-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder
I suspect there is something important missing from this account.
What prompted Moller to look at Langmuir's work in the firstplace?
The impetus was that Moller, who is Danish, found and read private letters
from Bohr (the great Dane)
I cannot access Quantumheat.org for some reason. If anyone here can access
it, please copy Storms' analysis to it.
- Jed
Giant potato barely misses Earth...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/17/chinese_probe_visits_asteroid_toutat
is/
The Maya miscalculated its orbit 500 years ago - they thought it would hit
us on Friday.
attachment: winmail.dat
On 2012-12-17 15:53, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I cannot access Quantumheat.org for some reason. If anyone here can
access it, please copy Storms' analysis to it.
It works for me. Storms' analysis has already been linked a couple times
in their latest blog post.
The MFMP team should better contact
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:
It works for me. Storms' analysis has already been linked a couple times in
their latest blog post.
You mean you can access it? I can't for some reason. I am using my
Chromebook, without access to the big computer. The log in screen
vanishes
Good thing else mashed potato
On Monday, December 17, 2012, Jones Beene wrote:
Giant potato barely misses Earth...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/17/chinese_probe_visits_asteroid_toutat
is/
The Maya miscalculated its orbit 500 years ago - they thought it would hit
us on Friday.
... Instead Celani, Piantelli, Forcardi discovered that when nickel
aborbs hygrodgen the thermal charactersitics of nickel change (by
making it less reflective)?
And Celani has discovered that this change is correlated with a drop
in the electrical resistance of the nickle.
Is that it?
harry
I do not think it is clear yet what has been discovered. The story so far:
At ICCF17, McKubre called into question Celani's calorimetry. Celani said
he would try to put these doubts to rest by making the cell self sustain.
He tried, but he could not. That's bad news.
Celani himself said the
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder
I suspect there is something important missing from this account.
What prompted Moller to look at Langmuir's work in the firstplace?
The impetus was that
Celani was not able to allow long sustanable mode because this requires a
higher temperature, which is possible but not for a long period of time in
such transparant tube.
On Monday, December 17, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I do not think it is clear yet what has been discovered. The story so
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not think it is clear yet what has been discovered. The story so far:
At ICCF17, McKubre called into question Celani's calorimetry. Celani said he
would try to put these doubts to rest by making the cell self
Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global
Warming
Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong.
This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that
Global Warming must be accelerating???
We just need a little more dark/vacuum energy increase over the next year
to cool things even more. I am expecting the sun to lob some our way next
year and cool things off further...
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:
**
Here's some new data that is
Jojo:
I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some evidence
either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there is a
possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we
should take some care to avoid that alternative unless
Ransom, it makes sense when you consider that there is more money in oil
than the survival of the earth and humanity.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
**
Jojo:
I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some
evidence either way,
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:
Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global
Warming
Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong.
This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the
Randy,
It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a problem, we
must first make sure there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a
non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a
whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures
What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do
anything about it?
What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something about it?
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:
**
Randy,
It seems to me that before we institute
Harry, You said it best yourself. It may still .
Why not settle the science before forcing draconian measures? To fix a
may and a possibility is both expensive and irreponsible.
What is so unreasonble with that stand? as if I am some rabid anti-AGW and
oil producer puppet as some have
For what it's worth, Harry, there is a bit of early history that played out
in a way similar to what you're describing.
Back in 1994, Focardi, Habel and Piantelli published this:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Focardi-AnomalousHeatNi-H-NuovoCimento.pdf
After which some folks at
The science will never be settled as long as there is a large financial
interest opposing it.
Consider that the science has not been settled for the efficacy of many
vaccinations and pharmaceuticals especially when the placebo effect has
apparently doubled in it's efficacy.
You are erring on the
John,
This is a fallacious argument based on a fallacious premise.
OK, let me throw that premise back at you.
What is the worst case scenario if we don't do anything about our sun going
supernova?
What is the worst case scenario if we do something to try to prevent it going
supernova?
After
Jojo:
I think it is unlikely that the science will be settled for everyone in the
foreseeable future. Some will have a vested interest to oppose certain steps
and will likely seek experts who will find reasons to call other opinions into
question.
It seems much more irresponsible in the face
All you have shown is that you can miss-apply something.
The sun going supernova any time soon is not likely.
And if it were to do so the only realistic thing humanity could do is to
advance science in the direction of energy and propulsion to venture
outside of the solar system.
That is
Jojo:
The sun is unlikely to go supernova in any time frame measured by human
lifespan and indeed human societal lifespan. Further, at this point in our
existence we can't do a thing about it. The effect of AGW if true will happen
in our lifetimes and may be preventable.
The first is thus
Randy,
That's funny, me being a libertarian. I guess I don't blame you for thinking
that.
No, not at all, I am not a libertarian. I am not all for free sex and free pot
and I am not for freedom from any government or for anarchy. There is a level
of government envisioned by our founding
On 12/17/2012 03:50 PM, Randy wuller wrote:
Jojo:
[...]Free markets are great and are efficient in many areas, however,
government has also proven to be a necessary and a good thing in
certain areas. If you feel differently you will probably be forever
unhappy because government
John and Randy,
It did seem that my point was missed altogether.
OK, let me see I can be less subtle and spell it out for you.
Sun going Supernova: It may happen and it will happen, when it will happen, we
don't have enough data
AGW: It may happen, we are not sure. We don't have enough
Lost in all this discussion about global warming is a real discussion on why
Global Warming (anthropic or otherwise) is such a bad bad thing.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Global Warming, of the degree that
these 2000 climatologists are worried about, will actually be good for
Sol has insufficient mass to go supernova.
I stand corrected. But it will explode right? just not a super nova.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global
Warming
Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote:
Celani was not able to allow long sustanable mode because this requires a
higher temperature, which is possible but not for a long period of time in
such transparant tube.
No, that is not an issue. He wrapped the cell in insulation. This allowed
Ok, so your argument is that if you can construct an impossible, ridiculous
'what if'
that is completely out of our control to cause, stop or do anything about.
Then we should not do anything about a very realistic issue that we seem to
be causing and can do something about that is imminent.
I
Not super-nova, not nova, no explosion as such.
In 4-5 billion years it will expand to a red giant apparently, then
collapse into a white dwarf.
But the argument is so dishonest it really shows you are not worth
communicating with.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess you could use this argument in other ways...
I'm not going to eat healthily because I could have a piano fall on me.
The science of what is and is not healthy isn't entirely settled.
Eating healthily seems draconian to me.
Maybe eating
I wrote:
Regarding Ed Storms' analysis, it applies to all isoperibolic calorimeters
where you measure the temperature at the cell wall . . .
Plus, as he says, where you measure the temperature of unmixed fluid inside
the cell.
Many people claimed the FP made this mistake, but they quickly
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:
I stand corrected. But it will explode right? just not a super nova.
Sol will become a red giant and collapse into a white dwarf blowing
off the surface layer. The earth will be consumed in the red giant
stage.
Jed, you see the problem.
None of that is profitable to oil barons.
Did the US invade Afghanistan and Iraq for oil or sand?
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess you could use this argument in other
Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/
What about the above?
Frank z
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
Terry, I understand that this is the current theory. But, like all of science
theory, it is subject to being in error.
I suspect that it would be very difficult to actually include all of the
important factors involved in the super nova process and then produce an
accurate model.
Ask
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Terry, I understand that this is the current theory. But, like all of
science theory, it is subject to being in error.
Theory and observation.
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Sol will become a red giant and collapse into a white dwarf blowing off
the surface layer. The earth will be consumed in the red giant stage.
Sigh. So what's the point of doing anything, right? We're doomed. The good
news is that Bertrand Russell was
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Ask yourself how accurate the prediction might be? It would only take a
minor change in the radius of the sun to make it have a mass 2 times
(current super nova limit?)
Oh come now! You know better than that. Issac Newton computed the mass of
the sun
I certainly did not approve of the invasion into Iraq by the Bush
Administration. It is not proven that they intentionally fabricated the facts
that were used to justify the invasion, but that is another story.
Afghanistan is a different situation. The US had just been maliciously
attacked
Jed sez:
Quoting Asimov's The Last Question
...
Sure you are. You're weak on logic, that's the trouble with you.
You're like the guy in the story who was caught in a sudden shower and who
ran to a grove of trees and got under one. He wasn't worried, you see,
because he figured when one
I wrote:
His calculation was off by roughly factor of two, but our knowledge of the
sun's distance has improved immeasurably since then, and we also know the
mass of the earth more accurately.
I should say we know the gravitational constant G more accurately.
In the first approximation you
LOL. I guess I made a serious error is language usage. I did not mean to
suggest that the mass or radius of the sun were in question Jed. I was just
attempting to suggest that it would not take much change in radius to place the
sun within the currently accepted super nova explosion mass
G is not a constant. It is entropic acceleration. It is dependent upon the
concentration of entropy in that area of space. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Verlinde
Moon gravitational field varies widely, much higher around some craters.
Apollo missions had to take into account the
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
LOL. I guess I made a serious error is language usage. I did not mean to
suggest that the mass or radius of the sun were in question Jed. I was
just attempting to suggest that it would not take much change in radius to
place the sun within the
Hiding under a tree might not be such a bad idea if you prefer to be hit by
large drops instead of that annoying steady drizzle.
The red giant might be a choice, but I understand that stars a bit lighter than
the sun can continue shining for much longer. They would certainly not be as
bright
Are we sure that new stars will not be born?
If so then when could the last of those stop forming and burn out?
This is of course all based on the Big bang theory,which is not the only
theory nor the only possibility.
If you decide to listen to the minority not the majority this theory too
could
Once I envisioned orbiting just above the mountain peaks of the moon. That
would be quite scenic if possible, but as you suggest, the attraction of the
moon to the ship varies along the orbit and I would eventually find myself
flying into moon mountains which is not a good thing.
When you
I think you got it right John. When everyone is in agreement, a few years pass
and then someone finds a problem with the theory. That is actually good since
it keeps scientists interested and employed.
I believe it is safe to assume that new stars are being born all the time since
we can
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:
Harry, You said it best yourself. It may still .
Here is the paper on which the article is based.
Check the graphs and judge for yourself whether the steady
temperatures from 1998-2008 is strong evidence there that is no
John,
You may think that I'm being intellectually dishonest, but that's fine by me.
You see, the problem and the premise of your challenge to me is fallacious.
First, you assume that AGW is occuring, then you postulate a question on what
to do with that problem. You say AGW is happening, so
Harry,
I will be honest with my limitations. I neither have the knowledge or the
requisite background to make sense of raw data, as I am not a
climatologists. Neither are you, unless you can correct me. In fact, I
don't believe there are any climatologists in this list.
But like I said.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:
**
John,
You may think that I'm being intellectually dishonest, but that's fine by
me.
You see, the problem and the premise of your challenge to me is
fallacious. First, you assume that AGW is occuring, then you
Courtesy of Hampus at -
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/12/e-cat-plant-sighting/
Swedish TV - SVTs sciences show Vetenskapens Världs documentary about
Andreas Rossi´s news invention the Ecat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D-yHkmmkDcfeature=youtu.be
(Mostly Swedish, but Rossi segments are in
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
If 1 is the case and we do nothing about it, the worst case scenario is
likely the end of most all (notable) life on earth.
I do not think the worst case scenarios are that bad. They are awful, but
not quite that bad.
If 2 is the case (what you
John,
Why is it that when people can not sustain a discussion, they always resort to
name calling? It never fails to happen. People who don't have the facts
always do this to hide the fact that they are losing the argument. OK, I'm
fine with the insult for now. Don't get used to it.
It's all a matter of perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEheh1BH34Q
Terry sez:
It's all a matter of perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEheh1BH34Q
OMG... The Score!!!
The Horror The Horror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNzQ8gYxkIg
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Jaro, If you were a reasoned person, I would note that I made 'what if'
projections under 2 opposite assumptions, that global warming is an issue.
And that global warming isn't an issue.
But you only assume the latter.
You of course have not proven that it isn't an issue.
Of course, that your
John and Jojo,
It is apparent that the two of you are not going to agree on the path to take
and therefore it would be advantageous for you to settle down and treat each
other with due respect. I am hesitant to enter into the fray because the water
is looking pretty deep and muddy.
There
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
John, you must admit that Jojo has a point about proving that a problem
truly exists before excess expense and time is dedicated to solving it.
Ok, so you are correct in that if there was no or very little and
65 matches
Mail list logo
