Re: [Vo]:Roger Green - Interview of one of the first investors in Andrea Rossi

[H L V]

Like Schrodinger's cat the Ecat is both dead and alive.

Harry

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 5:44 PM MSF  wrote:

> Is anyone surprised?
>
> On Thursday, May 16th, 2024 at 2:44 PM, Joe Hughes 
> wrote:
>
> > I found this interesting and thought I would share:
> > https://youtu.be/Xh-fHzNQrO0?si=lqZwy5yP9AcRvswf
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Joe
>
>

[Vo]:New vaporizing effect discovered

[H L V]

How light can vaporize water without the need for heat


Researchers discovered that light can cause evaporation of water from a
surface without the need for heat. This 'photomolecular effect' could be
important for understanding climate change and for improving some
industrial processes.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240424160652.htm

quote:
"The effect is strongest when light hits the water surface at an angle of
45 degrees. It is also strongest with a certain type of polarization,
called transverse magnetic polarization. And it peaks in green light --
which, oddly, is the color for which water is most transparent and thus
interacts the least.
Chen and his co-researchers have proposed a physical mechanism that can
explain the angle and polarization dependence of the effect, showing that
the photons of light can impart a net force on water molecules at the water
surface that is sufficient to knock them loose from the body of water. But
they cannot yet account for the color dependence, which they say will
require further study."

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[H L V]

In the late 19th and early 20th century the physics community began to
enshrine mathematical ingenuity as the best way to resolve the tensions
between theory and experiment and grew increasingly dismissive of
philosophical questioning and speculation.

The theory of Special Relativity is typically presented as "saving"
Maxwell's equations from logical inconsistency.
It did this by introducing some extraordinary new physics  instead of
uncovering some metaphysical conceits within the theory.
I am not talking about the Galilean transformation. I am talking about the
more elementary question: what does it mean to be in motion?

Why should we insist on treating every type of motion as being a quality
that is defined by convention with respect to a frame of reference?
Einstein believed it was necessary and in order to save the laws of physics
he formulated the theory of special relativity. However, it seems to me the
_phenomena_ of electromagnetism  rather than Maxwell's theory of
electromagnetism is telling us something different. Some types of motion
should be treated as a relational quality that occurs between frames of
references rather than being quality that is determined within a given
frame of reference.

Consider the Lorentz force on a charged particle q moving with velocity v:

Force = qE + q(v x B)

E and B are the electric and magnetic fields.

Since relativists think v is determined by the frame of reference the value
of v will be zero in the frame of reference of the charged particle. This
leads to the paradox that the laws of nature are not the same in all frames
of reference.  From a relativist understanding of velocity there are only
two ways to resolve this paradox: either there must be an absolute frame of
rest known as the aether or one must adopt the extraordinary postulates of
the special theory of relativity. However, this choice represents a
reliance on a particular conception of velocity to tell one how to
interpret the equations of motion. If one adopts a relational understanding
of motion rather than relative understanding, the velocity is not prone to
disappear with a change of frame.

It is worth noting that Weber's theory of electromagnetism , which was the
leading contender to Maxwell's theory at the time,  made explicit use of
relational motion. Although Weber developed his theory in order to avoid
postulating the existence of magnetic fields, I don't see why his concept
of relation velocity can't be applied to situations involving Faraday's
magnetic fields.

Harry



On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 1:18 PM MSF  wrote:

> Faraday's message to Maxwell parallels Aristotle's complaint about the
> Egyptians. Aristotle implied words to the effect that the ancient Egyptians
> thought that the physical world should obey mathematics instead of math
> describing reality. There's a lot of that going on today. The so-called
> standard model is, in my opinion, a mathematical castle in the air.
> On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 5:14 AM, H L V 
> wrote:
>
> Faraday wrote this 10 years before Maxwell published his first work on
> electromgnetism in 1856 which was titled "On Faraday's lines of Force"
> Maxwell's equations were first published in 1862. It seems Maxwell
> interpreted Faraday's writings in a manner that was consistent with an
> aether.
>
> I would say Faraday was frustrated by Maxwell's mathematical treatment of
> his work. Since he could not comprehend it he could not judge it.
> Here is a passage from a letter Faraday wrote to Maxwell asking all
> mathematically adept theoreticians to express themselves in terms an
> experimentalist can understand:
>
> "There is one thing I would be glad to ask you. When a mathematician
> engaged in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his
> own conclusions, may they not be expressed in common language as fully,
> clearly, and definitely as in mathematical formula? If so, would it not be
> a great boon to such as we to express them so—translating them out of their
> hieroglyphics that we also might work upon them by experiment. I think it
> must be so, because I have always found that you could convey to me a
> perfectly clear idea of your conclusions, which, though they may give me no
> full understanding of the steps of your process, gave me the results
> neither above nor below the truth, and so clear in character that I can
> think and work from them.
> If this be possible, would it not be a good thing if mathematicians,
> writing on these subjects, were to give us their results in this popular
> useful working state as well as in that which is their own and proper to
> them?"
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:17 PM MSF  wrote:
>
>>
>> Hmmm... A year after Maxwell's equations. Maxwell can't have been too
>> happy about that, as his equations described the b

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[H L V]

Faraday wrote this 10 years before Maxwell published his first work on
electromgnetism in 1856 which was titled "On Faraday's lines of Force"
Maxwell's equations were first  published in 1862. It seems Maxwell
interpreted Faraday's writings in a manner that was consistent with an
aether.

I would say Faraday was frustrated by Maxwell's mathematical treatment of
his work. Since he could not comprehend it he could not judge it.
Here is a passage from a letter Faraday wrote to Maxwell asking all
mathematically adept theoreticians to express themselves in terms an
experimentalist can understand:

"There is one thing I would be glad to ask you. When a mathematician
engaged in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his
own conclusions, may they not be expressed in common language as fully,
clearly, and definitely as in mathematical formula? If so, would it not be
a great boon to such as we to express them so—translating them out of their
hieroglyphics that we also might work upon them by experiment. I think it
must be so, because I have always found that you could convey to me a
perfectly clear idea of your conclusions, which, though they may give me no
full understanding of the steps of your process, gave me the results
neither above nor below the truth, and so clear in character that I can
think and work from them.
If this be possible, would it not be a good thing if mathematicians,
writing on these subjects, were to give us their results in this popular
useful working state as well as in that which is their own and proper to
them?"

Harry

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:17 PM MSF  wrote:

>
> Hmmm... A year after Maxwell's equations. Maxwell can't have been too
> happy about that, as his equations described the behavior of the aether.
> And he repeatedly claimed that he had merely expressed Faraday in
> conventional mathematical form.
> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 8:04 PM, MSF 
> wrote:
>
>
> This gives you an idea what a deep thinker Faraday was. Do you know if he
> posited this idea before Maxwell published his equations? I thought I had
> read everything Faraday wrote. Somehow I missed this one.
>
> MIchael
> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 12:08 PM, H L V 
> wrote:
>
> This is a quote from a letter written by Michael Faraday to Richard
> Philips on April 15, 1846 (bold letters were added by me)
>
> *"The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation
> as a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to
> connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to
> dismiss the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, I
> believe, can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful
> phaenomena of polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the
> surface of disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for
> the vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of
> action, whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant
> of two or more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which
> may be considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform
> medium, like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or
> water."*
>
> The idea of an aether which exists independently of matter and fills the
> vacuum is what the Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to detect.
> However, if I am reading Faraday correctly he is saying that the
> transmission of light depends on the source and the receiver being linked
> together by "lines of force". Unlike the hypothesized aether, Faraday's
> lines of force have _no_ existence independent of charged particles. While
> the MM apparatus is being built the lines of force would be constantly
> morphing but once the apparatus was complete they would quickly settle down
> into static lines. When the experiment begins the lines of force between
> the mirrors can be likened to straight fibre optic cables between the
> mirrors. At this stage since the lines of force would be moving in tandem
> with the entire apparatus Faraday's qualitative theory predicts the
> observed null result of the Michelson-Morely experiment.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[H L V]

This is a quote from a letter written by  Michael Faraday to Richard
Philips on April 15, 1846 (bold letters were added by me)

*"The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation
as a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to
connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to
dismiss the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, I
believe, can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful
phaenomena of polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the
surface of disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for
the vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of
action, whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant
of two or more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which
may be considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform
medium, like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or
water."*

The idea of an aether which exists independently of matter and fills the
vacuum is what the  Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to detect.
However, if I am reading Faraday correctly he is saying that the
transmission of light depends on the source and the receiver being linked
together by "lines of force". Unlike the hypothesized aether, Faraday's
lines of force have _no_ existence independent of charged particles. While
the MM apparatus is being built the lines of force would be
constantly morphing  but once the apparatus was complete they would quickly
settle down into static lines. When the experiment begins the lines of
force between the mirrors can be likened to straight fibre optic cables
between the mirrors.  At this stage since the lines of force would be
moving in tandem with the entire apparatus Faraday's qualitative theory
predicts the observed null result of the Michelson-Morely experiment.

Harry




Harry

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

If these two statements are logical implications of Maxwell's equations,

a) A magnet that is not moving with respect to the aether will not have an
electric field.
b) A magnet that is moving at a constant velocity with respect to the
aether will have an electric field.

Then consider this thought experiment:

You are in a windowless cabin with a hatch on the floor that is
initially closed . It is located on the surface of a large frozen lake
whose ice is perfectly smooth, flat and frictionless. Outside the cabin the
ice is featureless except for a grid of lines that is visible just a few
millimeters beneath the ice surface. The Earth is assumed to be flat and
the cabin has been designed to exclude outside fields  and slide over
the ice in any direction. Inside the cabin there is a bar magnet and an
electric field probe that can detect electric fields.

If the electric field probe tells you the magnet has no electric field, you
can conclude the cabin is at rest with respect to the aether. If the magnet
does have an electric field then you know the cabin is moving at a constant
velocity with respect to the aether. In both scenarios you do not if
the cabin is at rest with respect to the ice or in which direction you are
moving. However, by opening the floor hatch you can determine if you are
moving with respect to the ice and in which direction.

Harry





On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 6:51 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> The law of Faraday is very clear any change in magnetic flux induces
> charge hence a field.
>
> Many untrained physicists write j (current) instead of q what is wrong. To
> measure a current you have to cut the ring (rim) of charges what leads to
> dragging forces and movement of charge over e.g. a conductor.
>
> The other things most theoretical physicists get wrong is that they
> believe you can make a derivative of charge and flux at the same point (4
> potential) what is total garbage but nevertheless used in QED...Flux has to
> fill an area (from a volume) and charge occurs at the edge.
>
> May be once read the good old Jackson that explains tat the vector
> potential only can be used in the far field.
>
>
> J.W.
> On 19.03.2024 19:40, H L V wrote:
>
> The question of whether the magnetic field rotates in the faraday disc
> generator is a question that is related to aether theories in particular
> or  any theory of privileged reference frames in general. It got me
> wondering if there are alternate ways to test for the presence of an aether
> or a privileged frame of reference that do not involve interferometers and
> radiation.  I am not sure why interferometers became the experiment de jour
> for detecting such things, but they have been studied to death and the null
> result is still open to interpretation.
>
> Hendrik Lorentz argued on the basis of Maxwell's theory of EM that a
> stationary magnet has no electric field and that a moving magnet does have
> an electric field. When he says a moving magnet he clearly states the
> magnet is moving with uniform velocity. The appearance of this electric
> field bothered Einstein, because it led to conflicting accounts of how a
> magnet induces a current in a coil depending on whether the coil was at
> rest or the magnet was at rest. He didn't like nature exhibiting laws which
> changed according to their frame of reference. He developed his special
> theory of relativity, in part, to avoid this conflict.
>
> Mathematical and principled arguments aside, was Lorentz's claim ever
> directly tested? i.e. Has anyone tried to measure the electric field around
> a moving magnet without the use of a conducting coil? eg. an electroscope
> can measure an electric field without moving relative to the field. Or am I
> missing something about the nature of the produced electric field in this
> case that would prevent such a measurement?
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:25 PM Jürg Wyttenbach 
> wrote:
>
>> As most might know, in physics we only know force fields. Thus so called
>> field lines (magnet field) are equipotential cuts of the space covered by
>> fields. Of course you never can draw such a line as all sources are in
>> constant motion/rotation.
>>
>> The static magnetic field is a special case as it is a part of the atoms
>> mass that form out the field. This field is attached but with the same
>> restrictions as above. The only real "energy" field is the EM field
>> produced by an active sender. Here of course no stable lines occur - only
>> in case of a cavity with a sender-resonance we call receiver.
>>
>>
>> Key is the understanding that in physics a field must have a source and a
>> sink. From this point of view most so called mathematical physics
>> (ten

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

The question of whether the magnetic field rotates in the faraday disc
generator is a question that is related to aether theories in particular
or  any theory of privileged reference frames in general. It got me
wondering if there are alternate ways to test for the presence of an aether
or a privileged frame of reference that do not involve interferometers and
radiation.  I am not sure why interferometers became the experiment de jour
for detecting such things, but they have been studied to death and the null
result is still open to interpretation.

Hendrik Lorentz argued on the basis of Maxwell's theory of EM that a
stationary magnet has no electric field and that a moving magnet does have
an electric field. When he says a moving magnet he clearly states the
magnet is moving with uniform velocity. The appearance of this electric
field bothered Einstein, because it led to conflicting accounts of how a
magnet induces a current in a coil depending on whether the coil was at
rest or the magnet was at rest. He didn't like nature exhibiting laws which
changed according to their frame of reference. He developed his special
theory of relativity, in part, to avoid this conflict.

Mathematical and principled arguments aside, was Lorentz's claim ever
directly tested? i.e. Has anyone tried to measure the electric field around
a moving magnet without the use of a conducting coil? eg. an electroscope
can measure an electric field without moving relative to the field. Or am I
missing something about the nature of the produced electric field in this
case that would prevent such a measurement?

Harry







On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:25 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> As most might know, in physics we only know force fields. Thus so called
> field lines (magnet field) are equipotential cuts of the space covered by
> fields. Of course you never can draw such a line as all sources are in
> constant motion/rotation.
>
> The static magnetic field is a special case as it is a part of the atoms
> mass that form out the field. This field is attached but with the same
> restrictions as above. The only real "energy" field is the EM field
> produced by an active sender. Here of course no stable lines occur - only
> in case of a cavity with a sender-resonance we call receiver.
>
>
> Key is the understanding that in physics a field must have a source and a
> sink. From this point of view most so called mathematical physics
> (tensor...) field theory simply is nonsense.
>
> There are far to many simplifications in physics models as historically
> only point field equations could be solved. As a consequence of this, one
> thing most did miss is:  Total potentials almost never are 1/r. Total
> because we no longer deal with a  single point
>
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 14.03.2024 16:02, H L V wrote:
>
> Another visualization of the behaviour of magnetic fields without the
> concept of lines of force.
> When the magnet is moved around it simply changes the orientation of all
> the little compass needles.
> The notion of  lines of force tends to make one think the magnetic field
> is somehow mechanically
> attached to the magnet so that the centre point of each needle must change
> position in order to match
> the motion of the magnetic.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTylDaG5_RY
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:16 AM H L V  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Here is a physical demonstration of the situation using a ferrofluid.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn41nPOGq-U
>> The ferrofluid does not rotate with the cylindrical magnet,
>> which supports the idea that the magnet's field does not rotate with the
>> magnet.
>> (There is a little bit of movement but the narrator explains that this
>> movement arises from the field not being perfectly symmetrically.and
>> homogeneous).
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:40 AM H L V  wrote:
>>
>>> It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the field is made of
>>> wire-like filaments which are fastened to an atom then you would expect the
>>> field to translate and rotate whenever the atom translates and rotates. On
>>> the other hand if you imagine the field is a vector field then the field
>>> never really needs to move. Instead the direction of the magnitude of the
>>> vector at each point in space updates as the atom moves through that vector
>>> space. The way the vector field changes as the atom rotates and translates
>>> gives the appearance of a field that is moving as if it were fastened to
>>> the atom.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM Robin 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>&

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

Sorry, the last word should be 'magnet' rather than 'magnetic'.
harry

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 11:02 AM H L V  wrote:

> Another visualization of the behaviour of magnetic fields without the
> concept of lines of force.
> When the magnet is moved around it simply changes the orientation of all
> the little compass needles.
> The notion of  lines of force tends to make one think the magnetic field
> is somehow mechanically
> attached to the magnet so that the centre point of each needle must change
> position in order to match
> the motion of the magnetic.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTylDaG5_RY
>
> Harry
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

Another visualization of the behaviour of magnetic fields without the
concept of lines of force.
When the magnet is moved around it simply changes the orientation of all
the little compass needles.
The notion of  lines of force tends to make one think the magnetic field is
somehow mechanically
attached to the magnet so that the centre point of each needle must change
position in order to match
the motion of the magnetic.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTylDaG5_RY

Harry





On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:16 AM H L V  wrote:

>
>
> Here is a physical demonstration of the situation using a ferrofluid.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn41nPOGq-U
> The ferrofluid does not rotate with the cylindrical magnet, which supports
> the idea that the magnet's field does not rotate with the magnet.
> (There is a little bit of movement but the narrator explains that this
> movement arises from the field not being perfectly symmetrically.and
> homogeneous).
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:40 AM H L V  wrote:
>
>> It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the field is made of
>> wire-like filaments which are fastened to an atom then you would expect the
>> field to translate and rotate whenever the atom translates and rotates. On
>> the other hand if you imagine the field is a vector field then the field
>> never really needs to move. Instead the direction of the magnitude of the
>> vector at each point in space updates as the atom moves through that vector
>> space. The way the vector field changes as the atom rotates and translates
>> gives the appearance of a field that is moving as if it were fastened to
>> the atom.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM Robin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In reply to  H L V's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:28:31 -0500:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> You don't need an experiment to figure this out. The field obviously
>>> rotates with the magnet.
>>> This is because the field is not a single entity. It is the sum of all
>>> the tiny fields created by the electrons attached
>>> to individual atoms, so when the magnet rotates, the atoms all move,
>>> taking their individual fields with them. We know
>>> they do this because when the magnet is moved sideways, instead of
>>> rotating, the field moves sideways as well. IOW, the
>>> atomic fields are attached to their individual atoms. There is no reason
>>> this should change when rotation is involved
>>> rather than translation.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>> >Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new experimental evidence
>>> on
>>> >the influence of the test circuit (Free to download. Published 2022)
>>> >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>>
>>> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar
>>> panels on your roof on the alternate days.
>>> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
>>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

Here is a physical demonstration of the situation using a ferrofluid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn41nPOGq-U
The ferrofluid does not rotate with the cylindrical magnet, which supports
the idea that the magnet's field does not rotate with the magnet.
(There is a little bit of movement but the narrator explains that this
movement arises from the field not being perfectly symmetrically.and
homogeneous).

Harry

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:40 AM H L V  wrote:

> It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the field is made of
> wire-like filaments which are fastened to an atom then you would expect the
> field to translate and rotate whenever the atom translates and rotates. On
> the other hand if you imagine the field is a vector field then the field
> never really needs to move. Instead the direction of the magnitude of the
> vector at each point in space updates as the atom moves through that vector
> space. The way the vector field changes as the atom rotates and translates
> gives the appearance of a field that is moving as if it were fastened to
> the atom.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM Robin 
> wrote:
>
>> In reply to  H L V's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:28:31 -0500:
>> Hi,
>>
>> You don't need an experiment to figure this out. The field obviously
>> rotates with the magnet.
>> This is because the field is not a single entity. It is the sum of all
>> the tiny fields created by the electrons attached
>> to individual atoms, so when the magnet rotates, the atoms all move,
>> taking their individual fields with them. We know
>> they do this because when the magnet is moved sideways, instead of
>> rotating, the field moves sideways as well. IOW, the
>> atomic fields are attached to their individual atoms. There is no reason
>> this should change when rotation is involved
>> rather than translation.
>>
>> [snip]
>> >Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new experimental evidence on
>> >the influence of the test circuit (Free to download. Published 2022)
>> >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar
>> panels on your roof on the alternate days.
>> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the field is made of
wire-like filaments which are fastened to an atom then you would expect the
field to translate and rotate whenever the atom translates and rotates. On
the other hand if you imagine the field is a vector field then the field
never really needs to move. Instead the direction of the magnitude of the
vector at each point in space updates as the atom moves through that vector
space. The way the vector field changes as the atom rotates and translates
gives the appearance of a field that is moving as if it were fastened to
the atom.

Harry


On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  H L V's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:28:31 -0500:
> Hi,
>
> You don't need an experiment to figure this out. The field obviously
> rotates with the magnet.
> This is because the field is not a single entity. It is the sum of all the
> tiny fields created by the electrons attached
> to individual atoms, so when the magnet rotates, the atoms all move,
> taking their individual fields with them. We know
> they do this because when the magnet is moved sideways, instead of
> rotating, the field moves sideways as well. IOW, the
> atomic fields are attached to their individual atoms. There is no reason
> this should change when rotation is involved
> rather than translation.
>
> [snip]
> >Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new experimental evidence on
> >the influence of the test circuit (Free to download. Published 2022)
> >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels
> on your roof on the alternate days.
> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

Instead of measuring voltages, another approach would be to measure how the
entire assembly moves in response to the various relative rotations. In
order to observe such effects, the entire assembly should be self contained
so that it is free to slide over a level surface. The relative rotation of
the disc and magnets within the assembly should create a force that would
cause the assembly to deviate from a linear path.

Harry

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 9:29 AM H L V  wrote:

> Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new experimental evidence on
> the influence of the test circuit (Free to download. Published 2022)
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x
>
> This is an interesting paper from experimental point view. The authors
> designed the test circuit so that it could rotate with the disc or magnet
> instead of remaining stationary.
>
>
> Harry
>

[Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new experimental evidence on
the influence of the test circuit (Free to download. Published 2022)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x

This is an interesting paper from experimental point view. The authors
designed the test circuit so that it could rotate with the disc or magnet
instead of remaining stationary.


Harry

[Vo]:OT: AI generated video is progressing rapidly

[H L V]

AI Generated Videos Just Changed Forever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXpdyAWLDas

Harry

[Vo]:Nuclear Power Comeback Update

[H L V]

Nuclear Power Comeback Update: Poland Authorizes Small Modular Reactors

from video description:
Nuclear power is back in fashion in many countries because of its potential
to decarbonize even energy-intense industry quickly.
In its latest success, Poland has authorized the construction of 24 small
nuclear reactors at six sites across the country.

https://youtu.be/5_FUsyFpzJk

Harry

[Vo]:Berryllium-10 nucleus

[H L V]

A berryllium-10 nucleus was predicted to have a dumbbell shape and now the
shape seems to have been confirmed by experiment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVri9slkCQU

Speculation: Could unusually shaped nuclei play a role in LENR?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[H L V]

I have heard different accounts of what motivated his theory of SR.
The line you quote brings them all together. Is it accurate? I don't know
but it makes him appear very thorough.

harry

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 3:05 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> says -> >>The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration of 
> Maxwell's
> electrodynamics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations>,
> the moving magnet and conductor problem
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem>, the 
> negative
> aether drift experiments
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment>, as
> well as the Fizeau experiment
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment>, led Albert Einstein
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein> to develop the theory of
> special relativity in 1905, which presents a general form of the equation
> for aberration in terms of such theory<<<
>
>
> no mention of most of that in Einstein's 1905 SR paper.
>
>
> Like relstivistic mass - no mention of that in Einstein's 1905 paper, so
> was just something added later.
>
>
> But now relativistic mass gets discarded so all that extra stuff might
> also be discarded anon.
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "H L V" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 16:39
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
>
> I should not have said "seems".
> It does more accurately predict the amount of stellar aberration.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)
>
> harry
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON <
> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>seems <<<
>>
>>
>> ???
>>
>>
>> When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation
>> - its usually not given.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "H L V" 
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 15:18
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
>>
>> Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according
>> to Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of
>> light to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration. Astronomer's
>> have been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years. The amount of
>> observed stellar aberration seems to be more accurately predicted by SR
>> than by classical physics but both assume a finite one way velocity of
>> light. Veritasium's conclusion has been shaped by experts who don't worry
>> about the bigger picture.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry <
>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I explained but I didn't say
>>> that.
>>>
>>> And I don't think it is likely to be that we are moving in effect
>>> infinitely fast through the Aether.
>>>
>>> What astronomers teach is an assumption.
>>>
>>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 10:22, H L V  wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the video by Veritasium he says the one way speed of light could in
>>>> principle be infinite and that
>>>> there is nothing to stop us from saying we are seeing the distant stars
>>>> as they are now rather than as they were hundreds of years ago.
>>>> He states this without mentioning the fact that this contradicts what
>>>> astronomers teach.
>>>>
>>>> Harry
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry <
>>>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I didn't say it can be infinite, I just said the 2 way speed only has
>>>>> to average to C.
>>>>> Now, I guess it could be infinite if you were moving infinitely fast,
>>>>> then the speed of light the other way would be half C to make the round
>>>>> trip C.
>>>>> But moving infinitely fast seems problematic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 07:20, H L V  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no
>>>>>> rational basis for claiming
>>>>>> that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking
>>>>>> further and furt

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[H L V]

I should not have said "seems".
It does more accurately predict the amount of stellar aberration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)

harry

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:33 AM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> >>>seems <<<
>
>
> ???
>
>
> When contrasting a Newtonian calculation with an Einsteinian calculation -
> its usually not given.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "H L V" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 15:18
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
>
> Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according
> to Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of
> light to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration. Astronomer's
> have been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years. The amount of
> observed stellar aberration seems to be more accurately predicted by SR
> than by classical physics but both assume a finite one way velocity of
> light. Veritasium's conclusion has been shaped by experts who don't worry
> about the bigger picture.
>
> Harry
>
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry <
> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I explained but I didn't say
>> that.
>>
>> And I don't think it is likely to be that we are moving in effect
>> infinitely fast through the Aether.
>>
>> What astronomers teach is an assumption.
>>
>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 10:22, H L V  wrote:
>>
>>> In the video by Veritasium he says the one way speed of light could in
>>> principle be infinite and that
>>> there is nothing to stop us from saying we are seeing the distant stars
>>> as they are now rather than as they were hundreds of years ago.
>>> He states this without mentioning the fact that this contradicts what
>>> astronomers teach.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry <
>>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I didn't say it can be infinite, I just said the 2 way speed only has
>>>> to average to C.
>>>> Now, I guess it could be infinite if you were moving infinitely fast,
>>>> then the speed of light the other way would be half C to make the round
>>>> trip C.
>>>> But moving infinitely fast seems problematic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 07:20, H L V  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no
>>>>> rational basis for claiming
>>>>> that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking
>>>>> further and further back in time.
>>>>> Harry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM Jonathan Berry <
>>>>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large
>>>>>> Language Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will
>>>>>> say it is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).
>>>>>> If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction
>>>>>> of space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special
>>>>>> Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made 
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> not typically explained within.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that! The
>>>>>> constancy of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of
>>>>>> light) is neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of the
>>>>>> 1905 paper!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both
>>>>>> postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the
>>>>>> theory being presented, but the foundation of it)
>>>>>> The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity
>>>>>> of the emitter. >>>>> The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inerti

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[H L V]

Even if it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light according to
Einstein's theory, astronomers use a specific finite one way speed of light
to explain the phenomenon known as stellar aberration. Astronomer's have
been studying this phenomenon for nearly 300 years. The amount of observed
stellar aberration seems to be more accurately predicted by SR than by
classical physics but both assume a finite one way velocity of light.
Veritasium's conclusion has been shaped by experts who don't worry about
the bigger picture.

Harry

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jonathan Berry 
wrote:

> Well, yes in theory it could be infinite as I explained but I didn't say
> that.
>
> And I don't think it is likely to be that we are moving in effect
> infinitely fast through the Aether.
>
> What astronomers teach is an assumption.
>
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 10:22, H L V  wrote:
>
>> In the video by Veritasium he says the one way speed of light could in
>> principle be infinite and that
>> there is nothing to stop us from saying we are seeing the distant stars
>> as they are now rather than as they were hundreds of years ago.
>> He states this without mentioning the fact that this contradicts what
>> astronomers teach.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry <
>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't say it can be infinite, I just said the 2 way speed only has to
>>> average to C.
>>> Now, I guess it could be infinite if you were moving infinitely fast,
>>> then the speed of light the other way would be half C to make the round
>>> trip C.
>>> But moving infinitely fast seems problematic.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 07:20, H L V  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no
>>>> rational basis for claiming
>>>> that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking
>>>> further and further back in time.
>>>> Harry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM Jonathan Berry <
>>>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large
>>>>> Language Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will
>>>>> say it is and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).
>>>>> If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction
>>>>> of space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn that
>>>>> actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special
>>>>> Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made 
>>>>> but
>>>>> not typically explained within.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that! The
>>>>> constancy of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of
>>>>> light) is neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of the
>>>>> 1905 paper!
>>>>>
>>>>> What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both
>>>>> postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the
>>>>> theory being presented, but the foundation of it)
>>>>> The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity
>>>>> of the emitter. >>>> The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial
>>>>> frames. >>>> way
>>>>> speed of light to be C in all inertial frames for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought Einstein supported the idea that the one way speed of light
>>>>> (the speed of light in each direction) is C, however he claims no such
>>>>> thing in any of his writings according to chat GPT and Claude 2.
>>>>> The 2 way speed of light being C is most assuredly believed, but the
>>>>> one way, if he believed in it he never seemingly mentioned it.
>>>>> And while I will concede that the one way (single direction) speed of
>>>>> light is impossible to measure if SR is correct, if LET, (Lorentz Ether
>>>>> Theory) is correct (which many physicists and LLM's can tell you is
>>>>> compatible with every experiment that is considered to support SR, they 
>>>>> are
>>>>> equivalent for most things

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[H L V]

In the video by Veritasium he says the one way speed of light could in
principle be infinite and that
there is nothing to stop us from saying we are seeing the distant stars as
they are now rather than as they were hundreds of years ago.
He states this without mentioning the fact that this contradicts what
astronomers teach.

Harry

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 4:03 PM Jonathan Berry 
wrote:

> I didn't say it can be infinite, I just said the 2 way speed only has to
> average to C.
> Now, I guess it could be infinite if you were moving infinitely fast, then
> the speed of light the other way would be half C to make the round trip C.
> But moving infinitely fast seems problematic.
>
>
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 07:20, H L V  wrote:
>
>>
>> If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no
>> rational basis for claiming
>> that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking
>> further and further back in time.
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM Jonathan Berry <
>> jonathanberry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large Language
>>> Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will say it is
>>> and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).
>>> If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction of
>>> space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn that
>>> actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special
>>> Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made but
>>> not typically explained within.
>>>
>>> But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that! The constancy
>>> of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of light) is
>>> neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of the 1905 paper!
>>>
>>> What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both
>>> postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the
>>> theory being presented, but the foundation of it)
>>> The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of
>>> the emitter. >> The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial
>>> frames. >> speed of light to be C in all inertial frames for that.
>>>
>>> I thought Einstein supported the idea that the one way speed of light
>>> (the speed of light in each direction) is C, however he claims no such
>>> thing in any of his writings according to chat GPT and Claude 2.
>>> The 2 way speed of light being C is most assuredly believed, but the one
>>> way, if he believed in it he never seemingly mentioned it.
>>> And while I will concede that the one way (single direction) speed of
>>> light is impossible to measure if SR is correct, if LET, (Lorentz Ether
>>> Theory) is correct (which many physicists and LLM's can tell you is
>>> compatible with every experiment that is considered to support SR, they are
>>> equivalent for most things) then it becomes possible to measure the one way
>>> speed of light!
>>>
>>> If Einstein's model is taken as a cheat, an untrue but simplifying
>>> mechanism that makes it easier to use Lorentzian transformations without
>>> needing to worry how we are moving relative to the aether it is a success!
>>> But if we take it as the truth and even make it more extreme by
>>> believing the one way speed of light is C it becomes a comical nonsense!
>>> And we will see just how badly below.
>>>
>>> But let's see how we got here!
>>>
>>> Light, big shock, moves at a speed.
>>> And speeds can be viewed as relative to our own inertial frame making it
>>> relative not absolute, for this NOT to be so there would have to be some
>>> explanation how this might not be but again there is no mechanism by which
>>> this could be done, it wasn't assumed by SR or Einstein in his papers
>>> therefore the one way speed of light can't be said to be absolute and
>>> therefore it is relative even if the 2 way speed of light is absolute.
>>> And so the velocity of any real moving thing, even a photon is relative
>>> to your motion. And it's motion, which is also affected by the medium of
>>> either...
>>> The velocity of the thing that emitted it (seems not to be the case, and
>>> SR assets it can't be).
>>> OR the your velocity through the medium, the medium that possesses
>>&

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[H L V]

Also if the speed of light depended on direction would it even be possible
to establish a reliable communication link between a transmitter and a
receiver which are moving at different inclinations and at different
speeds?

Harry

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 1:19 PM H L V  wrote:

>
> If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no
> rational basis for claiming
> that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking
> further and further back in time.
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM Jonathan Berry 
> wrote:
>
>> If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large Language
>> Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will say it is
>> and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).
>> If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction of
>> space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn that
>> actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special
>> Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made but
>> not typically explained within.
>>
>> But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that! The constancy
>> of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of light) is
>> neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of the 1905 paper!
>>
>> What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both
>> postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the
>> theory being presented, but the foundation of it)
>> The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of
>> the emitter. > The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.
>> > of light to be C in all inertial frames for that.
>>
>> I thought Einstein supported the idea that the one way speed of light
>> (the speed of light in each direction) is C, however he claims no such
>> thing in any of his writings according to chat GPT and Claude 2.
>> The 2 way speed of light being C is most assuredly believed, but the one
>> way, if he believed in it he never seemingly mentioned it.
>> And while I will concede that the one way (single direction) speed of
>> light is impossible to measure if SR is correct, if LET, (Lorentz Ether
>> Theory) is correct (which many physicists and LLM's can tell you is
>> compatible with every experiment that is considered to support SR, they are
>> equivalent for most things) then it becomes possible to measure the one way
>> speed of light!
>>
>> If Einstein's model is taken as a cheat, an untrue but simplifying
>> mechanism that makes it easier to use Lorentzian transformations without
>> needing to worry how we are moving relative to the aether it is a success!
>> But if we take it as the truth and even make it more extreme by believing
>> the one way speed of light is C it becomes a comical nonsense!
>> And we will see just how badly below.
>>
>> But let's see how we got here!
>>
>> Light, big shock, moves at a speed.
>> And speeds can be viewed as relative to our own inertial frame making it
>> relative not absolute, for this NOT to be so there would have to be some
>> explanation how this might not be but again there is no mechanism by which
>> this could be done, it wasn't assumed by SR or Einstein in his papers
>> therefore the one way speed of light can't be said to be absolute and
>> therefore it is relative even if the 2 way speed of light is absolute.
>> And so the velocity of any real moving thing, even a photon is relative
>> to your motion. And it's motion, which is also affected by the medium of
>> either...
>> The velocity of the thing that emitted it (seems not to be the case, and
>> SR assets it can't be).
>> OR the your velocity through the medium, the medium that possesses
>> magnetizability and polarizability (The permeability and permittivity) AKA
>> The Ether or Aether.
>> Since we have established that Einstein never claimed the one way speed
>> of light is C and didn't try to explain how it could be either, as I will
>> show soon how impossible that is, we can't have a relativistic aether that
>> offers no preferred frame!
>> Yes, that is essentially what he tried to create, but failed. Even if you
>> can't know what the one way speed of light is, you can know as I will show
>> that it can't be equal.
>> Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k Why No One Has
>> Measured The Speed Of Light - Veritasium
>>
>> So if we go back to the Michelson Morley experiment we see that an
>> 

Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[H L V]

If the one way speed of light can be infinite then there would be no
rational basis for claiming
that when we look deeper and deeper into the universe we are looking
further and further back in time.
Harry





On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:28 AM Jonathan Berry 
wrote:

> If you ask most people, most physicists, and most LLM's (Large Language
> Models) if the one way speed of light is constant they all will say it is
> and that it is part of Special Relativity (SR).
> If you ask most, "how can that be", they will answer the contraction of
> space and dilation of time, but if you drill down deeper you learn that
> actually it isn't, it is a postulate of the 1905 paper on Special
> Relativity and postulate is a fancy word for an assumption that is made but
> not typically explained within.
>
> But if you drill down deeper, you find it isn't even that! The constancy
> of the speed of light (in each direction, AKA one way speed of light) is
> neither explained by, nor necessary for, nor a postulate of the 1905 paper!
>
> What the 1905 paper DOES say is essentially two key things, both
> postulates (again, postulates = assumptions typically not covered in the
> theory being presented, but the foundation of it)
> The first is that the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of
> the emitter.  The next is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.
>  of light to be C in all inertial frames for that.
>
> I thought Einstein supported the idea that the one way speed of light (the
> speed of light in each direction) is C, however he claims no such thing in
> any of his writings according to chat GPT and Claude 2.
> The 2 way speed of light being C is most assuredly believed, but the one
> way, if he believed in it he never seemingly mentioned it.
> And while I will concede that the one way (single direction) speed of
> light is impossible to measure if SR is correct, if LET, (Lorentz Ether
> Theory) is correct (which many physicists and LLM's can tell you is
> compatible with every experiment that is considered to support SR, they are
> equivalent for most things) then it becomes possible to measure the one way
> speed of light!
>
> If Einstein's model is taken as a cheat, an untrue but simplifying
> mechanism that makes it easier to use Lorentzian transformations without
> needing to worry how we are moving relative to the aether it is a success!
> But if we take it as the truth and even make it more extreme by believing
> the one way speed of light is C it becomes a comical nonsense!
> And we will see just how badly below.
>
> But let's see how we got here!
>
> Light, big shock, moves at a speed.
> And speeds can be viewed as relative to our own inertial frame making it
> relative not absolute, for this NOT to be so there would have to be some
> explanation how this might not be but again there is no mechanism by which
> this could be done, it wasn't assumed by SR or Einstein in his papers
> therefore the one way speed of light can't be said to be absolute and
> therefore it is relative even if the 2 way speed of light is absolute.
> And so the velocity of any real moving thing, even a photon is relative to
> your motion. And it's motion, which is also affected by the medium of
> either...
> The velocity of the thing that emitted it (seems not to be the case, and
> SR assets it can't be).
> OR the your velocity through the medium, the medium that possesses
> magnetizability and polarizability (The permeability and permittivity) AKA
> The Ether or Aether.
> Since we have established that Einstein never claimed the one way speed of
> light is C and didn't try to explain how it could be either, as I will show
> soon how impossible that is, we can't have a relativistic aether that
> offers no preferred frame!
> Yes, that is essentially what he tried to create, but failed. Even if you
> can't know what the one way speed of light is, you can know as I will show
> that it can't be equal.
> Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k Why No One Has Measured
> The Speed Of Light - Veritasium
>
> So if we go back to the Michelson Morley experiment we see that an
> interferometer was used to try and find evidence of earth's motion through
> the Aether, and this produced a generally negative result.
> Now as I tried to write the rest of this message I have come to a problem,
> I was going to explain why the Michelson Morley experiment which used an
> interferometer with two paths, one perpendicular and one along the earths
> presumed direction of motion through the Aether.
> However in trying to explain why the number of wavelengths that fit in the
> two paths should vary based on the axis of movement of the aetheric medium
> relative to the laboratory frame, I have found a problem, it seems that the
> number of wavelengths would not change even if the 2 way speed of light was
> speed wasn't constant!
> It is worth noting that the Michelson Morley experiment didn't measure
> light speed at all, 

[Vo]:Michael Faraday noticed something peculiar...

[H L V]

Michael Faraday noticed something peculiar about the behaviour of a needle
near a wire that others did not because he was not constrained by the
dominant conception of forces in his time.
This presentation recreates some of the key experiments of Faraday and his
based on entries from Faraday's actual lab notebook.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1uOsg2-LTA

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Hey Does This Look Familiar??

[H L V]

Yes I remember, but I was not familiar enough with magnetic levitation to
appreciate that his configuration defied conventional expectations.
Sometimes it can be a struggle to find an audience that is knowledgeable
enough to see the significance of a novel observation performed with
rudimentary tools.

Harry



On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 11:35 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Congratulations!
>
> Here is the rest of the article behind the paywall:
>
> There is a simple way to levitate magnets – and physicists are beginning
> to understand how it works. The technique could have applications in
> robotics in the future.
> In 2021, Hamdi Ucar
>  –
> then at Göksal Aeronautics in Turkey – posted a YouTube video showing two
> magnetic spheres levitating on either side of a rapidly spinning bar magnet
> that was positioned with its north-south poles vertically. Ucar also
> published a paper on the phenomenon, which attracted the attention of Rasmus
> Bjørk
> 
>  at
> the Technical University of Denmark.
> With a colleague, Bjørk decided to replicate Ucar’s levitation technique.
> “We sat down for …
> half an hour and tried. I was like, it’s completely out of the question,
> it simply shouldn’t work. And then it just worked. We were completely
> baffled by this,” he says.
> Read more
> Extremely cold drop of helium can be levitated forever
>
> 
> Now Bjørk and several other colleagues, all at the Technical University of
> Denmark, think they understand what’s going on.
> They started with Ucar’s set up where a “floater” magnet levitates
> 
>  when
> placed on top of another magnet that is spinning hundreds of times every
> second. Then they tested a range of spinning frequencies and floater sizes
> while filming the magnets and measuring their magnetic fields. The
> researchers also developed a computer simulation of the experiment.
> Frederik Durhuus
> 
>  who
> worked on the project says it is the rotation that is key to the process.
> He says many people are familiar with the way two magnets repel each other
> when held with both north poles (or both south poles) close together. But
> usually, one of the magnets will then simply flip over, meaning that a
> north and south pole are close together – at which point the two magnets
> stick to each other.
> Durhuus says rotation counters that magnetic “flipping” and keeps the
> floater levitating. He compares it to the way a spinning top
> 
>  counters
> the downward pull of gravity and spins for longer than we might expect.
> Ucar’s experiments show that the effect can persist even when the
> rotating magnet is oriented horizontally
> ,
> rather than vertically like a spinning top. He disagrees with some details
> of the team’s numerical and theoretical models, but he says that their
> independent validation of this surprising effect is important.
> “I don’t think we will be able to make any [magnetically levitating]
> trains with this anytime soon, but it will be interesting to see where it
> can be useful because it does not require very fancy equipment,” says Joachim
> Hermansen
> 
>  who
> was also part of the team.
> Marcel Shuck
>  at
> No-Touch Robotics in Switzerland says that magnets are already used for
> suspension and transport of objects in some industries. He says that using
> the rotation scheme could be a simpler alternative to systems that require
> constant readjustment of magnets.
> Journal reference
> *Physical Review Applied* DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.044036
> 
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 11:21 AM Hamdi Ucar  wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I knew such a thing will be published but not good as this. My name
>> and a link is shown in first sentences so everybody can check it without
>> pay-wall. Still dont know what is written at the remaining.
>> This event makes my article access stats as hockey stick. Fantastic!  It
>> it also shown at
>> https://news4republicans.com/science/mysterious-rotation-trick-makes-magnets-float-in-the-air/
>> so it is matter of time that Elon to 

[Vo]:The Story of Our Universe May Be Starting to Unravel

[H L V]

The Story of Our Universe May Be Starting to Unravel
Sept 2, 2023
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/02/opinion/cosmology-crisis-webb-telescope.html
quote
<>

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Colours with a twist

[H L V]

Good observation, but I don't think the angle of the light source is great
enough to account for the number of helical turns within the
given length of the tube.

harry

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 6:20 PM MSF  wrote:

> One other thing. If you aim a laser into the inside of a transparent tube,
> you get that barber pole effect spiraling around at a greater or lesser
> frequency depending on the angle of the beam into the interior of the tube.
> So that may explain the barber pole in the video.
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Thursday, September 21st, 2023 at 9:05 PM, MSF <
> foster...@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can't even begin to express how conceptually and experimentally wrong
> this demonstration is. The first thing is the perpetuation of the mistaken
> idea that photons are wiggling in a sinusiodal fashion. When you see that
> sine wave, it's a graph of the varying field as the wave propagates. It's
> not the wave itself. This is such a common miscommunication that physics
> students often have a hard time getting over it.
>
> Just for the sake of context, this guy should have at least mentioned the
> practical application of this phenomenon, which is the polarizing
> saccharimeter. Wine makers, for example, use this device to measure the
> amount of dextrose (glucose) in grape juice so they can harvest the grapes
> at their peak. So next time you're enjoying that glass of wine, think,
> "Mmm...saccharimeter."
>
> The experimental setup in this demonstration has, in my opinion, a fatal
> flaw. The light source seems to be too broad to test the phenomenon.
> Furthermore it appears to be tilted at an angle at the entrance to the
> tube. Both of these factors will have the light glancing off the interior
> of the tube. At least some of the light will be at Brewster's angle for the
> interface between the sugar solution and the tube. So the interior of the
> tube becomes its own polarizer.
>
> Another thing that should have been mentioned is that the light, while
> circularly polarized  in the sugar solution, emerges linearly polarized.
> Maybe that's obvious, but it should have been stated.
>
> Having said all that, it's a hell of a beautiful demonstration. It should
> be repeated with a narrow beam of light just to see the results.
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Sunday, September 10th, 2023 at 1:15 AM, H L V 
> wrote:
>
> The well known mathematics youtuber 3Blue1Brown recently published two
> interesting videos on polarized light passing through a clear glass tube
> filled with dissolved sugar in water. (He is working on a third video.)
> Normally he explains mathematical concepts with nicely rendered visual
> explanations so the inclusion of a physical demo is something new for his
> channel. The mathematical explanation offered in part 2 seems to
> qualitatively account for what is observed in part 1 but there is a lively
> discussion in the comment section on part 2 where it is pointed out that
> his explanation makes a prediction that he acknowledges is not actually
> observed. I enjoy it when textbook science bumps up against reality! It
> will be interesting to see if he can account for this theoretical weakness
> in his third video.
>
> This demo tests your understanding of light | Barber pole, part 1
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCX62YJCmGk
> This demo tests your understanding of light | Barber pole, part 2
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXRTczANuIs=0s
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[H L V]

Sorry, there was a missing character in the final link. Here is the correct
link.
_Goethe’s Theory of Colors from the Perspective of Modern Physics_
https://www.physikdidaktik.uni-wuppertal.de/fileadmin/physik/didaktik/Forschung/Publikationen/Grebe-Ellis/Mack_und_Goethe_Seite_124-137_freigegeben-low.pdf

Harry

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 4:05 PM H L V  wrote:

> What is yellow? by PehrSall
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_1WiWGndZw
>
> PehrSall is a physicist who is interested in the history and science of
> color theory. He has many video's in which he investigates Newton's and
> Geothe's color theories experimentally.
>
> He also has a video on Land's two color investigations.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG4bzGNc1E0
>
> In this beautiful investigation
> _Goethe's Purple Ray - alias Monochromatic Rays of Shadow, the
> Rehabilitation of Darkness_
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu_7uG6KlsU
> he argues that Newton did not demonstrate that white light consists of
> variously coloured lights  any more than he was able to demonstrate the
> 'absurd' thesis that darkness consists of variously coloured shadows.
> (Personally I am not sure that the absurdity of one thesis should be
> regarded as proof that both theses are unjustified. I am inclined to ask
> what if the absurd thesis were true?)
>
>
> This paper supports my opinion that there is still much to learn about the
> nature of radiation.
>
> Power  Area Density in Inverse Spectra
> https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1706/1706.09063.pdf
>
> An informal discussion of the results of the same paper in german and
> english with more pictures:
>
> https://www.physikdidaktik.uni-wuppertal.de/fileadmin/physik/didaktik/Forschung/Publikationen/Grebe-Ellis/Mack_und_Goethe_Seite_124-137_freigegeben-low.pd
>
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 2:59 AM MSF  wrote:
>
>> The delay? I don't think we're in a hurry. And clearly no one else on the
>> list has an interest in our discussion.
>>
>> Spectral colors and their perception are my business. I've made literally
>> billions of square meters of diffraction gratings, mostly decorative
>> patterns. Yellow and magenta have been particularly interesting to me for a
>> few reasons. I am of the controversial opinion that yellow doesn't exist
>> except in human perception.
>>
>> Years ago, before lasers became unbelievably inexpensive, I was
>> interested in creating a light source to view transmission holograms
>> without a laser or filtered mercury arc.  I had a lot of slide projectors
>> left over from my "psychedelic light show" so I thought I could use one to
>> make such a light source. I put a slit into the projector where the slide
>> would normally go and a high efficiency Bragg diffraction grating in front
>> of it.  This projected  a nice broad spectrum.  I then used another slit to
>> isolate whatever color I wanted and a cylinder lens to spread it out. This
>> worked quite well, but not very bright. I settled on what would normally be
>> called the yellow part of the spectrum.
>>
>> But people viewing the holograms this way would say that the color was
>> white, or perhaps gray. I thought the same thing.  You have to see this to
>> appreciate it. So maybe Roy G Biv  should change his name. Another example
>> of the phenomenon is a pressure tuned krypton laser.  At just the right gas
>> pressure it makes four more or less equally spaced colors if sent through a
>> prism: red, yellow, green, and two tightly spaced blues. The yellow looks
>> yellow when the other colors are present, but by itself it appears to be
>> colorless. A lot of people smarter than I have argued about these things
>> for a very long time.
>>
>> If you really want to see some strangeness as regards color perception,
>> look up Land color theory. I played around with this when I was a child,
>> and my family thought I was nuts.
>>
>> I just think it's a gift to us that we can perceive color the way we do.
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>> On Thursday, August 24th, 2023 at 9:10 AM, H L V 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry about the delay.
>>
>> I am not sure. If you think about it, overlapping colours don't go along
>> with the topology of stress lines.
>> However, cellophane tape is a different situation. It could be that the
>> perception of the colour magenta is situational like
>> the perception of yellow.
>>
>>
>> Did you know that a third class of mammalian photoreceptors was
>> discovered in the 1990's?
>> Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell were only shown to be
>> definitive

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[H L V]

What is yellow? by PehrSall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_1WiWGndZw

PehrSall is a physicist who is interested in the history and science of
color theory. He has many video's in which he investigates Newton's and
Geothe's color theories experimentally.

He also has a video on Land's two color investigations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG4bzGNc1E0

In this beautiful investigation
_Goethe's Purple Ray - alias Monochromatic Rays of Shadow, the
Rehabilitation of Darkness_
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu_7uG6KlsU
he argues that Newton did not demonstrate that white light consists of
variously coloured lights  any more than he was able to demonstrate the
'absurd' thesis that darkness consists of variously coloured shadows.
(Personally I am not sure that the absurdity of one thesis should be
regarded as proof that both theses are unjustified. I am inclined to ask
what if the absurd thesis were true?)


This paper supports my opinion that there is still much to learn about the
nature of radiation.

Power  Area Density in Inverse Spectra
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1706/1706.09063.pdf

An informal discussion of the results of the same paper in german and
english with more pictures:
https://www.physikdidaktik.uni-wuppertal.de/fileadmin/physik/didaktik/Forschung/Publikationen/Grebe-Ellis/Mack_und_Goethe_Seite_124-137_freigegeben-low.pd


Harry


On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 2:59 AM MSF  wrote:

> The delay? I don't think we're in a hurry. And clearly no one else on the
> list has an interest in our discussion.
>
> Spectral colors and their perception are my business. I've made literally
> billions of square meters of diffraction gratings, mostly decorative
> patterns. Yellow and magenta have been particularly interesting to me for a
> few reasons. I am of the controversial opinion that yellow doesn't exist
> except in human perception.
>
> Years ago, before lasers became unbelievably inexpensive, I was interested
> in creating a light source to view transmission holograms without a laser
> or filtered mercury arc.  I had a lot of slide projectors left over from my
> "psychedelic light show" so I thought I could use one to make such a light
> source. I put a slit into the projector where the slide would normally go
> and a high efficiency Bragg diffraction grating in front of it.  This
> projected  a nice broad spectrum.  I then used another slit to isolate
> whatever color I wanted and a cylinder lens to spread it out. This worked
> quite well, but not very bright. I settled on what would normally be called
> the yellow part of the spectrum.
>
> But people viewing the holograms this way would say that the color was
> white, or perhaps gray. I thought the same thing.  You have to see this to
> appreciate it. So maybe Roy G Biv  should change his name. Another example
> of the phenomenon is a pressure tuned krypton laser.  At just the right gas
> pressure it makes four more or less equally spaced colors if sent through a
> prism: red, yellow, green, and two tightly spaced blues. The yellow looks
> yellow when the other colors are present, but by itself it appears to be
> colorless. A lot of people smarter than I have argued about these things
> for a very long time.
>
> If you really want to see some strangeness as regards color perception,
> look up Land color theory. I played around with this when I was a child,
> and my family thought I was nuts.
>
> I just think it's a gift to us that we can perceive color the way we do.
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Thursday, August 24th, 2023 at 9:10 AM, H L V 
> wrote:
>
> Sorry about the delay.
>
> I am not sure. If you think about it, overlapping colours don't go along
> with the topology of stress lines.
> However, cellophane tape is a different situation. It could be that the
> perception of the colour magenta is situational like
> the perception of yellow.
>
>
> Did you know that a third class of mammalian photoreceptors was
> discovered in the 1990's?
> Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell were only shown to be
> definitively present in humans in 2007 in people who were born without rods
> and cones.
>
> From wikipedia " ipRGCs were only definitively detected in humans during
> landmark experiments in 2007 on rodless, coneless humans.[15]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell#cite_note-ns1-15>[16]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell#cite_note-mnt-16> As
> had been found in other mammals, the identity of the non-rod non-cone
> photoreceptor in humans was found to be a ganglion cell in the inner
> retina. The researchers had tracked down patients with rare diseases wiping
> out classic rod and cone photoreceptor function but preserving ganglion
> cell function.[15]
> <https://en.w

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[H L V]

Sorry about the delay.

I am not sure. If you think about it, overlapping colours don't go along
with the topology of stress lines.
However, cellophane tape is a different situation. It could be that
the perception of the colour magenta is situational like
the perception of yellow.


Did you know that a third class of mammalian photoreceptors was discovered
in the 1990's?
Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell were only shown to be
definitively present in humans in 2007 in people who were born without rods
and cones.

>From wikipedia " ipRGCs were only definitively detected in humans during
landmark experiments in 2007 on rodless, coneless humans.[15]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell#cite_note-ns1-15>[16]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell#cite_note-mnt-16> As had
been found in other mammals, the identity of the non-rod non-cone
photoreceptor in humans was found to be a ganglion cell in the inner
retina. The researchers had tracked down patients with rare diseases wiping
out classic rod and cone photoreceptor function but preserving ganglion
cell function.[15]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell#cite_note-ns1-15>[16]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell#cite_note-mnt-16> Despite
having no rods or cones the patients continued to exhibit circadian
photoentrainment, circadian behavioural patterns, melanopsin suppression,
and pupil reactions, with peak spectral sensitivities to environmental and
experimental light matching that for the melanopsin photopigment. Their
brains could also associate vision with light of this frequency."

Harry



https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09063

On Wed., Aug. 16, 2023, 5:31 p.m. MSF,  wrote:

> Would it change your mind if you saw the real thing instead of a digital
> representation? All of color photography, both on film and now with digital
> cameras and LCD or OLED screens depend upon acceptable approximations of
> the real colors.  This varies among different cultures.
>
> And now, I delve once more into my misty past. In the late 60s I made a
> meager living doing what was then called a "psychedelic light show" with
> rock bands.  One of the effects I used was a rotating polarizer combined
> with various crystals and injection molded styrene. I used to search
> grocery and hardware stores for suitable pieces. I would then use them as
> is or further stress them by heating and stretching. You can definitely see
> edges of red and blue around the magenta. Something even more definitive
> could be seen when making patterns from the original Scotch cellophane
> tape. After they switched to polypropylene, much to my disappointment at
> the time, the effect was no longer possible. As you rotate the polarizer
> slowly you could see a washed out red, fading into magenta and then blue.
>
> Again, probably more than you wanted to know.
>
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Wednesday, August 16th, 2023 at 2:16 AM, H L V 
> wrote:
>
> Cool. Your story got me to watch videos of stress visualization in plastic
> using polarized light.
> Noticing how readily the colour magenta (a.k.a. pink ) is produced in this
> video as the plastic is rotated.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6U4uembaNQ
>
> Watching how the magenta patches come and go as the viewing angle changes
> got me thinking about the common teaching that since magenta does not
> appear in Newton's spectrum it is made up by the brain whenever red and
> blue light overlap. (By contrast magenta does appear in Goethe's spectrum
> a.k.a the dark spectrum).
>
> Although it is certainly possible to trick the brain into seeing colours
> which aren't there such as when red and green light overlap to create the
> illusion of yellow light, this is not proof that magenta is just made up by
> the brain. On the contrary if magenta were just made up by the brain then
> _every_ instance of magenta in the above video should show signs of red and
> blue around its perimeter which is not the case.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:16 PM MSF  wrote:
>
>> More polarized fun...
>>
>> A much more easily viewed demonstration of the effect we are discussing
>> here is looking at clear glass table tops outside. If you happen to have
>> some lawn furniture that includes a clear tempered glass table top, all you
>> have to do is stand to the east or west of of the glass and look down at it
>> at an angle of approximately 56 degrees and you will see beautiful pools of
>> color. The colors outline the birefringence caused by the strains in the
>> tempered glass.
>>
>> Once in a while a random observation at my back yard of the phenomenon by
>> a friend or family member will be alarmed at "something 

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[H L V]

The demonstrations given by this lecturer are more refined so it is easier
to observe how magenta arises in proximity to other colours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqZ1THDGD34

The idea that real or objective colour is reducible to a single parameter
known as wavelength seems to me simplistic and wrong. Even with the domain
of the hard sciences, colour should be treated as
a multidimensional phenomena.

Harry

On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 10:16 PM H L V  wrote:

> Cool. Your story got me to watch videos of stress visualization in plastic
> using polarized light.
> Noticing how readily the  colour magenta (a.k.a. pink ) is produced in
> this video as the plastic is rotated.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6U4uembaNQ
>
> Watching how the magenta patches come and go as the viewing angle changes
> got me thinking about the common teaching that since magenta
> does not appear in Newton's spectrum it is made up by the brain whenever
> red and blue light overlap. (By contrast magenta does appear in Goethe's
> spectrum a.k.a the dark spectrum).
>
> Although it is certainly possible to trick the brain into seeing colours
> which aren't there such as when red and green light overlap to create the
> illusion of yellow light, this is not proof that magenta is just made up by
> the brain. On the contrary if magenta were just made up by the brain then
> _every_ instance of magenta in the above video should show signs of red and
> blue around its perimeter which is not the case.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:16 PM MSF  wrote:
>
>> More polarized fun...
>>
>> A much more easily viewed demonstration of the effect we are discussing
>> here is looking at clear glass table tops outside. If you happen to have
>> some lawn furniture that includes a clear tempered glass table top, all you
>> have to do is stand to the east or west of of the glass and look down at it
>> at an angle of approximately 56 degrees and you will see beautiful pools of
>> color. The colors outline the birefringence caused by the strains in the
>> tempered glass.
>>
>> Once in a while a random observation at my back yard of the phenomenon by
>> a friend or family member will be alarmed at "something wrong with the
>> glass".  And of course, their eyes glaze over when I try to explain it.
>>
>> You might wonder why I immediately recognized Harry's noticing of
>> mysterious color effects during his walk. It's simple. When I was very
>> young, I used to see these colors in the pavement all the time, directly
>> on, not peripherily. The reason is my brother and I were blessed, or
>> cursed, with vision that was so sharp and light sensitive that we were
>> accused all the time of "seeing things". We tested out at 20-05 on the eye
>> charts. Our retinas must have been so stuffed withe rods and cones, I'm
>> surprised they didn't explode. I could see close to 7th magnitude stars.
>> That's all gone now that I'm old. Down to 20-20 with lens implants.
>>
>> Please pardon my self-indulgent nostalgia.
>>
>> MSF
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[H L V]

Cool. Your story got me to watch videos of stress visualization in plastic
using polarized light.
Noticing how readily the  colour magenta (a.k.a. pink ) is produced in this
video as the plastic is rotated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6U4uembaNQ

Watching how the magenta patches come and go as the viewing angle changes
got me thinking about the common teaching that since magenta
does not appear in Newton's spectrum it is made up by the brain whenever
red and blue light overlap. (By contrast magenta does appear in Goethe's
spectrum a.k.a the dark spectrum).

Although it is certainly possible to trick the brain into seeing colours
which aren't there such as when red and green light overlap to create the
illusion of yellow light, this is not proof that magenta is just made up by
the brain. On the contrary if magenta were just made up by the brain then
_every_ instance of magenta in the above video should show signs of red and
blue around its perimeter which is not the case.

Harry


On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:16 PM MSF  wrote:

> More polarized fun...
>
> A much more easily viewed demonstration of the effect we are discussing
> here is looking at clear glass table tops outside. If you happen to have
> some lawn furniture that includes a clear tempered glass table top, all you
> have to do is stand to the east or west of of the glass and look down at it
> at an angle of approximately 56 degrees and you will see beautiful pools of
> color. The colors outline the birefringence caused by the strains in the
> tempered glass.
>
> Once in a while a random observation at my back yard of the phenomenon by
> a friend or family member will be alarmed at "something wrong with the
> glass".  And of course, their eyes glaze over when I try to explain it.
>
> You might wonder why I immediately recognized Harry's noticing of
> mysterious color effects during his walk. It's simple. When I was very
> young, I used to see these colors in the pavement all the time, directly
> on, not peripherily. The reason is my brother and I were blessed, or
> cursed, with vision that was so sharp and light sensitive that we were
> accused all the time of "seeing things". We tested out at 20-05 on the eye
> charts. Our retinas must have been so stuffed withe rods and cones, I'm
> surprised they didn't explode. I could see close to 7th magnitude stars.
> That's all gone now that I'm old. Down to 20-20 with lens implants.
>
> Please pardon my self-indulgent nostalgia.
>
> MSF
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colours

[H L V]

Thanks for the feedback.
I had not heard of Brewster's angle.
I will need time to consider these suggestions.

Harry

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 3:11 PM MSF  wrote:

> We call them "colors" down here south of the border, Harry. But to your
> question, yes I have experienced the same phenomenon. Keep in mind that
> peripheral vision is more light sensitive than foveal vision.
>
> I can think of two possibilities to explain the phenomenon. Light from the
> clear sky is partially polarized along a north to south axis. So if you are
> walking in a mostly north or south direction you would see these colors to
> your left or right as the angle to the area you are observing is around
> Brewster's angle. They would be secondary colors.
>
> Alternatively, it might just be a very thin oil slick formed from the
> asphalt and you need the more sensitive peripheral vision to perceive it.
>
> More than you wanted to know, probably.
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Wednesday, August 9th, 2023 at 7:36 PM, H L V 
> wrote:
>
> This summer I have been walking to work in the morning during twilight
> just before the sun rises.
> As I walk across asphalt paved streets which are old and cracking,
> sometimes I see very faint bands of colour
> in my peripheral vision when I am looking at the pavement. When it happens
> I am walking roughly southward ( at 46 degrees north latitude) and the
> bands seem to appear on the left side of my peripheral vision. The colours
> remind more of those found in the Goethe spectrum rather than the rainbow
> spectrum. I wondered if it might be an effect of LED street lighting
> reflecting off the pavement but sometimes it seems to arise far from any
> LED street lights. Has anyone else experienced this?
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Colours

[H L V]

This summer I have been walking to work in the morning during twilight just
before the sun rises.
As I walk across asphalt paved streets which are old and cracking,
sometimes I see very faint bands of colour
in my peripheral vision when I am looking at the pavement. When it happens
I am walking roughly southward ( at 46 degrees north  latitude) and the
bands seem to appear on the left side of my peripheral vision. The colours
remind more of those found in the Goethe spectrum rather than the rainbow
spectrum. I wondered if it might be an effect of LED street lighting
reflecting off the pavement but sometimes it seems to arise far from any
LED street lights. Has anyone else experienced this?

Harry

[Vo]:Napoleon, Laplace and Lagrange

[H L V]

Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world
without once mentioning the author of the universe.

Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.

Later when told by Napoleon about the incident, Lagrange commented:
Ah, but that is a fine hypothesis. It explains so many things.

-- Quoted in A De Morgan* Budget of Paradoxes*

*Harry.*

[Vo]:Is the universe twice as old as previously believed?

[H L V]

New research puts age of universe at 26.7 billion years, nearly twice as
old as previously believed
https://phys.org/news/2023-07-age-universe-billion-years-previously.html

The paper is accessible on the author's homepage
https://www.uottawa.ca/faculty-science/professors/rajendra-gupta

Harry

[Vo]:​OT: The Big Bang Quandary Song: “A Few of The Craziest Things”

[H L V]

>From LPPFusion and Eric Lerner...

The Big Bang Quandary Song: “A Few of The Craziest Things”
https://youtu.be/-i_nGVBpq7Y

Harry

[Vo]:The Cosmic Illusion No One Talks About

[H L V]

The Science Asylum explains the Tolman test for an expanding universe
although in the comment section he wonders why if this is an established
fact why is it not discussed more?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSJtzn2H3Do

I guess he is not aware that the evidence for this "fact" has always been
poor and it has become worse with the latest data from the James Webb space
telescope as this paper argues. So the reason no one talks about it is
because it undermines big bang cosmology.

Cosmological Model Tests with JWST
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4434/10/6/108?fbclid=IwAR1hmgJ7e3_NjG0gvLPfakBNUXXKfQT7WyCxxZfNQAUVkJ_u3W5PFO0sibM

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Dr.s Using ChatGPT to Sound More Human(e)

[H L V]

Reminds me of this short vid from Southpark. ;-)

ChatGPT, dude!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QGKq8NHbPAY

Harry

On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 12:01 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> https://futurism.com/neoscope/microsoft-doctors-chatgpt-patients
>

[Vo]:​​Experiment Casts ​​Doubt on the Leading Theory of the Nucleus

[H L V]

A New Experiment Casts Doubt on the Leading Theory of the Nucleus

By measuring inflated helium nuclei, physicists have challenged our best
understanding of the force that binds protons and neutrons.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-experiment-casts-doubt-on-the-leading-theory-of-the-nucleus-20230612

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Mr. Bean vs Mr. Musk

[H L V]

Musk's long term goal is the colonisation of Mars. In my opinion whatever
"green" tech he sells on Earth is likely an early version of what will
eventually be used on Mars.

harry

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 5:44 PM MSF  wrote:

> A little diversion for the day.
> Who will win this international shoot out?
>
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR.org ChatBot improved

[H L V]

A cognitive scientist has suggested that the performance of these chatbots
may have operational limits or trade-offs that we do not yet understand.
For example, although chatgpt 4 is more accurate than 3, it has lost some
speed.

Harry

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 9:36 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> The LENR-CANR.org ChatBot has been upgraded to ChatGPT version 4. It seems
> to work better, with fewer hallucinations. It may be slower.
>
> I asked it some of the questions version 3 could not answer. It answered
> them correctly. It still gets confused. It thought that McKubre made a
> statement that Bockris made. I asked for a verbatim quote and tracked it
> down to Bockris.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The LENR-CANR ChatGPT is ON LINE!

[H L V]

Ok...I thought it was an attempt to make the chatbot more appealing as a
user interface.

harry


On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 4:40 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H L V  wrote:
>
> Why do you refer to the ChatGPT as a "she"?
>>
>
> My reasons are politically incorrect, so I better not say them. They are
> here:
>
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6953-the-lenr-canr-chatgpt-is-on-line/?postID=195136#post195136
>
>
> Does this chatbot come with a gender setting so that it responds textually
>> like a female?
>>
>
> I generally refer to computers as "she." Also GPS units, because they
> speak with a woman's voice. Our Toyota one sounds like a Midwestern school
> teacher. No nonsense, this is how we get you to Chattanooga.
>
> When you set it to speak French, the tone seems to change. She doesn't
> care whether you follow directions or not. Frankly, she is bored of the
> whole business. Go another kilomètre, or don't, as you please. She seems to
> stop and take a drag on a Gauloises. Maybe it is my imagination.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:An AI Creation of Dune Images

[H L V]

Fire is beautiful and powerful but it is also dangerous. Fire seems to be
alive.
AI is like a new fire. I worry about naive people or pyros setting
cognitive fires. We will need trained artists
who understand how this new fire works on the mind.

Harry

On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 4:21 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Consider these are nascent programs.
>
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 4:13 PM H L V  wrote:
>
>> Amazing ...but also read this exchange between the commenter Sprawl and
>> the artists KromAI which was posted below the video.
>> Harry
>>
>> The Sprawl
>> 10 days
>> Honestly, watching this video felt like a truly seismic moment for me. It
>> made me realise something profound that I hadn't really realised before.
>> For some reason with this video - because I've seen AI produced art before
>> on YT but it didn't hit me like this did - I suddenly grasped what AI will
>> do for the future of art. The power of AI really became apparent. And the
>> implications terrify and entrance me. Can you tell me a little of how you
>> curated these images? I want to know how much of your human eye was used to
>> sift through bad images and pick the good ones, because that is directly
>> related to how good at its job the AI is, and if you have to sift through a
>> lot of rubbish to arrive at images like this then it's less impressive - so
>> part of me is almost hoping you tell me that you did a lot of curation and
>> cherrypicking, because then the implications for human artists and human
>> art aren't quite so terrifying. Also, I'd love to know what parameters you
>> need to set in order for the AI to spit out images like this. Do you just
>> feed it a big dataset of Giger and Dune artwork and then press a button? Or
>> do you have to set certain parameters, certain framing decisions, where
>> certain objects are in the shot etc.? Amazing video, whatever your answers
>> are. I'm genuinely shaken.
>>
>> KhromAI
>> 10 days ago
>> Hello The Sprawl, Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We're thrilled
>> that our video had such a profound impact on you, giving you a glimpse into
>> the future of AI and art. In creating these images, we used Midjourney, an
>> AI image generation tool. We experimented with various complex prompts to
>> generate the initial outputs, based on a dataset of Giger and Dune artwork.
>> It took several attempts to achieve the desired images that aligned with
>> our vision and some postprocessing in photoshop. Our human touch came into
>> play when curating the final set of images for the video. We carefully
>> selected the most suitable images from the AI-generated outputs. This
>> process highlights the synergy between AI and human creativity, where AI
>> serves as a tool to assist and inspire artists, rather than replacing them.
>> We're glad you found our video amazing, and we appreciate your curiosity
>> about the process. Feel free to reach out if you have any more questions or
>> concerns. Thank you for your support!
>>
>> The Sprawl
>> 9 days ago (edited)
>>  @KhromAI  I really did find it amazing. For some reason - maybe because
>> Giger's work sank into my subconscious at an early age with Alien(and I
>> thought Villeneuve's Dune was visually extraordinary too) - this video was
>> qualitatively different in its impact from any of the other, similar AI
>> videos I've seen. Thanks for the explanation - that was what I suspected.
>> It confirmed my beliefs about what artistic creation and good art really
>> is, and to me it has to be some form of communication between conscious
>> beings, with intents. If there's no intent behind something, if it's just a
>> pattern that the wind blew in the sand, then it just doesn't qualify. It
>> could be an extraordinarily beautiful pattern but it wouldn't count. And
>> that's what a purely AI-generated piece of art would be: a pattern in the
>> sand. Without at least some form of human curation it fails. It has no
>> intention or meaning. So there's a part of me that's quite confident that
>> art isn't in trouble. But this video still made me very uneasy. Something
>> in my worldview wobbled a bit.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 3:45 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>>> In the style of H.R. Giger
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/mcCZftSbges
>>>
>>> (5  min,)
>>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:An AI Creation of Dune Images

[H L V]

Amazing ...but also read this exchange between the commenter Sprawl and the
artists KromAI which was posted below the video.
Harry

The Sprawl
10 days
Honestly, watching this video felt like a truly seismic moment for me. It
made me realise something profound that I hadn't really realised before.
For some reason with this video - because I've seen AI produced art before
on YT but it didn't hit me like this did - I suddenly grasped what AI will
do for the future of art. The power of AI really became apparent. And the
implications terrify and entrance me. Can you tell me a little of how you
curated these images? I want to know how much of your human eye was used to
sift through bad images and pick the good ones, because that is directly
related to how good at its job the AI is, and if you have to sift through a
lot of rubbish to arrive at images like this then it's less impressive - so
part of me is almost hoping you tell me that you did a lot of curation and
cherrypicking, because then the implications for human artists and human
art aren't quite so terrifying. Also, I'd love to know what parameters you
need to set in order for the AI to spit out images like this. Do you just
feed it a big dataset of Giger and Dune artwork and then press a button? Or
do you have to set certain parameters, certain framing decisions, where
certain objects are in the shot etc.? Amazing video, whatever your answers
are. I'm genuinely shaken.

KhromAI
10 days ago
Hello The Sprawl, Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We're thrilled
that our video had such a profound impact on you, giving you a glimpse into
the future of AI and art. In creating these images, we used Midjourney, an
AI image generation tool. We experimented with various complex prompts to
generate the initial outputs, based on a dataset of Giger and Dune artwork.
It took several attempts to achieve the desired images that aligned with
our vision and some postprocessing in photoshop. Our human touch came into
play when curating the final set of images for the video. We carefully
selected the most suitable images from the AI-generated outputs. This
process highlights the synergy between AI and human creativity, where AI
serves as a tool to assist and inspire artists, rather than replacing them.
We're glad you found our video amazing, and we appreciate your curiosity
about the process. Feel free to reach out if you have any more questions or
concerns. Thank you for your support!

The Sprawl
9 days ago (edited)
 @KhromAI  I really did find it amazing. For some reason - maybe because
Giger's work sank into my subconscious at an early age with Alien(and I
thought Villeneuve's Dune was visually extraordinary too) - this video was
qualitatively different in its impact from any of the other, similar AI
videos I've seen. Thanks for the explanation - that was what I suspected.
It confirmed my beliefs about what artistic creation and good art really
is, and to me it has to be some form of communication between conscious
beings, with intents. If there's no intent behind something, if it's just a
pattern that the wind blew in the sand, then it just doesn't qualify. It
could be an extraordinarily beautiful pattern but it wouldn't count. And
that's what a purely AI-generated piece of art would be: a pattern in the
sand. Without at least some form of human curation it fails. It has no
intention or meaning. So there's a part of me that's quite confident that
art isn't in trouble. But this video still made me very uneasy. Something
in my worldview wobbled a bit.


On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 3:45 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> In the style of H.R. Giger
>
> https://youtu.be/mcCZftSbges
>
> (5  min,)
>

Re: [Vo]:The LENR-CANR ChatGPT is ON LINE!

[H L V]

Why do you refer to the ChatGPT as a "she"?
Does this chatbot come with a gender setting so that it responds textually
like a female?

harry

On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 8:08 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Robin  wrote:
>
>
>> The name as you yourself just quoted it has a comma at the end before the
>> final double quote, whereas there is no comma
>> in the actual text.
>
>
> I tried a variety of search terms. And indirect methods such as asking
> "who wrote the Infinite Energy" article about the conference. It refused to
> name names. It seems to have it in for Christy. (I kid.)
>
> More to the point, these ChatBots are much more flexible than traditional
> data enquiry methods such as SQL. They do not demand that every comma be in
> place. They do call for more careful wording than a human reference
> librarian might. ChatGPT does not check for alternate spelling. I was
> looking for information on the artist Robert Blum. I accidentally spelled
> it Robert Blume. ChatGPT said she had no idea who was talking about. In a
> dismissive tone. I said, "oops, I meant Robert Blum" and she got right onto
> it.
>
> I have run into some other strange problems. I uploaded the 1989 NSF/EPRI
> workshop:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf
>
> I tried to get the Bot to tell me what Edward Teller had to say about
> giraffes during the workshop. She refused. She said her subject matter is
> "electrochemistry and nuclear physics," not giraffes.
>
>
> I got it to generate a hallucination, which is unnerving. In this exchange:
>
> Me: Fleischmann said, "heat is the principal signature of the reaction."
> Do you have a document referencing this?
>
> Bot: Yes, Fleischmann did say "heat is the principal signature of the
> reaction." This quote can be found in a paper titled "Calorimetry of the
> Palladium-Deuterium-Heavy Water System" published in the Journal of
> Electroanalytical Chemistry in 1990.
>
>
> Wrong! That paper is here, and there is no such quote in it:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf
>
> The quote probably comes from me. Fleischmann did say that, often.
>
>

[Vo]:What's in the Pfizer Documents?

[H L V]

Naomi Wolfe on the dangerous sideeffects of the Pfizer vaccine and
questionable research
practices of Pfizer.
This speech was given on March 6, 2023, during a Hillsdale College CCA
seminar on “Big Pharma.”

https://freedomlibrary.hillsdale.edu/programs/cca-iv-big-pharma/what-s-in-the-pfizer-documents

I don't know if everything she says is accurate but even if only a fraction
is true this is very very serious.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Shouldn't we consider the free chat GPT3.5 AGI?

[H L V]

Can it dream?
Harry

On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 11:49 AM Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

> There are works to allow LLM to discuss in order to have reflection...
> I've seen reference to an architecture where two GPT instances talk to
> each other, with different roles, one as a searcher, the other as a
> critic...
> Look at this article.
> LLM may just be the building block of something bigger...
>
> https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/04/gpt4-with-reflexion-has-a-superior-coding-score.html
>
> add to that, they can use external applications (plugin), talk to
> generative AI like Dall-E...
>
> Many people say it is not intelligent, but are we ?
> I see AI making mistakes very similar to the one I do when I'm tired, or
> beginner...
>
> The real difference is that today, AI are not the fruit of a Darwinian
> evolution, with struggle to survive, dominate, eat or be eaten, so it's
> less frightening than people or animals.
> The only serious fear I've heard is that we become so satisfied by those
> AIs, that we delegate our genetic evolution to them, and we lose our
> individualistic Darwinian struggle to survive, innovate, seduce a partner,
> enjoying a bee-Hive mentality, at the service of the AI system, like
> bee-workers and bee-queen... The promoter of that theory estimate it will
> take a millennium.
> Anyway there is nothing to stop, as if a majority decide to stop
> developing AI, a minority will develop them at their service, and China is
> ready, with great experts and great belief in the future. Only the West is
> afraid. (there is a paper on that circulating, where fear of AI is linked
> to GDP/head)
>
>
> Le lun. 10 avr. 2023 à 16:47, Jed Rothwell  a
> écrit :
>
>> I wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Food is contaminated despite our best efforts to prevent that.
>>> Contamination is a complex process that we do not fully understand or
>>> control, although of course we know a lot about it. It seems to me that as
>>> AI becomes more capable it may become easier to understand, and more
>>> transparent.
>>>
>>
>> My unfinished thought here is that knowing more about contamination and
>> seeing more complexity in it has improved our ability to control it.
>>
>>
>> Sean True  wrote:
>>
>> I think it’s fair to say no AGI until those are designed in, particularly
>>> the ability to actually learn from experience.
>>>
>>
>> Definitely! ChatGPT agrees with you!
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Single string tensegrity structure

[H L V]

That is probably true.

Harry


On Sat., Apr. 8, 2023, 6:36 p.m. Robin, 
wrote:

> In reply to  H L V's message of Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:33:53 -0400:
> Hi,
>
> It might be (almost) Earthquake proof.
>
> [snip]
> >From a traditional perspective this structure does not look like a free
> >standing structure but it does stand upright like one.
> >
> >harry
> [snip]
> Cloud storage:-
>
> Unsafe, Slow, Expensive
>
> ...pick any three.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Single string tensegrity structure

[H L V]

"You can't push on a string" is a kind of engineer's cliche about the
mechanical properties of string.
Typically a loose length of string comes to mind when we think of string.
Normally we don't expect a loose string to offer (much) resistance when we
push on it we say "you can't push on a string". However, by tensioning a
string it does become possible to meaningfully speak of pushing on it.

As far as I know such a single string tensegrity structure can be explained
using natural law that is over 300 years old. This is not an argument
against tradition but I suppose older traditions of how to build structures
have kept people from recognizing it as a possibility until more recently.
>From a traditional perspective this structure does not look like a free
standing structure but it does stand upright like one.

harry



On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:20 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  H L V's message of Sat, 8 Apr 2023 14:22:26 -0400:
> Hi,
>
> ...but you are not pushing on a string. The "push" acts on the solid ribs,
> which in turn connect with each other by
> "pulling" on the central string. In fact all the strings are "pulled" on.
>
> [snip]
> >"You can't push on a string"
> >
> >I think this single string tensegrity structure is even more awe inspiring
> >when he briefly holds it as a cantilever before standing it up right.
> >If you skip to the second half of the video he shows how to use a block of
> >wood to assemble the structure more quickly.
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds-scY9qESE
> >
> >Another builder made a taller and heavier single string tensegrity tower
> as
> >well as a single string table.
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sUjpkmisBs
> >
> >Some history.
> >The Latvian-Soviet artist/sculptor/engineer Karlis Johansons exhibited his
> >first "self-tensile constructions" in 1921. The engineering and sculptural
> >possibilities of such pre-tensioned systems were further explored by
> >Buckminster Fuller and the sculptor Kenneth Snelson in the second half of
> >the 20th century. (eg. see Snelson's "Needle Tower") The word tensegrity
> >(tensile + integrity) coined by Fuller is now the common name for such
> >structures. I have noticed that the first tensegrity structures focused on
> >the use of straight struts, but now people are starting to explore the
> >possibilities of using curved struts.
> >
> >Harry
> Cloud storage:-
>
> Unsafe, Slow, Expensive
>
> ...pick any three.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Single string tensegrity structure

[H L V]

A different example using string and wire.
https://youtu.be/EUlG0OGQmEA

Harry

On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 2:22 PM H L V  wrote:

>
> "You can't push on a string"
>
> I think this single string tensegrity structure is even more awe inspiring
> when he briefly holds it as a cantilever before standing it up right.
> If you skip to the second half of the video he shows how to use a block of
> wood to assemble the structure more quickly.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds-scY9qESE
>
> Another builder made a taller and heavier single string tensegrity tower
> as well as a single string table.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sUjpkmisBs
>
> Some history.
> The Latvian-Soviet artist/sculptor/engineer Karlis Johansons exhibited his
> first "self-tensile constructions" in 1921. The engineering and sculptural
> possibilities of such pre-tensioned systems were further explored by
> Buckminster Fuller and the sculptor Kenneth Snelson in the second half of
> the 20th century. (eg. see Snelson's "Needle Tower") The word tensegrity
> (tensile + integrity) coined by Fuller is now the common name for such
> structures. I have noticed that the first tensegrity structures focused on
> the use of straight struts, but now people are starting to explore the
> possibilities of using curved struts.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Single string tensegrity structure

[H L V]

"You can't push on a string"

I think this single string tensegrity structure is even more awe inspiring
when he briefly holds it as a cantilever before standing it up right.
If you skip to the second half of the video he shows how to use a block of
wood to assemble the structure more quickly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds-scY9qESE

Another builder made a taller and heavier single string tensegrity tower as
well as a single string table.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sUjpkmisBs

Some history.
The Latvian-Soviet artist/sculptor/engineer Karlis Johansons exhibited his
first "self-tensile constructions" in 1921. The engineering and sculptural
possibilities of such pre-tensioned systems were further explored by
Buckminster Fuller and the sculptor Kenneth Snelson in the second half of
the 20th century. (eg. see Snelson's "Needle Tower") The word tensegrity
(tensile + integrity) coined by Fuller is now the common name for such
structures. I have noticed that the first tensegrity structures focused on
the use of straight struts, but now people are starting to explore the
possibilities of using curved struts.

Harry

[Vo]:The more likely dangers of AI

[H L V]

Two articles and one video on the real dangers of AI.

*The stupidity of AI*
Artificial intelligence in its current form is based on the wholesale
appropriation of existing culture, and the notion that it is actually
intelligent could be actively dangerous"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/16/the-stupidity-of-ai-artificial-intelligence-dall-e-chatgpt

*Don’t worry about AI breaking out of its box—worry about us breaking in*
Opinion: The worst human impulses will find plenty of uses for generative
AI.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/02/dont-worry-about-ai-breaking-out-of-its-box-worry-about-us-breaking-in/

"Artificial Intelligence is how companies blame computers for their poor
programming."
"The threat of A.I. isn't that some superior artificial intelligence is
going to rise up and enslave humanity. The threat of A.I. is that we are
going to willingly subject ourselves to Automated Systemic Stupidity"
(A.S.S.)."
https://youtu.be/MfGchpJRCG8

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Bard chatbot released

[H L V]

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 9:26 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> ChatGPT found and corrected the mistake made by Bard.
>
>
> ME: Is the following statement correct, and if not, what is the correct
> version? "Deuterium is a heavier isotope of hydrogen with one more neutron
> in its nucleus, while oxygen-18 is a heavier isotope of oxygen with one
> more neutron and one more proton in its nucleus."
>
> ChatGPT: The first part of the statement is correct. Deuterium is a
> heavier isotope of hydrogen with one more neutron in its nucleus.
>
> However, the second part of the statement is not accurate. Oxygen-18 is a
> heavier isotope of oxygen with two more neutrons and two more protons in
> its nucleus, not one more neutron and one more proton.
>

If it had two more protons it would be neon.

harry

Re: [Vo]:OT: Most Popular Music Formats 1972 - 2022

[H L V]

I think people enjoy holding and reading the album cover as well as caring
for the record.
Vinyl may stick around like printed books.
harry

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H L V  wrote:
>
> If this video is accurate then no music cassettes are  sold today whereas
>> at one time they dwarfed vinyl sales.
>>
>> This says something about the nature of obsolescence.
>> A technology doesn't become obsolete simply because it is "obviously"
>> inferior or less affordable.
>>
>
> That is true. The book "The Innovator's Dilemma" describes some situations
> in which the new technology wins out even though it is inferior in some
> ways, or more expensive. For example, around 1982, 5 MB personal computer
> hard disks cost more per megabyte than minicomputer disks. They had less
> storage, they were slower and probably less reliable. They sold well
> because they happened to fit that market segment. It is complicated. See p.
> 71 and 72 for a look at the book:
>
> https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf
>
> Vinyl sales are up partly as a fad, or a fashion statement. Music
> cassettes were a lousy technology. Fidelity was poor and they soon broke.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:OT: Most Popular Music Formats 1972 - 2022

[H L V]

yes you are. :-)
I didn't mention 8 tracks because they disappeared about 1980 when vinyl
was still the most popular format.
harry

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 12:44 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> You forgot 8 tracks!  Or am I dating myself?
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023, 11:07 AM H L V  wrote:
>
>> Most Popular Music Formats 1972 - 2022
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XBL9KlVoYE
>>
>> Today the vast majority of music sales comes from the streaming format.
>> However even though vinyl sales almost disappeared in the early 2000s
>> they grew again and now exceed CD sales. If this video is accurate then
>> no music cassettes are  sold today whereas at one time they dwarfed vinyl
>> sales.
>>
>> This says something about the nature of obsolescence.
>> A technology doesn't become obsolete simply because it is "obviously"
>> inferior or less affordable.
>>
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>

[Vo]:OT: Most Popular Music Formats 1972 - 2022

[H L V]

Most Popular Music Formats 1972 - 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XBL9KlVoYE

Today the vast majority of music sales comes from the streaming format.
However even though vinyl sales almost disappeared in the early 2000s
they grew again and now exceed CD sales. If this video is accurate then no
music cassettes are  sold today whereas at one time they dwarfed vinyl
sales.

This says something about the nature of obsolescence.
A technology doesn't become obsolete simply because it is "obviously"
inferior or less affordable.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Discover Magazine article about cold fusion

[H L V]

The article quotes Michael McKubre:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I think it is similar to this:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen.
-- Hebrews 11:1 (Kings James version)

I am not making the comparison in order to show that the pursuit of cold
fusion is irrational because it requires faith.
On the contrary, I think faith (of some kind) is a rational requirement for
anyone venturing into the unknown.

Harry



On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 9:52 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> The usual.
>
> What Is Cold Fusion? Is It Possible?The search for the long-discredited
> cold fusion energy source may be catching its second wind, though questions
> remain about its legitimacy.
>
>
> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/what-is-cold-fusion-is-it-possible
>

Re: [Vo]:Initial Criticality

[H L V]

On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 5:46 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
> Never saw a nuke that came in on schedule and under budget.  But 80 years
>> of close to 2 GW will charge lots of EVs.
>>
>
> True. But for the same amount of money we could have bought ~11 GW of
> solar panels, which would have charged a lot more EVs. See:
>
>
> https://www.lazard.com/media/451905/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf
>
> The power companies are putting their money on solar and wind, because
> they are now cheaper than anything else. See:
>
>
those costs don't include energy storage.

harry



> https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818
>
> Nuclear power is obsolete. It is too expensive. It may get cheaper, but
> other sources will get even cheaper, even faster. Once a technology falls
> behind it seldom catches up again. A totally different approach, such as
> pebble bed reactors, might be competitive.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:populations

[H L V]

The article says Japan's fertility rate is 1.3. In Canada it is 1.4. Both
are well below the replacement rate of 2.1, but Canada relies on
immigration to reduce the gap.
Could Japan reimagine itself as a country of immigrants?

Harry

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:47 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I am not worried about the population decline in Japan. As I see it, the
> problem itself will bring about the solution. I mean that the reasons the
> population is declining will be fixed by the decline itself. Sooner or
> later, people will start having more children again. Here is a quote from
> CNN article about Japan:
>
> Japan’s high cost of living, limited space and lack of child care support
> in cities make it difficult to raise children, meaning fewer couples are
> having kids. Urban couples are also often far from extended family in other
> regions, who could help provide support.
>
>
> In 2022, Japan was ranked one of the world’s most expensive places to
> raise a child, according to research from financial institution Jefferies.
> And yet, the country’s economy has stalled since the early 1990s, meaning
> frustratingly low wages and little upward mobility.
>
>
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/01/asia/japan-births-2022-record-low-intl-hnk/index.html
>
> All true, and everyone knows it. But other than Tokyo, there is more space
> in most cities than there used to be, and much more space in small towns.
> More space, because apartments are larger than they used to be, and because
> most towns are depopulated. Houses are cheaper than they used to be. Small
> towns and cities are handing out houses to young couples for free.
>
> Here are the stats for my home-away-from-home Suo-Oshima, Yamaguchi. It is
> an island in the middle of nowhere:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su%C5%8D-%C5%8Cshima
>
> The population peaked at 65,000 in 1945. It fell to 34,000 in 1975. The
> population of Japan was still rising, but young people were leaving. The
> population is now 15,000. There are many abandoned houses. You can walk for
> an hour on the farm roads and not see a person or a car. If you wander into
> the deep woods, you may be eaten by a wild boar. Old people suffering from
> dementia sometimes wander off and are never seen again. In other rural
> districts, the government is trying to encourage people to buy rifles and
> shoot the bears and deer. (It is a myth that they do not allow guns. During
> hunting season the place sounds like a war zone.)
>
> Japan has a high population density, but that is an average. The
> population is crammed into one or two big cities. There is plenty of space
> elsewhere.
>
> Young people left Oshima in the 1960s because there were no jobs there.
> Until 1968, there was no off-island telephone service. It is a beautiful
> place, but as a friend of mine there said, "we don't want to live in a
> museum." There was no bridge. You had to take a ferry, which did not run
> often. Until sometime well into this century, there was no internet as far
> as I know. No fast internet, anyway. Now, there is. If a young person
> wanted to move there and work virtually in Tokyo, or Hiroshima, which is
> the closest city, she could do that. She could commute to Hiroshima once or
> twice a week. She could have a large house for not much money, and an acre
> or two of land. Raising children there is not expensive. Japan is
> supposedly rule-bound and conformist, but not in the countryside. Not in my
> experience. On one of the islands nearby, you can build your own house and
> you can have an illicit automobile for free. No inspections. Just hide it
> in the orange grove when the police visit once or twice a year. 12-year-old
> kids drive cars there, with no license, the way my mother did in the 1920s
> in New York City. Edo-period happy-go-lucky lifestyles have survived. I
> found a pile of discarded condoms in the woods near the highschool.
>
> There was no telecommuting in Japan until COVID struck. Everyone had to go
> to the office, and stay late in the evening, doing nothing. COVID showed
> that is not necessary. Or even useful. Offices were drowning in physical
> paperwork, which meant people had to actually go there to shuffle papers
> and stamp seals. It turned out that served no purpose either. Who knew?!?
> (Everyone knew.)
>
> There is no reason why they should not have more kindergartens. It just
> has never been a priority for the national or local governments. Everyone
> knows there are not enough, but the government prefers to send billions to
> well-connected construction companies to build useless roads.
>
> Urban couples are far from family, but they could move closer if work were
> decentralized. Childcare will be easier when robots become more capable.
>
> In other words, depopulation will open up resources and opportunities to
> re-populate. And I am sure young people decades from now will
> enthusiastically re-populate.
>
>

[Vo]:waste heat and global warming

[H L V]

Once the CO2 problem is solved we will continue to warm the planet with
excess heat from our technology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vRtA7STvH4

This is the article she references
https://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/papers/limits-econ-final.pdf

Harry

[Vo]:OT: Calling Bullshit

[H L V]

The philosophy of bullshit. How do we define bullshit? Does intention
matter? Calling bullshit as a speech act.
~ 11 minutes
https://youtu.be/S_ommr0Te4A

Harry

[Vo]:The 4E (and 6E) approach to cognition.

[H L V]

In this clip John Vervaeke explains the 4E (and 6E) approach to cognition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4Ea0dNhFBU

1. Embodiment (cognition involves the biology of the body)
2. Embedded (cognition is between the organism and the environment)
3. Enactive (thinking doesn’t just take place in your head)
4. Extended (cognition is extended through other people and technology)
+
5. Emotional (Cognition shouldn’t be separated from emotion)
6. Exapted (Cognition adapts things)

Harry

[Vo]:The Return of Meaning

[H L V]

*The Return of Meaning*

*A scientific, existential, and cultural phenomenon*
by cognitive scientist John Vervaeke

https://iai.tv/articles/the-return-of-meaning-auid-2043

Some quotations

<>

<>

<>

Harry

[Vo]:ChatGPT and big data

[H L V]

ChatGPT Strikes at the Heart of the Scientific World View

That this AI is adaptive and can produce complex outputs is a technical
triumph. But at its heart, it's still just pattern recognition.

Blayne Haggart
January 23, 2023
https://www.cigionline.org/articles/chatgpt-strikes-at-the-heart-of-the-scientific-world-view/

quote <>

[Vo]:Your new overlord ...is a bear

[H L V]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/bear-on-mars-nasa-satellite-snaps-a-strange-formation-1.6249201

Re: [Vo]:Accessing Icy World Oceans Using Lattice Confinement Fusion Fast Fission

[H L V]

Something like ice fishing.

harry

On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 10:09 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Aliens might eat it?
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 9:52 AM H L V  wrote:
>
>>
>> hmmm ...this hypothetical scenario was included in the same press report
>> with no further comment:
>> "Upon reaching the ocean, the probe may encounter extraterrestrial life
>> forms that attempt to metabolize the probe."
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 9:30 AM H L V  wrote:
>>
>>> Accessing Icy World Oceans Using Lattice Confinement Fusion Fast Fission
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2023/Accessing_Icy_World_Oceans/
>>>
>>> quote
>>> Icy World researchers have proposed using a nuclear powered, heated
>>> probe. However, rather than require either the plutonium-238 radioisotope
>>> heat source or an enriched uranium-235 fission reactor, with significant
>>> launch safety costs, we propose making use of the recent Lattice
>>> Confinement Fusion source used to efficiently fast-fission either depleted
>>> uranium or thorium in a molten lithium matrix. The resulting hybrid fusion
>>> fast fission nuclear reactor will be smaller than a traditional fission
>>> reactor where a lower mass power source is needed and provide efficient
>>> operation with thermal waste heat from reactor heats probe to melt through
>>> ice shelf to sub-ice oceans.
>>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Accessing Icy World Oceans Using Lattice Confinement Fusion Fast Fission

[H L V]

hmmm ...this hypothetical scenario was included in the same press report
with no further comment:
"Upon reaching the ocean, the probe may encounter extraterrestrial life
forms that attempt to metabolize the probe."

Harry

On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 9:30 AM H L V  wrote:

> Accessing Icy World Oceans Using Lattice Confinement Fusion Fast Fission
>
>
> https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2023/Accessing_Icy_World_Oceans/
>
> quote
> Icy World researchers have proposed using a nuclear powered, heated probe.
> However, rather than require either the plutonium-238 radioisotope heat
> source or an enriched uranium-235 fission reactor, with significant launch
> safety costs, we propose making use of the recent Lattice Confinement
> Fusion source used to efficiently fast-fission either depleted uranium or
> thorium in a molten lithium matrix. The resulting hybrid fusion fast
> fission nuclear reactor will be smaller than a traditional fission reactor
> where a lower mass power source is needed and provide efficient operation
> with thermal waste heat from reactor heats probe to melt through ice shelf
> to sub-ice oceans.
>

[Vo]:Accessing Icy World Oceans Using Lattice Confinement Fusion Fast Fission

[H L V]

Accessing Icy World Oceans Using Lattice Confinement Fusion Fast Fission

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2023/Accessing_Icy_World_Oceans/

quote
Icy World researchers have proposed using a nuclear powered, heated probe.
However, rather than require either the plutonium-238 radioisotope heat
source or an enriched uranium-235 fission reactor, with significant launch
safety costs, we propose making use of the recent Lattice Confinement
Fusion source used to efficiently fast-fission either depleted uranium or
thorium in a molten lithium matrix. The resulting hybrid fusion fast
fission nuclear reactor will be smaller than a traditional fission reactor
where a lower mass power source is needed and provide efficient operation
with thermal waste heat from reactor heats probe to melt through ice shelf
to sub-ice oceans.