What does CoE stand for, I guess it means in a closed system? Thy symbols dont
match the words very well, so I cant find the meaning
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
--- On Sun, 6/17/12, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Church of England (or possibly Conservation of Energy)
On 18 June 2012 17:10, Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com wrote:
What does CoE stand for, I guess it means in a closed system? Thy symbols
dont match the words very well, so I cant find the meaning
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal
ha!
Harry
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Robert Lynn
robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Church of England (or possibly Conservation of Energy)
On 18 June 2012 17:10, Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com wrote:
What does CoE stand for, I guess it means in a closed system? Thy symbols
dont
Well pardon me, that seems obvious, but I dont think I saw those words anywhere
in the original post. I wish that folks using abbreviations could do that for
the ones they use.
--- On Mon, 6/18/12, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
Subject: Re:
I don't think concept of entanglement is required. Here is what I mean
by complete.
An entity is complete when its presence *can* be detected (not that it
must detected).
Unlike other particles Neutrinos do not scatter, as far I know. A
particle which can be scattered can be detected without
I'm curious as to how fellow Vorts would answer this question.
What are the chances that there is at least one undiscovered form of
energy yet to be discovered?
0=No F*in Way
1=slight chance
2=reasonable chance
3=very good chance
4=I'm certain there are undiscovered forms of energy
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is
impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind.
I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have
Mark, you ask the tough questions. When I consider the possibility of a new
energy form I have to think of the historic past. We are notoriously incapable
of imagining things such as this unless some well observed phenomenon is
unknown and accepted as true. Anything our senses can not
Eric, perhaps you noticed my reference to neutrinos easily escaping the system
along with their associated energy. That was my way of evading the CoE in the
closed environment. Actually, that was the way they were originally proposed;
a way to explain the variation in energy associated with
I’m probably sitting between 3 to 4, and here is why…
Empirical evidence for the existence of the zero-point field (ZPF) is now well
established… what that means is that there is something present that we are
only recently beginning to understand. The only important question relevant to
The apparent lack of anti-matter in the universe is also conundrum
from the standpoint of CoE.
harry
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
wrote:
Hence, when someone adamantly relies on
With respect to neutrinos and beta decay, CoE may be a possibility
rather than a necessity.
Neutrinos would be regarded as incomplete entities at the moment of
their creation. They remain incomplete until they are destroyed during
a subsequent interaction. As long as they never interact, they
That is an interesting comment Harry. Are you suggesting that the neutrino is
entangled with an electron other than the one released at the time of the
decay? The oscillation between flavors of neutrinos makes that seem strange as
it would require the end receptor to change with distance and
13 matches
Mail list logo
