: The height that the weighted piston travels upward to a stop determines the output energy of the popper. Well, that shows the work done by the piston. Unavoidably, the energy associated with the feedback current must be determined and added to the energy imparted to the piston. If that is an experimental factor. It would be better, if it can be done, to avoid such complications. This experimental approach must be the simplest and cheapest one that can be run to prove over unity energy production. Yup. So ... why isn't it being done? When I saw the first popper, the Bob Rohner version, I think he put a weight on top. But there was no data on the output energy vs the input energy. The *most obvious issue.* This experiment should be the one first run to evaluate the popper. Yup. John Rohner sold a popper kit, but published *no data* on how his kit performed. Did he actually have any test data? I wonder. Is it necessary to be obtuse to (1) work in this field, or (2) be interested in it? I love it that people like Russ will get their hands dirty. But ... why not do it Smart?
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
Yes, Axil, I am honest enough to acknowledge that I have been wrong about GW Bush. I was a strong supporter of G.W. Bush at that time but have since changed my view. His membership in the Skull and Bones secret society should have tipped me off sooner, but I was preoccupied with partisanship at that time. Though I still think that he won Florida. But how about Obama? Do you think that his Birth Certificate have been vetted properly and openly? Do you think Obama is a legitimately qualified president? Can you conclude that he is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen based on the scanned BC he has put up of the Internet? Cause other than this scanned BC, there is no other proof he was born in Hawaii. I take that back, there could possibly be proof he was born in Hawaii that is in his vault BC. But alas, for some unknown inexplicable reason, he has blocked access to that. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies “This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces.” This accusation is categorically true for G. W. Bush. His election was notorious for a controversy over the awarding of Florida's 25 electoral votes, and the subsequent recount process in that state, fourth election in U.S. history in which the eventual winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote. Later studies have reached conflicting opinions on who would have won the recount if it had been allowed to proceed. On December 12, the partisan Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling requiring a statewide recount of ballots was unconstitutional, and in a 5–4 vote that the Florida recounts could not be completed before a December 12 safe harbor deadline, and should therefore cease and the previously certified total should hold. It is my belief that G. W. Bush was not validly elected president of the U.S. in contravention of the will of the majority. Fortunately, all such injustices are remedied by the passage of time and a beneficent providence. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: No, I am not stating that the President is a muslim. I am stating that the Usurper is a muslim. We currently don't have a legitimate president; we have a usurper sitting on the throne. Why doesn't he just come clean? He could do this with a single 2 minute phone call to the Hawaiian authorities to open access to his vault BC. He can quickly end this controversy, establish his legitimacy, kill the Birther movement and start the healing of the nation. He can do all that in 2 minutes, yet he spends over 4 million dollars of Tax payer's money to block access to this vault BC. Why block access to such an innocuous document? WHY indeed? He won't because he can't. This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:40 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies Are you stating that the President is Muslim? On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything related to previous and current presidents. Anything about this current president is covered by this order. IF anyone wants to release information about Obama's BC, they have to go thru Eric Holder (the corrupt right henchman) or thru the Presidential counsel; for approval. This is the veil of corruption surrounding this usurper-in-thief and people like lomax are gving him a pass. I'm not surprised as lies are OK for Lomax as long as it helps prop up his illegitimate usurper muslim president. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies At 03:50 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Here is the actual Executive Order that Obama issued immediately after he took power. The Media spins this as rescinding a Bush Executive Order 13233. But in fact, it is a new Executive Order to specifically require his approval before release of any information, obstensively because of Executive Privelege. Obstentively? Took me a moment. Ostensibly. Release of any information. Sure. Any information of what type, where located, and by whom? Now, Lomax, who is lying now. Do I get my apology now? What exactly have you debunked? you blatant liar. No, no apology, unless you show that
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust of his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults promulgated in the Old Testament. From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct those flaws. The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant. In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Fair enough. Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it. There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men. However, many of the retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus Christ. That is the mark of a real teacher. The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property other than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness. I think you are confusing this with how islam treats women. You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham. And as Christians, we call these retrograde acts as sins and disavow it. Unlike some people who justify it. Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth. In my decades of studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot of things I still do not understand. These are the things that I take by faith for now. Yet, despite all that, I have not encountered a Biblical statement that I have found to contradict what we categorically know as fact in science. The Bible contradicts pseudoscience like Darwinian Evolution, but not true scientific facts like the Earth is round. One only needs to study it with objectivity to see it. The Bible is not the work of mere men. The Bible is written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is how the Bible could proclaim that the Earth was round thousands of year before science discovered such facts. The Bible proclaims this fact 3 times in 3 different books written over a span of over a thousand years, but all before man discovered the Earth was round. The Bible predicted the emerging of Global Live TV and the global Internet. In my opinion, it also predicts the emergence of a global surveillance system using autonomous UAV powered by cold fusion. Time will tell that the Bible is correct again and again. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:02 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is factually true and must be believed as written. You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth. This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as property. Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future. Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject to like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not for me. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up evolution to preserve and protect life. It's called microevolution. God has put on the genone all the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt to stressess. The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already encoded in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new environment.And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect life. My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called microevolution. My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian Evolution theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation and that a species can evolve into another species. It's this whole nonsense of Tree of life that says we all came from single celled organisms; that I have a problem with. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
Excellent analysis Lomax. You sure pinned it down. Just like the excellent Jojo is an Alcoholic bullcrap and the Jojo has had a rough childhood fairy tale. LOL Keep up the good work guys. Bullies will always be bullies. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:24 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity At 05:06 AM 12/29/2012, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: These are positions that require integrity and some level of skill, but mostly the former. My two cents worth: The integrity required is the self control to not respond to trolls. The positions are that of moderator and owner. Moderators and owners have different reponsibilities from list members, and one of the duties of a moderator is to *act* with respect to trolls. For a moderator to engage a troll in debate is a Bad Idea. Rather, a moderator will do one of several things: warn the troll, on or off-list, put the troll on moderation, or ban the troll. If others complain about an alleged troll, a responsible moderator will accept or reject the complaints, not just ignore them. This list apparently has an owner/moderator whe is absent for extended periods, and who has then, seeing a problem, acted without warning. I don't think that is best practice, but *it's his list.* I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced threads lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond to the troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should be banned also. This is a common opinion among kibbitzers. Just ignore it. I remember such opinions about spam. What's the harm, just delete it! It's naive. There is harm from trolling. Trolls become expert at angering and enraging. People who do not care to engage with trolls may well use killfiles, or just ignore messages. But that does nothing to stop the trolling, and sometimes a troll will continue even if nobody responds, and, sooner or later, someone bites. Someone new thinks there is a real question or issue to be addressed. The list archive is public and googleable. A user may have no intention and not care what people on the list think, and may be playing to Google. Lists *do* lose members because of trolls. Blaming those who respond is short-sighted. It really is up to the list moderator, and, supposedly, this is a moderated list. If responding to a troll is considered the problem, the moderator can warn. Though it would be a bit weird. Trollface can post, but you may not respond. Think it through, Horace. Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll? Neither one is necessarily a fool. Horace, your thinking *sucks.* Trolls have a purpose (or it wouldn't be trolling). If the troll gets people upset, whether they are upset directly or from others responding, *that's the purpose.* [...] Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down hill since a bunch of fake email names have showed up. This is a weak shield for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages behavior unbecoming a scientific list. There are many services that will provide reverse lookup information for email addresses, so it is ultimately an ineffective ruse. Sometimes merely googleing an email address will yield the identity. For example, google (jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124 http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in Atlanta. [...] In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw, and warn off victims. Wait! Is Jojo a troll or a fraud? If he's a troll, you just violated your own should. If he's a fraud -- and he does promote fraudulent memes -- your suggestion does require response. To bullies the response should be to do what you want and ignore the bully. The response to truly disruptive and egregious or unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by ISPs. The response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps to expose the identity - which has worked well here in the past to eliminate nonsense from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^) Is it a fake identity? Jojo responded to this mail. As for Joseph Hao, he is a good friend. We used to work together on some free energy projects most notably on some HHO and Veg Oil/ Biodiesel projects and we were co-workers for a while. We went to graduate school together in San Diego State (MS Computer Science) a long time ago. This was a common email we used on all our free energy projects correspondence. He was the one who first subscribed this account to Vortex-LI have been exclusively using this email since I left the
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
At 04:14 PM 12/29/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mark Gibbs mailto:mgi...@gibbs.commgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to attack the man while you address the argument? Look, I am sorry, but your statements violate the scientific method at an elementary level. Jed, Mark is not a scientist and does not pretend to be one. His statements are not statements of science. I cannot think of a way to say that politely. Don't say it at all, then. Didn't you get that in kindergarten? Mark is not a troll. He's a reporter or writer who seems to be developing an actual interest in the field. Look, you have been studying cold fusion for, I think, more than twenty years. You are one of the most widely-read people connected with a field. You are not a scientist, i.e., not formally, but you are correct about the scientific method. But there is no right to demand that *anyone* follow the scientific method. Mark was just making a statement about what would lead cold fusion to be recognized as a great invention, and he was half-right. That is, it will take practical application. Theory is irrelevant to this. And Mark is not likely to grasp in a few months or even a few years what you know from twenty. [...] You cannot demand a practical device before you accept a scientific observation. You can't demand practical devices when we are still trying to control the reaction in the laboratory. That is like demanding a fully cooked wild turkey dinner before we leave the house with the shotgun. We have to find the bird and shoot it before we cook it!!! Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Jed, he wrote that you were getting overheated. You may think that you are calm, but you are on a rant, and it's not about Mark. It's about years of the insanity that you have confronted. Mark made no demand. He's correct, he simply answered a question, and the only thing wrong with his answer is that he thinks a testable theory is needed. There is a testable -- and widely tested -- theory, that deuterium is being converted to helium, generating 23.8 MeV/He-4. And that has not turned cold fusion or LENR into the Greatest Invention of the Year. Only practical application would do that! (And theories are not inventions and theories don't win the Invention Awards.) FIRST we do the research. THEN if we are skillful and lucky we will have the technology. Research is expensive. You have to have dozens of complicated machines, as you see in the photos here: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=187http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=187 Yes. True. And what Mark says is still true, as to practical application. He was simply incorrect about testable theory. That won't have any effect. Perhaps he meant theory of mechanism, but we have such theories. They don't -- and won't -- make the difference. You want to know how much research costs? Take the best estimate, multiply by 3, multiply again by 6, and add in a fudge factor of 80%. You want to know how long it will take? Longer. Just . . . longer. How hard it is? Much harder than anything that most people do their whole lives. It is like taking final exams in college level chemistry every single day. It is a miracle that any scientist succeeds at this game. Do scientists make mistakes? Yeah. As Stan Pons says, if we are half right we are doing great. They have made good progress despite the difficulties. Give them the tools and the money and they will probably succeed. That's true. Now, Mark, as a writer, might possibly have some influence on this, at some point. Obviously, he felt insulted. Is that what you want? (To be sure, you did somewhat apologize, but it was what we call a weak apology, i.e. something like, I'm sorry if this is impolite, but you really are an ignorant moron. Sorry, just a fact. Very weak apology. Instead, Jed, I suggest you find what you can agree with, with Mark, *and agree with it.* Mark makes mistakes in his review of this field. That's practically inevitable, I've seen nobody pick this up and get it all right immediately. I'm still picking gnats out of my teeth, after three years of pretty intensive study. (I study by writing, and learn by seeing experts pick it apart, when they are kind enough to do so.) So help him. You helped me, Jed, with your generosity, as you helped many others. Mark, please meet Jed Rothwell. He can be a bit cranky, but I assure you, he's worth knowing. And, by the way, meet Edmund Storms. Likewise he may seem to be cranky, but he's one of the most patient disputants I've encountered. I disagree with him frequently, and he gets irritated, but keeps on ticking. If you have a question about cold fusion, as to the experimental work that has been done, he's the expert, he probably has the broadest knowledge. His physics sucks. (Abd
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
Mark, insults from me will stop the moment insults to me stops. It's that simple. And it's not about turning the other cheek and forgive, cause I have done that. This is now way beyond forgiveness of an occasional insult. This is now about fighting back against systemic and organized attacks from a gang of mob bullies. Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:25 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:List integrity Good to see you're on-line, Horace... even if 'cloaked'. Just wanted to support your wise words about why the recent exchange got out of control... some people just can't keep their fingers off the keyboard. To all Vorts, Personal attacks are specifically forbidden on this forum, and I would hope that one has the conscious self-awareness and restraint to reread your posting before hitting 'Send', and *PURGE* it of all forms of name-calling and veiled derogatory implications... especially when it comes to belief systems. That's not too much to ask of rational human beings, is it? -Mark Iverson -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:06 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: These are positions that require integrity and some level of skill, but mostly the former. My two cents worth: The integrity required is the self control to not respond to trolls. I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced threads lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond to the troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should be banned also. Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll? It is clearly an option to automatically trash emails from pesky people, or, if you are afraid you'll miss something to simply read you want, but - to respond to a troll shows an obvious lack of integrity, a lack of an appropriate level concern for what you are doing to other members of the list. One of the greatest things about this list, and the internet in general, is the freedom of speech. List moderation should only be used in extreme circumstances. A little self control by list members is often enough to discourage trolls. I think Bill Beaty's laissez faire attitude with regard to moderation is a good and even necessary approach for this list, which encourages free discussion of science anomalies. If a roll tries to bully, control what you post, the best response is to simply go ahead and post what you want, and ignore any responses from the troll or bully. If numerous members of the list object, then that is another matter. If you feel action is warranted by an ISP, such as Microsoft, Google, etc. then a few simple googles will show you sites to directly report abuse to ISPs. Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down hill since a bunch of fake email names have showed up. This is a weak shield for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages behavior unbecoming a scientific list. There are many services that will provide reverse lookup information for email addresses, so it is ultimately an ineffective ruse. Sometimes merely googleing an email address will yield the identity. For example, google (jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124 http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in Atlanta. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To visit this topic, use this URL: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000124 Posted by Joseph Hao (Member # 3289) on June 14, 2004, 02:42 PM: Any folks out there studying for CCIE Voice Lab in Atlanta? [snip] Joseph CCIE #9273 jth...@hotmail.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw, and warn off victims. To bullies the response should be to do what you want and ignore the bully. The response to truly disruptive and egregious or unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by ISPs. The response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps to expose the identity - which has worked well here in the past to eliminate nonsense from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^) That's my 2 cents worth, from a member of the list for over 15 years. Resuming lurk mode. Best Regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Latest published LENR related patent
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:15 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: 1) The coefficient of thermal expansion between the plastic and the metal coatings are at least an order of magnitude different. This causes stresses between the coating layers and the core of plastic ball. Repeated temperature changes of the metal coated ball will cause the coating to flake off and will stop the energy generation process. This might explain why Patterson's later beads no longer produced excess energy. If Storm's theory is correct, it is the cracks resulting from the stresses which made the beads produce excess heat. If Patterson found a way to prevent the stressing due to the difference in coefficient of expansion, he might have solved the flaking problem; but, at the same time, he killed the process in preventing the surface cracking. Now wouldn't that be a hoot!
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: About the sensationalizers and entrepreneurs who make claims, beyond Rossi and Defkalion there is Brillouin, and further afield, there are Lattice Energy, the Rohner brothers and Nanospire. We have a lot of fun analyzing their claims in great detail here. But one should resist putting them all in the LENR basket. Yup. I assume they are LENR but I have no proof of that. I do not even know if these claims are real. To further add to the confusion that exists in the wild and wooly world of free energy, some ambitious individuals have taken it upon themselves to make a distinction between LENR and cold fusion, and to discount the latter. Yeah. The magnetic motor people, the Swiss ML Testakica, the Orgone energy people, and on, and on. Who knows what to make of them. I ignore them. I assume they are fruitcakes. But I have not investigated them and I have no proof of anything. I cannot dismiss a claim I know nothing about. I never upload anything to LENR-CANR other than the hydride metal lattice claims. I am not opposed to these other claims, but I assume our readers are looking for information on hydride LENR, not magnetic motors. People interested in that should see http://pesn.com/ All of this is a recipe for boundless and eternal confusion unless one carefully picks a reference point and proceeds from there. A respected researcher such as Ed Storms or Michael McKubre is a good place to start with regard to demarcating LENR, specifically. Exactly. It is this smaller set of claims that Jed and Ed Storms are discussing. And that is what we know about. Don't ask me about magnet motors. Gene Mallove was interested in them but I do not want to spread myself that thin. The subject matter of this list ranges much further than that and gets into claims that are delightfully ludicrous and even possibly fraudulent. Some of that stuff may be fraudulent. I have no way of knowing. I wouldn't invest in it! For all I know, Rossi might be fraudulent. He sure acts like it sometimes! Like a con-man from central casting. I doubt he is a fraud though, because I know people who have given him large sums of money, and none of them have complained he defrauded them. I also doubt it because he is so over-the-top, I can't imagine he would get away with fleecing anyone. I am not a policeman or a private investigator. It is none of my business whether he is or is not a fraud. I have no way of checking, and no interest in checking. I would not invest any money with him because he is mercurial, not because I suspect him of fraud. I have read a lot of history. Many great inventors were sharp dealers. Steve Jobs fleeced Wozniak and others, and both of them made a business of stealing telephone service. Edison was not someone you wanted to do business with. Bill Gates likes business deals in which he ends up paying nothing yet somehow holding the cards and the IP. Around 1911 the Wright brothers hired a young fellow to develop something and did not pay him several months until he drifted away, bemused but wiser. He wrote a charming memoir about it. William Shockley was not a sharp dealer and not dishonest, but he was a terrible person to work for. Paranoid and controlling. You would not want to cut a business deal with him. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
At 05:04 PM 12/29/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: I admit that there appears to be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to find out what's real and what's fake. Great, Mark. How do you want to approach this, to find out? We can tell you that the Fleischmann Pons Heat Effect is the result of small amounts of deuterium being converted to helium. That's nuclear fusion. The mechanism is unknow, but the reaction is real and is amply confirmed. The scientific method has led us to this conclusion. It remains falsifiable, but it is *totally consistent* with the experimental record. Which also shows that the FPHE is unreliable, erratic, variable, downright cantankerous. So when someone claims a device that produces lots of heat reliably, it may easily not be real. It's beyond or outside the state of the art. So consider it as unknown. Not to be assumed to be real, but not necessarily fake. Here is the problem. The FPHE is unreliable because the site for the reaction is probably cracks of a just-so size in the surface of palladium hydride. It's been difficult to get just the right conditions for the effect to work at all, but there are protocols where almost all cells show anomalous heat. And then they don't. The conditions for the reaction are not stable. It also looks like the reaction may itself poison the conditions. In any case, suppose that someone has scaled up. You should realize that Pons and Flesichmann deliberately scaled their work down, because of that meltdown. They did not know -- and we still don't know -- just how bad that meltdown might have been. This *is* fusion, and if they somehow had gotten the reaction *just right*, they might have lost not only the apparatus and the lab bench and a few inches of concrete floor, they might have lost the building. Or the campus. Really. This is *fusion.* It's only safe *if* the reaction is small. The nickel-hydrogen researchers have largely scaled up. So they are seeing more power. But. Is it safe? And is it *sustainable.* If a cell produces kilowatts of power, but that dies down after a couple of days, it's almost useless (unless you can cheaply refuel). There is a major possibility that would explain Rossi's evasiveness and failure to deliver on promises. He's actually got something, but ... it's not *just* right, it isn't reliable, it doesn't seem to last and he keeps believing that if he just tweaks it this way or that, it will keep operating. That's *speculation*, Mark, but reliability is the problem with cold fusion, *not reality*. We could get massive power from cold fusion devices, already, if we were prepared for them to work, sometimes, better than we expected! No, at this point attempts to scale up are seriously dangerous and unnecessary. If we can make a small device that reliably produces, say, ten watts, we can then make a large device that produces a kilowatt or more. If you want to know what is real, don't look much at Rossi. Celani, okay, he's a scientist. That does not mean that his device works, i.e,. his public results may be artifact, but it's being openly tested. Brillouin is working with SRI. If you want the real skinny in the field, as to practical work, the person to talk with would be Michael McKubre. He's widely respected and deserves it. The Defkalion people are not like Rossi, they do not appear to be crazy, and they have been working with some real scientists, such as Vysotskii, but they are a commercial interest and they are still secretive. Under those conditions, we cannot, as the public, distinguish between hype and reality. Not until they have a product that can be independently tested. My guess is that Rossi and Defkalion are struggling with reliability. Rossi may have *nothing*. He was dismissive when someone suggested control experiments to him. (I.e, run two reactors the same, but maybe one has hydrogen in it and the other has helium or nitrogen.) He said, I already know what happens when I do that. Nothing. He totally missed the point, his answer was that of an inventor, not a scientist. Had a control been run with the demonstration unit, in most or all of his demonstrations, we'd have an understanding of how the input energy affects the behavior of the cell *apart from* a supposed anomalous reaction. Rossi may also be a total con. It's not impossible. Krivit certainly did notice suspicious behavior. And (from recent news on the New Energy Times web site), apparently the Swedish physicists, Essen and Kullander, have *still* not acknowledged their errors. Face-palm. That's truly disappointing. It is *crucial* for scientists to ackowledge error or even simply possible error. Bottom line, it is *entirely possible* that these reports of imminent commercial products are misleading or downright false. Palladium deuteride reactions are proven, established, and the fuel/ash relationship is known. That is not true for nickel and
Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon
At 05:25 PM 12/29/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: After some additional reading, I agree with you, Abd. Or perhaps I should just say that my assertions from last evening were false and I'm now even more confused you are. Which I will take as step forward ... it is far better to be confused than to be wrong. Yes. Absolutely. Confusion is the beginning of knowledge. Don't be in a hurry to get rid of confusion! Let it be! Keep looking. This is a path to deep knowledge, in fact. (By the way, also don't worry too much about being wrong. Being wrong is one of the fastest ways to learn. It's amazing how many people get that backwards. Just don't be attached to being right. (I.e. don't assume that what you know is true.) That's the death of learning!
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
“But how about Obama? Do you think that his Birth Certificate have been vetted properly and openly? Do you think Obama is a legitimately qualified president? Can you conclude that he is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen based on the scanned BC he has put up of the Internet? Cause other than this scanned BC, there is no other proof he was born in Hawaii.” The supporters of G. W, Bush took their case to court and won. The same should be done for the supporters of the Birther theory. First find the convincing evidence, the smoking gun, that supports their case, and then take it to the courts. It is not productive to appeal to the court of public opinion to advance their case. I suspect an ulterior motive; that efforts in this regard are directed to fill talk show air time and raise revenue from higher viewer ratings. Obama was recently reelected with a majority of 53% of the vote, so it is an uphill fight to change all those minds and if accomplished…so what. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Yes, Axil, I am honest enough to acknowledge that I have been wrong about GW Bush. I was a strong supporter of G.W. Bush at that time but have since changed my view. His membership in the Skull and Bones secret society should have tipped me off sooner, but I was preoccupied with partisanship at that time. Though I still think that he won Florida. But how about Obama? Do you think that his Birth Certificate have been vetted properly and openly? Do you think Obama is a legitimately qualified president? Can you conclude that he is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen based on the scanned BC he has put up of the Internet? Cause other than this scanned BC, there is no other proof he was born in Hawaii. I take that back, there could possibly be proof he was born in Hawaii that is in his vault BC. But alas, for some unknown inexplicable reason, he has blocked access to that. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:36 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies “This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces.” This accusation is categorically true for G. W. Bush. His election was notorious for a controversy over the awarding of Florida's 25 electoral votes, and the subsequent recount process in that state, fourth election in U.S. history in which the eventual winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote. Later studies have reached conflicting opinions on who would have won the recount if it had been allowed to proceed. On December 12, the partisan Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling requiring a statewide recount of ballots was unconstitutional, and in a 5–4 vote that the Florida recounts could not be completed before a December 12 safe harbor deadline, and should therefore cease and the previously certified total should hold. It is my belief that G. W. Bush was not validly elected president of the U.S. in contravention of the will of the majority. Fortunately, all such injustices are remedied by the passage of time and a beneficent providence. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: No, I am not stating that the President is a muslim. I am stating that the Usurper is a muslim. We currently don't have a legitimate president; we have a usurper sitting on the throne. Why doesn't he just come clean? He could do this with a single 2 minute phone call to the Hawaiian authorities to open access to his vault BC. He can quickly end this controversy, establish his legitimacy, kill the Birther movement and start the healing of the nation. He can do all that in 2 minutes, yet he spends over 4 million dollars of Tax payer's money to block access to this vault BC. Why block access to such an innocuous document? WHY indeed? He won't because he can't. This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces. Jojo - Original Message - From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:40 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies Are you stating that the President is Muslim? On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything related to previous and current presidents. Anything about this current president is covered by this order. IF anyone wants to release information about Obama's BC, they have to go thru Eric Holder (the corrupt right henchman) or thru the Presidential counsel; for approval. This is the veil of corruption surrounding this usurper-in-thief and people like lomax are gving him a pass. I'm not surprised as lies
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
At 05:28 PM 12/29/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: That's not correct. There is a theory that considers cold fusion as a variation of conventional hot fusion. This is Takahashi's TSC theory. Eek. No. TSC theory isn't a variation of hot fusion. But maybe you could define the words to make it so. TSC is a tetrahedron of hydrogens bound by coherent electrons, which also happen to be in a tetrahedral form, overlapping the protons. As you know, 2 tetrahedrons are shaped into an octahedron. Although this is a rare instance, it makes the hydrogena collapse all the way into atomic size. The electrons absorb the huge potential energies from the protons, so there is no emission of energy up to that point. Well, perhaps you understand Takahashi better than I. But he certainly does not state it this way. The collapse is a condensation. It is not forced. The collapse is like that of a Bose-Einstein Condensate. The reaction is certainly not like hot fusion. It's 4-body fusion, for starters. Takahashi has recently provided a version of his theory that deals with hydrogen. I'm not dealing with that. The actual fusion happens when the condensate reaches a minimum distance. At that point, the nuclei are close enough that normal tunneling produces fusion, 100%, within a femtosecond. In normal hot fusion, the nuclei would not be close enough to each other for there to be enough time, and the simultaneous fusion of four nuclei would be far, far too rate. The proposed reaction could only take place at very *low* temperatures. The starting condition is probably low mutual momentum between two deuterium molecules in confinement. Otherwise they would be able to reach the TS condition withut dissociating. There are several things that can happen after the collapse, but what happens in general is that in usual hot fusion you have the entrance of 2 particles, always, in TSC you everything is synchronized to 3 or more bodies to react. He's only analyzed the symmetrical 4-body problem. Takahashi has *not* detailed what happens after fusion. So, with several bodies, the energy levels of the system is extremely divided until it emitted in bundles of XUV to low energy xrays. That is, around 0.5KeV to 10KeV. This energy is extremely well absorbed by all kinds of matter, in fact, it is of the best absorbed wave bands and even something as thin as 1 micrometer or a few micrometers of air can absorb killowatts without any trace of the original radiation. This is why studies of the Solar Corona are mostly done in balloons or space given that they also happen to shine in this wavelength and any thin atmosphere may absorb all of the original photons. 2012/12/29 Mark Gibbs mailto:mgi...@gibbs.commgi...@gibbs.com Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as PF's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. Daniel did not respond to what was said. What Mark wrote was correct, except for a quibble. It would be more accurate that the prior application of quantum mechanics to the condensed matter environment led to the prediction that fusion could not occur at any appreciable rate. Pons and Fleischmann falsified that with their experiment, which were designed to test the prediction (not to discover a new energy source). The falsificaiton was not complete until the nuclear ash was discovered and demonstrated to be correlated with evolved anomalous heat. There is other evidence for nuclear reactions in condensed matter, but the heat/helium evidence is far stronger, because of the correlated effects. What is true about Daniel's reponse is that Takahashi's TSC theory uses standard quantum field theory. Most of us connected with the field are of the opinion that no truly new physics is involved, merely a failure to anticipate and apply already-existing physics to unexpected conditions. Who would have thought of calculating the rate of 4-body fusion, for example? (A particle physicist, accustomed to plasma conditions, would think that if 2-body fusion is rare, 3-body fusion is rare upon rare, and 4-body fusion would be downright ridiculous. However, Takahashi was put in the trail of multibody fusion by his experimental finding that, with *hot fusion*, in experiments where palladium deuteride was bombarded by deuterons, the 3-body fusion rate was enhanced by 10^26 over naive expectation. That's *huge*.)
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
Axil, court battles have been inititated to force the revelation of Obama's vault BC, but it has always been dismissed on technicality. Supposedly, no American citizen can bring a charge against Obma because he has not been specifically aggrieved or hurt by the elevation of an unqualified POTUS. In other words, unless you can prove that you have been hurt more than the rest of the people, you have no specific standing to bring a court case. This is how Obama has been able to escape from justice. It does not hurt that the shadow government demons are also threatening all those you would try. It seems to me that if he is legit and has nothing to hide, he would simply allow the openning of his vault BC and not spend over 4 million tax payer dollars to defend it. What is the rational of defending a vault BC? Why spend all the attorney's efforts and all the money that does not even belong to him? Don't you find that unusual? I have said before. The Birther movement will die a quick death and I will apologize in shame and go away if Obama can do this. Fact is, he won't because he can't. He either does not have a vault BC or his vault BC must indicate he was not born in Hawaii. During that time, parents and grandparents can register a birth by writing to the authorities. But the BC thus created would not contain hospital or doctor's information, or midwife information. That is likely what Obama's BC is missing. But we will never find out because of the veil of corruption. Axil, I don't care if Obama was releceted with 99% of the popular vote. The Constitution ought be be stronger that mere popularity. We must be a nation of laws if we are to survive as a nation. Bullying, ingnoring the law, and/or making up the rules as we go will not cut it. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies “But how about Obama? Do you think that his Birth Certificate have been vetted properly and openly? Do you think Obama is a legitimately qualified president? Can you conclude that he is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen based on the scanned BC he has put up of the Internet? Cause other than this scanned BC, there is no other proof he was born in Hawaii.” The supporters of G. W, Bush took their case to court and won. The same should be done for the supporters of the Birther theory. First find the convincing evidence, the smoking gun, that supports their case, and then take it to the courts. It is not productive to appeal to the court of public opinion to advance their case. I suspect an ulterior motive; that efforts in this regard are directed to fill talk show air time and raise revenue from higher viewer ratings. Obama was recently reelected with a majority of 53% of the vote, so it is an uphill fight to change all those minds and if accomplished…so what. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Yes, Axil, I am honest enough to acknowledge that I have been wrong about GW Bush. I was a strong supporter of G.W. Bush at that time but have since changed my view. His membership in the Skull and Bones secret society should have tipped me off sooner, but I was preoccupied with partisanship at that time. Though I still think that he won Florida. But how about Obama? Do you think that his Birth Certificate have been vetted properly and openly? Do you think Obama is a legitimately qualified president? Can you conclude that he is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen based on the scanned BC he has put up of the Internet? Cause other than this scanned BC, there is no other proof he was born in Hawaii. I take that back, there could possibly be proof he was born in Hawaii that is in his vault BC. But alas, for some unknown inexplicable reason, he has blocked access to that. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies “This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces.” This accusation is categorically true for G. W. Bush. His election was notorious for a controversy over the awarding of Florida's 25 electoral votes, and the subsequent recount process in that state, fourth election in U.S. history in which the eventual winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote. Later studies have reached conflicting opinions on who would have won the recount if it had been allowed to proceed. On December 12, the partisan Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling requiring a statewide recount of ballots was unconstitutional, and in a 5–4 vote that the Florida recounts could not
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
At 09:29 PM 12/29/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: ... my caustic postings are exclusively directed at people who insult me; I challenged anyone to sieve thru the archives to see if I have insulted people who have not insulted me. Barack Obama. Evolutionary biologists. Muhammad. His wife, Ayesha. Abraham and his wife Sarah. Every Muslim on the planet. (That's, what, one out of four people?) I could add, for example, the Hawaiian State Registrar, who apparently does not exist in Jojo's eyes, or is lying. Qutie obviously, Bill has examined the situation in Vortex-L and has seen that what I am doing here does not deserve banning like many of these trolls would like to advocate. But if he does ban me due to mob pressure, I will still not change my response to obvious bullies. I doubt very much that Bill has looked at the situation. Bill will not respond to mob pressure, I'm sure. I have not advocated banning Jojo. I've advocated warning him.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Well, take a look at this paper, which was presented this month in JCF13 earlier this month: http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0057 Not after the fusion, but well, some ideas of what might happen during fusion. 2012/12/30 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com He's only analyzed the symmetrical 4-body problem. Takahashi has *not* detailed what happens after fusion. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
The erroneous acts of polygamy and slavery were never commanded in the Old Testament, only controlled and condoned. Jesus Christ came to complete the Old Covenant, the real Old Covenant with God the Father, not the corrupted Judaism that it has become by the time he entered the scene. One famous scholar once said. The Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed, while the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed. There is no conflict between the Old and New Testaments. The New is the completion of the Old. But we must make a distinction between what is really the Old Testament from the corrupt Talmudic Judasim that came from Pagan Babylon. Acceptance of the Bible as literal turth in NOT a violation of Christ's teachings. Far from it. Christ himself extensively quoted from the Old Testament and said it was true. You will not find Christ or any of the New Testatment writers denying anything in the Old Testament. They took it as literal truth. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust of his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults promulgated in the Old Testament. From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct those flaws. The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant. In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Fair enough. Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it. There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men. However, many of the retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus Christ. That is the mark of a real teacher. The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property other than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness. I think you are confusing this with how islam treats women. You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham. And as Christians, we call these retrograde acts as sins and disavow it. Unlike some people who justify it. Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth. In my decades of studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot of things I still do not understand. These are the things that I take by faith for now. Yet, despite all that, I have not encountered a Biblical statement that I have found to contradict what we categorically know as fact in science. The Bible contradicts pseudoscience like Darwinian Evolution, but not true scientific facts like the Earth is round. One only needs to study it with objectivity to see it. The Bible is not the work of mere men. The Bible is written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is how the Bible could proclaim that the Earth was round thousands of year before science discovered such facts. The Bible proclaims this fact 3 times in 3 different books written over a span of over a thousand years, but all before man discovered the Earth was round. The Bible predicted the emerging of Global Live TV and the global Internet. In my opinion, it also predicts the emergence of a global surveillance system using autonomous UAV powered by cold fusion. Time will tell that the Bible is correct again and again. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is factually true and must be believed as written. You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth. This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as property. Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future. Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject to like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not for me. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Dec 29,
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
The info in the bible was not edited and sanctioned as sacred until the First Council of Nicaea. At that time, the heretics were identified and the bible was purified. Therefore, how could Christ accept a book that had not yet been written? The Old Testament contains 39 (Protestant) or 46 (Catholic) or more (Orthodox and other) books, divided, very broadly. There are many versions of the bible accepted by the various sects of Christian belief. How can one determine which version of the Bible that Christ favored? He died before the fact. axil On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** The erroneous acts of polygamy and slavery were never commanded in the Old Testament, only controlled and condoned. Jesus Christ came to complete the Old Covenant, the real Old Covenant with God the Father, not the corrupted Judaism that it has become by the time he entered the scene. One famous scholar once said. The Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed, while the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed. There is no conflict between the Old and New Testaments. The New is the completion of the Old. But we must make a distinction between what is really the Old Testament from the corrupt Talmudic Judasim that came from Pagan Babylon. Acceptance of the Bible as literal turth in NOT a violation of Christ's teachings. Far from it. Christ himself extensively quoted from the Old Testament and said it was true. You will not find Christ or any of the New Testatment writers denying anything in the Old Testament. They took it as literal truth. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:19 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust of his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults promulgated in the Old Testament. From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct those flaws. The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant. In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Fair enough. Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it. There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men. However, many of the retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus Christ. That is the mark of a real teacher. The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property other than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness. I think you are confusing this with how islam treats women. You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham. And as Christians, we call these retrograde acts as sins and disavow it. Unlike some people who justify it. Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth. In my decades of studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot of things I still do not understand. These are the things that I take by faith for now. Yet, despite all that, I have not encountered a Biblical statement that I have found to contradict what we categorically know as fact in science. The Bible contradicts pseudoscience like Darwinian Evolution, but not true scientific facts like the Earth is round. One only needs to study it with objectivity to see it. The Bible is not the work of mere men. The Bible is written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is how the Bible could proclaim that the Earth was round thousands of year before science discovered such facts. The Bible proclaims this fact 3 times in 3 different books written over a span of over a thousand years, but all before man discovered the Earth was round. The Bible predicted the emerging of Global Live TV and the global Internet. In my opinion, it also predicts the emergence of a global surveillance system using autonomous UAV powered by cold fusion. Time will tell that the Bible is correct again and again. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:02 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is factually true and must be believed as written. You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth. This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in its
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
That is in error, my friend. The Old Testament was completed several hundreds years before Christ. In fact, the entire Old Testament was translated to Greek about 323 BC. That version of the Old Testatment is known as the Septuagint. The New Testament books were compiled and assembled by a man named Erasmus. He took the commonly accepted letters and compiled it specifically ignoring gnostic works and pseudogospels. It is a misunderstanding that Constantine assembled the Bible in the Coucil of Nicaea. He did not. He merely sanctioned and promoted its widespread acceptance. Frankly, I do not considered the Catholic church as Christian. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian cult. It is so far out in its teachings and they do not even claim Biblical authority anymore. To them, traditions, commentary, and papal pronouncements are the true and only doctrines of the church. If there is a conflict between papal pronouncements vs Biblical teachings, the papal pronouncements are infallible. That to me is a mark of a cult. Heck, not even Peter the Apostle or Paul the apostle claimed infallibility. Peter was dinged by Paul when he was in error. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA The info in the bible was not edited and sanctioned as sacred until the First Council of Nicaea. At that time, the heretics were identified and the bible was purified. Therefore, how could Christ accept a book that had not yet been written? The Old Testament contains 39 (Protestant) or 46 (Catholic) or more (Orthodox and other) books, divided, very broadly. There are many versions of the bible accepted by the various sects of Christian belief. How can one determine which version of the Bible that Christ favored? He died before the fact. axil On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: The erroneous acts of polygamy and slavery were never commanded in the Old Testament, only controlled and condoned. Jesus Christ came to complete the Old Covenant, the real Old Covenant with God the Father, not the corrupted Judaism that it has become by the time he entered the scene. One famous scholar once said. The Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed, while the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed. There is no conflict between the Old and New Testaments. The New is the completion of the Old. But we must make a distinction between what is really the Old Testament from the corrupt Talmudic Judasim that came from Pagan Babylon. Acceptance of the Bible as literal turth in NOT a violation of Christ's teachings. Far from it. Christ himself extensively quoted from the Old Testament and said it was true. You will not find Christ or any of the New Testatment writers denying anything in the Old Testament. They took it as literal truth. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust of his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults promulgated in the Old Testament. From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct those flaws. The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant. In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Fair enough. Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it. There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men. However, many of the retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus Christ. That is the mark of a real teacher. The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property other than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness. I think you are confusing this with how islam treats women. You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham. And as Christians, we call these retrograde acts as sins and disavow it. Unlike some people who justify it. Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth. In my decades of studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot of things I still do not understand. These are the things that I take by faith for now. Yet, despite all that, I have
Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Let me now come to my senses. When the essential beliefs of a person are questioned, you question the quintessential essence of the person themselves. I dare not do that. I will not change my beliefs and neither will you. Let be stop before I irrevocable offend you in my zeal to win the argument. Peace and love my friend: axil On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** That is in error, my friend. The Old Testament was completed several hundreds years before Christ. In fact, the entire Old Testament was translated to Greek about 323 BC. That version of the Old Testatment is known as the Septuagint. The New Testament books were compiled and assembled by a man named Erasmus. He took the commonly accepted letters and compiled it specifically ignoring gnostic works and pseudogospels. It is a misunderstanding that Constantine assembled the Bible in the Coucil of Nicaea. He did not. He merely sanctioned and promoted its widespread acceptance. Frankly, I do not considered the Catholic church as Christian. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian cult. It is so far out in its teachings and they do not even claim Biblical authority anymore. To them, traditions, commentary, and papal pronouncements are the true and only doctrines of the church. If there is a conflict between papal pronouncements vs Biblical teachings, the papal pronouncements are infallible. That to me is a mark of a cult. Heck, not even Peter the Apostle or Paul the apostle claimed infallibility. Peter was dinged by Paul when he was in error. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:37 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA The info in the bible was not edited and sanctioned as sacred until the First Council of Nicaea. At that time, the heretics were identified and the bible was purified. Therefore, how could Christ accept a book that had not yet been written? The Old Testament contains 39 (Protestant) or 46 (Catholic) or more (Orthodox and other) books, divided, very broadly. There are many versions of the bible accepted by the various sects of Christian belief. How can one determine which version of the Bible that Christ favored? He died before the fact. axil On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** The erroneous acts of polygamy and slavery were never commanded in the Old Testament, only controlled and condoned. Jesus Christ came to complete the Old Covenant, the real Old Covenant with God the Father, not the corrupted Judaism that it has become by the time he entered the scene. One famous scholar once said. The Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed, while the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed. There is no conflict between the Old and New Testaments. The New is the completion of the Old. But we must make a distinction between what is really the Old Testament from the corrupt Talmudic Judasim that came from Pagan Babylon. Acceptance of the Bible as literal turth in NOT a violation of Christ's teachings. Far from it. Christ himself extensively quoted from the Old Testament and said it was true. You will not find Christ or any of the New Testatment writers denying anything in the Old Testament. They took it as literal truth. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:19 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust of his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults promulgated in the Old Testament. From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct those flaws. The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant. In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age. Cheers: axil On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Fair enough. Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it. There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men. However, many of the retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus Christ. That is the mark of a real teacher. The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property other than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness. I think you are confusing this with how islam treats women. You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham. And as Christians, we call these
