[Vo]:newVortex
As some of you know, a number of us have started a newVortex mailing list. This is a moderated list, but, routinely, new subscribers, on showing that they aren't spammers by submitting a coherent, on-topic post, will be taken off of moderation. The list, as a yahoogroup, has other associated tools, such as a file space, and currently any list member may post a file. To read a post on the list, one does not have to subscribe, but to access files, security requires that the person join the list. One may join as a no mail member (or better, Special Messages.) The initial rules are the same as the Vortex rules, except that we are less likely to ban anyone. Rather, if there are problems, a member will be placed on moderation, until the problem clears up. We could also shut the whole list down, easily, so that all members (including us( are on moderation. If we do that, no messages will be lost, but some might be rejected. (In which case, the submitting member will get a rejection mail with a reason and a copy of the post.) The initial moderators are: Abd Lomax Stephen V. Johnson David Roberson The list archive is public and googleable. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/ We even have a Mary Yugo post. I found it informative. I have not, however, personally verified the facts alleged. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/47 Be nice, folks!
Re: [Vo]:Re: Microwave based motor
At 03:42 PM 1/12/2013, Alex wrote: This second link says much about the possibilty of this microwave motor. But in the end I am not really able to try it, because once they were speaking about electrolysis from water into hydrogen then about splitting water with microwaves and then about making steam with microwaves and this should give a overunity. BUT what is the Conclusion in the end? Because I want to convert a internal combustion engine which uses petrol as fuel to use hydrogen. Well that is possible with a elecrolysis engine. But what about the steam generated by a magnetron? I dont want some fake answers, just answers which are correct. How about there is no answer there? Is that correct? The idea described does not use water as a fuel, it uses water as a working fluid. The water described is vaporized by microwave energy, supplied by a magnetron. There was no evidence provided that any energy was released over what was put in, electrically, by the magnetron. There were, though, some possibly confused or confusing statements. It's a fancy kind of electric motor. As was ultimately described, you could, if you wanted, recycle the water. If the steam is allowed to exit the cyclinder on the return of the piston, with new water (as an atomized mist, presumably) sprayed into the cylinder for the next cycle. The exhaust water need be cooled only enough that it condenses, and if the water entering the cylinder is hot, it would take less energy to vaporize it. However, TANSTAAFL. There will be waste heat, and any energy converted to work by the piston must come from the magnetron. A little more below. Discussion: microwave motor. http://amasci.com/freenrg/magnet.html When other users asked the message-poster Tim Chandler whether his claim was a joke, he stopped posting... From: Rick Monteverde 76216.2...@compuserve.com Subject: Re: magnetron engine O/U? Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 01:36:29 -0700 (PDT) On May 12 Mike Butcher wrote: Did I understand this correctly, you did get a self-running engine to operate just on water? If this is the case then your statement nothing more nothing less seems a bit casual. Or have I misunderstood and you tried and failed to get the engine to operate in such a self sustaining mode? Me too, Mike. Frankly, I'm rather suspicious this story was put here to tease us a bit. My apologies to Timothy Chandler if it's a true story, but I think you have to admit it looks a little strange as posted here. It's like, yeah, we got an engine to run on *nothing but water*, and then just shrugged and went on with our lives. I basically thought it might have been posted as a joke. Actually, Tim Chandler posted again, 20 July, 1996. There has been some talk on this list of how to modify a standard combustion engine to use Microwaves and water as fuel. Has anyone done this to a car's engine? Yes I know of someone who did try it, last I checked, he wasn't very successful. If anyone has done this, how can I get in touch with them? I will see if I can dig up his email address and send it to you... [...] Tim May 13, Rick Monteverde had written: [...] Mike. Frankly, I'm rather suspicious this story was put here to tease us a bit. My apologies to Timothy Chandler if it's a true story, but I think you have to admit it looks a little strange as posted here. It's like, yeah, we got an engine to run on *nothing but water*, and then just shrugged and went on with our lives. I basically thought it might have been posted as a joke. [...] Before that, Tim Chandler had written: Rather than using a battery, we took the time to modify the existing ignition coil setup on the engine, in order that it would properly trigger/fire the magnetron. For our first few runs we did however use an external power supply to power the filiment heater on the magnetron (approx. 3VAC), but eventually that too was supplied by the ignition system. So we really had no battery, to go dead, the power was generated and used... I personally did not handle the major modifications to the ignition system, and I do not recall exactly what they were. I have however skoke with the guy who did redesign it, he said he would draw up a schematic and send it to me when he finishes up with his finals (which are all this week). Once I get the schematic I will post it to the list. This is a striking claim. From other discussion and a report of a phone conversation with Tim, they used a magnatron, note the spelling difference. This ignition device generates an impulse of power from rotation of a permanent magnet or magnets past a coil. If the engine actually ran and maintained rotation even without load, this would be a remarkable achievement, apparently violating conservation of energy. (Some energy must be lost in heating of the components, so the available energy to recycle would decline. Unless there was other energy storage (or supply) in the
[Vo]:Rules for Unconventional Research, and Shaking Current Theories to the Core.
This document by Bill Beaty is well worth reviewing, if the reader is not familiar with it. http://amasci.com/freenrg/rules1.html This doesn't just apply to inventors. Similar phenomena happen with pseudoskeptics, and *who isn't pseudoskeptical* on occasion, at least? A genuine skeptic does not forget to be skeptical of self. Bill lays out the psychology quite well. I received today an announcement of a remarkable video. [Kim Sand, salsasas3996@ ...] wrote, to a list of prominent Vo participants: In this video series the currently accepted theories of physics and astrophysics are shaken to the core by a radical new theory of the fundamental forces in all matter. You will be amazed as a magnetic model of the dome at CERN is used to create a 100 mm diameter plasma Sun with a 300 mm diameter equatorial disc of plasma around it! All the plasma videos are actual footage with no enhancement or manipulation other than speed. In other words, this is real thing. Hard to believe, but it is all true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI (I had no problem believing that the videos were real and not fake, though, of course, some are constructed. Not a problem.) The basic test device that LaPoint uses is a thing of wonder, the kind of thing I'd have spent months playing with when I was young. The astrophysical images are beautiful, the video is eye candy. The video had the best production values I've seen in the alternative science field. Yet my mind was screaming at me, Pseudoscience!! Maybe. Maybe he has found something. However, I see nothing like an adequate explanation of the experimental *basis* for his theory, and I certainly don't see the attitude that Bill is pointing to, an attitude of self-skepticism. I see no specific testable predictions (the lack of such is a basic characteristic of pseudoscience). What it looks to me like is that the theorist has discovered, in fact, a *pattern* that matches many phenomena. He hasn't shown how this pattern explains *anything*. At least not to me! I'm reminded of the claims of Rashad Khalifa, whom I knew. He believed he had found a pattern in letter and word frequencies in the Qur'an. I know almost exactly what led him to that, there was a minor statistical anomaly that he'd discovered. As soon as he believed that the anomaly was real evidence of a hidden message, he started to see it more and more. He became convinced that he had made a monumental discovery, that, in fact, he was specially chosen by God to deliver this to the world. He paid with his life for this belief. I was able, years later, when he was assassinated and I tried to verify his work, to see exactly what he had done. Counting words and letters in the Qur'an is nowhere near as simple as people might think, one must make choices. He made the choices that confirmed his pattern. That was, in his mind, the correct way to count. But every time he made such a choice, he constrained future choices. Eventually, when he still found contradictions to his theory (based on discovered counting errors in his prior claims), he started to correct the text of the Qur'an to match his theory. And he always found some excuse for his choices or his later corrections. The human mind is a pattern-recognition machine, a very efficient and powerful one. We can readily find patterns in random data. For a scientific theory, we must do more than see a pattern. We must then, from the pattern we have detected, make predictions that can test the pattern, and we must keep thinking about how we might be wrong, rather than about how we might be right. Bill gets it right. The scientific explorer works as hard as possible to *refute* the new discovery, and documents that work meticulously. Because the *mind* -- which very much wants to be successful, and we love to be right -- will forget all contrary evidence and only remember confirmation.
Re: [Vo]:Rules for Unconventional Research, and Shaking Current Theories to the Core.
At 05:18 PM 1/13/2013, James Bowery wrote: So-called confirmation bias must have had some adaptive value. I wonder what it was or perhaps even is? Okay, let me guess. We are good at guessing. We might occasionally even get it right. Much human behavior is learned. We need to be able to create models of the world, and we don't have a whole lifetime to do that. Without working models, we may not survive very long. At the same time, behavioral models, in the wild where we evolved (or to which we are adapted), to find food, say, are often unreliable. So we must persist in the face of evidence that the model fails. We keep looking consistently with the model we have formed. Sometimes too long. With mice, behavior that always finds a reward is extingished more rapidly than behavior that only sometimes finds a reward. In the former case, the no-reward conditions may be more likely to represent a *real change* in the environment, rather than just the breaks for that day. I'm getting that the phenomenon is related to language, and that it arises in language. Without a concept of truth, we might not have such attachment to being right. So this would apply to models constructed in language, and the problem arises when we think we need to find the truth. And, of course, to reject what is false. So we start to think that models are true or false. Actually, they are just models. The use of language, in spite of this problem, is very powerful, it obviously confers survival value. So far, anyway. If language takes us into global extinction, well, I suppose that idea would have been falsified An old metaphor for the ego is the camel. Very, very useful creature. However, they may step on your face if they get the chance. Be careful with camels. Be careful with your self.
Re: [Vo]:Tragic death of Aaron Swartz and the open source science movement
At 06:22 PM 1/13/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is a dreadful story. See: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/01/13/brilliant_life_and_tragic_death_of_aaron_swartz.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/01/13/brilliant_life_and_tragic_death_of_aaron_swartz.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/13/aaron_swartz_s_suicide_may_make_the_open_access_movement_mainstream.html It gives me the willies because it is somewhat similar to what I do at LENR-CANR.org. Well, that was part of what he did. I've had occasion to review your practices in hosting files at lenr-canr.org, and you aren't doing anything illegal, in spite of what a certain idiot claimed, ad nauseum, on Wikipedia. You are taking modest steps. Aaron Swartz took some big ones. Sometimes people struggling with depression do that, the rush can lift the depression for a while. I read a memoir by his ex-girlfriend. Made me cry. He was loved.
Re: [Vo]:Rules for Unconventional Research, and Shaking Current Theories to the Core.
At 07:43 PM 1/13/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Martin Fleischmann expressed a view that you might say is the opposite of this. He said when you find an anomaly, it is the easiest thing in the world to convince yourself it isn't real. Your first instinct is to dismiss it. I think he meant that was the first instinct of a trained scientist such as himself. Other people may go too far the other direction. This isn't opposite. It's the *same*, i.e. filtering out information that contradicts held belief about how reality works. That's what an anomaly is. Martin was right. There is *another problem* which is when we come up with an *explanation* for the anomaly. At that point, our psyche can flip. We now become a defender of the new paradigm. *This* is when we need to try as hard as possible to falsify it. Bill wrote about the first stage, noticing anomalies: Fifth: Keep a journal. If you notice something strange, WRITE IT DOWN. If you don't, you'll invariably forget it. Anomalies are anomalies. They only appear normal if we don't look at them closely. Anomalies demonstrate that we don't know something. It might be something trivial or something important. We can't possible notice every single anomaly, but they are where the juice is, the progress of science. Otherwise it's all machinery. The insane tragedy of cold fusion in 1989-1990 was the failure of imagination, of curiosity. Okay, so maybe this is all artifact, but, damn! what artifact could be fooling so many people? Naw, not interested. Someone else will figure it out. They aren't physicists anyway, what do they know about fusion? Not much, in fact. That's why it was such a tragedy. The field needed, and probably still needs, the best minds in physics to figure out what is going on. Chemists, those who persisted, were stuck with experimental results that their knowledge of chemistry told them wasn't chemistry. So what was it? Miles showed, in fact, and it's been confirmed, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was *some kind* of deuterium fusion, but that doesn't establish the mechanism, it only narrows the mystery. It would be truly funny, if it weren't tragic, physicist reviewers demanding that chemists supply an explanatory theory before allowing their experimental results to be published. (That's why much or most of the experimental work was published in chemistry journals, since these were mostly chemistry experiments.) The pseudoskeptic physicists demand publications be in physics journals. Great! Write the damn papers!
Re: [Vo]:Rules for Unconventional Research, and Shaking Current Theories to the Core.
At 07:55 PM 1/13/2013, James Bowery wrote: In behavioral psych, the term is variable ratio reinforcement for the kind of reinforcement schedule, your refer to, that produces long-persisting behaviors/models/beliefs. Pseudoskeptics would, undoubtedly, like to point to that as an explanation for why cold fusion researchers are irrational. No doubt. However, the premise hasn't been established, which is why they are called pseudoskeptics. They believe in this imagined state, other irrational people. If we view cold fusion researchers as mice in a Skinner Box pressing a lever for food pellets, where food pellets are cases of observed nuclear products such as excess heat, then clearly they would be correct, except for two things: the mouse isn't irrational and the implied payoff of a cold fusion event is far greater than a food pellet is to a mouse. I have some mice, my kids really wanted them, and they do like their food. So I don't know. As Norman Ramsey pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's original review of cold fusion: However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. Right. But sometimes the revolution is in our grave, as we watch the world continue to ignore the obvious. The payoff for cold fusion, if true, is so huge that it would be a mistake of monstrous proportions to invest anything less than an enormous amount of resources in determining that it could not be reproduced, once there was evidence for it. Well, that argument would bankrupt us if applied to every possibility. Fortunately, the basic research needed as a first step isn't that expensive. Truly a drop in the bucket compared to what is being spent on hot fusion research, when the latter may *never* pay off. That program developed a life of its own, beyond all reason. Cold fusion remains speculative as a practical power source. However, I'd say the odds are better than hot fusion, and the only reason I propose waiting for the basic research results is because we need to know what the mechanism is before planning a true assault on the problem. Otherwise we could waste billions, just like the hot fusion people (though for a different reason; they do have theory, they only have an enormous engineering problem.) PS: After a brief web search, there are competing theories out there for the evolution of confirmation bias. One is the payoff bias, that demands taking into account the risk adjusted value of a behavior. I tend to go along with that. There is another theory that it originates in social interactions of advocacy. The idea that reasoning is primarily social seems unwarranted and tendentious. If confirmation bias is adaptive for the individual interacting with nature, one needn't explain its persistence in the social setting. Mmmm socially, looking good is a powerful motivator, so I wouldn't be so sure about dismissing that. It can become internalized, so the same behavior can occur even when nobody else is looking. The converse, as was presented in the podcast, is not true. Individuals interact with nature all the time, even though they are within a social setting. It seems therefore that not only William of Ockham, but reality demands some explanation of individual confirmation bias. Well, quibble: reality never demands explanations, we do. Reality just is. It needs no explanation at all, to do the most amazing, wondrously complex, beautiful things.
Re: [Vo]:Abd Lowmax no longer welcome on vortex
At 10:21 PM 1/13/2013, William Beaty wrote: Very weird. Bcc'ing this to newvor...@yahoogroups.com, just in case. Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:21:47 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Abd Lowmax no longer welcome on vortex All subscriptions blocked until further notice. I only had one subscription, at this email address. I was apparently never removed or blocked. What is he talking about? All subscriptions as in he's not allowing any new subscribers? When Bill announced I was banned, I assumed mail was blocked. During the shutdown, before the ban announcement, I had sent one or two test messages. They were not returned, and they did not appear, I think. I have no clue what happened to them. I accidentally posted to Vortex-l yesterday and it went through. When I found that out today, I wrote a number of fairly routine posts. I was surprised to see Bill's laconic message. In any case, I'd appreciate information about the Vortex-l list processor. If anyone is able to subscribe a new address, I'd like to know. I cannot access that listserv for any purpose, something is blocking it at my domain host (for weeks) and I haven't figured it out. If this mail does not appear on Vortex, but only as the bcc on newvortex, be aware that replying to it will create a message to Vortex. I don't mind that at all, in fact, it would be great. Or anyone can reply here, just edit the To header to newvor...@yahoogroups.com
RE: [Vo]:J Ouellette on how stuff works... another lenr bashing
replying to Vortex post http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75306.html At 10:44 AM 1/12/2013, Jones Beene wrote: Ah cocktail party physics Combining the best of life into the worst of science ??? From: alain.coetmeur@... FYI and article by J ouellette http://science.howstuffworks.com/starships-use-cold-fusion-propulsion.htm/printable start with a nice pitch and is finally lenr bashing, with cherry-picked critics on Rossi, scientific sophism presented as evidence and irony when not enough... see my article http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1017-JOuellette-LENR-bashing-Could-starships-use-cold-fusion-propulsion some other story by Ouellette on lenr-forum http://www.lenr-forum.com/tags.php?tag=ouellette That article was appalling. http://science.howstuffworks.com/starships-use-cold-fusion-propulsion.htm worked for me, not the URL given above, which failed. For fun, a list of errors. Her post is really a blog post, with obviously no fact-checking involved. She's simply displaying her ignorance, her dependence on a casual perusal of pop media, and what must be a poor memory. I.e., she may *think* something when she reads a report, and what she remembers is what she thought. Not the actual facts. Common problem, in fact. But horrible in a science reporter. From now on, I'm quoting Ouellette: [...] For one scenario, he assumed a 500-person space ship on a one-way trip to establish a human colony on some distant exoplanet. That would require an exajoule of energy, or 1018 J, i.e., just about the same amount of energy consumed by everyone on Earth in one year. That's crazy. Somebody missed something, the length of time it takes for the mission. Most space colonization scenarios involve large vehicles -- (or collections of vehicles, I haven't seen, but it's an obvious safety precaution, expecially when travelling in intersteller space at high velocities) -- that can self-sustain for centuries, if need be. Cold fusion might be quite useful. [...] The article has very little to do with space travel, and she's got no clue about space travel. One small problem... There's just one problem. We can achieve hot http://science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-reactor.htmnuclear fusion, but recreating the intense temperatures and pressures that exist inside stars currently requires more energy than it gives back, so it's economically unfeasible, and pretty much an energy http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/sinkhole.htmsinkhole for the time being. She's ignorant. Hot fusion is difficult to use in confinement. If used for propulsion, it might not need to be confined. If only we could achieve fusion at room temperatures! No. Bad idea for fusion propulsion. The problem is translating power into impulse. At high power, what she's talking about for space travel, one would use hot fusion to create massive high-energy radiation and local heat, all of which would be exhausted, the reactants being reaction mass. But cold fusion might be useful for low-impulse propulsion. Long-term space travel might use solar sails, might use ion propulsion. Electric rockets, effectively That's the claim of proponents of so-called cold fusion, a field that has languished on the fringe since its alleged discovery almost 20 years ago. Back in 2000, TIME magazine listed cold fusion as one of the worst ideas of the 20th century. She has the typical pseudoskeptical mind set. This isn't about science, it's about proponents. The field did languish on the fringe, but in that period, there was continued publication in peer-reviewed journals, reaching a nadir around 2004-2005. It is up by roughly a factor of four since then, to roughly two papers per month (in mainstream journals, there is a lot more in the specialist LENR journals). And how is a comment from Time magazine over a decade ago relevant to *present science*? She's just writing a fluff piece, and it gets worse. Almost twenty years ago? When did she write this? The cite link gives a date of 29 August 2012. She doesn't specify the starting event, just its alleged discovery. That could be the 1989 press converence, almost 23 years ago. But Pons and Fleischmann only speculated on the reaction they found. From the energy density, they concluded it could not be known chemistry. They *actually* claimed, if you go back and read the first paper, an unknown nuclear reaction. The paper, as submitted, had Fusion? at the end. The journal dropped the question mark. Call it the fusion confusion. They had discovered the heat from what later turned out to be, indeed, fusion by an unknown mechanism, and the mechanism is still unknown. Because of fusion confusion, the field came to be known as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, LENR. She will come to that. When did we know it was fusion? Well, that was established by Miles, published, as I recall, in 1993.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 02:43 PM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Do you consider muhammed to be an infallible person? No, explicitly not. Is muhammed considered perfect and sinless by muslims like how Jesus Christ is consider perfect and sinless by Christians? Definitely not, by the majority of Muslims. There are Muslims who fall into this error -- and I consider the denial of Jesus' humanity to also be an error, the whole point of the incarnation (to put on my Christian hat) was that God became man, and to become man is to become flawed, limited, powerless, and fallible. Eli Eli, lamma sabachthani? So, when the chips were down, what name did Jesus call God? Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew, and not Greek. That fragment is the only snippet of his actual words that has been preserved. The Aramaic gospels were back-translated from the Greek. It's a question, not an argument, and this is only a reply on the issue of sinlessness, not a challenge to Christians. It's a *Christian question*, for Christians to address. The Qur'an is clear on Jesus, he was human, *and* he was effectively unique, the Word of God is the *Qur'anic term.* If muhammed is not considered sinless, you should have just disavowed that act and be done with it. I'd have to know the act to disavow. Child molestation is highly reprehensible, *by definition*. I did disavow child molestation, very early on. I pointed to the enforcement of the prohibition in Islam, as to the recent adjudicated case of a 10 year old girl, betrothed, who was raped by her husband. If Muhammad consummated a marriage with a prepubescent or early-pubescent Ayesha, it would be *rape*, as that case shows, and the only Muslim I found who considered that this would be lawful was Maududi, about whom my opinion is very low. Remarkably, he based his opinion not on hadith, but on a verse on divorce which he interprets in the same corrupt way as the Christian critics, showing how fundamentalists think alike. The only on-line argument I could find that considered the Muslim and Bukhari reports of Ayesha's age -- which is a *separate issue,* because of the range of age of maturation -- was a fundamentalist site that treated hadith as infallible sources of law, which is a minority position in Islam. For most of 1400 years the age issue was not considered important, because what was important was maturity, which is only correlated with age, not dependent on it (by 9 years old). So some recent scholarship has examined the issue, and found the hadith to be unreliable. And the fundamentalists are horrified, and that is what was really the point of the fundamentalist site. Look at this horrible innovation, substituting the judgment of historians for our beloved hadith! I've said I'm Maliki, and that school de-emphasizes hadith. However, I'm also Mu'tazili, a school that was dominant for a time, very early on, and the Mu'tazili influence remained in Muslim science. Long story, but the word is sometimes translated as rationalist. The literal meaning is postponers. That is, when even a Qur'anic verse seems difficult to interpret, when it seems to lead to irrationality, we postpone judgment. We look to life itself, to test and result, for understanding of the revelation. And I've found that this works. My undertanding is practical, not that of one who adopts a belief-system consisting of rigid ideas and conclusions. Take a cue from Christians, we disavow the retrograde acts of Solomon's polygamy. We do not insist and try to justify it. I'm not going to dive into judgment of Solomon, nor polygamy, nor polyandry, for that matter. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Keep to the point my friend. Maybe you'll even convince me. If one is transformed, it will be through his surrender to God, to Reality, not by me. Jojo PS. How can you call yourself an electronics engineer when you haven't graduated from engineering school? So, you have no college degree at all? Two questions, last first. No. No degree at all. About three years, over two of which were at the California Insitute of Technology. Though I thought I'd be a nuclear physicist, by the third year I was shifting my interests massively and declared a biochemistry major, but never pursued it. I left in good standing, eligible to return, but I never went back. I call myself an electronics engineer because electronics design was my longest-running self-employment; that business still continues, but the design is now all being done in Brazil. I was totally self-taught in that field, and, in certain narrow areas, became internationally known. That, in fact, is how I ended up having an engineer working for me in Brazil. Jojo was responding to this post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75036.html
[Vo]:Yak, yak. Do Something! NewVortex mailing list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/join If you join, enter a note that shows you know what the list is about, this is only to discourage spambots. It can be very simple. Be patient, it might take a day for a subscription to be active, until we get more moderators. I have started this mailing list to serve as a (possibly filtered) version of the vortex list. Not all aspects have been set up yet, but anyone can subscribe to this list, subscription is open. New members, however, are moderated until accepted. I intend to subscribe the vortex list to this mailing list, which will cause it to be echoed; however, the vortex subscriber will be moderated, and moderator approval will be required for posts to be echoed. I am the owner of this list. I'd happily share that with certain others, most especially Bill. Owners may create or remove owners, and, most importantly, may create or remove moderators. I have no intention of being a regular moderator; as owner, my main job would be to resolve hopefully rare disputes, but I also consider my position as owner to be as a trustee for the community. Any maintained disputes will be referred to the community, through non-disruptive process that will be set up if necessary. I will accept volunteer moderators who subscribe from the email address they use for vortex, and who are known as long-term Vorticians. Moderators will have the ability to moderate subscribers, accepting or rejecting posts, and can take members off of moderation. Direct posting to this list will be allowed. Yes, Mary Yugo could subscribe. Nobody will be banned from this list without at least one clearly violated warning, on the list (or in mail submitted for moderation) as far as I'm concerned. But the community is sovereign here, unless one of the owners I create boots me out and takes over If that happens, I can always be contacted at the email address this mail was sent from. For those reading this from the archive, it's the user abd, and the domain is lomaxdesign, the top-level being .com. To subscribe to the new list, you mail send a mail to newvortex-subscr...@yahoogroups.com. Include a brief note so that I know you are not a spambot. This process is *only* about preventing spam, it is not membership censorship. Or one can join at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/join To get full access to group on-line features, you will need to have a yahoo account, and link it. If anyone has difficulty with that, they may contact me. The list subject tag will be [nVo]. Vortex list rules may be presumed to be *continued* on nVo. The new list, however, has an editable archive, and violating posts *may* be subject to removal, but this will be done transparently.
Re: [Vo]:Slate attacks cold fusion
At 10:16 AM 1/3/2013, Daniel Rocha wrote: It was against all kinds of fusion, Jed. And he called Eric Lerner an idiot. 2013/1/3 Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com This is depressing. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/fusion_energy_from_edward_teller_to_today_why_fusion_won_t_be_a_source_of.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/fusion_energy_from_edward_teller_to_today_why_fusion_won_t_be_a_source_of.html A bit fuller quote: For one thing, the history of fusion energy is filled with crazies, hucksters, and starry-eyed naifs chasing after dreams of solving the world's energy problems. One of the most famous of all, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/science/martin-fleischmann-cold-fusion-seeker-dies-at-85.html?pagewanted=all_r=0Martin Fleischmann, died earlier this year. Along with a colleague, Stanley Pons, Fleischmann thought that he had converted hydrogen into helium in a beaker in his laboratory, never mind that if he had been correct he would have released so much energy that he and his labmates would have been fricasseed by the radiation coming out of the device. Fleischmann wasn't the first - Ronald Richter, a German expat who managed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Richterentangle himself in the palace intrigues of Juan Peron, beat Fleischmann by nearly four decadesand http://ecat.com/the latest schemer, Andrea Rossi, won't be the last. This guy is relying too much on Charles Seife (Sun in a Bottle) as a source. There is no comparison with Richter and the Pons-Fleichmann team. Pons and Fleischmann announced a set of *experimental results,* Richter was a secretive con artist. Pons and Fleischmann were not naifs, they knew that nuclear reactions in condensed matter were not expected. They also had not been dreaming of solving the world's energy problems. They were researching basic science, and they found something *very* unexpected, and reported it. Pons and Fleischmann did not claim to have converted hydrogen to helium. They would have expected this reaction -- even if we substitute deuterium for hydrogen to fix the guy's error -- to be undetectable. They claimed an unknown nuclear reaction, and the radiation from an unknown reaction *cannot be predicted,* so this is simply an old pseudoskeptical trope. The author is simply showing his ignorance. And only now I look to see the author's name. Oh! Charles Seife! He believes himself! The subtitle of his book is The Strange History of FUSION and the Science of Wishful Thinking. Apparently, he wishes he was insightful and correct. Has this guy read Status of cold fusion (2010), Naturwissenschaften? That is a peer-reviewed review of the field, the most authoritative statement we have on what current scientific thinking is, among the knowledgeable (including the editors and reviewers at NW, which is published by Sprnger-Verlag, as their flagship multidisciplary journal, and SV is the second-largest scientific publisher in the world. This is *mainstream.* Because of Seife's blatant errors in his brief description quoted above, we can know that he's not knowledgeable. Even a knowledgeable pseudoskeptic, if such exists, wouldn't make those mistakes, writing for a major publication like Slate. Charles Seife is a journalism professor at New York University. Great. Qualified to review science? Journalists are expected to be accurate, in addition to writing engagingly. Seife is writing polemic, and doesn't seem to give a hoot about accuracy. He has no clue as to the real theoretical issues involved with cold fusion, nor to the vast body of experimental evidence that has led to the most recent understanding of it as actually being, as to what Pons and Fleischmann discovered, the fusion of deuterium to helium, without the expected gamma radiation (which could merely mean that the pathway does not involve d+d fusion by the classic brute-force mechanism, but *something else.*). The evidence for that is *conclusive.* There is, in fact, *no contrary experimental evidence,* and the fusion conclusion is supported by the work of twelve independent research groups, see the Naturwissenschaften review and Storm's book, The Science of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (2007). And Seife compares this with a blatant fraud, Richter? Spit!
Re: [Vo]:something to consider
At 01:02 AM 1/3/2013, Eric Walker wrote: I am starting this as a new thread because many people are starting to skip entire threads.  See my questions below. I wrote If that's the best we can do for now, how to address Abd's pressing concern about having his background and religion subject to constant assault on this list?  But really this is a concern that pertains to all of us.  We need a list that is hospitable to all people who can make a competent contribution.  (I do not mean *everybody*.  I do not mind in the slightest if list mods take action to make the list quite inhospitable to those who for whatever reason are too immature to contribute much of value.) The problem is that there are no list mods. Bill is absent. He last posted on 11/12/12. On 11/4, he announced the removal of a list member: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg72688.html and he reiterated his policy. It's quite clear what he'd do. How far he'd go may be less clear, but the basic action is not in doubt. Think about what you would do if you were in Abd's situation.  Perhaps you would just abide the assault quietly.  Perhaps you would leave the list.  But that would not make the environment any more hospitable for others in shoes similar to yours.  You may not respond in the way that Abd has.  But we should appreciate that he's being put in a very awkward position and that he has broader interests in mind. Thanks, Eric. There are solutions here, and I've acted to implement one, that can work if enough people want it to work, and that doesn't depend on voluntary compliance from trolls or other disruptive members. This list is currently, effectively, unmoderated. I do not know if subscription is working, I haven't checked, but if Bill moderates subscription, that may be missing also. Unmoderated lists go south, it is practically inevitable. Moderation can be very light, as has been Bill's practice, I urge reading his policy in the post cited above. I know I can be controversial, but I also have a long reputation to maintain. I've promised that the new list will be operated as a continuation of this list, only with some new features. I'm the owner of the new list, but I promise to be open and transparent about that, and to be responsive to the community consensus. I will appoint new moderators, and at least one new list owner, from among those willing to serve and known and reasonably trustworthy. Bill, if he shows up, and if he wants to be an owner of the new list, I guarantee in advance that he'll be made one. We need to be careful about the owner status. An owner can delete messages and the entire list, and an owner can remove moderators *and owners.* So the basic requirement for being an owner as a trustee for a community is trustwothiness. I intend to implement forwarding from this list to the new list, assuming that I can get a subscription through. If not, I'll set up indirect forwarding, it's more of a nuisance but it's still possible. What that will mean is that one will be able to read this list, but moderated, as determined by the moderation panel. Only new subscribers will be moderated on the new list, unmoderated when they show relevant postings, and placed back on moderation only after at least one violated warning, and this will be transparent and appealable, through a non-disruptive appeal process that will itself be transparent. Moderated members who flood moderators with irrelevant posts may be removed as members, but there will be warning. Unfortunately, if one is reading the new list, replies will automatically go to the new list, not here. However, one can obviously fix that manually, if one prefers to reply to the existing Vortex list. The new list direct subscription address: newvortex-subscr...@yahoogroups.com. On-line subscription is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/join Eric On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Eric Walker mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.comeric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Oh, I'm quivering, shaking with the possibility that *Jed Rothwell* might filter me out. I am not going to subscribe to VortexB-l. This is supposedy a moderated list. If it stays unmoderated, I won't be here long.  Hate to say it, but the troll is starting to win.  People are starting to lose patience with one another.  I think Steve Johnson has been on this list since early days. Any word on Bill?  Is he ok? How long do we suffer the present situation until we reconstitute under something like Google Groups, with Terry or another longtimer as mod? Or should everyone who can't stand the situation add he who shall not be named to a killfile?  If that's the best we can do for now, how to address Abd's pressing concern about having his background and religion subject to
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
At 01:16 AM 1/3/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: OK, why can't the President of the United States make a special request to get his long form. You say there was no legal way, but in fact there is. Abercrombie has enough authority by himself as governor to do this. Obama could make a 2 minute phone call and the Bither issue would be resolved once and for all. Why not do this simple thing? Over 60% of America want it, why not do it. This question has been answered many times. I'll do it again. Since Abercrombie has been mentioned, let's let him respond: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf As can be seen, unless Abercrombie is *lying through his teeth*, the President *did* make a special request to get his long form. I never said there was no legal way to get a *copy*. I said there was no legal way to get the *actual long form original* out of the vault for public display. It can be taken out and copied upon a request by certain legally interested individuals. Abercrombie is not one of them. If over 60% of the American people want it, they are sadly misinformed, because it was done in 2011, the certified copy was displayed at a press conference, reporters got direct copies of it (not scans) and a scan was released on the internet so that everyone can see it and read it. Birthers, however, have kept repeating old and thoroughly discredited claims, I've seen many of them recently. It goes to show
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 02:06 AM 1/3/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: I believe this proposal of mine is fair and equitable and good for the community. How about it Jed and SVJ? Jed won't see this because he's filtering out Jojo -- and me, now, because of my responses to Jojo. SVJ won't see this unless someone forwards it to him personally, because he unsubscribed.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 01:16 AM 1/3/2013, David Roberson wrote: Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? No. Why? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. Indeed. They are. That's the point, in fact. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? Sure, that occurred to me. However, my responses are only to a fraction of what Jojo is posting. I tested this before, explicitly giving Jojo the last word, after he'd violated his promise to give it to me, and I honored that, until his battles with *others* made it clear that disruptive off-topic flame wars would continue. I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. It's already happening. However, take a look at my rate, and compare it with others. I am *not* causing the problem here. I write lengthy posts in response to others, researching issues that have been brought here by others. I don't bring irrelevant issues here, except as everyone does, as dicta, small comments that we routinely make in chit-chat. I ignore *most* of what is being sent. Why not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. Advise your friend. Is he your friend? At times such as this I look back fondly to the posts of Mary and Crude, at least they were related to the main subject and generally not directly offensive. I did not support the banning of Mary Yugo, necessarily. I have created a nVo list, and they are welcome to subscribe to it. New subscribers are on moderation, but will be taken off on a showing of relevance, and will not be added to moderation unless they violate warnings, and they will only be banned if they flood moderators with irrelevant posts. The list archive will be accessible publically, and complaints about offensive posts may result in deletion of posts from the archive; however, these posts may be copied to a flame pit that may not be googleable. How to resolve the problem here is pretty simple, we have decades of experience at it. The problem is the absence of the list moderator. That would come up as an issue sooner or later. Mailing lists with only one owner are *unstable*, long term. I've seen many go south when the owner disappeared, and we all disappear, eventually. This is at least the second time I have begged for a little civility on this list. Indeed. So what will you do about it? no more new content below. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 01:41 AM 1/3/2013, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: I too, as one who has been on and off of Vortex over ten years, and consistently for the last 4 years, tire of this ridiculous banter between JoJo and Abd Both of you have lost sight of the main purpose of this forum, and I will be emailing Bill Beaty to ban BOTH of you for a short time. GROW UP! I have not lost sight of the main purpose of this forum. I've been dealing with an extended abuse of the forum, going back six months. Mark is certainly welcome to email Bill, but many of us have already done that. I've telephoned him. His voicemail was still operating, a few days ago, but I got no response from him. Nobody else has reported any recent communication from him. I have handled issues like this since the 1980s. Ive also noticed that most of the ol timers have refrained from getting involved because they know how useless these kinds of discussions are. And they don't care. NONE of either JJs or Abds postings have changed my views one way or the other, and I seriously doubt if it has changed anyone elses either in any significant way None of my posts were aimed at changing Mark's mind about anything, at least not on the issues JJ raised. this has got to be the worst use of this forum that I have ever seen, and BOTH are responsible; I have seen this kind of response since the 1980s. What Mark seems to be unwilling to do is look at the actual balance, and I don't blame him. It's work! The history of this has been documented, several times, but, my guess, Mark hasn't read any of it. All he knows is that he is irritated by the flood of posts, and, dammit! someone must be to blame. So he picks the obvious targets. Ban them all! Bill, had he been present, would have handled this long ago, at least by a few weeks ago. He's stated his policy, clearly. He's acted before with far less cause. I doubt that he would have banned me, similar issues came up before, but I don't care if I'm banned. I don't *need* Vortex. I respond as I respond because I'm a member of this community, and consider that there is such a thing as community responsibility. Because Bill founded this list, his policies are to be respected, but they were not *fully adequate* to deal with the problem of stinking messes in the list archive. He used to maintain the archive himself, and he would therefore be responsible for what he maintains, in theory. But the archive is now on an archive site, and, my guess, he cannot delete posts there. That is ultimately a security issue. We'd have to face this sooner or later. I've created a new list, and if Bill shows up and wants to, he can be an owner. If he wants it, I'd resign as an owner. I am *not* making a power grab, here. The name Abd means servant, and I take that seriously. and a few others that just cant help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. Apply it to yourself, Mark, that's where the insight can be useful. Now, you just responded to a post with a subject header about Islam and little girls, thus expanding content in *that thread* and drawing attention to it. There are other threads where the issue you are concerned about has been raised, not so contaminated. But you still lashed out. So, Mark, may I return the favor and ask you to Grow up!? That is, instead of complaining about the behavior of others, *do something* to improve the situation. Your choice, eh? no more new content below. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. Why not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. At times such as this I look back fondly to the posts of Mary and Crude, at least they were related to the main subject and generally not directly offensive. This is at least the second time I have begged for a little civility on this list. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
changed anyone elses either in any significant way this has got to be the worst use of this forum that I have ever seen, and BOTH are responsible; and a few others that just cant help but make snide remarks or try to psychoanalyze someone else which is a major sign of immaturity and lack of self-awareness. I learned that lesson over 20 years ago... intelligence does not guarantee self-awareness. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:17 PM To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Abd, is it possible for you to discuss these issues with him in private? I find the titles of the threads offensive and to keep seeing them over and over is beginning to wear on me. I have a hard time believing that you must personally defend Islam to this extent and did it occur to you that you are feeding fuel to the fire over and over again? I miss the good discussions that once were common on this site and it would not surprise me to see many leave if this continues at the present rate. Why not just let the insults pass and eventually they must end. At times such as this I look back fondly to the posts of Mary and Crude, at least they were related to the main subject and generally not directly offensive. This is at least the second time I have begged for a little civility on this list. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:of interest, marginal
At 04:19 AM 1/3/2013, Peter Gluck wrote: I have developed an inferiority complex due to the fact that I am not contributing to the most popular subjects here as young pigs and young girls etc. However see please: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/01/how-is-the-calorie-content-in-food-determined/http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/01/how-is-the-calorie-content-in-food-determined/ Calorimetry is very important for LENR but is a means not aim and when things will go well we will need simple, rustic calorimetry. Peter, I hope you realize that the Atwater factors are far from simple, and are a reason why blind insistence on a calorie is a calorie is essentially ignorant. Atwater factors were developed from study about a century ago, I don't know if that's been updated, and the problem is that the usability of a food is not only a characteristic of the food, it also is an interaction between a food, the diet, and the particular state of the individual's metabolism. Basically, the human body is not a bomb calorimeter!
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 07:07 AM 1/3/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I find that if I ignore my kids when they act up, it usually goes away. It is usually them looking for attention. I was taught that from a PhD family psychologist and it works. You might try the same. It has a lot to do with maturity. Stewart, you were given some advice that may have been practically effective in a certain situation and with certain children. It can work at a certain age, and with certain problems. I have seven children and six grandchildren. The first five children were biological children, the last two were adopted, and they are young, currently aged 9 and 11. I don't want to reveal too much about my children, so I'll now write in the abstract, but I want to establish that what I write is not merely theoretical, and I've been *intensely* involved with many psychologists and therapists for many years. Some of them are hopelessly incompetent at dealing with certain relatively unusual problems, others are highly skilled. The advice you got was generic, and, as I say, could work. But what about when it doesn't? Now, consider an attachment-disordered child. They have been through some disruptive trauma. Place this child in an environment where the child is loved, and gets plenty of healthy attention. Great! Now, complicate the situation with a sibling, and siblings, it appears, very naturally compete for attention. One of the children feels that the other is being favored. So they make a fuss. Suppose a parent, following the advice, ignores them. *They will experience this as abandonment,* so, now, their upset increases. Mommy favors Sister, and now, I have proof! She is ignoring me and that means she doesn't care about me! So she escalates. Will more ignoring resolve this issue? Sometimes it goes away for a while, but once that response is established, it's always there, waiting to be retriggered. It will not be resolved until it is *resolved.* Ignoring never does that. From what I've seen, sometimes it is *never* resolved, and the child becomes an adult, still carrying all those expectations and developed responses, which then repeat, as relationship issues, for a lifetime. No. My conclusion, years ago, was that when a child wants attention, *they need it.* Give them attention. Don't wait for them to act out, but don't withdraw attention as an attempt to manipulate their behavior. And that's what the professionals I trust confirm. Classic behaviorism, which can inclde the ignore them advice, does not work with children who actually need attention! It works with relatively well-adjusted children who will work out their own problems without assistance. But a great deal depends on the kind of attention given. With my children, my approach is always to train them to resolve their own problems. And then I step back and let them do that. They will fail, possibly many times, and our hope is always that not too much damage is done! But they also succeed, and success breeds success. My children are a challenge, but they are also a deep source of joy and satisfaction, as I watch them develop and mature. My 11-year-old, who has been, perhaps, the most challenged, is now doing things that the professionals said were impossible for a girl of her age. You can't expect her to do that! I was told. But ... she does it. Therapists are trained, and the training includes models of childhood that are correct as to the norm, but not necessarily as to the range. If I expected my daughter to succeed beyond her age, and blamed her when she doesn't, that would be, in fact, abusive (and that's what the therapists want to prevent). But I don't blame her, I just encourage her to recognize what she did -- and didn't do -- and I praise her for every honesty and action toward her goals. *She sets her goals.* And then she fails. *That's normal.* Then what? Learning to deal with failure without descending into guilt and depression is a crucial life lesson. I'm a *trained* father. I've made many of the possible mistakes. But I try not to repeat them.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 10:04 AM 1/3/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Oh, I'm quivering, shaking with the possibility that *Jed Rothwell* might filter me out. Okay, out you go. I'll check back in a few months to see if you have stopped posting this garbage. I don't know what Jed did, specifically. I assume I'll find out, if I have a need to contact him, which comes up from time to time. I am not going to subscribe to VortexB-l. This is supposedy a moderated list. If it stays unmoderated, I won't be here long. YOU are the one polluting it! Go away! I considered that. I probably will, but there is a little work left to do. Someone let Jed know there is a new list that won't have the obnoxious crap on it. If that's what he actually wants. For the record, I have no objection to Islam but no interest either. As several people have pointed out, the thread titles alone are offensive and way off topic. Right. Two issues: 1. Offensive thread titles. Not okay! How to stop this from happening? 2. Off topic. That has not been considered a problem, if the OT tag is used. However, there is a problem with the tag added later: the topic no longer threads completely. The real problem: no moderation. Moderation can indeed be light, but when it's *absent*, problems can become intractable. Do realize that the main offender here -- and there clearly is a main offender, just look at the numbers of posts and who starts offensive subjects -- claims to be doing this because of off topic posts here, and specifically refers to ... Jed Rothwell. So Jed fixed the problem for himself by filtering out the fellow. It might be noted, that didn't work. The fellow kept referring to Jed as being the problem here. And many kept responding to him, not just me. How many people is Jed going to filter out? Jed's perfectly free to filter me out, as I wrote. So he did. So what? Why did he waste everyone's time by posting his own response here? His response is off-topic in this thread (as are many posts here). Basically, lack of discipline is *common*. Hence normal. Hence discipline cannot be the solution to the flooding of the list by offensive and off-topic posts. There is a long-time solution, moderation. It's easily implemented, *if there is at least one active moderator.* And it can actually be done with no censorship, with full tranparency, and without a moderator acting like a dictator. If this community wants a solution, all it needs to do is to take a *little* action that is not risky. Subscribe to the new mailing list, and use it, or this list. There is no need to abandon this list. I hope that Bill is just busy, away, and unable to respond. But we can handle this without him, if we want to. We can actually bring back *modest participation* from Mary Yugo, Cude, etc., while preventing what has been a problem. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/join By the way, anyone else could do this. But why would it be necessary? I will *not* be a heavy hand on that list, my training has been to function as a neutral meeting chair, under the rules of deliberative process. I've offered to turn the new list over to Bill if he wants to be an owner. I've solicited moderator volunteers, and a number of users have been suggested here who would be fine with me if they volunteer. Long-term, if Bill does not show up, I will apppoint at least one other owner, from among those widely trusted. We can have *many* moderators. If I were to abuse my position, note: anyone could start a new list if necessary, at any time. It is possible to directly contact everyone who has ever posted to the list, because we all get email addresses with list mail. The list is a moderated list, but the norm will be that when a member shows *any* relevant posting, they will be unmoderated, trusted to moderate themselves. Only if a problem arises will a member be put back on moderation. And, from there, there are many options.
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
At 10:41 AM 1/3/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: [...] Anyway, this is what I posted back on December 24, 2012 regarding Islam (and contemporary Jewish, Christian and pantheistic) and pre- and post-Islamic marriage practices and rules. Your corrections are welcome. His post was basically correct. I'd dot an i and cross a t, but it's *not important here.* I'll write to him off-list. Thanks, Lawrence.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 10:53 AM 1/3/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: Hi, Eric, My motive for posting in Jojo's trolling is not quite the same as Abd ul-Rahman's. My motive has been, actually, quite the same as Lawrence's. I worry about the campaign of disinformation that Islamo-phobes are spreading as widely as they can. Likewise birthers/Obama-haters. There are other issues that can be and have been raised disruptively. [...] Hidden Islamophobic agendas and methods have spilled into our list. The matter that Abd ul-Rahman raises of the troll's posting being archived is a real one, even if we have had to waste time countering it. We can actually improve the list function while addressing the archive problem. This could have been handled in a single day, with a few keystrokes, and without censorship or dictatorial moderation. So let's make it so. Short of stopping the Islamophobic trolling at its source, I don't know what else to do. Islamophobia is akin to anti-Semitism in its despicability, and one can make the argument easily that the former is a variant of the latter. We should accept neither. Agreed. Nor, for that matter, uncivil attacks on Christianity, atheism, or the John Birch Society, whatever. I do know what to do. The question is always, will we do it? I'm announcing a solution elsewhere, and I won't keep repeating it. If nobody else takes this up, it's dead, and if Bill does not show up and handle the situation, I'll be out of here, in fairly short order.
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
At 10:57 AM 1/3/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: Jojo again is entirely incorrect in these assertions. Not quite so. If a person says 1+1=2, and therefore X, is he entirely incorrect? No. In fact, this kind of error can be the most pernicious, because it contains *elements* of truth. We have a very human tendency, if someone says A and B and C, and especially if A and B are unexpected in some way, and we check and find that A and B are true -- or at least seem true at first glance -- to assume that C is also true. Maybe. Maybe not. What Jojo has done here is to say A and B and therefore C, and when I point out that C does not follow from A and B, he then says Liar. You are denying A and B. Even if I've explicitly acknowledged A and B, and incorporated them in my response. Jojo's factual assertions are commonly flawed, he presents A and B in ways that emphasize particular interpretations. He does not stick to what the sources actually say (normally). It's particularly and peculiarly obvious. However, lots of readers will discount this and pay no attention to it. They are really interested in C, and they are being led by the nose to conclude C. Only a few will fall for the line of thinking, but they can be quite damaged as a result. There is a birther who went to miltary prison because of the corrupt arguments, as a matter of conscience, he thought.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 03:58 PM 1/3/2013, David Roberson wrote: Please have a little more patience Jojo. The way these posts are coming now reminds me of a signal being filtered by a multi pole system with lots of delay. You have been true to your word and I thank you for that. Some folks have a difficult time realizing that it is time to calm down and relax. If Abd keeps responding for no provocation on your part, I will understand who really is the source of the problem. You will. Abd, this is meant for you: Please find strength to hold back your words that appear insulting to Jojo and others. Perhaps it is a cultural issue, but there is no need for any further comments to posts that have such offensive titles as this one. Jojo has promised to go back to the traditions of past with a vortex that we can be proud of. I expect you to do the same unless it is your intent to destroy the list. I'm responding now. Is this provocative? David, it is if you say so. It is not of you say it is not. You actually choose! It gives me pause to even return a post with a heading that is as repulsive as this one. It might sound innocent, but we all know what underlies the topic. Indeed. Is it an insult to count the posts to this list? I did not bias this collection, but, of course, if it happens to present a misleading impression, anyone can correct that. (I actually was surprised to see how often I'd responded. I made much shorter responses today, so they can be quicker. This is *not* an analysis by insult. That would be much more work.) So far: Today (my time), total posts from Jojo, as received by me: 22. Posts from Jojo under this subject header: 16. (does not include spin-off headers) My total posts today: 17. Posts from me under this subject header: 11. Total posts under this subject header today, by all users: 48 New subject headers posted by Jojo today: [Vo]:OT: The truth about who's continuing the cycle of insults here New subject headers posted by me today: [Vo]:Yak, yak. Do Something! NewVortex mailing list I have not analysed the content of the posts. I could go further, but won't. You pointed out a problem, David. People read the list one message at a time. I certainly do. They may not look at later messages before responding to earlier ones. So if someone posts a pile of messages (Jojo posted 28 messages yesterday), and then says I'm stopping if everyone else stops, first of all, people may not even see this until they have already replied. And then, there is the issue of a right of response. If I'm saying I'll stop, I stop and I wait. I waited for a *long time* when I said I'd do this. Jojo many times wrote, I'll let you have the last word. Great! However, he didn't. And some people may never have seen his promise before responding to him. Some people may read the list next week and respond to a post. One more statistic: I have directly responded to three posts from Jojo today, out of his total of 22. Jojo has directly responded to seven out of my 16 total posts. Jojo has now made a further promise: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 13:16:34 -0800 (vortex time) I responded to David, that I will honor his request to stop the cycle of insults and I have. My last post on this issue was 4:37PM (my time). It is now 5:07 AM (my time). Since my last post at 4:37PM, I have not posted a single post. That was over 12 hours ago. Since that time, I have counted over a dozen fresh insults, whether direct or oblique, thrown my way. This was done by various members of vortex. It has now become apparent to me that these people will not allow the cycle of insults to stop. I have now responded to some insults in a calibrated way. I will now stop my responses again for another 12 hours to give this cycle of insults a chance to die down. I am not sure what else to do. I can not allow fresh insults from a gang of bullies to continue. Responses to Jojo from *prior posts* are not fresh insults. If there is a cycle of insults involved -- that may not always be accurate -- then substantial time must be allowed for people to complete their process. People sometimes see a post here *months later* and respond. So, David, I'm counting on you to explain this to Jojo, if indeed he does not understand. As I write this, Jojo has not sent any additional posts to the list after the above. The time is now 15:24 -0800, as I write this, if I'm correct. As to the new list, the announcement of newVortex does not mention Jojo, nor is it about him. Nobody will be discriminated against with respect to the new list, based on prior behavior. It's a fresh slate, an opportunity. On the other hand, I expect there to be multiple moderators, who may deal swiftly with list abuse, but not necessarily by banning; rather through moderation and other devices. What I called above the right of response will be, if it's up to me, protected. But, if abused, moderated, so that escalation is
RE: [Vo]:something to consider
At 04:32 PM 1/3/2013, Zell, Chris wrote: do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult 1 Pet. 3:9 NIV My teacher used to say, quoting the Bible, his interpretation, Speak softly and have loud ears. I seem to remember it's from Timothy, but don't recall the original wording so I couldn't quickly find it.
[Vo]:Subscription process to Vortex broken?
I sent a mail from two different domains of mine (but hosted on the same host) to vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com with subscribe in the subject header, blank body. They both came back, vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: host 208.83.209.7 [208.83.209.7]: 554 Message failed That's my domain host's IP address. So eskimo is refusing to accept mail from my host domain. Plus ungood. Uusually when that is done because of a spam filter, there will be an explanatory message. None. I also sent a request from a yahoo account (which would not have that host IP). No bounce, but also no response. The same as the yahoo account with a googlemail account. If this problem is widespread, if you unsuscribe from Vortex, you may not be able to resubscribe. If you are dropped automatically for bounced messages, that's it. Toast, unless a moderator shows up. This problem may or may not persist. What I am trying to do is to set up possible email redirect from a subscribed address. I want to use a clean address that won't be getting any other mail. This can then be used to set up a moderated echo of Vortex, with its own archive and many possibilities. It can be done with complex mail filters, but I'm trying to keep it simple. The subscription process failure is worrisome, it could mean that *many* people have been trying to subscribe to Vortex and have been unable to complete the process. First things first. Is anyone getting a response from vortex-L-request?
Re: [Vo]:something to consider
At 09:50 PM 1/3/2013, Harry Veeder wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 04:32 PM 1/3/2013, Zell, Chris wrote: do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult 1 Pet. 3:9 NIV My teacher used to say, quoting the Bible, his interpretation, Speak softly and have loud ears. I seem to remember it's from Timothy, but don't recall the original wording so I couldn't quickly find it. Take to time to listen to the silences. Even speaking in soft voice makes that impossible if it fills the silences. Harry Yes.
Re: [Vo]:Subscription process to Vortex broken?
At 09:08 PM 1/3/2013, you wrote: First things first. Is anyone getting a response from vortex-L-request? I tried sending a test mail from this email address (abd@lomaxdesign) to the request address. I got the expected reply. So the listserve is operating, receiving request mail, and it looks like a subscribed address bypasses whatever filtering is present. I then sent another mail from vortex@lomaxdesign, as a subscribe message. Immediately bounced as before. I again checked my yahoomail and googlemail addresses. No response, no bounce.
[Vo]:Bill Beatty's phone disconnected
The other day I phoned Bill Beatty's number, the one given in the welcome message. The voicemail was operating and I left a message. He did not call back. I just called it again. The number has been disconnected. I found another number for him, -3818, called it, got his voice mail, left a message, saying we are worried about him. There are more phone numbers that can be called during business hours to find out if he's okay. I will report what I find. Several people who might be concerned may have put me in a kill-file, so someone else might repeat what I've posted without my name (Or like A.B.D.) which would normally bypass a killfile.
Re: [Vo]:Negative K Temperature
At 10:30 PM 1/3/2013, Terry Blanton wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Harry Veeder mailto:hveeder...@gmail.comhveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Terry, fill us in. Did Feynman regard the concept of a negative temperature meaningless? http://www.openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdfhttp://www.openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf Be sure to read the sidebar: Terry quoted some of the sidebar. I'll quote more of it. The Hotson family business is English literature. Mr. Hotson's father and uncle had Harvard Ph.D.s in the subject, and his late uncle was a famous Shakespeare scholar. Mr. Hotson, however, always intended a career in physics. Unfortunately, he could not resist asking awkward questions. His professors taught that conservation of mass-energy is the never-violated, rock-solid foundation of all physics. In pair production a photon of at least 1.022 MeV creates an electron-positron pair, each with 0.511 MeV of rest energy, with any excess being the momentum of the created pair. So supposedly the conservation books balance. But the created electron and positron both have spin (angular momentum) energy of h/4p. By any assumption as to the size of electron or positron, this is far more energy than that supplied by the photon at creation. Isn't angular momentum energy? he asked a professor. Of course it is. This half-integer spin angular momentum is the energy needed by the electron to set up a stable standing wave around the proton. Thus it is responsible for the Pauli exclusion principle, hence for the extension and stability of all matter. You could say it is the sole cause of the periodic table of elements. Then where does all this energy come from? How can the 'created' electron have something like sixteen times more energy than the photon that supposedly 'created' it? Isn't this a huge violation of your never-violated rock-solid foundation of all physics? We regard spin angular momentum as an 'inherent property' of electron and positron, not as a violation of conservation. But if it's real energy, where does it come from? Does the Energy Fairy step in and proclaim a miracle every time 'creation' is invoked, billions of times a second? How does this fit your never-violated conservation? 'Inherent property' means we don't talk about it, and you won't either if you want to pass this course. Well, this answer sounded to him like the Stephen Leacock aphorism: 'Shut up,' he explained. Later Mr. Hotson was taken aside and told that his attitude was disrupting the class, and that further, with his attitude, there was no chance in hell of his completing a graduate program in physics, so save your money. He ended up at the Sorbonne studying French literature, and later became a professional land surveyor. However, he has retained a lifelong interest in the awkward questions of physics, and with Dirac's Equation has found some answers. There are professors like that. They profess to be scientists. However, we are hearing this story from the student. What I notice is, indeed, what the professor talked about. Attitude. This is a story being recalled, I assume, years later, and we tend to remember what we made events mean, not what actually happened. What I notice first of all about this story is that Hotson *believed* the professor about completing a graduate program. Hotson based his entire future on one a**hole. On the other hand, it's possible that Hotson totally misunderstood what the professor was saying to him. In the exchange, the professor was warning him, say, that the question was beyond his level, and he had a lot to learn first. That is consistent with the later comment; which could mean that a know-it-all would be unable to progress. True or not, it's possible. This is not a judgment on Hotson's theories, which I have not reviewed, nor is it anything conclusive about that story. In the story -- told by Hotson -- the professor comes off peculiarly direct. Jerk-off professors are rarely so witty. I think the inherent property comment is totally brilliant! But if Feynman, my own college level physics professor, had said that to me, I suspect that I'd have figured out a way to mention inherent property as many times as possible, and I'd have studied the material intensely, to give the professor no excuse to give me anything less than an A. But that, of course, is just me imagining myself in that situation. Professor: The math of many-body problems is too difficult to allow exact calculations, so we rely on approximations to estimate energy levels. Student: Oh, they are inherent properties, then? My high school physics teacher was probably my best friend. He might well have told me I wasn't ready to understand something, though I don't actualy recall that, but he would also have told me to keep asking questions, and don't be afraid to be wrong. Sometimes the answer to a question is, Hmmm. You have a point there. We don't know. See me after the class. Now, about
Re: [Vo]:Bill Beatty's phone disconnected
At 10:47 PM 1/3/2013, Terry Blanton wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.netzeropo...@charter.net wrote: I just left him a voice msg as well... let's hope he's ok and will respond to one of us soon. We're screwed: http://obits.dignitymemorial.com/dignity-memorial/obituary.aspx?n=William-Beatylc=2482pid=150615670mid=4651051http://obits.dignitymemorial.com/dignity-memorial/obituary.aspx?n=William-Beatylc=2482pid=150615670mid=4651051 ;-) Not him, for sure. There was a Bill Beatty who died in Seattle, but that was a few years ago. Bill is in his fifities, or maybe the page is out of date and he's in his sixties. Being 68, I'm quite aware that people can abruptly disappear. Sometimes things just get away from me and I don't respond to email for weeks. Happens, easily.
RE: [Vo]:Bill Beatty's phone disconnected
At 10:51 PM 1/3/2013, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: That must have been his father? No. The obit lists children. Not him (wrong age and location) and not his father (no Bill as a child). The most worrisome thing here is the disconnected phone (-3320) that is given for list contact. I expect we will likely find out tomorrow, unless offices are closed. I just noticed that the original list mail had a different number (-0775). I haven't checked that one. And it's too late. There may be some perfectly innocuous explanation. Let's hope so. However, we aren't screwed if something has happened to Bill. Just sad. Most of the active subscribers for the last few years can be contacted directly, and as long as the list is running, we can contact everyone who remains subscribed. We would merely have to prepare for the inevitable, unless there have been provisions made. Sometimes there are. The archives that Bill was maintaining for old stuff, if they still work (at least one did not) would have to be captured and moved. The web archive will likely remain, though it's always a good idea to back those up, when possible. I've seen major providers go south, with all the mailing lists and archives, years of work, gone in a flash. From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bill Beatty's phone disconnected On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.netzeropo...@charter.net wrote: I just left him a voice msg as well... let's hope he's ok and will respond to one of us soon. We're screwed: http://obits.dignitymemorial.com/dignity-memorial/obituary.aspx?n=William-Beatylc=2482pid=150615670mid=4651051http://obits.dignitymemorial.com/dignity-memorial/obituary.aspx?n=William-Beatylc=2482pid=150615670mid=4651051 ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion European branch
At 10:51 PM 1/3/2013, Eric Walker wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Peter Gluck mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.competer.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Defkalion's E-Cat is launched in Italy too: I didn't know Defkalion had an e-cat. Â Who else does too? I don't know that *anyone* has an e-cat, but there are at least three companies working on something like them: Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin. The only one of these that I know of as being seriously examined by scientists is Brillouin. The Celani line is also under open investigation.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
In his post, at the end, Jojo complains about the length of my response. It's long because Jojo raises, in a single post, many issues. If he raised one only, the response would be much briefer. A very brief response may necessarily, to be honest, uncivil. I call an argument, below, pigshit. That was brief. I could respond to the entire post with that word, but ... how useful would this be? Jojo raises some real issues, exposing the foundations, to some extent, of his misunderstanding. If he actually wants to understand, he will probably have to do some work, to read what bores him. When I write polemic, it's designed to punch through noise and disinterest. These discussions have not been, for me, polemic. They are explorations of evidence and argument, and often I don't take a strong position, at least not at first. Jojo, below, attributes this to a debate tactic, to an unwillingness to be clear about what I believe. But, actually, I don't believe anything except in a pragmatic way. I have my memory, my own experience. I don't believe that it is truth. It is just my memory. Yes, I might even insist on aspects of it, but that's not belief, it is just actual practice. In any case, what Jojo is talking about is how I explore a topic; I attempt to begin with an open mind, as empty as possible. I may then disclose assumptions, but I may avoid applying those assumptions until I've reviewed evidence. To do this in writing takes a lot of words. Later, when someone asks me a question, though, I may be able to answer briefly, *because I went through this process.* Depends on context. I am disclosing here how I learn. I learned about cold fusion this way, as an example, but many other subjects as well. I developed my own career in a similar way, by exposing myself to material, and setting aside the normal reactions of I don't understand this. I just kept reading, and, when possible, working and testing and trying things out, and that's how I became an electronics engineer. No formal training. At 03:23 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Hadiths are one of the sources of muslim teachings, and Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari are some of the most respected and venerated, but you still consider them unrealizable and corrupted. The term is unreliable. Further, to be clear, what is accurate about my consideration is that they are not *completely reliable* and they are *sometimes* corrupt -- in a technical sensee, as a message or fact can be distorted when transmitted through a chain of informants, as in the telephone game. As anyone who actually studies Islamic scholarship will realize, scholars debate the authenticity of hadith, including those in Buhkari and Muslim. There are Muslims who seem to venerate certain sources, but that, itself, could be regarded as a corruption. Only the Qur'an has that central place in Islam. Acceptance of the Qur'an is central to the *legal* identification of a person as Muslim. However, the Arabic word muslim has wider application. Some Muslims totally reject hadith, and they do not thereby leave Islam. And yet, you take wikipedia and Internet Blogs as more reliable than these venerated sources. That comment deserves no other reply than pigshit, if that. Wikipedia and blogs are far more corrupt, in the sense I used the term. My friend, something is wrong with that picture. It's like me saying wikipedia is more authoritative than the Bible. You said it, I didn't. Reliable *for what*? Everything in Wikipedia, in theory, is sourced. (If you see a questionable fact on Wikipedia that is not sourced, it's highly questionable, suspect a defect in Wikipedia process. Every edit on Wikipedia can be tracked to a specific editor -- or IP address. (Wikipedia's anonymity policy makes this far less useful than it might otherwise be, but one can still look for signs of bias.) If a Wikipedia article is sourced to a blog, usually that would also be a violation of Wikipedia policy. *However*, sometimes blogs or other sources can be External Links, or can be a source for notable opinion. If all Hadiths are suspect and corrupted, what then is exactly the source of muslim history. Good point. *History* is suspect and corrupted,* period. However, this is *relative.* Just remember this: Early Muslim history was written by the winners. You will find little in it from the losers' perspective, so to understand what *actually happened* can be difficult. The Qur'an makes a point about the crucifixion. Those who argue about it don't know. And what the Qur'an actually says about the crucifixion is ... interesting. It does not confict with Christian history, or any history, for that matter, as to what we have of *any history.* We have, at best, the testimony of witnesses. Often we don't have even that, we have unattributed fact, unverifiable. Who knows what *actually happened*? The Qur'an says that what (some) Jews said about the
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
At 03:29 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: So, muslims do not approve of what muhammed did? My post was clear. Muslims vary in opinion, but, speaking generally: Muslims do not approve of what Jojo claims Muhammad did. Some Muslims approve of some aspects of what Jojo claims. No Muslims approve of what Jojo claims in toto. Some Muslims deny the foundations of Jojo's claim, i.e., the age reports, and often disapprove of the behavior that Jojo describes. I have yet to see a sober, clear, scholarly report on this issue by a mainstream Muslim scholar. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but that it could be hard to find amid the avalanche of Christian polemic on the issue. This was Jojo's full post, which included a copy of my post, to which he was responding: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74993.html Jojo's question was redundant and provocative.
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
At 04:13 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: I've already said, you can not enroll into this muslim school that Obama enrolled in if you were not registered as a muslim. And any adoption of a child by an Indonesian muslim man automatically makes the child a muslim. That was the law. Research it my friend. Jojo has obviously not researched this, or he's lying. When the story came out, it was in a Moonie publication that attributed the claim to the Clinton campaign in 2008. Clinton denied it. So CNN and another major media source sent reporters to the school itself. It's a public school with students from every major religion present in Jakarta. There was a different school involved, a Catholic school, where Obama seems to have been registered as a Muslim. Jojo was actually asked for a source here, but he did not provide it, he simply repeated his claim, that's his normal practice. I recall seeing a story that Obama was indeed registered as a muslim student. Things like this happen. His mother's husband, the head of household, was Muslim, and he has a Muslim name, so the school may have merely assumed he was Muslim. It actually means very little about his actual religion, and he was a young child at the time. The adoption would make the child eligible to be treated as a muslim, I think that Jojo might be correct about that. So what? Jojo's claims about U.S. citizenship are idiosyncratic, common among birthers, and legally invalid. If someone is a U.S. citizen by right of birth, they are not a naturalized citizen. There is no case law on renounced citizenship on this, to my knowledge, but an automatic renouncement would clearly not apply. One can be a dual citizen, it does not negate natural born citizen. These are arguments that have been *demolished* elsewhere, being brought here. For coverage of birther issues, in general, I now refer to http://www.thefogbow.com/ On the adoption issue, see http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/three-theories/adopted-in-indonesia/ On the dual citizen issue, see http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/three-theories/two-citizen-parents/ Suppose, however, the one non-Catholic school at the time was only open to muslim students. Suppose that it was only opened to others later. This would have just about zero implication as to Obama's present religious affiliation. I forget how old he was, but it was certainly before the age at which people make informed decisions about religion. There is no sign that the school was a madrassa, a religious school. That was something simply alleged without evidence in the original story, apparently an assumption that a muslim school, in a majority muslim nation, would be religious. On the adoption claim, from Fogbow: Claim: There's evidence Obama was adopted in Indonesia. The only evidence is a http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/100312/GAL-10Mar12-4044/media/PHO-10Mar12-211335.jpghandwritten school http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012400371_pf.htmlregistration page from the Santo Fransiskus Assisi (Saint Francis of Assisi) Catholic School in Jakarta, Indonesia, that refers to Obama as Barack Soetoro. However, according to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vYfeature=player_embeddedschool officials at the Assisi School, it was customary for students to be enrolled with their father's last name and religion. (That would mean that a male head of household was considered the father, whether or not there was a formal adoption. This is routine here, by the way, if the actual parent informs the school that he's to be treated that way. It can be complicated.) None of this has any legal significance whatever. If the birth certificates and legally-binding statements of Hawai'ian state officials are fake, that would be a real issue. But this wouldn't make a difference. Natural born citizen, it is totally clear, refers to place of birth. Period. There are exceptions under some circumstances for people born outside the U.S. There is some issue about children who lived outside the U.S. up to the age of 25. That didn't apply to Obama. And *none of this belongs on this list.* It's here only because Jojo has continued to make his off-topic and highly disruptive claims. No more original text below. Jojo - Original Message - From: mailto:ldebiv...@gmail.comde Bivort Lawrence To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies Your statements about nationality and about adoption and nationality are incorrect. What is your evidence for Obama being registered as a Muslim? On Jan 1, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: While what you are saying about Indonesian schools may be true today - I am not knowledgeable about the current school system in Indonesia, so I will not debate that. While that may
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
At 12:13 AM 1/2/2013, Craig wrote: You can have a book that contains many truths, along with many un-proven assertions. This is why books, per-se, cannot be used to ascertain truth. They can only add to available evidence. As a general principle, one of the known techniques of deception is to put together a series of statments that will be accepted as true, and only introduce the desired deceptive statement after the habit of agreement is established. Basically, no statement can be assumed to be true merely because it was preceded by true statements. Legal principles were asserted, but out of context. The common-law principle is that testimony is presumed true unless controverted. But there are basic principles involved. They are: 1. Legal accountability for perjury. 2. An ability to cross-examine a witness, to determine *how the witness knows* what the witness claims to know. 3. The lack of contrary evidence (as implied by controverted) God is not an explanation for anything, except within certain narrow parameters. To say that God did something is no more explanatory than to say that something is real. When we want explanations, and we think of God as Reality, we are seeking to know *how* God did or does something. That may or may not be accessible to us, it depends on the something. Generally, I assume that if a thing happens in the observable world, it has observable causes. That doesn't negate that God did it, because God can act through observable causes. God is not limited by time, which is an illusion that appears to limited consciousness. (To light, there is no time, it all happens at once. That's how Einstein reasoned, in fact.) no more original text below. But notice, that when an assertion is made, that the truth of the assertion has to be evaluated within the context of existing, known, truths. So when we hear of stories that a wheel came down from the sky, as in Ezekiel, we have to immediately dismiss it as hearsay, unless there is other evidence that such a thing occurred. If it turns out that numerous other sources confirmed the event, then we have to interpret the event in the context of known truths. So the immediate explanation would be that it's an illusion. If there was enough evidence that such a thing was NOT an illusion, then the best interpretation is that the event was conducted by an alien species with superior technology. What you cannot do is manufacture an explanation which defies metaphysics and epistemology. You cannot say that such an event was the act of a God -- because the concept of God cannot be defined and does not exist within the Universe, as I've mentioned before. So when you allude to the idea that we have to interpret words, written in a book, in such a way that the explanation defies metaphysics and epistemology, then you are on very thin ice. If such a thing could be absolutely ascertained to have occurred, (such as a wheel coming down from the sky in an era when there was no flight), and it could be absolutely ascertained that it was not an illusion, and was not the product of alien manufacture... Then if all this could be ascertained, then we would simply be stumped as to the explanation. It still could not be the produce of a God because 'God' cannot be defined, as I've mentioned in a previous post. Without an explanation which exists in this Universe, you simply have no reference by which you could tie such an event to another Universe. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 10:34 AM 1/2/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, it's entirely up to you the credibility you assign to those reports. The people seem credible but you never know. As I said, I am not the police. I have not run background checks. That does not inspire confidence. Not about background checks, but the implication about how well you know them. I'm not talking about proof. Only about something stronger than conjecture, or, on the other hand, believing that a person who has frequently made claims that turned out to be inaccurate or misleading, who does have a history of exaggerated claims (as with his thermoelectric generator), is telling the full truth. An entrepreneur actually has no legal obgliation to tell the truth, except under narrow conditions. A scientist has a *professional* obligation to tell the truth, but even that is fudged sometimes, sometimes results are not disclosed for a while, for various reasons. But part of being a scientist is participating in the human knowledge project, and that requires caution about what a scientist says, at least when on the record. When a scientist lies, falsifies data, or even fails to disclose material conditions, it is treated as a serious offense, and, if proven, that scientist's career is toast. And that's very proper. By the same token, to impugn a scientist as to their probity is a highly uncivil act, and properly requires proof. How Pons and Fleischmann -- and others -- were treated was atrocious. There is no oblitation to agree with the conclusions of a scientist, but to claim that their work is incompetent, again without proof, is outside of norms, by far. Errors may be criticized, that's expected and even obligatory. Yes, scientists deviate from this, and that's where science can get lost in the shuffle. However, with entrepreneurs, lying about results might be simply smart. Under some conditions, yes, lying to, say, investors, is illegal. But just lying to the public, no. So, legally, Rossi can say pretty much what he wants to say, deceptive or misleading or true. What he says to investors, particularly in writing, could be another matter. My guess, however, he's got himself very well protected. Unless the investors do due diligence, they might lose their shirts. After all, they might be trusting him just as you trust them, for to them, he seems credible. Kullander and Essen were taken in. Whether or not there was really generation of heat, in what they witnessed, is debatable. But the proof of it, that they accepted, was clearly defective. That shows that even people considered expert can be fooled. (This is a point that I recall making in early 2011.) But were they expert? Actually, on calorimetry, no. They acknowledged that. They were outside their expertise, but still issued statements and judgments. So suppose some businessmen, investors, saw that same demonstration as Kullander and Essen? Now, you've implied more than that, that they tested a device extensively in their own facility, independently. If that's so, the chance of error goes way down, but does not totally disappear. Nevertheless, Jed, I'm sure you understand why we cannot rely on this, nor should you. It would be wonderful if Rossi really does have something, and DGT and Brillouin. The basic error that many of us make, though, is that we want to know *now*, so we rush ahead to try to figure it all out, pouring over incomplete, fragmented, and sometimes even deceptive information. What do we actually gain by this, though? If we are inclined to test nickel hydrogen reactions, great! There are many hints that something is happening there, going way back. An *ounce* of actual investigation is worth many pounds of abstract speculation. It does not matter how credible these reports are if Rossi never gets around to selling anything. He seems to be stuck in a classic development loop where the next version is so wonderful no version ever makes it to the market. In software this would be the Duke Nuke'em trap. The Doble steam-powered automobile and many other brilliant innovations failed because of this. That could be lunacy or a brilliant excuse. My grandfather Sundel Doniger was an inventor. He never would have made a dime if his brother-in-law Uncle Danny had not periodically told him: Stop developing it. Stop improving it! Ship the product!!! Been there, done that. I advised him and the people financing him to concentrate on developing IP instead of building megawatt reactors. They ignored me. The story told here by Jed is plausible. In a way, though, it's a variation on the he's crazy story. I.e., he's not crazy as he appears, he's pretending to be crazy. But, Jed, that's actually a form of crazy. I don't think so. Patterson had the same strategy but he wasn't crazy. Well, you can make the semantic point
Re: [Vo]:OT:JoJo's Truth about islam and little girls.
At 10:40 AM 1/2/2013, de Bivort Lawrence wrote: Jojo, you do not understand hadith, how they are assembled, analyzed, evaluated, and used. Your use of the term venerated is revealing: the hadith scholars are not at all venerated. Bingo! What in the world are your sources for all this nonsense about Islam that you are spouting??? You can find all of this on anti-Islam web sites, often explicitly Evangelical Christian. Mostly, Jojo just claims stuff without citing sources, but there was an exception recently on the matter of Female Genital Mutilation. He gave his source, an Anti-Islam web site, that cited Muslim sources, and that directly challenged how Muslim scholars interpret the sources. Jojo actually dropped this one quickly. I have no idea if it's because I found an authoritative non-Muslim source (Lane's Lexicon), exactly on point and confirming the Muslim scholars, or just because there isn't enough time in the day. He's been churning this stuff out for quite a while, but he doesn't actually research it, he's just copying ideas and stating them as fact. On the birther thing, and all the claims about Obama, there is a very well elaborated and thorough anti-birther web site, http://thefogbow.com, but there is no single authoritative birther site. There are only masses of memes that are passed around, repeated, and apparently believed. It's very similar to his anti-Muslim stuff. There are only two other claims I recall that Jojo, beyond the FGM thing, backed up with a source. The first was his claim about the age of Ayesha at consummation, where he cited Muslim and Bukhari, seeming to believe that these, being so venerated, would seal the matter. The concept of context evades Jojo. He's actually been learning something here, shown in this last post, about Islam. He turns it into a Bad Thing, of course. Basically, realizing that all the Muslims are not following the Venerated Sources, by the letter, which kind of demolishes his Muslims are Evil ideas based on the Evil Sources, he then says that Muslims are Even More Evil, because they are ... brace yourself ... ... ANARCHISTS! The second was his claim that Obama had issued an Executive Order that prohibited release of his birth certificate, college records, etc. Jojo skims over my posts and responds with outrage at what he fantasizes, and he apparently thought I was denying that an Executive Order existed, so he posted the text of the whole thing. He neglected to read it, apparently, or if he did read it, his comprehension of a U.S. Presidential Executive Order is even worse than his comprehension of Islamic sources. The evidence, that he provided, conclusively trounced his own claim. When this was pointed out, his only recourse was to cry lies. He is what he claims others are. One might imagine that a real Christian would get this immediately! Even a real Evangelical Christian. Or does Evangelical mean You are all wrong! I don't think so. Isn't it about the Good News? Jojo's original post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74992.html
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
This should have been tagged OT from the beginning. However, changing a subject header after it has started screws up threading, and the whole point of my responding at all to Jojo is to keep sane information in his threads, for future readers who find this through Google. I would never inititate this discussion here. At 05:21 PM 1/2/2013, you wrote: Lomax, please read up on the case of the Nordyke twins. They were born within a few days of Obama and they were able to obtain a long form copy of their BC. You lie once again by claiming that there is no legal way. I read all this months ago. Joho seems to not realize something. I actually research what I write, when it enters controversy. I check my facts. Quite obviously there is, cause the Nordyke twins were able to do it. Please my friend, stop the lies. Where is Obama's long form BC. Not computer generated scans which are obviously fake. Have you seen the Nordyke twin's long form BC? When was it issued? If you haven't seen it, look at: http://www.biasedmediaboycott.com/index.php?topic=80.0 Just the first I could find. The Nordyke certificate was issued in 1966, you can see the date. It's a negative copy, and I received copies like that of birth records -- my own, for example --, it's how it used to be done, the copying machines made a negative. So Ms. Nordyke requested a birth certificate copy in 1966, and that is what she got. A copy of the original, the long form. If you look carefully at the picture, you can see the lines starting to bend from where the original is bound in a volume, as you can see this same bending in the long form image that has been issued by Obama. (Looking at some of the birther pages, the arguments they come up with are a *scream!*) Referring to the Hawai'i later computerized their records, and started to issue short-form certificates, with only the legally important data. Apparently getting a long form requires special permission, and it's not clear that it's automatic that you can get one at all. And *who* can get one? Can I write to Hawai'i and get a copy of, say, that Nordyke BC? Or Obama's, and will they be treated *any differently*? (Answer: to do this I'd have to commit a crime, I'd have to impersonate them. Or be representing them, and be able to show that. However, people to obtain birth certificates under false pretenses. For a $10 fee, they obviously can't do a lot of investigation! On the other hand, if they get a letter from Barack Obama, P.O. Box blah blah, Philippines, do you think they'd fall for it? Now, what Jojo had actually demanded was to see the vault copy itself, not some copy on the internet. Well, did he see the Nordyke twins BC? Or just a copy on the internet? Now, some people may have visited Ms. Nordyke and may have seen the certified copy. And some people have seen certified copies of Obama's short form and the vault certificate, the long form. The page I pointed to made a big fuss about how different the long form was from Obama's short form. Much ado about *nothing*. They are quite distinct, obviously, but the short form includes all the legally important data, and is how Hawai'i stopped handling the vault copies. The entered the important data into a computer, and they print copies out by computer. My guess is that it's a secure computer system, not connected to a network, and that the clerk issuing a BC doesn't actually look at the vault copy. But that's a guess. It is difficult to believe that Jojo is unaware of these arguments, unless he's really new to the field and just has a habit of asserting what he *just learned* as certain fact. He *has* done that, at least once, because he acknowledged just having read it. So what is it that Jojo is demanding, he who does not even live in the U.S.? Does he want a courier to arrive with the bound volume? Does he want a copy mailed to him with the certification? He has to be eligible to recieve one, and there is a $10 fee if he's eligible. The State of Hawai'i does not issue the original to *anyone*. It's called a vault copy because that's where it's kept! And it doesn't issue certified copies except to eligible persons. Read the application information: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/elig_vrcc.html Jojo has demanded to know who has seen the original long form. I gave him a list by position or circumstance. He demanded the names. All of this could be found in a few minutes on the internet. I gave the names of two Hawai'ian officials who had certified that they had seen the original. Jojo then simply claims I'm lying. But all this can quickly and easily be verified. I found more, since I wrote that. It appears that state Secretaries of State, having a legal need for birth information, can request it from Hawai'i. Hawai'i does not send them the certificate, it sends, instead, a letter under official seal and signed as a testimony
Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine
At 02:41 PM 1/2/2013, Ruby wrote: While this is not cold fusion, I had an opportunity to video a new energy lab, and took it. I will continue to create portraits of new energy researchers, if it comes my way. Sure. However, be careful. What is the purpose of Cold Fusion Now? Do you aim to be politically effective? I see cold fusion as the most probable breakthrough for the near future, but the Papp engine may not be far behind, and is a technology that could operate alongside it. There are quite a few people working on Papp devices. There is no sign of any confirmation coming soon. Sure, it could happen. However, Papp Engine and Cold Fusion should not be associated. Cold fusion is an established scientific phenomenon. Papp Engines are not. Papp was crazy, that's obvious. Crazy doesn't negate his having found something, but it does mean that what he showed can't be trusted, because *he did fake things*. Some have been pointing out that he set up red herrings, claims that this or that was necessary, that wasn't. Maybe. This is the sixth movie I have made this year, all by my lonesome since my cameraman/editor left me to pursue more lucrative endeavors. I'm getting better with each edit, with the goal of entertaining and educating. As a Clean Energy Advocate, I do not grill or snake scientists. Nobody is suggesting you become a Steve Krivit clone. However, you would not have to be Steve Krivit to be informed, in advance, of what questions to ask to get the actually important information. You did ask Kolstermann about energy production. He gave you an answer. The answer actually means, if true, that *he has nothing*, that his conclusions that the noble gases were not necessary are *speculation*, because he hasn't actually shown energy production, which Papp supposedly did. Papp actually ran engines with dynamometers and expert engineers, if certain documents are correct, and I've heard private testimony that I trust. It certainly *looked like* he was producing energy! Were there hidden wires or a fuel supply? Ruby, all these things have happened before. There *have* been frauds, sometimes very convincing. I am not a detective (not yet anyway). I ask, they answer. I am grateful for all the help I continue to get in learning to ask the right questions. The problem that I see is associating *highly speculative* technologies, that have a high probability of not being real, with cold fusion. Cold fusion is real, it's testable, and it's been tested, over and over, with results reported in scientific journals. It has problems with reliability, but that's an entirely different issue. If the reliability problem cannot be solved, it's possible that cold fusion will never be practical. But it's real, and the chances are quite good that, with better understanding, the reliability problem can be solved. Reliability cuts two ways. Pons and Fleischmann started with a cm. cube of palladium. The thing melted down in about 1984, destroying their apparatus, burning a hole in the lab bench, and down inches into the concrete floor. That was not chemistry. After that happened, they scaled down, and most cold fusion experiments deliberately work with low quantities of materials, because unreliable can mean that one unexpectedly gets *much more* heat than expected. What is needed is basic research. This is not going to come from entrepreneurs, people who keep their work secret. It's going to come from scientists, and that takes money that is not about profit, though some funding may come from corporations doing background investigation. I cannot categorically state that the Papp engine is impossible, but I will state is that we do not know if it's possible, and the Klostermann video takes us no closer to knowing. If you want to cover every possible alternative technology, there are many. I was the administrator of the L-5 Society, over thirty years ago, and we were working on, among other projects, satellite solar power. That is a whole approach to solving not only the energy problem, but ultimately the whole problem of polluting the earth. But I'd not expect Cold Fusion Now to get involved. Having a page that links to other clean energy projects, great. But the level of focus on Kostermann seems too much to me. Cold Fusion Now wants to remain positive, and rated G for the kids! I want to show the kids, the students, and those who are looking for inspiration: What does a new energy lab look like? How do researchers in this field operate? What kind of research is going on? What kind of energy solutions are being pursued and, what is the level of development? Klostermann's shop does not look like a lab to me, it looks like a nice workshop. It doesn't actually look like an energy solution. It looks like an electric cannon, that doesn't do anything more than convert stored power from a capacitor bank to kinetic energy of the
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 08:50 PM 1/2/2013, you wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. Oh, I'm quivering, shaking with the possibility that *Jed Rothwell* might filter me out. I am not going to subscribe to VortexB-l. This is supposedy a moderated list. If it stays unmoderated, I won't be here long. My alternative, Jed, is to unsubscribe, not to move to an unmoderated list. Steve Johnson already did unsubscribe, though how much it has to do with Jojo, I'm not clear. If you are going to filter me out, you might want to set up filter conditions that are for [Vo] and my name. Unless you want to avoid seeing direct personal email. Up to you.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Stewart and Rothwell don't realize the implications of leaving seriously offensive posts in the Vortex archive, without response. I am responding to only a few of Jojo's posts, he's been flooding the list. After promising to stop, he posted 20 times here yesterday, and 28 times today, carrying on quite as before. I responded seven times yesterday and seven today. (Direct responses to Jojo). My responses will naturally become rarer and shorter. Responding on VortexB-l is *useless.* The VortexB archive on Beatty's web site is *inaccessible.* I'm not engaged in a conversation with Jojo Jaro. That ended long ago. I'm in a conversation with *others*, most of whom are not now present. I would not bring this conversation here, it was brought here, insistently, and it's maintained here because, I assume, of the absence of Bill. If you really want to do something about that, contact him. I've tried and so have others apparently. So far, no response. I'm worried about him. At 08:52 PM 1/2/2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: I agree 100% On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Please remove this discussion to VortexB-L. I doubt that will happen. VortexB-l does not appear to be googleable. So from Jojo's point of view, it could be useless. I have already filtered out Jojo. So why don't YOU take this discussion to VortexB-L. Respond to him there, if you must. Or I will filter out you, too. Enough is enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 10:06 PM 1/2/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: You have no evidence they were taken in. They are smart people and they have been doing experiments for decades. Not of this type. Of this type exactly. Kullander and Essen? That's who were were talking about. Where did you get this? No, *many people* have examined the results and came up with problems that were overlooked by Essen and Kullander. Who? Where did these people publish reports? I recall a lot of blather here but I have not seen any reports showing errors in the techniques. Krivit published them. Yes, Krivit pulled all of this together, but he didn't invent it. Krivit measured nothing and found nothing. His report is hot air. Krivit collected and pubished the reports of others, who analyzed the available data. Krivit pointed to suspicious activity by Rossi from the Mats Lewan video. Yeah, Krivit is a muck-raker, but ... that doesn't mean he's always wrong. This has been discussed to death on Vortex. That does not count. Where is there an authoritative report by someone who knows calorimetry showing errors in the calorimetry. The error is obvious. Jed, I'm sorry. This is beyond the pale. Several people, such as the NASA group, said the tests did not work the day they saw them. It was obvious the thing was not working. Which, as you know, only means that the thing wasn't working. You are missing the point. If the thing is fake, why wouldn't it be a totally reliable fake? Who would make a fake system that often appears to do nothing? It often fails at critical times when a lot of money is at stake, as it was during the NASA visit. If this is fraud, it could not be conducted more ineptly. You've already come up with one reason. I have not. Rossi was counting NASA's evaluation. The failure was a disaster for him. He could have recovered. No, Jed, your analysis is corrupt. Another would be very simple: it's not reliable and it wasn't working on the day they showed up. A fake system would be reliable! It is not difficult to make a fake system. It is impossible to make one that EK, Focardi or Levi would not instantly see is fake. The only person who could be fooled is Krivit, because he made no observations at all. But if you made a fake system it would work as reliably as any movie prop. Depends on the nature of the fake. Rossi developed a technique vulnerable to a certain illusion. You state that is if it were a fact. It's a fact. You actually know the fact. You are arguing here, for what? There is no evidence for that at all. There are no illusions at all. When the thing works, it is obvious, and when it failed -- on several occasions -- that was equally obvious to the observers. No one was fooled into thinking it was actually working. There is a reason why we want to see independent replications. They are *much* harder to fake, and it's also harder to make an innocent mistake, to be fooled by an artifact. The thing was independently tested for a week or two when Rossi was on another continent. That is as good a confirmation as an independent replication. Calorimetry is calorimetry; the same everywhere. Great. You demanded reports above on calorimetry error. Where is the report on these tests, certified by a reliable witness, who can be questioned? The only reason I want to see independent replications is so that other people can manufacture it quickly. That's BS, Jed. There are types of replications. A fully-independent replication must disclose IP, fully, because every aspect must be independent. But there are replications that do not disclose IP. A device can be sealed, for example, so that the independent replicator only deals with input and output. That is why Rossi does not want to see independent replications, and why he will do all that he can to prevent them. He has no IP. In which case he's probably sunk. Okay, scientists could be fooled by the unexpected presence of overflow water. They could assume that a single look at the outlet hose would be adequate to show that there was no overflow water. This makes no sense. They independently measured the flow coming out of the machine. Who did? Kullander and Essen did *not* do this. No, the hose would have to go into a bucket to show that, and the hose would have to be well-insulated and short. As you know, that was not the experimental setup. Overflow water, when quantity of water boiled is the measure of heat, is fatal to accuracy. I was talking about the flowing water tests. The steam tests are a little more complicate but not by much. The enthalpy of steam has been well known for over a century, despite comments posted here. Yes. But how much steam was there? The assumption was that all the water coming into the device was converted to steam. That assumption, with Kullander
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
Latest news: Pope Catholic, Troll Continues Trolling At 11:45 PM 12/31/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: OK, Lomax, you have had your last word. As promised, I am not insulting back and letting it be. Please end this. Unless you want to continue the exchange. Jojo PS. Note that this response is a plea to end the insult cycle and not in any way insulting to anybody even Lomax. Let the record show that I am ending this nonsense. Let's see how long Lomax can refrain from insulting me some more. Note I have stop calling Lomax a liar so that I am not insulting him anymore. And then he proceeds to attempt an insult. As for Joseph and I, you can believe what you want. It's funny why Lomax finds it such a astute observation that he found out I was in the Philippines when I have very openly written about it everywhere. Believe what you want Lomax. I did not write or claim astute observation, and what I posted was indeed openly available. I believe nothing. But especially I don't believe that Jojo has any intention of stopping. Within eleven minutes of the above, he'd written another post repeating his tropes. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74906.html Aside from the usual, he calls me a moderate westernized muslim. No, I'm a muslimized radical American. At least that's how some Muslims look at me, but they have some doubt about the muslim part. As I do about them. Jojo continued to post, arguing his usual points, 14 posts, including the above, *after* he promised to stop. The post above repeated the promise *as it violated it.* I was once banned on Wikipedia, from posting to the cold fusion article or talk page. I wrote, on the talk page, Okay, I'll not post here. He blocked me for that. (He actually had no authority to ban.) Okay, so nobody's perfect. But, ah Jojo came up with one item of interest to me, and it's under a descriptive OT subject title. So I may look at that and respond. What Jojo finds, searching for them, are deceptive arguments, arguments that can appear reasonable to someone not familiar with the topics. He came up with a new one, at least, new to me. We see arguments like this all the time from pseudoskeptics. Real skeptics are valuable, and sometimes hard to find. Everyone has their beliefs. A real skeptic is just as skeptical of their own beliefs as they are of others. Maybe even more skeptical!
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
At 11:48 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: OK, who in this forum doubts the existence of Julius Ceasar, the Roman Emperor. No one in his right mind would. Me. Where does he exist? I don't only have a right brain, I have a left brain as well. Now, what does this have to do with Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age. Yes, Jojo has an excuse, he said the above for a reason, but that reason was an introjection of a new topic, the fairytale Jesus trope. Of course Caesar exists, in our imaginations. The name and stories exist in books. None of that is real. It's interpretation, explanation, theory, conclusion. Human stuff. Epistemology and ontology. Don't leave home without them.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 04:22 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: First, I would like to apologize to the list for posting this despite my promise not to do so. This is just too important to leave unresolved. It's always too important to keep the promise. The whole farrago of topics are too important not to dwell on. Jojo has called himself a turd, i.e, worthless and despicable. That's his own image of himself. It's a pathology that afflicts many of us, whether we talk about it or not, it's essentially Satanic, if you know the story of Satan. Satan speaks to us from where we do not recognize him (Qur'an). I.e., we think it's us, and, of course, we don't lie to ourselves, do we? Yes, we do. With training, the lies can be recognized. They will not stop, apparently, that's just the way it is. But we don't have to *believe* them. The ancient solution to this dilemma is to trust in reality, to keep identifying the voice of Satan and trust in reality *in spite of it.* Just keep trusting. Trust is not a belief, it's an action that is taken, an action to *stop* believing all the stories that Satan tells. I.e., that *our brain tells.* Keeping his word is not important to Jojo because he actually believes he's a turd. Who cares about the word of a turd, it's absurd? There is a function to our brain, it's there, and it's necessary, for survival. Temporary survival. We will not find what endures, only through listening to and believing that the patterns of neuronal activity that we experience are true. They are just patterns, and patterns of patterns. They can be *useful,* but as soon as we believe they are truth, we are radically stuck. They just are what they are. Now, to the point here. On further googling the terms bestiality and islam, I found this page which has NOTHING to do with bestiality, but does document islam's practice with regards to prepubescent little girls. Getting in trouble again? Looking for stuff to toss, try all kinds of outrageous search terms. Just to do some research here, I think I'll Google Christian bestiality. Wonder what I'll find? This research stuff is tough work but someone has to do it. Actually, no. I haven't entered that search and won't. Someone else can waste their time. Read it and decide for yourself, whether I or Lomax is lying. The references are well documented medical and muslims sources, so Lomax can not say they are biased. I very much doubt that the pages mention me. I haven't looked yet, but I can already tell that there is bias present. This may come as a shock to Jojo, but Muslims are not of one mind on things. Just as Jojo argues, but not all Christians would believe his arguments, there are strong arguments made that are *made up* by some Muslims. A scholar wants to prove something, so he searches through the body of tradition, and it's huge, and highly variable in reliability, and finds something that seems to support his conclusion. He cares not at all for *other conclusions* that might be drawn from it. He's a bulldog, out to prove *one thing.* And so you can find all kinds of crap out there, if you search for it. A couple of points to highlight. 1. A'isha's age at the time of consummation is not in dispute among muslim scholars. It is well documented and well accepted. She was 9 years old. That's arguable. I've never denied it is false, except for the not in dispute claim. I've pointed to argument by knowledgeable Muslims that differ on this. However, I have also, then, considered the case if the reports are true. The reports do not actually prove consummation. I consider it likely, however, that they are about consummation, but the reports do not establish how the persons -- including Ayesha herself -- knew how old she was. This is the problem with hearsay evidence, the witness cannot be queried. *Her age in years was not considered important.* That seems incredible in today's world, but this wasn't today's world. This was a mostly non-literate society, with no birth records. Age was not a standard for *anything,* the present physical and mental condition of a boy or girl were *everything.* The consent of the wali (a girl's father, in this case), was *essential*. The wali determines readiness for all aspects except one, actual sexual maturity. It has been so in *every culture* when it was pre-literate, and age-based standards only arose in rule-of-law societies. So when Ayesha is *reported* as having said (recorded many years later, after she was dead, by someone else) that she was nine when she went to the house of the Prophet, that is a *report*. Later, the age became important, as people created Islamic law. But what is clear from *all the sources* is that she was sexually mature, in a basic sense. They do not actually tell us that, but it is so obvious from context that it's essentially indisputable, and an example was given in what was uncovered in the discussions, of the adjudicated
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 04:22 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: http://www.answering-islam.de/Silas/childbrides.htm#s4http://www.answering-islam.de/Silas/childbrides.htm#s4 This post is a response to that web page. For this post Jojo Jaro is irrelevant. I will thank him, however, for pointing me to this page, because it is an opportunity for me to become clear about an issue that comes up in religious apologetics. To the page quotations, unless otherwise specified, are of Silas, the anonymous author of the page. Silas presents many facts, off-hand, that are not accurate. I'll note them, but will not debate them, other than to make counter-assertions along the way. I believed what many Muslims asserted: Muhammad sexually consummated his marriage to the nine year old Aisha following her first menstruation. Many Muslims assert this, though the actual sources do not indicate sexual consummation as such, nor do they indicate the numbers of menses past. The practice of Islamic law, as far as I've been able to determine, is united on one point: if *no menses* have occurred, and if a woman is not obviously otherwise mature, and is apparently a child, to consummate the marriage is rape. What Silas does here is to overstate the case, based on what many Muslims assert, which can then be a total minority position. I realized that the Quran, the Hadith, and Muslim scholars writings state that a Muslim husband can engage in sex with a child-bride before she has her first menses Remarkable. He's concluded from sources what has apparently escaped the notice of most Muslim scholars. Is there *one* who would agree with him? Many Muslims dont know this and by their own standards Muhammad did the wrong thing in having sex with a child. I'll say this right now, before reading Silas's sources. If the sources actually show this, *they are corrupt.* However, I already know some of the elements that Silas probably puts together. Yes. By our standards -- and this includes, as far as I know, so far -- even the most befogged Muslim scholars -- having sex with a child (defined in this case as a female who has not reached sexual maturity, and with no accessory condition that would allow marriageability, such as being, say, old but non-menstruating, never having menstruated) -- is an enormity. A 49 year old man asks his best friend if he could have his permission to marry his 6 year old daughter. That may not have been the sequence; the stories I recall do not initiate the conversation with Muhammad, but with a relative. But never mind. It doesn't matter. Just so it's clear that marriage, here, means betrothal. Some 2 to 3 years later, just after he had fled to Medina, he consummated his marriage with her. He was 52 and she was 9. This occurred prior to Aishas first menses and by Islams legal definition Aisha was still considered a child. Islam teaches that a child enters adulthood at the beginning of puberty. (This is scientifically inaccurate, the onset of puberty does not equal adulthood see Appendix 3). It's also religiously inaccurate. Advanced puberty is not the only condition for adulthood (and marriageability) in Islam. There are other conditions, as we would expect. It is merely *one* of the conditions. Silas is presenting a common Muslim opinion as to the age when Ayesha went to the Prophet's house. Those traditions do not actually establish the age at consummation. If that were legally important, in a modern case, we'd need additional evidence as to actual intercourse. Rather, going to the house would establish a condition where they could be alone together. It's very clear from real examples of Muslim law that if, under these conditions, she were not sexually mature, and he has intercourse with her, it is *rape.* If she is young, and has not mensturated, that establishes a presumption of legal incapacity to consent to sex. That makes the intercourse what we call statutory rape in the U.S. And that's how a Yemeni court recently decided. If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not menstruated. As for pregnant women, their term shall end with their confinement. God will ease the hardship of the man who fears him. 65:4, Dawood Yes. This is about divorce, and it assumes a consummated marriage. The concern is that the woman might be pregnant, that's obvious. If a marrage has not been consummated, there is no waiting period. This is really brilliant, I must say, the best deceptive argument I've found. Not menstruated here applies to all situations of a consummated marriage where the woman has *never* menstruated. That's a real possibility that has nothing exclusively to do with girls. There are other standards that allow marriage for women who do not menstruate. These women could be, for example,
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 03:08 PM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: My friend, read the link first and then come and and we'll discuss. Stop the uninformed speculations. All the things you've said is addressed by the link. Evidence from Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari is presented. Study it first lest you look ignorant. Jojo continues to argue. I responded in detail to his source. What I'd written was partly already-confirmed fact -- about Jojo! -- who promised not to continue this, but started this thread -- and partly informed speculation as to what might be in the source. I was correct. The source misrepresents sources, as can be seen by reading it and what it cites, and Jojo misrepresents it. 'Nuff said.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
Daniel was somewhat correct, but Jojo misreads him. I am not fluent in Arabic, but I can read it -- sometimes well, sometimes painfully -- and I can use dictionaries and grammars, and, in addition, *generally understand the material.* It's like trying to read a physics text in a foreign language without understanding physics. You'll come up with weird ideas if you don't understand. I have not read the canon in Arabic. That's what a Muslim scholar does. It takes many, many years of study to do that. I have friends who have done this, one was a beardless youth when I met him, and is now probably the most widely-known American Muslim scholar, and he paid his dues for that, many years of dedicated study. Yes, in Arabic. The sources are in Arabic, not modern Arabic, but classical Arabic. No, I'm just an American Muslim who is not afraid to make mistakes, so I write what I think, and report what I find. And, in fact, the scholars generally support me, and sometimes they correct me. It's quite the same with cold fusion. I don't have a degree, but open my mouth and make mistakes, and that's quite how I learn. The trick is to *pay attention to correction.* That is, *seek to understand it.* Jojo radically misrepresents what I've done. I sometimes cite Wikipedia for well-known, uncontroversial material. Blogs are rarely cited, and only to show opinion. Here, it was Jojo who cited an anti-Muslim source, no better than a blog. That source cited Muslim sources, of radically varying quality, and *interpreted them* in ways entirely contrary to normal, maintream Muslim interpretion, often directly contradicting, in conclusion from a source, what the source explicitly said. This is highly polarized polemic, not scholarship. And it's highly offensive, because it is attempting to tell Muslims that their religion tells them to do something horrific. What if they believe him? Below, explaining who I actually am, that is, what my actual qualifications are, I describe my relationship with Islam and what it means to me. If one reads this carefully, it will be seen that it is far from an attack on anyone's religion. At 04:08 PM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Have you read the link? It provides muslim sources that categorically say the things I am saying. How can one who claims to be objective say that Lomax is right about this. You fancy yourself as being objective right? If not, I have nothing else to discuss with you. I will only discuss with people who want the truth, not win with propaganda and lies. What evidence has Lomax actually provided? And how good is that evidence? My evidence is Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. Two of the most respected and venerated mulsim scholarly works. He's is wikipedia and Internet opinion blogs and his evidence is better than mine? Come on man. This is getting ridiculous. Are you actually claiming that Lomax is fluent in Arabic? Please if you are, point to me where he said that. I don't read his lengthy tiresome essays completely so I may have missed that. Jojo - Original Message - From: mailto:danieldi...@gmail.comDaniel Rocha To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comJohn Milstone Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls. The problem it is not that he is informed. Not only vastly more than you, since he can actually not only read the canon in Arabic but also criticisms and counter criticisms, discussion, of the highest authorities, all in Arabic. Although we should all question whatever people tells us, he provided enough evidence that you be just either a troll or fanatical to not accept as true, or much more probable as true than what you can find, whatever Abd says. Daniel was responding to: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74947.html He's not quite correct. I'm generally familiar with anti-Muslim polemic, and the issues raised. Here, I simply followed the sources cited by the Christian, and read them to the degree necessary to understand the context and what was being said. It should not be assumed that I already know the facts. I actually take testimony at face value and then verify it. Or falsify it. A point should be made clear. I'm a Muslim. That has a very specific and technical meaning, it means simply that I have, in the presence of witnesses, testified personally, in Arabic, as to what is called the declaration of faith in Islam. In fact, when I did that, I was young and did not really know what it meant! That is, I had an *erroneous understanding.* I wasn't lying, I was just saying what I thought was so. It means something quite distinct from that now. Here is what it means to me: I testify that there is no god but God. That is, there is a single reality. That is *all* that it means. Everything else is interpretation. I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God. Messenger is literal. Sometimes, when I want
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
At 02:28 PM 1/1/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Latest news: Pope Catholic, Troll Continues Trolling The Pope is trolling?!? I have heard he Tweets. Now this! Hah! No, the Pope is not trolling. This was just the Latest News, the Pope is Catholic. Amazing, eh? Who woulda thunk it? And an unnamed troll continues trolling. My apologies to the Holy Father for mentioning his position in apposition to a troll. I guess it is an effort to bring the Church into the Modern Era and appeal to Youth. He is keeping up with the latest technology, like Cardinal Don Fernando Niño de Guevara, the Grand Inquisitor, wearing glasses in 1600: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/29.100.5http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/29.100.5 This was like posing with a laptop. In his case, it would display a list of naughty and nice people. People who never expected the Spanish Inquisition! - Jed I was astounded to see that painting, I thought perhaps it had been hacked. But it appears to not be an anachronism, though the glasses certainly look modern. Live and learn. I will excuse my offense to the Pope by hastily adopting Jed's helpful gloss, that the headline was about Naught and Nice, but in reverse order.
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 10:00 AM 1/1/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: That certainly is an intriguing statement coming from Mr. Rothwell. Jed has said things like this many times. It's obvious that there are people convinced by Rossi, but what it means that they confirm that Rossi's device works is unknown. What did they actually observe? Jed may know . . . They tested a device with flow calorimetry in their own facility in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, when Rossi was not present. This was some years ago. The device was in the same class as the heater that ran for a year in the Italian factory. I don't recall the size of that . . . ~10 kW? They also tested that device, in Italy. So did Focardi and some others, as they themselves described in a video and some documents. Rossi may have been present during these tests. Jed, it's entirely up to you the credibility you assign to those reports. The rest of us have to take them as rumors coming througu someoine who is generally reliable. I.e., you. This is ordinary flow calorimetry with engineering instruments such as an HVAC engineer uses. Similar to the ones used in the 1 MW test by the mysterious colonel. Not high precision but very reliable. The standard explanation, Jed makes it, is he's crazy. No, I think he is trying to make himself look crazy, or not believable, for the same reason Patterson did. He wants people to ignore him and not try to replicate or compete. I think his IP is weak and he knows that if others reverse-engineer him, he has no way to collect royalties. I advised him and the people financing him to concentrate on developing IP instead of building megawatt reactors. They ignored me. The story told here by Jed is plausible. In a way, though, it's a variation on the he's crazy story. I.e., he's not crazy as he appears, he's pretending to be crazy. But, Jed, that's actually a form of crazy. They could lose everything by following his strategy. You gave *sane* advice. Ignoring sane advice is *crazy.* Sure, there is a distinction.
Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine
Interesting video, but frustrating. Klostermann seems like a sweet old guy who is having fun working with the Papp concept. He's done all kinds of things, but the type of cannon he has built, and that we saw firing so many times, could easily be arranged so that energy output is measured. He's planing on using a government design for an electric generator, and predicts power output, etc., yet he's not done the most basic measurement, and he acknowledges that, but he seems to imply that it would be expensive. No, it would be about as easy as what he's already done, in fact, easier. The output of his cannon is the kinetic energy of the projectile, and that is easily measured. If the kinetic energy of the projectile is as we would expect, less than the energy dumped into the cannon by the ionizatin sources, then neither would a generator work to generate excess power. Yes, it would generate power, but less than the electrical power used to operate it. Ruby asked him the question, he didn't answer it. She's very polite and did not push him. Looks like she's having fun. Marshall Plan to support this is not going to happen unless someone shows over unity, convincingly. I recommend that Cold Fusion Now stay away from these very shaky Alternative Energy claims, and stick to LENR. That's where political support could be useful and effective. Otherwise pseudoskeptics, faced with some actual possible breakthrough, politically, will use support for something ilke the Papp engine to attack the credibility of the organization. At 12:39 PM 12/31/2012, Ruby wrote: video: PULSER Plasma Engine Core: Recovering the Papp engine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbE post: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine: There should be a Marshall Plan to support this http://coldfusionnow.org/heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-engine-there-should-be-a-marshall-plan-to-support-this/ -- Ruby Carat mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.orgr...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat http://www.coldfusionnow.orgwww.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
At 02:33 AM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: So, muslims approve of marriage with sexual relations to a 9 year old menstruating little girl?''' There are only 2 possible answers: Yes or No. But let's see how Lomax will spin this. The general answer is No. But it is also possible to find a situation where the answer would be Yes. I haven't asked muslims, and it's clear that some Muslims would just answer No, and those that would answer Yes would not answer so unconditionally. A great deal would depend, as with all polls, on how the question is asked. Remember, the general answer is No. So how could it be Yes? 1. The society recognizes her as married and that she has reached the conditions of consent. 2. The parents have approved of the marriage. 3. The marriage is not otherwise illegal. and all of this probably requires 4. She does not resemble what comes to *our* mind when we say 9 year old menstruating little girl. She just happens to be, we know because it was assumed in the question, nine years old. Jojo PS. Note that 2 respected and venerated muslim sources (Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari) have indicated that A'isha was indeed 9 years old when muhammed started having intercourse with her; yet you find Lomax still attempting to throw confusion as to Aisha age. Yet he does not say exactly what age he believes A'isha was when muhammed consumated the marriage. Jojo keeps repeating Muslim and Bukhari like a mantra. We have reviewed what they said. They don't mention intercourse, per se. There is a much weaker tradition from Abu Dawud, cited on the Christian polemic site, translated there, that purports to say that they had intercourse when she was nine. But translators often substitute whatever meaning they think is going to explain the situation. So what we know from the *translation* of Abu Dawud is that the translator believed it was about consummation. Was an actual word for intercourse used? I don't know. I didn't see a reliable source on this, and I don't have Abu Dawud. I have consistently written that *it is possible* that Ayesha was nine. Which could mean almost ten and birthdays were not celebrated. A statement of age like this, perhaps made eighty years later (!) can only be taken as something approximate. She was young! She was his youngest wife, and the only virgin wife. As has been pointed out, one of the problems with hadith about Ayesha is that Sunnis were anxious to establish her as the most favored wife, for political reasons, and her youth was emphasized to make the virgin point. She had been betrothed before. (Don't these guys notice that?) (Don't these guys notice that, had Muhammad been dominated by his sexuality, he could have had whatever he wanted?) So Lomax, based on your considerable research into this topic, what was A'isha age when muhammed started having intercourse with her? It's not found in the sources, most of them. The considerable research I have done consists of a few days reading sources on the internet, checking what books I have, and that's it. What's clear -- it's easy to find -- is that many sources do say nine. However, when we look more closely at that, they are assuming that being taken to his house means they were having intercourse. Maybe. Maybe not. Again, it is very clear that many Muslim sources do consider that a girl at nine *might* be able to give consent. What the critics don't realize is that age is not a condition, maturity is, and there are other conditions. There is *no* opinion that a nine-year old girl is marriageable unless a set of conditions have been met. We found, from the Christian web page, only Maududi saying something like that, and Maududi is basically, to be blunt, an idiot. (Even Maududi, though, would agree about the additional conditions, he was just being incautious.) There would obviously be exceptions, but I learned early on not to rely on Pakistanis for the religion. I actually accepted Islam at the suggestion of a Pakistani professor of Farsi, and for years I assumed that he knew Arabic. No. When a real question came up, all he could do was repeat what he'd been told, and when I tried to point to the Qur'anic verses on it, he was helpless and hopeless, and the opinion he'd given me, about divorce, was dead wrong. And he'd followed the defective advice himself! What he was claiming was the *only* way to divorce was actually, from authoritative sources, merely allowed, far from the best. (The best is simple, not abusive, and does not involve anger or preventing reconciliation even after divorce. His way, I later came to understand, actually violates the law of divorce, but he's not the only one who thinks as he thinks.) It took me years to recover from the bad Arabic pronunciation. They pronounce Arabic *as if it were Farsi.* The message to which Jojo was responding is at http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74903.html I
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about islam and little girls.
At 06:23 PM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Lomax, have you actually read the link? Yes. The post that I made proves that, by quoting from it in detail. Has Jojo actually read my mail? It appears not, but then he responds to it. Obviously, if he has not read it, he has *made up* what I supposedly said. It seems to me that you are still asserting a lot of things contrary to Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.. The seeming is to one ignorant of the issues. I have *included* in my comments what is in Muslim and Bukhari. Are you saying you reject the accuracy of the accounts written in these 2 works. I generally consider *all hadith* except the best hadith, the Qur'an, as being suspect as to accuracy. And that is obvious to anyone who takes up the study of hadith. They very. Even with the strongest, we find variations. Then there are *translation* problems. The Christian critics seem to ascribe authority to translations, sometimes made by other than scholars, and sometimes made by scholars whose English is poor. If you do, how can one have a meaningful debate with you. You can't. You are utterly out of your element. You say that only evangelical sources support what I am saying. No, that's only true about *some* of what you say. Consistently, you interpret comments as extremes. It's part of how you think. Now, it is clear that 2 respected and venerated muslim scholarly sources support what I am saying and you still will not accept it? I accepted that they say what they say. It's not controversial that Bukhari and Mulsim say what they say, on the points relevant here. But the exact meanng of some of the words is in possible question. Without doing *much more research* -- that could take a long time -- I can't be certain about these things, but Christians who have certainly *not* done the necessary research are *quite* certain about what they say and what it means. The Sahih Muslim and the Sahih Bukhari are corrupt in your opinion? Corrupt as a technical term, yes. That means that it is a certainty that they contain errors. Jojo, you are trying to establish what the sources of Islam *mean*. Yet those sources don't really mean *anything* to you except as a means of trying to impeach the honor of the religion and those who accept it. You are not willing and possibly not capable of understanding what has happened right here, on this list, in these emails, in a language you supposedly understand, how in the world could you expect to understand what happened 1400 years ago, with no immediate authoritative texts except the Qur'an, and hadith only collected a century later? You seem to think that Islam is like Christianity, that we have some canon of books that are accepted by Muslims, like the Christian canon. No, there is only the Qur'an in that position. One book. Bukhari and Muslim have respect, but I'm actually a Maliki, as to school of preference, for whatever that means, and what was important to Imam Malik was not the stories of the Prophet, so much as how people in Madina, the city of the prophet, *actually practiced.* That's frustrating to you because you imagine I should have some authoritative text that you could then scour for offensive material. The only truly authoritative text in Islam is the Qur'an. What we see in the hadith is largely the world-view (including politics) of the early Muslims, about a hundred years after the Prophet. How much this affected what was transmitted is debatable, and Muslims certainly debate it. because they clearly say that A'isha was 9 years old when muhammed consumated the marriage. As I've mentioned, translations differ and I don't have the Arabic on this. I could go to the trouble of getting it, but why? Muhammad Ali wrote about this that the age of Ayesha was what we would now call historical trivia. The collectors of hadith were very concerned abou the practice of Islam, not about historical trivia. *Later* scholars used these stories to develop law about age, but I consider that activity to be basically corrupt. The standard in the Qur'an and in the actual sunna of the people and the Prophet was about, not age, but maturity. That, in fact, matches what used to be the law in much of the U.S., not so long ago. It is about a judgment of the condition of the girl, not about her physical age, for maturity between girls can vary *greatly*. If there is a girl who is actually sexually mature, and she is *not* married, there is a risk of sex outside of marriage, a constant risk. Is she to be imprisoned, watched constantly? Look what has come from delay of marriage in the U.S.! While cause and effect are debatable, there is little doubt but that extramarital sex has increased, and it is also obvious that *all these women are sexually mature.* -- except for those who are actually abused, rather than merely technically abused. (And statutory rape does not cover the situation of girls
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Truth about Nothing relevant here : PLEASE GO AWAY
At 06:34 PM 1/1/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote: Alan, you are trying to be funny right? Episcopalian Atheist? What is that? Did you start out as an Episopalian and ended up as an Atheist? I'd suspect that he was born Episcopalian and became an atheist. Some atheists, my own opinion, are actually believers in Truth. Some are not. You know, we really started a lot of trouble when we started to believe that words capture Reality. Words are a very *useful* device, if you are an engineer, and don't take words too seriously.
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
Below, Jojo promised to allow me the last word. This is it. It really doesn't matter, though, because I'm done. anyway I already shut down response in other threads. There are issues raised in these exchanges that can be of value, but they are also basically off-topic. The relevance I could assert is that they reveal a certain type of thinking that is not all that uncommon, it is merely extremely visible with Jojo. Jojo is demonstrating a hazard that we are all subject to. To avoid it requires care and a willingness to self-examine. At 03:46 AM 12/31/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: OK , Lomax, you are an expert in deception and twist and spin. I bow to your skill and go away. All Jojo would have to do is acknowledge errors or misinterpretations on his part. My skill is only hard work. It takes time to research the issues raised. It takes time to write something coherent. And, yes, it takes time, though much less time, to read what's found. What trolls do, mostly, is waste time. Is Jojo a troll? A troll is someone who has, as a motive, insulting or enraging others. Motive can be difficult to discern, but, observing Jojo since his participation in Vortex started to go south, yes, Jojo intends to outrage. This is connected, for him, with responding to insults, i.e., to a belief that one must respond in kind to insults, and it is also connected to correcting propaganda, except that Jojo has, many times, *introduced* highly controversial topics, connected with politics and religion, when he either thought he was being insulted, or he saw his *beliefs* as being insulted. He introduces them, obviously, because he wants to insult back someone, so he picks a topic that he thinks will outrage them. And he's not precise, the topic is a shotgun blast, with massive collateral damage. That the damage *usually* does not appear is only because the readership of Vortex is relatively small, and most people just shrug stuff off. He knew and expected that his use of Vortex to promote his beliefs (or correct the beliefs of others) would be disruptive. He referred to it many times. But he took nearly every excuse to do it. I documented how this behavior first showed, previously, http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74768.html The entire list can document this time that I am letting Lomax have the last word. I will no longer post unless asked a specific question or insulted whether directly or in reference. Please let this escalating round of insults end. I'm tired. The exchange will end as he says, if he keeps his word. It's not merely a round of insults. That's what *Jojo* does. Above, I describe what a troll is, and I provide some level of argument that could lead to a conclusion of trolling *in effect*. Is that an insult? Jojo has consistently claimed that his comments about Obama and supporters, about Muhammad and his wife Ayesha, about what a billion people worship as God, calling Allah a Moon god, about people who are concerned about global warming, about Christians other than a narrow group, about people who accept the evolution of species, and about many participants on this list, are just the truth, and therefore not insults. I research topics that come up, and report the results. I don't research irrelevant topics and then dump the results here. On list-irrelevant topics, I don't start discussions here as new threads, other than in error or to pull an irrelevant topic out of a thread where it's disruptive. I have, many times, asked for errors to be corrected. In the absence of that correction, and where what I've said isn't obviously mere opinion, where it was based on cited evidence, I must assume that what I've written is either true or at least reasonable. Yet Jojo has, many times, called it lies. It's fairly clear that his reading comprehension is poor, he doesn't understand what sources mean. He's mistaken comment that is not about him at all, as being about him, a clear example came up yesterday with Axil. He calls my posts lies because he does not like what conclusions may be drawn from them, and he assumes conclusions and states them as if they are what I've said. Frequently. But my posts are just a collection of facts and thought. Facts are not lies, they are just what's so. If a source conveys an untruth, and the source is cited as saying what is untrue, it is not a lie to state what is in the source, if it's attributed, because *it's in the source.* Science begins with this kind of detachment from opinion and judgment. I do not always distinguish my thoughts as such; but my thoughts are only my reactions. If reported as my reactions, they are, again, not lies. They are just my reactions, and, again, that's just what's so. My reactions and thoughts are not truth, nor are they lies. They are just reactions. This is so for everyone who is not God. It's easy for anyone with the training to recognize the
Re: [Vo]:OT: Call For Death Of Climate Deniers
At 10:18 AM 12/31/2012, Zell, Chris wrote: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/ This ugly spirit is ruining free inquiry and science in general. Fortunately, he lacks credibility on the subject. Before spreading stuff like this, taken from a blog, I suggest *actually checking it*. The man in question, who was simply exploring an idea on his own blog, quickly apologised, yesterday. I found the source by following a link from Joanne Nova's blog at http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/ and from there to his More comment about his opposition to the death penalty. I understand what he was saying. Without raising the argument, *suppose* that global warming will happen, and it's caused by us, and it will cause millions of deaths. Maybe a billion. If so, the global warming denial, the argument would go, could cause a billion deaths, and if that's so, the professor suggested that this would be worthy of the death penalty. Now, the man is a strong supporter of Amnesty International. He's *firmly* opposed to the death penalty. I read his thinking as simply saying that this is a very serious matter. Backing up, we, as a society need to be able to *think*. The thought process requires taking up ideas and *holding* them for a time. Just because an idea, if accepted, could mean that a billion people would die, does *not* mean that someone should be taken out and shot because they have the idea and express it! It's also possible that if a huge amount of effort it put into avoiding a non-existent hazard, if that's what global warming is, resources would be wasted that could save a billion lives, eventually. To make genuine choices, we need to be able to think regardless of political correctness -- or any sort of fixed assumptions. We need our full collective intelligence. That requires freedom of thought and, generally, expression. In all directions. But *action* is another thing. Action to harm our ability to think clearly, collectively, would be *oppressive*, and that is where serious response could become appropriate. We have, for very good reason, developed strong traditions of intellectual freedom, and we need to guard against a constant tendency to repress minority opinion. My sense is that minority opinion is *usually* wrong, but the exceptions can be doozies! We need minority opinion, it will keep the majority on its toes, and ... sometimes the minority is actually right. From the professor's web site, http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange_apology.html Global warming I wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended by texts that were previously posted at this address. I made claims that were incorrect and comparisons that were completely inappropriate, which I deeply regret. I alone am entirely responsible for the content of those texts, which I hereby withdraw in their entirety. I would also like to thank all those who took the time and trouble to share their thoughts in emails. In October 2012, I wrote the following on this page: I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. I wish to confirm that this is indeed my opinion. More generally, all human beings in all places and at all times have equal rights. I have been a member and financial supporter of Amnesty International for at least 18 years, and I admire and support their universal, altruistic approach to defending human rights. The following extract from the text was intended to apply to the entire text: Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I am simply presenting a logical argument. I am neither a politician nor a lawyer. I am just thinking aloud about an important problem. Richard Parncutt, 27-30 December 2012
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 11:10 AM 12/31/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: What irks me is when skeptics do not even bother to read the papers by Bockris, Gerischer or McKubre The barrier I ran into with one of the founders of the DoE was a demand that I filter your bibliograpny down to only papers that appeared in journals of Science Citation Index. That's no small task and I had to write a few perl scripts to come close. I believe I posted the results of that to vortex-l when I first started participating in hopes that I could get some help penetrating this barrier. I mean, its not every day you get someone that was hired by Carter to found the DoE's EIA and one of the few Carter appointees retained by Reagan to offer any conditions whatsoever under which he would consider a paper reporting replication of the PF phenomenon worth his time to read. Yes, yes, yes... I know, it was my responsibility to disabuse him of his demand for such a filter, wasn't it? Too bad. Not gonna happen. Ah, Mr. Bowery, you are jogging my memory The fellow would really only need to read three papers, and the first two are the DoE reviews, both of which recommended research to resolve open issues, and the third is the Storms paper in Naturwissenschaften, Status of cold fusion (2010). That's a peer-reviewed review of the field, and, sure, it cites much material that is not in the Science Citation index, but we are dealing here with a field where for twenty years most research, no matter how solid, had great difficulty getting published in the standard journals. But, of course, there *are* many papers so published. Too many, in fact, unless someone really wants to dive in fully. Rather, what someone in the DoE would need to know is that there is basic research that has not been done because it really isn't needed any more, for those working on making the effect more reliable. Reliable is a practical question and has *nothing* to do with the science. The most obvious of these would be research to nail down the reported heat/helium ratio from the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. It's quite well enough established that researchers in the field routinely assume that helium is generated from palladium deuteride when heat is being generated, but verifying the correlation happens to be a useful activity that could serve both skeptics and believers. The claim is often made that cold fusion is pathological science, and that it's like other pathological science, when measurements are made more accurately and carefully, the anomalous results disappear. Okay, what happens if the heat/helium ratio is measured more carefully? (It's a difficult measurement, fairly expensive to do, but it's been done by a dozen or so research groups around the world, and not only is there no contrary evidence, some of the original negative replications that found no heat, also checked for helium, and did not find it. That is a *confirmation* of the heat/helium ratio. No heat, no helium.) (Heat/helium is a *reliable experiment*. To measure the ratio requires running a series of FP cells and not only doing the standard calorimetry on them, looking for anomalous heat, but also capturing the helium, which is actually the hard part. Heat is routinely measured with accuracy far beyond noise, but helium takes special care. Nevertheless, correlation uses the dead cells as controls. That is why heat/helium actually cuts through the reliability problem, because it confirms *both* the heat and helium measurements. And that the work done so far has approached the deuterium fusion to helium value doesn't hurt! John Huizenga was the co-chair of the 1989 DoE review, and he wrote in about 1993, in the second edition of his book on cold fusion about the Miles finding of heat/helium correlation that, if confirmed, it would solve a major mystery of cold fusion, the ash. Well? Was Miles confirmed? Storms certainly claims so, and that is a reasonable claim, but ... if it's not true, then confirming Miles would be long, long overdue. And if it is true, getting a more accurate measure could help discriminate between alternate theories as to mechanism. It is time that the DoE follow its own recommendations. They were unanimous in 2004. So why is anyone second-guessing them? *If* your friend, Mr. Bowery, is in doubt about the reality of cold fusion, and because of the vast possible implications from the reality of cold fusion, and if he now represents private interests, funding careful research with this could be crucial as a matter of due diligence. This work should be bypassed only by those already convinced that cold fusion is real. Most cold fusion approaches are famously unreliable, and making them reliable is probably going to take a lot more research; without understanding the mechanism (fusion does not tell us
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 11:25 AM 12/31/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Look, he said right here, in this forum, that he wants to see a testable theory. Jed, I must have missed that. Where did he say that? Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mailto:mgi...@gibbs.commgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? You are not seeing the forest for the trees, Jed. had made a statement about the general way that cold fusion was viewed. This quoted his original comment: 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. Gibbs was *incorrect*. Testable theory will not lead to LENR entering such lists, not directly. What would do it is a demonstrably practical device? You went off on him like he was the Devil of Pseudoskepticism Incarnate. Gibbs doesn't know -- or didn't know -- that there already testable theories, and, more than that, theories that have been tested, but this, for him, was really beside the point. The real point, for him, would be a practical device, and theory is merely an idea that he has might lead to that. Yes, he's not thought this all the way through. He will. Why not? I'l tell you why he might not. If he finds that people who are knowledgeable in the field treat him as the enemy. Read *all* of what he writes, Jed, not just the parts that push your buttons. Gibbs has written: 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. Almost true. We know what causes the heat. Deuterium is being converted to helium, and that's confirmed by the ratio found. It is *highly* unlikely that this ratio could be coming from anything else that that conversion, which is called fusion. What is *not* known is the mechanis, the specific conditions that cause it and the specific pathway followed. There are theories attempting to explain the mechanism, but none are as yet adequate. That's all. 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. You could agree with this or not. Gibbs is interested in the payoff. I'm into this for the science. They are not unrelated! It is possible that the payoff could arrive before the science, but not necessarily probable. Jed, you have an optimism that technology can solve any problem. Maybe. Maybe not. Science is not about making that assumption, it's about testing theories, and Engineering is the about taking what is known -- as to theory or measured results -- and applying this to make devices practical. I think you may be right, Jed, but you must recognize that it's an optimistic view. It is not impossible that the nature of the mechanism is such that it's *inherently* unstable and unreliable. Bad luck, that would be, but not impossible. 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. Jed, do you want to be part of the solution or part of the problem? Gibbs is asking for help. How about helping him? He wants to find out what is real and what is fake. There is no such thing as a free lunch. But we could start with what is real. Finding out what is fake can be much more difficult. What's real is cold fusion itself, and most clearly the LENR effect that is the most solidly established is anomalous heat from palladium deuteride, accompanied with correlated helium production. It is preposterously unlikely that further research will reveal this as artifact. Mark wants to know about practical devices. Nothing on the palladium deuteride front is yet truly a practical device, though some devices might be scalable. Until they are stable, scaling up would be *hazardous.* Mark might want to look at the Nanor, Mitchell Swartz's device. Not Ready For Home Depot, and not any time soon. Practical devices are being claimed with nickel-hydrogen. None of this has yet been confirmed in any reliable way. But if anything is going to happen quickly, that might be where it will happen. It's worth watching, but there are obvious reasons to be *quite* skeptical. That's where it stands. There are promising research lines being pursued. There are signs that the ice floes blocking funding are breaking up. If cold fusion had been funded as recommended in the first DoE review, we could be twenty years ahead of where we are. Science by Politics is a
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
At 01:16 PM 12/29/2012, James Bowery 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. As Jed points out, the ERAB Panel was likely convened as a cold fusion killer. When Pons and Fleischmann announced, all hell broke loose. Huge sums were being invested, routinely, in hot fusion research (and buckets of cash are still being poured down that rathole). The administration wanted the issue resolved, and they wanted it resolved *fast*. So they formed the panel, and gave it an *impossible* task, to review the claims and judge them, before normal scientific process had a chance to catch up. Pons and Fleischmann had been working for five years in secrecy. And they still had a process that often failed to show anything. To come up with a judgment of the entire field within a short time was utterly impossible. The unknown reasons mentioned became known within a few years, the conditions associated with heat were *largely* identified, such that it can confidently be stated, now, exactly why the famous early replications failed. They were doomed to failure, and that was largely due to haste. The DoE had shifted discretionary funding into a crash confirmation program, not well-planned and inadequately executed. But if Jed is right and the purpose was to kill cold fusion, it worked quite well. They could say, We tried, but nobody could replicate it. In fact, before they finished their report, replications started to come in, but ... Jed is right, those were ignored. Miles had reported negative results at first, and they cited Miles. Then Miles started seeing positive results, and phoned the Panel. They did not return his phone call. This is all history, and there are a number of excellent books about it. Beaudette, Excess Heat, Why Cold Fusion Prevailed, is probably the best, but there is also Simon, Undead Science. Simon is a sociologist of science who studied the history of cold fusion. In fact, as of a few years ago, there were 153 reports of excess heat in these experiments, published in peer-reviewed journals. While in 1989-1990, negative reports outnumbered positive ones, the balance shifted, as I recall, positive reports -- as judged by the skeptical electrochemist, Dieter Britz, outnumbered negative ones. The extreme skeptical position disappeared from the journals sometime around the 2004 DoE report -- that almost tipped toward cold fusion. Storms' paper, Status of cold fusion (2010) (Naturwissenschaften) represents a milestone. NW is Springer-Verlag's flagship multidisciplinary journal. It's been publishing for about a century. Einstein was published in it. And the article wasn't titled Status of LENR. Storms came right out and called it Cold fusion. Because it's fusion, get over it Practical? That is *entirely* a different question. Maybe. Probably, even, but do not hold your breath.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
At 01:49 PM 12/29/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Mark Gibbs mailto:mgi...@gibbs.commgi...@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. Context here should be more revealed. The fusion cross section (rate, effectively) for standard deuterium fusion, caused when two deuterium nuclei collide, can be calculated -- quite accurately -- for a plasma, where the rate at which nuclei interact is known. The distances between nuclei in condensed matter (the solid state) are enormous, compared to the size of the nuclei. It seemed reasonable that fusion rate could be calculated for deuterium dissolved in palladium, by assuming that only two deuterium nuclei would iteract at a time. It's a 2-body problem, and the math is relatively simply. Generally speaking, making that approximation was thought to be adequate, and the approximation predicted that, even though the density and effective pressure of deuterium in palladium could be enormous, it was not enough to raise fusion rates to a measureable level. That's what Pons and Fleischmann knew when they began their work. Their work was not energy research. They were not looking for an energy panacea, or free energy. They were doing basic scientific research, to test the assumptions being made about the application of quantum mechanics to condensed matter. They thought that what they would probably find was nothing. They were not naive, as the physicists often portrayed them. And then their apparatus melted down, and they had no chemical explanation for it. And they were chemists, world-class. They clearly did not understand what they had found. They believed that it was a reaction taking place in the lattice. For lots of reasons, that's pretty unlikely. It is a surface reaction. At least usually. We don't know all the possibilities. Because they thought it was a bulk reaction, they expected to find helium in the bulk. It wasn't found. That's one of the experimental facts that deposited a layer of egg on their faces. Helium is produced as a rare branch from normal hot fusion, and most people thought that cold fusion must be hot fusion taking place somehow. But it didn't really make sense. If one got over the enormous energies necessary to trigger hot fusion and managed to catalze it cold -- and there is a known method of doing that -- for there to be enough of a reaction taking place to account for the heat that was being observed, the neutron radiation would have been deadly. But a little helium would be produced, and with it, a quite energetic gamma ray. No gammas were seen like that. However, Preparata predicted that helium would be found to be the ash. Miles was following Preparata's theory. So, Mark, here we had a confirmation of theory. Does that mean that Preparata's theory was true. Not necessarily! There is a whole lot more that would have to happen. Helium is, in fact, found, but only in two places; evolved in the gas, roughly half, and trapped in the lattice, near the surface. When the original testing had been done on Pons-Fleischmann cells, they had removed the outer layer of the cathodes, to eliminate absorbed helium from the air! In any case, there are plenty of confirmed theories of cold fusion. It's just that there is no *complete* theory. There are theories than can allow a researcher to be confident that in a series of cells, they will see some with excess heat. There is a very important theory, that the anomalous heat in an FPHE experiment is produced by the conversion of deuterium to helium, with no other major products. That theory, then, allows certain prodictions to be made. From the heat, one can predict how much helium
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 11:28 AM 12/31/2012, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From Ashfield: ... ... I am puzzled by your [Jed's] statement that you have spoken to large investors who confirm the E-Cat works That certainly is an intriguing statement coming from Mr. Rothwell. Jed has said things like this many times. It's obvious that there are people convinced by Rossi, but what it means that they confirm that Rossi's device works is unknown. What did they actually observe? Jed may know, but this is ultimatey hearsay. It may be enough to convince Jed, because he knows whom he is talking about, and their reliability and caution, or, what would be more important *what they actually observed*. What we also know is that it is possibe for a highly knowledgeable observer to see a Rossi demonstration, and to walk away convinced that the thing is real, and yet the demonstration was no, on review, conclusive. Not only were certain reasonable possibilities overlooked, it seems likely, from evidence we have, that those possiblities were actually happening. I.e., there was overflow water, not just steam. (But we can't be sure.) Whats frustrating about all of this, at least from my perspective, is the fact that we had yet to see anything from Rossi that seems to be even close to be considered a commercial product. All Ive seen (and read about) has been nothing more than a lot of hot air. Granted, there seems to be tantalizing evidence and lots of grandiose promises coming from Rossi. However, what is significant is that Rossi never allows his tantalizing evidence to be independently validated that that certainly puts the kibosh on his credibility, and righty so. Maybe Rossi will finally pull a rabbit out of the hat. I sure hope so, but who the hell knows. I sure as hell dont. Right. We don't know. Rossi promised the moon. It was obviously flamboyant and extravagant. Why a megawatt power plent? Why make it so big? Rossi could sell investigational devices, unapproved for general use, like hotcakes, if they would just do what he's claimed he could do. The standard explanation, Jed makes it, is he's crazy. However, crazy doesn't increase my confidence! Crazy people will sometimes lie and cheat. It is possible to arrange truly convincing demonstrations, if the inventor can control the conditions and doesn't mind a little fraud. It's all in a good cause, after all. We'll have the real thing by next month, so it won't matter if we fudge a little this time. Real inventors can think like that, and it isn't necessarily illegal! Depends on what *investors* actually see. But if he's crazy, there goes all restraint against defrauding investors! The only conclusion that makes any sense to me is to speculate that these unnamed investors (who presumably have confirmed the fact that there really is something to Rossis e-Cats), are doing everything within their power to make sure that Rossi works out the flaws before potential competition catches wind. One of the best ways to help ensure that they stay in first place would be to continue to insinuate to potential competition the impression that Rossis organization is highly flawed, or worse, fraudulent. That seems to have been easy to accomplish! ;-) Dont bother looking into the matter. Move along move along nothing to see here. Yeah, we've figured that one out. And I don't see a way to distinguish the difference between a fake Rossi con and a real one. There is one way to deal with it. Make it dangerous. Vigorously puruse alternate research. Rossi has no patent rights on secrets. If his patent requires a magic sauce, it's dead. Again, Im left with the assumption that there must still remain serious flaws and impediments to the commercialization of Rossis eCats. Will Rossi work out the flaws before the competition finally catches wind? It would appear that Mr. Rothwell doesnt think so. History may prove him right. My crystal ball is here somewhere, I know it! I really need to clean this place up!
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 11:48 AM 12/31/2012, a.ashfield wrote: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22OrionWorks+-+Steven+Vincent+Johnson%22Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: However, what is significant is that Rossi never allows his tantalizing evidence to be independently validated. Actually he has. The third party verification of the Hot Cat was completed a couple of weeks ago and Rossi expects the results (which he has not seen) to be published early in February. No, Ashfield, he hasn't. He has announced that he will. He says that it was completed. He says that they will be published. I know it's too much to ask, this is Vortex, but I'll ask anyway. IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT REPORTS SHOW FACT INSTEAD OF OPINION? There! I feel much better, nothing like a little shouting for the soul. Now, where were we? Likewise, Rossi claims his first 1 MW Hot Cat will be finished in February and the working unit made available for inspection a couple of months after it has been set up. Considering the short time since the original E-Cat this would be remarkably fast if he does it. The original 1 MW E-Cat is supposed to be sold to a customer for March delivery and may also be made available for inspection. Rossi claims that the units delivered to the military were different. Claims. I feel much better now. In my previous post I left out that Rossi states he has provided his new partner with his IP so there is no possibility of it going to the grave with him. States. You are getting good at this, Ashfield. With so much in the pipe-line either we get solid news soon or it will look very suspicious. Oh dear. Let's see, we've been seeing that and saying that for almost two years now. Tomorrow, it will look suspicious. It *already* looks suspicious as hell. So it might be more accurate, to say something like, If pigs fly, we'll have solid news. Flying pigs, solid news falling from the sky. Who is going to clean up? But maybe, someday, pigs will fly. First class or coach?
Re: [Vo]:Boeing Electric Airplane- LENR
At 04:27 PM 12/31/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Fission reactor airplane engines were developed in the 1950s. See chapter 18 of my book, and also: http://www.aviation-history.com/articles/nuke-american.htmhttp://www.aviation-history.com/articles/nuke-american.htm Half a billion dollars. What were they thinking? Furthermore, you can make the cold fusion engine heavy and large, because the mass of fuel is so small. All plans for fission/LENR planes rely on assumption that the price of Jet fuel would increase, but this is silly assumption! Fuel/energy usually gets cheaper over time if we are looking longer trends. Cold fusion will be orders of magnitude cheaper than jet fuel. Well, depends on the jet fuel and the cold fusion technique. I'd not care to bet on which way we'd go. CF -- or any energy technology -- can be used to make hydrogen, which burns totally cleanly. What's the problem being solved here? The nuclear aircraft used a reactor for a very hot process, heating air, basically. Cold fusion may not run at temperatures like that. In any case, the question is how the reactor converts heat to aircraft motion. It might be simpler to make hydrogen as fuel, by electrolysis, leaving the apparatus for that on the ground. Or not. I assume we'll figure it out if and when we know more.
Re: [Vo]:off topic (do we really want to sent these people to the stars?)
At 06:23 PM 12/31/2012, Harry Veeder wrote: On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:09 PM, ChemE cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Holy crap Only if it's Shiva's. If I were Hindu should I be offended or just laugh? If you were Hindu, I'd suggest laughing. I have a whole book about certain rather extreme practices among the god-intoxicated. We will not go there, here. Laughing, however, is good for the soul, if you aren't laughing *at* someone else. Unless, of course, it's *really funny.* Laughing at myself, that's fantastic!
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a problem appeared. Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of insult, escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs, apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on topics that are likely to be inflammatory if brought here (and just about anywhere on the internet, except for certain odd corners), and he readily drops these into discussions. At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Yes, I stand corrected. If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama. I will separately address this in another post. I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's sense of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the contributions of Jojo to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that he doesn't start insulting, but that others insult him, and he responds with insult. He made comments early on that could indicate a certain combativeness, but that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700, in which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he mentioned that he disagreed on Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, source time confirms location in the Philippines, I think.) However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not mention Darwinian Evolution, so this must have been a reference to some other post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some support for Jojo, but nobody started debating evolution. But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:37:50 -0700 (resent time), Jojo sent an extensive post on Darwinian Evolution. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.html Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. It was in response to a casual comment by James Bowery: I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class. This comment is, in no way, propaganda for Darwinian Evolution. Yes, it assumes a certain importance to Darwin, but we need to understand this: that importance is a routinely accepted fact, tantamount to a belief, among most people interested in science. Were there some necessity to attack Darwinian evolution -- difficult to understand for Vortex-l -- okay. But there was not. The subject was not Darwinian Evolution. Jojo escalated, with a rant on Darwinian Evolution that connected it with *everyone who accepts Darwinian Evolution.* Read the post! Jojo knew that he was changing the subject. He knew that it would be highly controversial. He anticipated shots. He implied that he'd not be responding. Resent Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:54 -0700, Jojo wrote this: I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for so long - that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want to involve other topics in this forum other than Cold Fusion. I wish people would not use this forum for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude other points of view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing wrt to Hot fusion. However, he then proceeded to challenge Jed Rothwell, who had responded civilly to Jojo. However, Jed noted that Jojo was ignorant. That kind of comment is typically taken by Jojo as an insult. Rothwell promised to let Jojo have the last word. He kept that promise for that thread. The discusion of evolution continued a little, but other readers started to complain about off-topic. A thread on a cold fusion topic had been hijacked by the insertion of a discussion of Darwinian Evolution, based not, as Jojo has often claimed, on propaganda, but a mere reference to Darwin as a man with ideas that were not popular in his time, dicta. In the process, Jojo set up a *political argument.* Read the post! Then Jojo started a new thread, specifically on Darwinian Evolution, resent Sat, 26 May 2012 02:22:30 -0700. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66051.html He did not keep to his intention. He continued to poke at Jed. Jed had answered, and indicated intention not to respond further, and had not responded further. Others had made small comments. Yet Jojo's post mentioned Jed five times, in addition to continuing to quote Jed's original response. The mentions were not complimentary. Jed Rothwell did not bite. However, James Bowery did, becoming incensed that Jojo apparently would not consider an experiment to distinguish between Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution. The interchange revealed clearly that this was a *religious* argument.
Re: [Vo]:Reifenschweiler effect
At 04:58 AM 12/30/2012, Moab Moab wrote: Any lab could take the Reifenschweiler effect and replicate it. If successful the notion (axiom?) that the radioactive decay rate is constant would be void. And the notion (axiom?) that chemical environment cannot influence nuclear reactions would also be void. What excuses does science have for not performing the research that would disprove the accepted axioms ? My assumption is that the funding agencies only promote the deepening of the current understanding out of convenience: Anomalies are too plentiful to investigate all and it would likely endanger the validity of running programs. I haven't seen any science journalist write a story about this topic, asking these questions, let alone answering them. First of all, the point to the Reifenschweiler effect is not actually a serious controversy. Sometimes an argument is levelled against cold fusion that, allegedly, the electronic environment (the chemical environment) cannot affect nuclear reactions. Hoffman skewered that argument in his 1994 book. There are known counterexamples, they are merely rare, and generally involve electron capture. While the R Effect is of interest, it's hard to see why it might be a research priority. There are many that I'd put in front of it. For example, Vysotskii reports biological transmutation, using techniques that would be expected to be definitive. This has *enormous* practical implications, if confirmed. As far as I know, nobody has tried. While we may rue a collective failure, there is nobody specific to blame it on. The Anomalies are too plentiful to investigate all is probably true to a degree. What we can and should do is to make sure that if someone does investigate and does the work reasonably well, that this gets published *somewhere.* We can work to ensure that journals follow fair standards on what they report. The argument about too many anomalies would not apply to reports of actual experimental work -- either way.
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
been getting anywhere with efforts to challenge this, and it will be, in my opinion, totally moot if Congress certifies the second election. Unlike what many seem to think, if it *were* discovered that Obama were ineligible, this would, by itself, have zero effect on his first term as President, because Congress had the responsibility and authority to certify -- or reject -- the election, and chose to certify it in 2009. Congress could act now, by impeaching him, if they felt that necessary (what a waste of time! because it would have practically no legal effect, all of his actions as President would still stand). The birthers will have their last chance, coming up in a few days. If Congress ignores the birther claims, or rejects them, it's over. He's then the continuing President, even if actual proof were to come out that he was born in Kenya, even if his mother were merely a foster mother. It's called res judicata. There is a limit to controversy, legally. On the other hand, if proof comes out that he *lied*, that he committed perjury, on a matter like this, Congress could impeach him on those grounds, and remove him from office if he is found guilty. But he'd still be President until removed from office, and the Vice-President would become President. Don't hold your breath! - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:55 PM Subject: 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: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
At 06:02 PM 12/30/2012, David Roberson wrote: I just came to the realization that most of the demonstrations that Russ has performed do not show much real work output. The piston is driven upward by the spark activated mixture, but then returns to the starting point. Any work done on the mass of the piston is returned back to the gas when it retracts for a net of zero. On occasions I have seen him toss items into the air which intercept his fan or ceiling, but the mass is small and little damage appears to be caused by the projectile. It is going to be difficult to get accurate measurements for a valid determination of energy released unless that energy remains stored somewhere and compared to the electrical input. David, I think you have missed the point. Yes, gravity will continue to act on the driven piston, so it will return to the start. However, there would not be a return to zero, as such. Work would be done on the weight. What happens to the energy released? It would end up where it almost always ends up, as heat. But that is not the issue. When the piston is lifted, there is a force operating over a distance, against the inertia of the piston and against gravity. Force times distance is work, or energy. The energy that has been dumped into the piston should be measureable. The energy expressed as work, through the lifting of the piston, would be equal to that, if there is no XP, or less than that, because of friction. Friction will cause diversion of the energy into heat. The gas in the cylinder expanded. What happens to the expanded gas? If the piston is sealed, it stays expanded, does it? What happens to the gas? The gas must collapse if this cycle can be repeated with a sealed cylinder. The motion of that cylinder, from a single pop, could be quite interesting! The force exerted on the weight, over a time which can be found by observation of the piston lift, can be used to predict how an engine would behave, to a degree, though more is involved, i.e., how the gas then collapses. I suspect that the spark creates a transient high pressure, but only slightly elevates the temperature, and whatever temperature increase exists is rapidly dissipated. The motion of the piston, observed, could show the pressure behavior.
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 06:25 PM 12/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Suppose Gibbs were to read EPRI's paper, or Gerischer where he says: there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys. Suppose Gibbs were to say: I get it. I understand why Gerischer reached that conclusion. He believes that tritium alone is proof of a nuclear reaction and you do not need a theory to justify that conclusion. However, I disagree. I say that observation alone is not enough, and you can't be sure cold fusion is a real nuclear effect until you explain it with a theory. Why speculate that he would say something stupid like that? I would say: Okay, that violates the scientific method as taught in textbooks. However, you have a right to your opinion, and many important scientists such as Huizenga agreed with you. You should understand the other person's point of view. Know what it is you are disagreeing with. Yes. Now please demonstrate this skill. Huizenga's book is truly embarrassing. But he was an old man, and, unfortunately, probably losing it. He was like a broken record, he kept repeating the same thing over and over. Nevertheless, I personally prefer to commend him for honestly noting the importance of the Miles experiment. He did not attempt to impeach Miles or his methods, and he honestly stated why he thought that Miles would not be confirmed. No gammas, which reveals, in two words, the basic error that he -- with many others -- was making. He was judging an unknown reaction by noting that it was not a known reaction. Which we already knew. Getting back to the history of DNA, at Google books I am reading a book written in 1916 about genetics, describing the subject accurately in great detail: Genetics and eugenics: a text-book for students of biology . . . by William Ernest Castle and Gregor Mendel. The author frequently points out that he has no physical theory to explain any of this, and it is entirely observational. He can prove there are genes, and that some are on one chromosome and some on another, and so on. He shows all of this by observation and logic alone. This is how science used to be done. No one in 1916 would demand a theory; i.e. physical evidence of encoded genetic information (DNA). That's correct. Who, here, is demanding a theory? Gibbs has noted that lack of theory is a problem. That applies only in certain narrow areas, but he's not *wrong*. It's a problem! It has, as you have said, Jed, nothing to do with science. We can have science on a topic, with no theory as to mechanism (which is what this boils down to, there *is* theory as to effect, confirmed, verified, and almost certainly correct.)
Re: [Vo]:Reifenschweiler effect
At 08:39 PM 12/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: First of all, the point to the Reifenschweiler effect is not actually a serious controversy. Don't be ridiculous! Of course it is controversial. Sorry, I misspoke. The RE may be controversial, but the idea that nuclear reactions, specifically nuclear decay cannot be affected by the chemical environment, isn't controversial. The application to specific cases might be, but to apply it, one needs a very specific case. If the effect is *actually controversial* among those who understand the issue, all the more reason to encourage replication. And the arguments that no journal would publish it are bunk. I bet Naturwissenschaften would. And if not, there are other forms of pubication, and continued rejection of decent research -- as shown in the papers themselves -- is a continued impeachment of journal integrity. That is just natural consequences, and it does not depend on us making continual noises about represssion. Truth will out. Hoffman skewered that argument in his 1994 book. You, Mike McKubre and I are just about the only three people in the world I know who have read Hoffman, and you are the only one who does not consider him a dolt. Well, I need to discuss this with Mike. You met Hoffman, but from your comments on him, and how they compare with his book, you obviously misunderstood him. I'll stand with that. What I know is that his book was, when I began this study, enormously helpful, he put me on track to discover much about cold fusion. For example, he covers early Chinese usage of CR-39, finding CP radiation from CF cells. He focuses on specifically nuclear evidence, and his book stops just before the Miles bombshell. He acknoweldges the calorimetric evidence, and specifically avoids going over it in detail, but says that the work is being done with competent people. I look back, and stop short of Miles, and imagine my position. It's close to Hoffman. But the saga did not stop before Miles. Miles announced, Huizenga noticed it, and then something strange happened. Miles demonstrated that the calorimetry was at least decent, that XP actually was XP. Yet people in the field kept yammering about calorimetry and how great it was, without mentioning Miles, who *totally iced the controversy.* -- once his work was confirmed. I saw this social anomaly rather quickly, I discussed it with Dr. Storms, and he wrote a paper on it. And the journal editor -- I didn't know at the time where he was submitting it -- instead asked for a review of the whole field. Status of cold fusion (2010). I did do a little editing with the papers, but I was surprised to be credited. Storms has been generous with me, in spite of my being a pain in the ass. Jed, we dropped the ball. We had the single reliable experiment, confirmed within a few years of Miles. And we kept yammering about excuses. We actually, many or most of us, behaved like victims. Are we going to continue like this? No. We won't. *Cold fusion prevailed.*
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
At 10:17 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: His own autobiography says that he went to muslim school in Indonesia. You can't go to muslim school unless you're muslim. Who says that? Muslims go to Christian schools all the time.
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
barely scratched the surface, I only reviewed the contributions through the first brouhaha -- is cherry-picked or in error, I invite correction *on specifics*, or supplying what is missing. There are a few people who have supported Jojo in certain ways, and I'd suggest that they either assist him by correcting my errors -- and I *do* make mistakes -- or by informing their friend, on or off-list, that he's gone off the deep end. Jojo PS, But you win Lomax. My Christmas break is almost over. Come January, you will be left on your own to continue lying about me again. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a problem appeared. Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of insult, escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs, apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on topics that are likely to be inflammatory if brought here (and just about anywhere on the internet, except for certain odd corners), and he readily drops these into discussions. At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Yes, I stand corrected. If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama. I will separately address this in another post. I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's sense of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the contributions of Jojo to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that he doesn't start insulting, but that others insult him, and he responds with insult. He made comments early on that could indicate a certain combativeness, but that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700, in which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he mentioned that he disagreed on Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, source time confirms location in the Philippines, I think.) However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not mention Darwinian Evolution, so this must have been a reference to some other post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some support for Jojo, but nobody started debating evolution. But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:37:50 -0700 (resent time), Jojo sent an extensive post on Darwinian Evolution. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.html Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. It was in response to a casual comment by James Bowery: I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class. This comment is, in no way, propaganda for Darwinian Evolution. Yes, it assumes a certain importance to Darwin, but we need to understand this: that importance is a routinely accepted fact, tantamount to a belief, among most people interested in science. Were there some necessity to attack Darwinian evolution -- difficult to understand for Vortex-l -- okay. But there was not. The subject was not Darwinian Evolution. Jojo escalated, with a rant on Darwinian Evolution that connected it with *everyone who accepts Darwinian Evolution.* Read the post! Jojo knew that he was changing the subject. He knew that it would be highly controversial. He anticipated shots. He implied that he'd not be responding. Resent Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:54 -0700, Jojo wrote this: I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for so long - that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want to involve other topics in this forum other than Cold Fusion. I wish people would not use this forum for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude other points of view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing wrt to Hot fusion. However, he then proceeded to challenge Jed Rothwell, who had responded civilly to Jojo. However, Jed noted that Jojo was ignorant. That kind of comment is typically taken by Jojo as an insult. Rothwell promised to let Jojo have the last word. He kept that promise for that thread. The discusion of evolution continued a little, but other readers started to complain about off-topic. A thread on a cold fusion topic had been hijacked by the insertion of a discussion of Darwinian Evolution, based not, as Jojo has often claimed, on propaganda, but a mere reference to Darwin as a man with ideas that were not popular in his time, dicta. In the process, Jojo set up a *political argument.* Read the post
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 09:22 PM 12/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: However, I disagree. I say that observation alone is not enough, and you can't be sure cold fusion is a real nuclear effect until you explain it with a theory. Why speculate that he would say something stupid like that? Because I have heard it countless times from Piel, Huizenga and Many Distinguished Scientists, including several of the ones on the 2004 DoE panel, and most of the Jasons. This is a widely held point of view. That does not mean that Gibbs holds it! Also because that is what Gibbs is saying when he repeatedly demands a testable theory. Had he demanded a testable theory you'd be right. Jed, he did not, and he denied doing it, and I'm confirming that he didn't demand it. Why does he need a theory? He doesn't. He did not say that he did. Bockris et al. say that with or without a theory cold fusion is definitely real and revolutionary. They say the performance alone proves that it may become a practical source of energy. A theory would not bolster those facts, or make them more certain. So why ask for one, unless you agree with Piel that any finding not explained by theory is pathological? He did not ask for one. Jed, you are reacting to ghosts. You should understand the other person's point of view. Know what it is you are disagreeing with. Yes. Now please demonstrate this skill. I understand Piel's letter! This was not about Piel. I did not deny that people demanded theory. I explicitly acknowledged it, and that still continues with some. It is unequivocal. He and his successors said the same thing many times subsequently. I understand Huizenga's book, and the 2004 panel comments to the same effect. Please understand: these people mean what they say. They reject any finding not explained by theory. Huizenga rejects any finding that conflicts with theory. He could not have said it more clearly: Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat. Huizenga's book is truly embarrassing. Not to the ERAB and the DoE! He wrote exactly what they asked him to write. They agree completely, to this day. Ask any official at the DoE. Maybe. The DoE may easily be in bed with the hot fusion projects, it was in 1989. So? Huizenga's book is *still* embarrassing, and is more and more visible that way. But he was an old man, and, unfortunately, probably losing it. He was like a broken record, he kept repeating the same thing over and over. I met him a few years after he wrote that. He signed my copy of the book. He was still at the peak of cognitive health. He was, after all, a distinguished scientist, and a good candidate to lead an important panel of inquiry. He was no fool, and not in decline. The only time I ever saw him uncomfortable or unassertive was when the people from Amoco showed him their results. He turned green and fled the room! It is a fond memory. The book -- and that account -- are evidence of decline. Really, the book is an embarrassment. It's the worst written book of any of the skeptical works -- by far. Poorly written, highly repetitive. Self-contradictory, etc. I've spent time with the senile. They often have heavily ingrained habits that can make them appear quite normal, friendly, etc. What you saw with the Amoco situation would be how he responded when he couldn't understand what was happening. He'd flee. He, Piel, Robert Park and others told me exactly what he wrote in the book. Chapter and verse. They told that to large audiences at the APS, and the audience stood up, applauded, and cheered. Not surprised. Jed, this has *nothing to do with what I wrote about.* This is NOT a controversial point of view. I am not misinterpreting it. Huizenga et al. could not say it more clearly. They sincerely believe that any experimental result which conflicts with established nuclear theory must be wrong. They believe that no statement about nature which cannot be fully explained by theory is pathological science. You should take them at their word. Don't assume they agree with you or they have some hidden meaning in mind. They mean exactly what they say. They did, I assume. And this has *nothing to do with Gibbs.* He's a writer, and seems to be making an effort to understand the field. It will take him time. Your activity is forming, for him, an impression of what workers in the field are like. It's not helping.
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 09:58 PM 12/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: To take another example, Huizenga said that if someone detected helium commensurate with heat he might change his views. Miles and others did detect helium, and they told Huizenga that, in person, at ICCF4 and elsewhere. He never acknowledged it. I am sure he did not believe it, any more than he believed the excess heat and tritium from Amoco. Jed, I suggest you take a look at the second edition of Huizenga's book. Do you have a copy? He explicitly acknowledges Miles and the importance of Miles' work. Okay, maybe I see what you are saying. He never aknowledged that incident. Huizenga did acknowledge the early helium work from Miles, as I recall, but it was the later work, showing heat/helium correlation, that Huizenga noted as an amazing result, that would solve a major mystery of cold fusion if confirmed. So Huizenga was, in his second edition, confirming his (earlier?) comment. To my knowledge, he never did review the confirmations. As far as I know, he may simply have stopped following the field. He may have attended conferences as a social activity. He is still alive, apparently, but in what condition?
Re: [Vo]:Reifenschweiler effect
At 10:42 PM 12/30/2012, Eric Walker wrote: Le Dec 30, 2012 à 5:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com a écrit : You, Mike McKubre and I are just about the only three people in the world I know who have read Hoffman, and you are the only one who does not consider him a dolt. I'm reading Hoffman right now. He doesn't come across as a dolt, yet, and he has some interesting insights into possible sources of experimental artifact (to one who has no experimental experience whatsoever). Hoffman presents his information as a dialog between the Old Metallurgist and a Young Scientist. The OM is philosophical and explores topics without attachment, he's cautious but open-minded. YS is a pseudoskeptic, but obviously respects the OM, and will concede points. He's really just young and immature, and like many of us, likes to believe that he understands things. The OM takes pains to present skeptical theories. That can look to a believer as if he's pseuodskeptical. But generally, he ends up skewering the theories. Perhaps he wants to make sure that the objection is understood before being dismissed. He presents the heavy water contamination theory that got Jed so exercised, but *he dismisses it.* Somehow I don't think I've sufficiently inspired Jed to look again at that section of the book. He thinks Hoffman insulted Ontario Hydro. The point was missed. Hoffman was covering a possible skeptical argument, giving it rein before dismissing it. There was no accusation against Ontario Hydro. There was also a tiff with SRI and McKubre, basically over a misunderstanding. It was not hostile, Hoffman pointed out his idea that SRI results were not public, as I recall. It seems, now, a mountain made out of a molehill. Generally, Hoffman considers the problem of cold fusion unresolved, as of about 1994. He stops short of looking at Miles' work, which had been pubished before his book came out, but it's possible that the book could not be seriously revised by that time. Miles was revolutionary, and incorporating Miles would have been quite a job, I suspect. He covers a lot on the Helium Problem up to that point. At the time, most of the SRI work was with careful calorimetry. Hoffman focuses on nuclear evidence, and does *not* dismiss the calorimetry, and he says it would be expected to be sound, that the workers knew what they were doing. Hoffman, as a reviewer of cold fusion, must be seen as someone who did a lot of investigation on the nuclear issue and came up with maybe. That is actually a pretty sound scientific position, until you have truly solid evidence. Remember the 2004 DoE review. Half the experts, this time (9/18, a vast increase from 1989) considered the evidence for excess heat to be conclusve. But only 1 out of 18 considered the evidence for a nuclear origin for the heat to be convincing, with another 5 or so considering it somewhat convincing. Given that Hoffman set aside the calorimetric evidence to simply focus on nuclear, he must be considered advanced for his time. (The 2004 DoE review was badly flawed, procedurally, and the review paper by Hagelstein, as good as it is, was not polemic, when the situation called for *effective polemic.* The crucial heat/helium evidence was presented in a way that was quite difficult to grasp, it took me quite a while to figure out what the Appendix, where it was placed, was saying. So, not surprising, the reviewers misread it, badly. And that's why so few were convinced. We need to take responsibility for that, instead of continually blaming the skeptics.) Enjoy the book!
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
At 10:46 PM 12/30/2012, Alan Fletcher wrote: From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 7:17:09 PM His own autobiography says that he went to muslim school in Indonesia. You can't go to muslim school unless you're muslim. http://www.thefogbow.com THE source for birther-watching and birther debunking. (I post there under a pseudonym) Yes, a valuable resource, very thorough. So far, what I've seen from Fogbow checks out. But this is not the place to debate this. I would personally not object at all if Jojo posted a link to an equivalent site, say as an authoritative site showing what birthers consider the strongest evidence. I thought of posting a link to Orly Taitz, but you can find a link to her site from the Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_Taitz (Jojo claims that he is only responding to propaganda. Arguing propaganda here is ultimately disruptive, but placing a link to a place where information can be found on some off-topic subject is rarely harmful. Someone else can post a link that corrects bias, etc. It's when we start calling each other liars that it becomes a problem. If there had only been a link here on Moon God or any of many other issues, I'd never have taken the time to write detailed responses.)
Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
At 11:40 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Yes, Christian catholic schools are more tolerant of other faiths, but not muslims. You can not go to a muslim school like the one Obama went to unless you are a muslim. Before Lomax spins this again; may I simply ask readers to research this on their own to see which of us both is lying. Jojo let me help readers out, if they care about this. I found no evidence that the school was a Muslim school, though *most of the students were Muslim,* it appears. The original story was on a now-defunct web site, the following link is dead: http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm For coverage of Insight Magazine, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insight_on_the_News Coverage by Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245079,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245582,00.html Coverage of the issue in detail: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16813267/ns/politics/t/obama-debunks-claim-about-islamic-school/#.UOEqLFK9qmw http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/ I don't see a source for the claim other than the Insight Magazine article. I found the Insight article on the wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20081104013719/http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies At 10:17 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: His own autobiography says that he went to muslim school in Indonesia. You can't go to muslim school unless you're muslim. Who says that? Muslims go to Christian schools all the time.
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 11:01 PM 12/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Nevertheless, I personally prefer to commend him for honestly noting the importance of the Miles experiment. He did not attempt to impeach Miles or his methods, and he honestly stated why he thought that Miles would not be confirmed. Oh come now. We are talking about John Huizenga here. Don't be a sap. Don't be a goody-two-shoes. Huizenga was a hatchet man appointed by the DoE to crush this field. He bragged about that in his book! Got a citation for that claim, Jed? I'd rather not waste time scouring that mess for it. The man knew perfectly well that Miles and others had detected helium. I saw Miles tell him that at ICCF4. Huizenga lied though his teeth, repeatedly, about this and about every other aspect of cold fusion. He covers the helium evidence in the first edition. He doesn't ignore it. He does err, for sure. He treats confirmations as if they were original reports. He knew about Miles heat results even before the ERAB report, and he deliberately said nothing. We actually don't know that. We know that Miles called and left a message. We don't know what happened to the message. Jed, if you have evidence for what you say, please, provide it. Tell us how you know what you claim. Or are you just making assumptions. He covered up, distorted, lied and did whatever else it took to win. Or he was losing it. Alternative explanations. The DoE review was definitely designed to quickly dispose of cold fusion. The real problem was that it wasn't done with balance, and that the DoE did not follow the recommendations of the review. If we have the history right, Ramsey had to threaten to resign to get a decent report at all. I do not mean that Huizenga secretly believed Miles. Of course he did not! He didn't believe Miles, and he says why. No gammas. That was a sign of rigid thinking. Huizenga never shows any hint, that I've seen, that he realized the nature of the problem. He certainly wasn't the only one to fall into that trap. He expected that Miles would not be confirmed, and, unfortunately, that was a fairly common characteristic of cold fusion reports, it is still often true. But you aren't getting this, Jed. Huizenga acknowledged the significance of Miles' work if confirmed. That's far more than, say, Park. He, along with Robert Park and others said that the results are mistakes and that all cold fusion researchers are liars, frauds and criminals. I am sure they believe that, with all their hearts. And all their pocketbooks. Park has sometimes modified his stridence on this. He doesn't actually say what you claim here. These people are not scientists, though, not really. They absolutely were not careful about claims. Parks book is much better written than Huizenga, but it's still a farrago of stuff, extended pseudoskeptical rambling without any reocgnition of the real problems of exploring the frontiers of science, no balance. His purpose was to preserve funding for high energy physics, That would be the purpose of the person who called for the ERAB Panel and designed the charge. Important purpose, wouldn't you say. Many institutions and careers dependent on that flow of cash. Do you expect something different from government? I do, in fact, I expect concern for things like that, but *also* provision for the long-term. It appears that nobody held the DoE's feet to the fire for not following their own recommendations in 1989 and 2004. That will change. and to destroy the reputations and careers of anyone who got in his way. Park. Not necessarily Huizenga, but I'm not sure. People like him are a dime a dozen in billion-dollar budget academia. They run the plasma fusion program, and they are responsible for the many Hubble telescope fiascos. (See the book Hubble Wars.) This is about money and power. Those stories exist. Now, Jed. Gibbs. What the hell does all this have to do with the subject header, which you created. Gibbs is a real person, participating here, and you are libelling him. Why? He did not say what you claim, and his defense was essentially that: I didn't say that. You are stuck. Why?
Re: [Vo]:List integrity
At 12:45 AM 12/31/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Herein is the fallacy of your comments. You claim that the insults are mild, and that I do not have the right to respond to mild insults. Beautiful. My post is quoted below. I did not claim that Jojo did not have the right to respond. I don't see that I called the insults mild. Some comments that Jojo responded to were mild, one was essentially Fuck you. This is the lie you keep on propagating. Whether the insult in mild or grave is not for you to decide. I didn't say mild. But I do have the right to my opinions. Opinions like mild or grave are not fact. The person that the insult is directed at is the person that has the right to decide whether the insult was mild or grave. You have no right to claim that I should not be offended because in your eyes, the insult is mild. That's bullcrap. I did not say that Jojo should not be offended. Heck, in my eyes, calling allah a moon god and calling muhammed a sex pervert is a mild insult; yet I do not go around and lie that your response to me was improper because I only mildly insulted you. The graveness of the insult is the gravenes of how the recipient have percieved it. The recipient's perception is the only valid basis for deciding whether an insult is mild or grave. By this standard, then, given that many *would* respond to those statements as highly offensive, and given that one list member was obviously so highly insulted by Jojo's comments that he responded with fuck you, Jojo has just condemned himself as having issued grave insults without grave provocation. Jojo's comment in that case was actually mild -- my opinion --, by comparison with others, but it had an effect that could have been predicted. All my insults have always been a response to an insult, whether personal, as in F*** yourself or general as in the Bible is a fairy tale or The Bible is written by illiterate goat herders. Both statements are false, and insulting whether they are personal or general. For the same reason why you feel that I have insulted you by calling muhammed a sex pervert. No, you did not insult me by saying that. You insulted friends of mine, and you insulted me by calling me a liar when I described what you had done *accurately,* often with links, and by dismissing the product of my sincere research as lies, without actually pointing out *one lie,* and totally disregarding evidence. You seem to think that my vigorous response to an insult is unwarranted because the initial insults are mild. Seem is the operative word here. It seems so to Jojo. I don't think Jojo's response was unwarranted, but I'll say right now that it was insane, it was excessive for Vortex, which is a *social judgment.* That is not for you to decide my friend. You have no right to dictate the level of response I give out. That's correct. Jojo decides, and Jojo is responsible for what Jojo does, and cannot shift responsibility to others because he perceives them as insulting him. But I can assure you, I take great pains in deciding the level of nastiness I give back. I take considerable consideration that it is always calibrated to the level of nastiness directed my way. Jojo From this mail, as is common here, the judgment is deranged. Insults have been perceived when there was none. Jojo fantastizes about what has been said about him. When the truth is written, he *reads contempt into it.* That reveals how he actually thinks about himself. A turd, he called himself in several posts. It's all made up. He is not a turd. Satan tells him he is, and he fights with Satan, something that Jesus advised against. He projects this war all over us. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a problem appeared. Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He imagines insult, then insults back, initiating a cycle of insult, escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs, apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on topics that are likely to be inflammatory if brought here (and just about anywhere on the internet, except for certain odd corners), and he readily drops these into discussions. At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Yes, I stand corrected. If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama. I will separately address this in another post. I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's sense of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I
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
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: 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]:(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]:(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]:(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]: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] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
At 02:43 AM 12/28/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: OK Lomax, let's agree to disagree. No, because Jojo lies about what we supposedly disagree about. In this agree to disagree post, he again lies, after having been corrected many times, about what I say. I haven't said what he opposes to his positino. In one case, in this series, he says for himself, what he has not prevously said. He says that polygamy is abhorrent and retrograde. Retrograde it might be, that's arguable, but abhorrent, not. Here is a Christian effectively claiming that what Abraham did, with the support of his first wife, Sarah, is abhorrent. Yet it was within the customs of the time. Nobody telling the story, which is how we know it, thought it was abhorrent. The analogy with what Muhammad did and Jojo's claims about it is clear. In another thread, Re: [Vo]:[OT]Birther Myth? or Lomax lies , Jojo lies about what he, himself, quoted, included in the mail, the Executive Order from President Obama, and continues to lie about it. This is perfect, because he lies about what is in his own mail. When he lies about the truth, and doesn't provide sources -- the norm for him -- it's possible to imagine he is merely mistaken, or, for some, that he's telling the truth, *unless one investigates.* But where the subject he's lying about is right in front of us, that's no longer possible -- unless, of course, what he's claimng is there is actually there. There are only a few possibilities remaining here. 1. Jojo is high-functioning, in certain ways, but insane. Hallucinating. 2. Jojo is a troll, and lies because it continues the trolling. I had an excuse for responding to some of his posts. Most of what he's written consists of things that are believed by a substantial number of people, or at least many think that what he's saying is possible. He's asserting common ignorant tropes. So responding to them places information about these subjects in a public record, apposite to the claims. It's been suggested by someone I respect that the job is done. Jojo has revealed his complete insanity, and that takes us to a possible understanding of the second possibility above. Jojo's mission has been to discredit all the positions he takes. It's called a straw puppet, a combination of straw man and sock puppet. It's rare, but I've seen it. In the thread on FGM, I came upon and acknoweldged a tragedy, that Muslim scholars had inadequately educated the Muslim public about the true meaning of female circumcision as found in the classical sources for Islam, but have allowed ignorance and fundamentalist populism to hold sway. There is a parallel tragedy here, that sane Christian evangelists (I do not think that an oxymoron) have not spoken up to distance their faith from people like Jojo. The result is a discredit to the religion, as a social phenomenon. Islam has suffered from the same, to a degree, but that's ending. Scholars *are* speaking up against the often violent and brutal -- and ignorant -- fundamentalists. End of topic. Jojo has claimed that he'll let [me] have the last word on this topic. He has said the like of that before and was lying -- or if he wasn't lying, he did not honor his word. Let's see what he does this time. He can keep his word or not, I'm done here. I say intercourse between a 50 year old man and a 9 year old little girl is abhorrent and retrograde. You say it is justified because people around him were not offended. Let's allow the readers to decide if this is abhorrent. I say marrying multiple wives is abhorrent and retrograde, you say it is OK because other tribes do it. Let's allow the reader to decide if this is abhorrent. I say worshipping a 2nd rate moon god of muhammed's tribe is retarded, you say it is not, Let's allow the readers to decide if the mood god is their cup of tea over a the Universal God of Judaism and Christianity. I say a 9 year old little girl is not sexually mature to be a mother, you say she is because she has had her first menstrual cycle. Let's allow the readers to decide if this is abhorrent. I say the practice of FGM is abhorrent, since it does not have any redeeming or medical value, you say it is OK. Let's allow the readers to decide if this is abhorrent. I say the truth and cite quality evidence, you tell lies and cite wikipedia and Internet blogs as your evidence. Let's allow the readers to decide if this is abhorrent. I tell the truth about islam and highlight the corruption of a retrograde and violent religion, you lie and lie for the good of muhammed and islam. Let's allow the readers to decide. Frankly, I grow tired of reading you boring lengthy tiresome lies of an essay. I guess you've found a way to shut me up. Just bore me with tiresome spin and lies. So, I bow out and let you have the last word on this topic. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
the copying of the original certificate. Not just say it's been seen by Hawaii officials, or clerks etc. Give me a name. One credible individual who have seen it is sufficient for me. Done. No one have seen it. It's covered as executive privelege information in this executive order. No. The executive order is irrelevant. It is covered as private information under Hawai'ian state law, the same as all birth certificates. That is the veil of corruption with this president. Abercrombie could have seen it if he wasn't blocked. He was apparently not blocked. Rather, he asked the State Attorney General for an opinion, and was told that he had no authority to access and view the certificate, that it would be a violation of law -- which has nothing to do with the Executive Order -- so he gave up on an intention to view it. That's what he said about this. He is an official government officer seeking access to official documents relating to the public good. He by himself would have authority under Hawaii law to access those vault records. He could have accessed it as governor. That's Jojo's opinion. We have laws limiting the power and authority of government officials. Access to the document would require a court order, or a search warrant issued by a court. The police, agents of the executive, cannot access protected private records without such an order or otherwise within normal procedure. For example, a clerk can access the computer records to prepare an ordinary certified copy of the certificate, if legally requested. Yet he was blocked and obviously threatened to give up the investigation. This is the veil of corruption of this usurper-in-chief. There is no sign that Abercrombie was threatened. The advice of the state attorney was clearly consistent with state law. He was blocked, yes, but by his own interpretation of state law. (He could have, as governor, ignored the interpretation, but, then, he'd be taking other risks and causing other damage. And the state officials involved could have refused to honor his request as being illegal, and he'd have needed to go to court to order them to comply. Or, alternatively, as the chief executive, he could have ordered the state police to enter the archive and make a copy of the certificate, creating a crisis. Maybe. Maybe he'd be immediately impeached as governor for violating state law on the privacy of records. No, he wasn't threatened, it looks like a simple conversation with the state attorney was quite enough. His purpose in even suggesting he might view the record was to resolve the stupid controversy, and that would not be served by creating a legal crisis. Instead, Obama made it moot, by requesting a copy of the vault certificate, Abercrombie might or might not have been involved with that in some way, but did release, under his personal name and the state seal, the press release cited above, that gives the names of the state officials who saw the original document and certified the copy. If Onaka did not actually see the document, or if the original document was different from the copy, Onaka would be committing a felony. And it would be likely to be discovered, eventually. Not plausible.) But Lomax will continue to prop up this muslim president and lie for the greater good of islam. Not a Muslim President, and it is not allowed, in Islam, to lie for the greater good of Islam. That is an oxymoron. End of topic. Enough. Jojo's credibility stands totally demolished, there is no further need to clutter this list with response from me, which will henceforth be severely curtailed. 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 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]Birther Myth? or Lomax lies At 09:27 PM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything related to previous and current presidents. No. Not only do I not undertand it that way, nobody who has any clue about law and authority and juridiction doesn't understand that. It does not cover his listing in phone books. It does not cover *anything relating to his life before becoming President. It only covers exactly what it says it covers: Presidential Records in the custody of the National Archivist. Anything about this current president is covered by this order. Like these posts? Like his driver's license? *Those are not *Presidential Records.* That terms has a very specific meaning, defined in the 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. No, that's not true. I was about to say it was, but I re-read it. I mean, what an idiot! Information about Obama's BC is routinely released. We've done it here. No, what is true
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
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]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon
At 11:04 AM 12/28/2012, David Roberson wrote: I do not think that the photon goes at a speed less than light speed for any observer. From a far off observer it just appears to be red shifted from its beginning point. I guess you might say that from our far off point of view, it never had any extra energy in the first place because we never saw any extra. The same is true for everyone as you say so perhaps my idea is not possible. This is correct. If the photon originates from at or inside the event horizon, under some definitions, it cannot escape to the outside, so red shift is irrelevant. These explanations say that every path from the originating point leads closer to the singularity, no path takes the photon -- even for a moment, away from the singularity. There are no outward bound light paths. The explanation that make an analogy with escape velocity leads to a different picture, and perhaps that is why they are deprecated. From outside the event horizon, the photon will be red-shifted, depending on how far outside. The red shift will increase with distance, but the rate of increase will decrease with distance. A red-shifted photon has originated from outside the event horizon. If oriented directly outbound, it will continue on that path forever, at the speed of light.
[Vo]:List integrity
Original subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age The original subject was off-topic. List management is not, so I've created a new header, please keep discussion here on the subject of the header. At 02:31 PM 12/28/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: If Beaty isn't willing to moderate and push the OT stuff over to Vortex B then someone (Jed?) should seriously consider starting an alternative list. I'm worried about Bill. There is an alternate list that has been used for backup when vortex-l is down (because the service provider, eskimo.com, has often had problems) It's http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/vortex-l-backup If we do set up or use an alternate list, I have some suggestions for governance. It's kind of a special interest of mine, and I see a list owner as a kind of trustee for the community, and there should be more than one owner, for security. Owners do not have to be active, but they should be available when needed. Active moderation would be done by moderators who generally do not have the priviliege to name or remove moderators, nor to delete the group. Moderators *may* or *may not* have the ability to delete posts from the archive, but would routinely have the ability to put members on moderation or to ban them, subject to appeal. So moderators can warn, and can back up a warning with action, if needed. These are positions that require integrity and some level of skill, but mostly the former.
Re: [Vo]:Mr. Beaty's absence should not be be taken as a form of passive approval of Mr. Jaro's posting content
At 03:05 PM 12/28/2012, leaking pen wrote: I second the nomination. I would think, though, that leaving this group as is, and more of a forced transfer of off topic replies to the new, off topic, group (which we already have, vortex b), and constant offenders have their posts put on a per approval basis. Absent the list owner, at this point, there is no way to force replies, or list members, to a new group, and I, for one, would not paticipate in that group. No reason to do so, no public benefit. Anyone who wants to discuss any topic with me is free to email me privately, and the default is that I reply to such. As to any purpose I had in responding to Jaro, it's been served, I see no reason to continue that, not now, anyway.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
. It doesn't have to be perfect. Yes. It could be quite cheap, at least a first pass. Doing this perfectly could be expensive, but *that's not necessary.* If you have the time, please include an experimental test plan that includes experimental setup and explanation of associated results. I don't, and given that I've seen nothing but hot air about this cool engine, I'm not exercised to create the time. It would be a lot of effort. I would be willing to communicate with Russ or anyone, to brainstorm experimental techniques, but, Axil, you seem to be missing something. Russ is, unless he actually looks at power generation, wasting his time. He could fix that if he wants to. Not difficult. Instead of demanding a detailed plan that would take a lot of time to put together, and that would require information that I do not have, why not work with Russ? Actually help him? I'm saying that theoretical explanations for power that may not exist are not terribly useful. That's all. I'm assuming that Russ really wants to make a contribution, instead of just creating video fans, he may need to listen to these concerns. Maybe he's already doing that, Russ is a bit long-winded, but, hey, he's not the only one. Except I would *never* do this with a video! I hope. (I've stopped watching his videos, because they take too much time. I'd read a transcript, no problem.) Cheers: Axil On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: 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: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
At 07:48 PM 12/28/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.comjanap...@gmail.com wrote: Heat output can be neglected. I strongly disagree. We hear a lot about how the temperature doesn't rise in any degree approaching what one would expect from the joule input but one must recall that this is one of the most anomalous claims about the Papp system. While theoretically this is true, if it is also true that there is *little* heat from a Papp engine, and if excess energy is shown by a reasonably careful analysis of the motion of a popper piston, without considering heat, heat generation would only *add* to the excess energy. Whether there is any need to look for heat, then, is a subsidiary question. Is there excess energy, expressed in piston motion? If there is such energy, then we will want to know quantitative data about heat, it's part of attempting to understand the process. And if there is no such energy, putting a lot of work into dotting the i's and crossing the t's is probably a waste of time. If there is no excess energy, expressed in motion, then the lack of heat is *not* an anomaly. Why would we expect heat? I'm looking at heuristics here. What approaches will most efficiently resolve claims?
Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon
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] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
At 09:41 PM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: What has he rebuted? Has he rebuted that A'isha was 9 years old when muhammed had intercourse with her? I've shown that the age is uncertain. What Muslim and Bukarhai show that there was a rumor that she was nine. Other sources indicate that the age may have been different, nine is the *youngest* of the possible ages. We don't actually know, from Muslim and Bukhari, that they had intercourse at this time but that's the usual assumtion. What it actually says is that she went to live with him. What is universally accepted, however, in all sources, is that she was sexually mature when the marriage was completed. I presented source like Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari saying that this was true. No, they quote two stories, that slightly contradict each other, that say that she was nine. They actually don't say that it is true that she was nine. They don't even address the issue. Hadith are not assertions of truth, generally, they are reports of testimony, usually at least third-hand. Jojo assigns an authority to hadith that he imagines Muslims must assign, because he thinks that way about the Bible. Some Muslims do think that way, in fact, but the position I'm stating is that of Muslim scholars, not the multitides, who sometimes know less about the Qur'an and the sources for Islam than the ordinary Christian knows about the Bible. Lomax presented wikipedia and blogs and he rebuted what I said? Yes. I presented far more than that. But Jojo has acknowedged that he doesn't read what I've written. I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell you for cheap. Very close to the beach? LOL And we expect that it would be like everything else Jojo offers. A lie. Trust, not me or him, but the balance of the evidence, and know that our judgement is easily flawed. What has he rebuted? Like nearly everything expect certain obvious facts that were never in question. That Muslim and Bukhari report 9 at marriage is fact. That was never in question. How old Ayesha actually was is controversial, we do not actually know. So what was refuted was the idea that the actual age is known, as if this were a certainty merely because it's found in certain hadith. Muslims disagree about the age, but it's also true that many Muslims, from far back, have accepted nine as the age. And that's not impossible, nor, personally, do I consider it outside of the bounds of possiblity. But this does *not* establish nine as some clearly permitted age, because, in fact, the law was not about age, though later sources do mention ages.(I have another 13th century treatise on marriage that shows the modern tendency to use age rather than specific condition). The traditions cited were not *interpreted*. They are just reports of what people said that people said had happened. He said that pre-islam tribes practiced child marriage and therefore muhammed's practice of it was acceptable? No, I said that all tribal cultures use the actual condition of the girl to judge marriageability rather than chronological age. Nor did I say that Muhammad's practice was acceptable. That's a moral and religious judgment, and acceptable must have a context. Tribal practices may be acceptable under tribal conditions and unacceptable under other conditions. This is absolutely clear, and Jojo refuses to see it: Muhammad's practice, whatever it was, was *clearly acceptable* at the time, and for a long time after. There was no shame about it. And, by the way, a single incident doesn't necessarily establish a practice. He married a controversial number of women, but it seems to have been a dozen, accumulated. (Not all at the same time.) One of them was betrothed (engaged) when she was young and probably sexually immature. That marriage wasn't consumamated for, probably, about three years. It's clear that she was sexually mature at consummation and probaly not at betrothal. She was the only young wife. The others were generally widows, some quite old. So what was his practice? Jojo has argued that the practice was abhorrent, but he's really judging the entire human tribal tradition as such, based on? All that I can see is that he's applying a certain modern American cultural bias to conditions fourteen hundred years ago. Nobody is arguing for allowing the marriage of young girls here, where American cultural norms apply. Jojo is purely casting a stone of blame, purely to attempt to impeach the honor of the Prophet and, by the way, of his wife, who told the intimate stories that have come to us. She was unashamed, and a very strong woman, who lived long and well. Even if she didn't make a successful general. OK, whatever. Progressive religions need to correct abhorent retrograde practices, not embrace it with gusto. LOL... What's retrograde? There is a gusto, here, though, it's a gusto for life, for self-expression and freedom from
