Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine

But I realize now you probably meant there are no neutral muons, rather than that there are no neutral leptons. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 2:34 PM Eric Walker wrote: > Hi Robin, > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:40 PM wrote: > > Muons are leptons, and AFAIK there is no neutral variet

Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine

Hi Robin, On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:40 PM wrote: Muons are leptons, and AFAIK there is no neutral variety. Did you mean > neutral > pions? (Which BTW have a very short half-life). > Neutrinos are neutral leptons. :) Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Purcell Effect

<jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > *From: *Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > > > > I'm curious whether any of those replications have been outside of the > LENR field. > > > > Eric > > > > Several years ago, not long after the

Re: [Vo]:The Purcell Effect

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Two so far. > Perhaps you're referring in part to the Simakin and Shafeev paper, which you've called attention to before? https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4268 This paper, of course, deals with laser irradiation, while the Barker

Re: [Vo]:The Purcell Effect

Jones, On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 4:30 PM, JonesBeene wrote: > There is also the Barker effect. > > > > This is an altered radioactive decay rate due to high static voltage. > > > > The patent is here. It has been widely replicated but has found no > commercial niche. > > I'm

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

Hi Robin, I've followed up on our question about photons having gravitational influence by reading up on some threads on PhysicsForums and posing a question of my own. The conclusion that classical beams of light bend spacetime is a straightforward for mainstream physics; namely, they do. (Do

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:49 PM, wrote: When you look at the night sky, it is mostly black, so there don't seem to > be as > many photons around as would be needed to account for dark matter (or dark > energy for that matter ;). Of course, I could be wrong, but that's my first

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

Horrible spelling on my part: how about "that have led astrophysicists...". On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:21 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > > So now, you have either proven that photons

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:21 PM, wrote: So now, you have either proven that photons do contribute to gravitational > mass, > or that particles never enter a black hole. :) > Suppose for the sake of argument that photons carry mass in a very delocalized way. Would there be

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:45 PM, wrote: 2) The electron passes through the event horizon while the positron > "escapes" - > don't ask me how that's supposed to happen. > I think we're thinking of different scenarios. In the one I'm describing, the electron and positron both

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:12 PM, wrote: 2) Any resultant energy would be red shifted back to nothing leaving the > gravity > well anyway. (Thus also reducing the information transport rate to zero in > the > process.) > I did not appreciate this point. Let's go with your

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

Hi Robin, On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:12 PM, wrote: > In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:22:54 -0700: > Hi, > [snip] > > This thread is beginning to resemble "How many angels can dance on the > head of a > pin?". :) > My apologies for being argumentative.

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:02 PM, wrote: It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon > from > our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe > comes to > an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.) > (Which

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:10 PM, wrote: Indeed, but it still means that from our point of view we would never get > to see > what happens. > Or, from the particles point of view, the rest of the universe has come to > an > end before they get together. > That was a question

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 6:45 PM, wrote: Another problem with this scenario is that time slows as the event horizon > is > approached, so nothing ever actually makes it into a black hole, at least > nothing that wasn't there already when it formed. (Assuming that time >

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM, wrote: This would be true if gravity was actually a force. If OTOH it is merely a > distortion of spacetime, then as far as the photon is concerned it is just > going > "straight ahead". IOW it just follows the shape of the space it is >

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 1:08 PM, wrote: .. go right ahead. :) > It will take a while. :) But in the meantime I'll replace the rowboat analogy with a more apt one. One description of gravitational attraction is that of a mutual attraction between two bodies with mass. It

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:32 PM, wrote: ...which would make sense if light simply followed the curvature of space. > The curvature of spacetime is perhaps an abstraction that gets in the way of understanding in this instance. It is equivalent to the gravitational influence

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:58 PM, wrote: Below: The conversion of matter into energy causes spacetime, and thus the > universe, to expand, since light has inertial but no gravitational mass. Note that this sets up the weird situation of photons being influenced by gravity

[Vo]:Boston Dynamics's latest iteration

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRj34o4hN4I=youtu.be Eric

[Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage

Here is an article that provides an interesting summary of different approaches to storying energy: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/10/a-world-tour-of-some-of-the-biggest-energy-storage-schemes/ One of the drawbacks of existing green energy sources is that they do not

Re: [Vo]:Pondering epos and implications to the ether

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: The photon cannot be stretched out too far, or an atom would be unable to > absorb its energy in an acceptable time. > I think this would be the case if the usual four dimensions were involved. If a further dimension

Re: [Vo]:Pondering epos and implications to the ether

I wrote: Assume with Hotson that there is a negative energy sea with negative energy > charges. I wonder whether, contrary to Hotson's wishes, a positive mass > would nevertheless fall out of general relativity for such negative energy > charges. Even weirder would be a negative mass. The

Re: [Vo]:Pondering epos and implications to the ether

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: Some have postulated that the photon is a soliton solution because such a > solution can be constrained in size and would not naturally spread out in > propagation. > I wonder about this assumption about photons not

Re: [Vo]:Pondering epos and implications to the ether

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: Hotson says that only positive energy charges have mass and the epos are > part of the negative energy sea. > Assume with Hotson that there is a negative energy sea with negative energy charges. I wonder whether,

Re: [Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM Drive Works

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: Continued investigation of the EM-drive may be the crack in physics that > finally shows that conventional quantum mechanics is an arcane, obsolete, > and incomplete formulation of the physics of small matter. Just

Re: [Vo]:Fission of heavy nuclei under assymetric electron screening?

Hi, On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:12 PM, wrote: I don't think there is a lot to be gained from finding an additional means > of > bringing about fission. We already have a quite effective way of doing > that. > The things I like about the idea: - The process would not involve

Re: [Vo]:Fission of heavy nuclei under assymetric electron screening?

Hi Robin, On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:34 AM, wrote: In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2017 19:10:22 -0500: > Hi Eric, > > While the concept is interesting, consider that it won't deliver excess > energy > unless the original isotope is already radioactive. If

[Vo]:Fission of heavy nuclei under assymetric electron screening?

Hi, There are a few people (e.g., Robin) who may be able to comment on this possibility: I have wondered about the following possibility for fission under asymmetric electron screening: Consider a moderate to heavy nucleus. In heavy nuclei, the balance between the Coulomb force and the residual

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Another possibility brought up by Bob Higgins in 2015 was that the two analyses that were carried out in connection with the Lugano test were thought by the authors to be of the ash but ended up being of the fuel instead, due to how the samples were obtained:

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

t; when IH obviously had nothing but our IP in its portfolio.” > > > > I guess Eric Walker does not know about this are thinks it is not true. > > > > Bob Cook > > *From: *Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:22 AM > *To: *vortex-

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You engage in mind reading, you assign a > motive that I make it personal when anyone can review the comments on > that thread and see that it is not personal. >

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Hi Bob, I'll propose another reason for the recent silence: disappointment at an extractive settlement and a realization that it is a mostly futile excercise to continue to debate with what remain of the hard core of Rossi's followers who haven't yet decamped after becoming familiar with the

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have > something else to say. You aren't even a man of your word. > Just to clarify, Kevin -- I said I was disengaging discussing the matter with you.

Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

My reply accidentally went to Roger's personal email address. Eric -- Forwarded message -- From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 1:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden To: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> Hi Roger,

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Hi Kevin, On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You claim that by giving Mary the boot you'd be editorializing the content > but you're already editorializing the content by coming down hard on only > one side of the insults. > Crass language and attacks

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Hi Kevin, On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed > at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case. You have a > one-sided perception. HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

my radar. I am "new" to Rossi vs. > Darden because it's been sitting on the back legal burner for more than a > year. You have other commenters that are hurling insults.You should > just admit that you made a mistake and hope that vorts will want to head on > over to you

Re: [Vo]:"Type A nickel" ?

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:29 PM, wrote: Mills has previously obtained results with Molybdenum. If this is available > as a nano-powder off the shelf, it may prove interesting. > Alan G., I would also be interested in your taking a look at neodymium. Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Comments get moved to another thread without notification. > When people such as yourself flood the forum with throwaway comments, we moderators would spam the place to give as many notifications. Had you known how

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: They are following it on LENR-Forum but the moderation there is so > blatantly one-sided and biased that the actual narrative posted isn't what > went on. > >

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Adrian Ashfield wrote: That was what I wrote about in my last post but for some reaspn the post > has not been published. I saw your suggestion afterwards. I think it somehow started a new thread rather than remaining in this one. Eric

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

I believe an oscilloscope can also be used to check for high-frequency components in the input power waveform. Eric

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - Brillouin

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Jones Beene wrote: I have seen no confirmation of Energetics being purchased by someone else, > but obviously another party has stepped in on the IP. A further interesting > detail is that Violante in Italy, the Texas Tech group, and also

Re: [Vo]:Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: > If I remember correctly it was something like that. The counter had to be > very close to register clicks, such that it was consistent with alpha > particles, but it was not stopped by a peice of paper, which would have

Re: [Vo]:Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote: It worked quite succesfully for a couple of days experiments, during which > I found that the high dV/dT it generates causes false positive clicks on my > cheap geiger counter. What was the approach you used to determine

Re: [Vo]:Solar neutrino scattering by the moon

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: No one seems to have considered this possibility, but it seems not > unreasonable This is an interesting line of speculation. It might be worth raising it at PhysicsForums or physics.stackexchange.com. I would be

[Vo]:OT: Before truck drivers, active fund managers?

A topic long of interest on Vortex is what implications the revolution in technology of the last few decades will have for employment. With the imminent advent of self-driving vehicles, one occupation that seems at risk is that of driving trucks. But one gets the sense that any dramatic changes

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield wrote: To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the skeptics. I have > yet to see a specific item that is wrong in Mills theories highlighted by > them. > Did you take a look at the link I sent? Can you help us to

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

The thing that trips me up with BrLP is that the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUT-CP) book is hand-wavy, and I have a hard time not concluding that this is other than intentional. I had my suspicions from the start, but they were more than borne out when we actually looked at one of

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: I hope to be in the former group [people who control AI] and my intention > is to encourage my fellows not to take advantage of those in the latter > [everyone else]. > The persistent human tendency to hoard and

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 8:56 PM, H LV wrote: You mentioned "not-iron" before but can you clarify what you mean by this > term? Thanks. > This is just a placeholder for whatever is converted to iron, e.g., 28Si + 28Si, since Narayanaswamy reports there being something

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM, H LV wrote: ​CoE would still be true, but there would be no mass into energy > conversion. Instead the iron would be slightly more massive than iron > produced by stellar fusion.​ > This suggestion has the benefit of being falsifiable. If

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Hi Harry, On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:09 AM, H LV wrote: If the evidence about transmutation at the Indian refinery is reliable then > one way to explain it is to imagine nuclear forces as being fundamentally > non-conservative and viewing their apparent conservative nature

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, H LV wrote: ​What is the "bond" energy of a nut and bolt? Does the amount of energy > that is required to literally slam together a bolt and a nut correspond to > the energy required to screw them together? Equations are poor guides if > the

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: In the 1950s many books and cartoons portrayed robots of the future as > being similar to people, walking on two legs with faces and hands. > The robots from Boston Dynamics are certainly a bit scarier than humanoid

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

An application of AI that I think will be possible in the near-term future, if there are not already people working on it: lie detection. There is a school of behavioral psychology that believes that people's behavior changes in subtle ways that betrays them when they knowingly tell a lie, even

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: The colony as a whole exhibits far more intelligence than one individual > bee does. ... The nature of bee colony intelligence is totally alien to > human intelligence. > Perhaps. But there is at least one way that

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:17 AM, wrote: Thinking outside the box is not a sin. > It's fine to think out of the box, if rigor is still applied and hand-waving is not resorted to. In this case either we apply E = mc^2, or we don't. Do you accept that this law applies in

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Holmlid is not dead yet; why not? Why is no radiation detected by Holmlid > even when he has detected muons by the ton? > You make an excellent argument that Holmlid is NOT seeing muons! :) Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: If we assume 1.3 tons excess iron following Narayanaswamy, then the amount > of energy released into the environment for this first reaction would be: > > 1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe >

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:48 PM, wrote: Fusion of 2 Si-28 to Fe 56 produces about 18 Mev excess mass energy, or > about 1 muon mass for for 18 fusion transitions. Muons that were to carry > away mass may not be noticed. > If muons were to carry away that mass, they

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:34 PM, wrote: Two Si atoms gives a Ni atom, not an Fe atom. However if the formation of > Ni56 > involved enhanced/altered electron capture to Fe56:- > > Ni56 => Co56 (2 MeV; half life 6 days) > > Co56 => Fe56 (4.6 MeV; half life 77 days) > > ...and

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:06 PM, H LV wrote: Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE? > It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to build > or take apart nuclei with much less energy. > It's not necessarily a matter of COE; e.g., perhaps

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:34 PM, wrote: Two Si atoms gives a Ni atom, not an Fe atom. However if the formation of > Ni56 > involved enhanced/altered electron capture to Fe56:- > > Ni56 => Co56 (2 MeV; half life 6 days) > > Co56 => Fe56 (4.6 MeV; half life 77 days) > > ...and

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

t 9:57 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If transmutation is always accompanied by meson production, then the area >> around the electric furnace might have an elevated backgr

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote: If transmutation is always accompanied by meson production, then the area > around the electric furnace might have an elevated background radiation > profile. Four tone of transmutation would imply a huge number of muons >

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 6:01 PM, wrote: One must look at all the mass involved, not just the Fe. Oxides and carbon > mass may also be involved. > The iron in iron oxide would presumably not be included in the "excess iron", because it's already iron. And the carbon

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 12, 2017, at 14:33, > wrote: > > The trueism suggested is based on two- bodied interactions where large energy > releases are the norm. The main difficulty in this case is not in the manner of any hypothetical

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, H LV wrote: ​It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain > must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an > energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear >

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an > electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of > even a few ounces. I agree entirely. Technically speaking, I suppose you

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Jones Beene wrote: "The daily input of Si and Fe was 20.479 tons at his smelting plant, and > the output was 24.75 tons. There was a daily excess of 4.27 tons of iron > and silica." A process that would produce 4 tons of iron from another

Re: [Vo]:DESCRIBING THE MANELAS Phenomenon

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote: More needs tobe said but there is some new physics at work in the Manelas > billet. Just because it's fun to call things ahead of time, I will venture that the Manelas device induced some kind of beta decay/electron

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: The boars seem pretty healthy despite their contaminated tissue. I am not > sure if that is good news or bad news. > Exposure to (natural) radiation used to be thought to be beneficial to people's health. I wonder

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.Seebelow.

Hi Bob, On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, wrote: Nowhere that I know of was Rossi obligated to transfer his future > inventions and related IP to IH. > These obligations were spelled out in the original License Agreement and its amendments, i.e., docs. 1-2 through 1-4.

Re: [Vo]:Could the future that started out as cold fusion be ... ta da... thorium fission ?

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:25 PM, wrote: In order to be at least the same, and considering that the energy input per > fission event would need to be about 10 MeV, you would need at least 1 GeV > muons. In the context of muon-induced fission in thorium (something I skimmed

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

I found the LENR Forum thread where we looked in detail at several papers by Holmlid and Holmlid and Olafsson: - dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.06.116, "Spontaneous ejection of high-energy particles from ultra-dense deuterium D(0)", Holmlid and Olafsson -

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The use of a well defied magnetic field in the experiment can delineate > both the mass and polarity of the emergent subatomic particles. > As I mentioned, I don't trust Holmlid to do this right. It's not straightforward to

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports, we > should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for his > data. > The thing I would like to see examined experimentally

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Hi Russ, On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Russ George wrote: Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who > fire critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to > do anything other than make pompous comment on materials

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: Basically, I cannot get past the fact that Holmlid is building a huge > castle on a foundation of sand. > This is my sentiment exactly. Holmlid presents his work as experimental work, but there's such a long chain of

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Russ George wrote: No insinuation by me I simply don’t trust anyone who stands by Huizenga! Who's standing by Huizenga? Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Hi Russ, On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Russ George wrote: Huizenga being the lying conniving troll that he was reneged on his > commitment. Anyone who stands by Huizenga as a credible person is either a > complete fool or a disreputable troll. > Perhaps you're

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their > experiment inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that that > detector will be ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the particle > physics at

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Has Holmlid enlisted outside help in characterizing these charged and neutral radiations in this latest paper? I've been hoping he would do so for years. To summarize what has instead been reported in papers leading up to this one: an alleged muon, pion and kaon radiation field, inferred from

Re: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: There is a more far fetched possibility - that of communications via > gravitational waves. There have been a number of papers talking about the > conversion of EM waves into gravitational waves in certain types of >

Re: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: I think the real concern for weaponization is not the first thought > everyone jumps to, which is explosive magnifier. > In addition to the possibilities that have been mentioned, there is another that comes to mind

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> One possibility is that the EM Drive may be ejecting mass, not in the >> form of baryons, but in the form of leptons, namely, neutrinos . .

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Just to point something out -- the EM drive *obviously* doesn't need to be > outside the craft to work, since it doesn't eject mass. > > Furthermore (and consequently), it violates conservation of momentum, >

Re: [Vo]:Article about Artificial Intelligence in NYT

I wasn't aware of any definitions of consciousness that rule out animals. But watching enough animal videos on Reddit is sufficient to make one contemplate vegetarianism. Even less intelligent animals often seem playful or excited in ways very similar to humans:

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: I am not afraid of the extreme wealth. > (1) In a neoliberal democracy such as the US, wealth buys political influence and power. Not necessarily in the same way that it does in a country like Nigeria or India, where

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

Keep in mind as well that Holmlid adduces not only muons, but kaons and pions as well. Once we introduce (negative) kaons, we have the following decays to deal with: [image: Inline image 1] The neutral pion assures us that there will either be penetrating gammas or positrons, which lead to 511

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

Ok. So you've survived the stinkers and the peanut gallery and the charlatans, the high priests, the prelates and the faithful of physics. In your own experiments you've seen muons or mischugenon. On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Russ George wrote: What is interesting

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Russ George wrote: My comment already gave my view on what Holmlid is seeing, are they muon or > mischugenon, that is the question. > Your previous comments were that they are either muons or mischugenon. You didn't explain why you

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Russ George wrote: Of course some of the pundits in this swirling Vortex seem far more > interested in making a stink than in letting the data speak, such as is > common amongst bits found in such environments. I happen to fancy Holmlid’s >

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Whoa, Eric. Since when does “logic” contradict experimental results? Where > – precisely - is this fountain of logic that contradicts Holmlid’s real > data? Isn’t every scientific breakthrough a contradiction of logic, >

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Brian Ahern wrote: > > The discussion seems to accept the fraudulent claims and empowers them. If > this was a legalaction we would refer to the 'alledged energy production'. > That is a weakness of Vortex. Claims made by characters of

Re: [Vo]:Article: Is dark energy a real thing?

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:37 PM, David Roberson wrote: Does this mean that a few Nobel prizes were awarded a bit premature? Are > they ever recalled once proven in error? > It would be very embarrassing for them to have to recall Nobel prizes. I wonder whether they would

[Vo]:Article: Is dark energy a real thing?

The following article describes a study calling into question one experiment upon which the notion of dark energy is based: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/1023/Is-dark-energy-a-real-thing-Maybe-not-new-study-suggests Also of interest, two articles discussing a study that says that the

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Stephen Cooke wrote: This [using Norman Cook's theory as a guide] would be a bottom up approach > from first principles which might the match well with one or more of the > more usual top down theories ideas. > This sounds like a

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >