Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science
I think this dispute is overblown, and kind of silly on both sides. I see no harm in Krivit discussing leaked messages. The messages do not seem particularly important and I can't imagine why they are secret in the first place. On the other hand, the CMNS people can set any rules they want, and their rules do not interfere with Krivit's freedom or anyone else's. Steven Krivit wrote: It is true that the CMNS list has a rule about secrecy. However, this rule is unjust and ill-founded. I think it is ill-founded, but I see nothing unjust about it. They can have any rules they like. The CMNS list secrecy rule is a constraint on my personal civil liberties as well as an obstruction of free press. Nonsense. It is does not constrain your liberties. You don't have to be a member. As you can tell, the people (not just one) who are leaking list messages to me . . . In that case, McKubre should be upset with those people, not with Krivit. . . . do not believe that it is in the best interests of this scientific society to be secretive. I, and perhaps they too, do not believe it is in the best interests for people who are providing information to this community via the CMNS list be shielded from the media spotlight. I agree that secrecy is not in the best interests of the scientific society. That's why I quit CMNS. But it is for them to decide. People are allowed to act contrary to their own interests. Free speech and the freedom of the press are fundamental values in a democratic society. Even people in the U.S. government are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. That is because it is the government. That has nothing to do with private conversations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science
Jed, I think you and Steve miss the main issue here. The discussions held on CMNS are not secret, but are private. Suppose I invite a group to my house to discuss cold fusion with the understanding that the discussion would not be made public. Would it be right for an uninvited person to learn what was said and print this in the newspaper? Privacy is valued and respected in this country as much as freedom of the press. How does a person protect privacy on the internet? The kind of secrecy that Steve objects to as a journalist is that which leads to policy or decisions that affect the general public. I agree with Steve when this is the issue. A private discussion between random colleagues does not have this characteristic. We are not setting or implementing policy. Our intent is to discuss science that is still poorly understood and perhaps wrong without having the ideas taken out of context, as would be the case if the information were made public. Is not this effort worth protecting? Ed On Oct 3, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I think this dispute is overblown, and kind of silly on both sides. I see no harm in Krivit discussing leaked messages. The messages do not seem particularly important and I can't imagine why they are secret in the first place. On the other hand, the CMNS people can set any rules they want, and their rules do not interfere with Krivit's freedom or anyone else's. Steven Krivit wrote: It is true that the CMNS list has a rule about secrecy. However, this rule is unjust and ill-founded. I think it is ill-founded, but I see nothing unjust about it. They can have any rules they like. The CMNS list secrecy rule is a constraint on my personal civil liberties as well as an obstruction of free press. Nonsense. It is does not constrain your liberties. You don't have to be a member. As you can tell, the people (not just one) who are leaking list messages to me . . . In that case, McKubre should be upset with those people, not with Krivit. . . . do not believe that it is in the best interests of this scientific society to be secretive. I, and perhaps they too, do not believe it is in the best interests for people who are providing information to this community via the CMNS list be shielded from the media spotlight. I agree that secrecy is not in the best interests of the scientific society. That's why I quit CMNS. But it is for them to decide. People are allowed to act contrary to their own interests. Free speech and the freedom of the press are fundamental values in a democratic society. Even people in the U.S. government are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. That is because it is the government. That has nothing to do with private conversations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science
Haiko Lietz wrote: Non-public mailing lists are an obstruction of free press? In Germany we have a code for different types of information: 1: You may use the given information naming the source. 2: You may use the given information without naming the source. 3: You may not use the given information. In the US we have no such constraints. If someone leaks information to Krivit, Krivit can publish it anywhere he wants. He would only be constrained if he had signed a nondisclosure agreement (NDA), which is a contractual agreement not to discuss information. He would be under an informal restraint if someone told him (at a press conference let us say) this is off the record or please don't repeat this but . . . That cannot be legally enforced. However, when reporters publish things that people ask them not to publish, they are soon frozen out. No one tells them anything. As for me, I am not a reporter, and I do not want to hear any secrets. I am only interested in hearing information people want to share. Secrets are overrated. I have heard many secrets in business and in cold fusion and most of them were common knowledge that the speaker mistakenly thought was secret, or they were useless nonsense. Mistakes, nonsense, naïveté and bad judgment thrive in secrecy. That's one of the many lessons the history of the Bush administration has taught us, but you will find countless other examples in history. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science
Edmund Storms wrote: Jed, I think you and Steve miss the main issue here. The discussions held on CMNS are not secret, but are private. Suppose I invite a group to my house to discuss cold fusion with the understanding that the discussion would not be made public. Would it be right for an uninvited person to learn what was said and print this in the newspaper? It would be impolite, or ungentlemanly, as McKubre puts it. But not morally wrong. As long as the uninvited person is not trespassing, or wiretapping your house, he has done nothing wrong. If you don't want uninvited people to eavesdrop on your conversations, you should throw them out of the house. In this case, you should expel people from the CMNS list if you feel that strongly about it. I don't know how you would track them down, but that's your problem. The classic method in intelligence work (and Washington politics) is to spread different versions of the story and see which one surfaces. If one of your guests discusses the conversation with Krivit and he publishes it, Krivit is annoying but less at fault. Your guest is the main culprit. If I read what Krivit wrote, I discuss it with yet another person I am several times removed and not at fault. Privacy is valued and respected in this country as much as freedom of the press. How does a person protect privacy on the internet? You can't. Don't put things on the Internet that you want to keep private. It is like posting them on a billboard in Times Square. Never tell dozens of people something that you want to keep confidential. Don't tell anyone! As they say in the Mafia, two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead. We are not setting or implementing policy. Our intent is to discuss science that is still poorly understood and perhaps wrong without having the ideas taken out of context, as would be the case if the information were made public. Is not this effort worth protecting? I see absolutely no reason to protect it -- no benefit whatever. Keeping it secret runs counter to the traditions of academic science. On the contrary it seems to me that the more people you bring into the conversation, the better. However if you want to protect it that is certainly your right. It is also your right to expel whoever it was that leaked the info to Krivit, if you can find them. I think that would be a big fat waste of time, and a tempest in a teacup, but it is your right to do it. - Jed
[Vo]:The Off Topic Threads
Jed Rothwell posted This is kind of off-topic but also on topic. You got that right, I just deleated the whole Evolution of Good Government thread, and the secrecy thread too. How about someone looking at the video on the website linked in that energy from air link that I posted, and then lets have a discussion about Respines, or induced LENR's or, anything but the Bailout Bill, of who won the VP debate. How about that Sarah! I'm going to debate what I want to, and I'm not going to follow your rules. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science
So, if I understand you correctly, privacy has no rights in the US nor on the internet. I'm not talking about secrets. This is a false issue, a straw-man Steve created. I'm talking about being able to discuss science without having to worry about whether parts of the discussion will be extracted and used to make public pronouncements that are not correct and not intended. I agree, journalists are valuable when they reveal information that is important for the public to know. Discussions on CMNS are not that important. What is important is an expectation of not having to worry about statements taken out of context or used for other purposes. Steve wants the right to publish excerpts from these discussions. Normally, a good journalist will honor a request that information not be published or at least clarify what is to be published to be sure it is complete and correct. I did not get the impression from Steve he is willing to do this. The issue is with Steve, not with people sending Steve copies of the discussions. Steve would be welcome to join the list if he agreed not to publish the information without permission. Instead, he resigns from the list and then has someone else send the information to him. This contrived arrangement does not change Steve's obligation to honor the rules. In fact, such an arrangement is a more serious breach of trust. Now the action becomes a conspiracy to avoid rules that Steve finds inconvenient. The basic issue is trust. Do we trust Steve or do we not trust him? If not, as you say, such people are eventually frozen out. Ed On Oct 3, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Jed, I think you and Steve miss the main issue here. The discussions held on CMNS are not secret, but are private. Suppose I invite a group to my house to discuss cold fusion with the understanding that the discussion would not be made public. Would it be right for an uninvited person to learn what was said and print this in the newspaper? It would be impolite, or ungentlemanly, as McKubre puts it. But not morally wrong. As long as the uninvited person is not trespassing, or wiretapping your house, he has done nothing wrong. If you don't want uninvited people to eavesdrop on your conversations, you should throw them out of the house. In this case, you should expel people from the CMNS list if you feel that strongly about it. I don't know how you would track them down, but that's your problem. The classic method in intelligence work (and Washington politics) is to spread different versions of the story and see which one surfaces. If one of your guests discusses the conversation with Krivit and he publishes it, Krivit is annoying but less at fault. Your guest is the main culprit. If I read what Krivit wrote, I discuss it with yet another person I am several times removed and not at fault. Privacy is valued and respected in this country as much as freedom of the press. How does a person protect privacy on the internet? You can't. Don't put things on the Internet that you want to keep private. It is like posting them on a billboard in Times Square. Never tell dozens of people something that you want to keep confidential. Don't tell anyone! As they say in the Mafia, two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead. We are not setting or implementing policy. Our intent is to discuss science that is still poorly understood and perhaps wrong without having the ideas taken out of context, as would be the case if the information were made public. Is not this effort worth protecting? I see absolutely no reason to protect it -- no benefit whatever. Keeping it secret runs counter to the traditions of academic science. On the contrary it seems to me that the more people you bring into the conversation, the better. However if you want to protect it that is certainly your right. It is also your right to expel whoever it was that leaked the info to Krivit, if you can find them. I think that would be a big fat waste of time, and a tempest in a teacup, but it is your right to do it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this dispute is overblown, and kind of silly on both sides. I see no harm in Krivit discussing leaked messages. The messages do not seem particularly important and I can't imagine why they are secret in the first place. On the other hand, the CMNS people can set any rules they want, and their rules do not interfere with Krivit's freedom or anyone else's. Steven Krivit wrote: It is true that the CMNS list has a rule about secrecy. However, this rule is unjust and ill-founded. I think it is ill-founded, but I see nothing unjust about it. They can have any rules they like. The CMNS list secrecy rule is a constraint on my personal civil liberties as well as an obstruction of free press. Nonsense. It is does not constrain your liberties. You don't have to be a member. As you can tell, the people (not just one) who are leaking list messages to me . . . In that case, McKubre should be upset with those people, not with Krivit. . . . do not believe that it is in the best interests of this scientific society to be secretive. I, and perhaps they too, do not believe it is in the best interests for people who are providing information to this community via the CMNS list be shielded from the media spotlight. I agree that secrecy is not in the best interests of the scientific society. That's why I quit CMNS. But it is for them to decide. People are allowed to act contrary to their own interests. Free speech and the freedom of the press are fundamental values in a democratic society. Even people in the U.S. government are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. That is because it is the government. That has nothing to do with private conversations. indeed, ONLY the goverment falls under the pervue of the foi. Also, while the original poster is all fired up about his civil liberties, he completely ignores the groups individual RIGHT TO PRIVACY. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Off Topic Threads
::CHEERS!:: thank you. and, i missed the original energy from air thread. what was the title? On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:09 AM, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jed Rothwell posted This is kind of off-topic but also on topic. You got that right, I just deleated the whole Evolution of Good Government thread, and the secrecy thread too. How about someone looking at the video on the website linked in that energy from air link that I posted, and then lets have a discussion about Respines, or induced LENR's or, anything but the Bailout Bill, of who won the VP debate. How about that Sarah! I'm going to debate what I want to, and I'm not going to follow your rules. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science
There is not even a semblance of privacy on the internet, even in so-called private groups. I suspect it is so stated in the Google groups agreement. Every thing you have posted, site you have visited and girl you have virtually fondled is traceable to you via your unique ethernet identifier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address It is soon to be so in all of reality. You can walk from one end of London to the other and never leave big brother's eye today. Soon it will be true everywhere. Terry On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM, leaking pen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this dispute is overblown, and kind of silly on both sides. I see no harm in Krivit discussing leaked messages. The messages do not seem particularly important and I can't imagine why they are secret in the first place. On the other hand, the CMNS people can set any rules they want, and their rules do not interfere with Krivit's freedom or anyone else's. Steven Krivit wrote: It is true that the CMNS list has a rule about secrecy. However, this rule is unjust and ill-founded. I think it is ill-founded, but I see nothing unjust about it. They can have any rules they like. The CMNS list secrecy rule is a constraint on my personal civil liberties as well as an obstruction of free press. Nonsense. It is does not constrain your liberties. You don't have to be a member. As you can tell, the people (not just one) who are leaking list messages to me . . . In that case, McKubre should be upset with those people, not with Krivit. . . . do not believe that it is in the best interests of this scientific society to be secretive. I, and perhaps they too, do not believe it is in the best interests for people who are providing information to this community via the CMNS list be shielded from the media spotlight. I agree that secrecy is not in the best interests of the scientific society. That's why I quit CMNS. But it is for them to decide. People are allowed to act contrary to their own interests. Free speech and the freedom of the press are fundamental values in a democratic society. Even people in the U.S. government are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. That is because it is the government. That has nothing to do with private conversations. indeed, ONLY the goverment falls under the pervue of the foi. Also, while the original poster is all fired up about his civil liberties, he completely ignores the groups individual RIGHT TO PRIVACY. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science
Edmund Storms wrote: So, if I understand you correctly, privacy has no rights in the US nor on the internet. No, I meant that as a practical matter, an Internet discussion group is a lousy place to store secrets. This is like keeping your cash money in a box on a busy street. Electronic messages are easy to copy. Once you distribute a message to a large number of people on a discussion group, it is likely that one or more of them will copy it to other people. If you want to keep something secret, send it by regular mail or e-mail to people who have signed NDA's I'm talking about being able to discuss science without having to worry about whether parts of the discussion will be extracted and used to make public pronouncements that are not correct and not intended. You cannot expect to conduct an electronic discussion with this many people and keep it secret. That runs counter to human nature. Also, without NDA's you have no legal standing to insist that it be kept confidential. It does not fall under your right to privacy. Discussions on CMNS are not that important. I agree. That being the case, why does it matter if they are copied to other people? What is important is an expectation of not having to worry about statements taken out of context or used for other purposes. Steve wants the right to publish excerpts from these discussions. He has that right, legally and morally. It is a boorish thing to do but he can do it if he wants to. Normally, a good journalist will honor a request that information not be published or at least clarify what is to be published to be sure it is complete and correct. I did not get the impression from Steve he is willing to do this. Obviously he isn't. Everyone who knows him is aware of this by now. I wouldn't say that all good journalists do this. A British newspaper publisher once said that news is defined as information that someone, somewhere does not want you to know. The issue is with Steve, not with people sending Steve copies of the discussions. They are the only ones breaking the informal rules. Steve would be welcome to join the list if he agreed not to publish the information without permission. He does not agree, so he is not welcome. Instead, he resigns from the list and then has someone else send the information to him. This contrived arrangement does not change Steve's obligation to honor the rules. Steve has NO obligation to honor the rules! None whatever. He is not a member. It is like making fun of the Pope when you are not Catholic. In fact, such an arrangement is a more serious breach of trust. Now the action becomes a conspiracy to avoid rules that Steve finds inconvenient. It is not a breach of trust! Steve never said he would follow the rules in the first place. He has not asked anyone to trust him. On the contrary, he made it clear that he will NOT follow the rules, as did I. He has every right to engage in a conspiracy, as long as it breaks no laws. People conspire every day in business, politics, academic research and everywhere else in society. It is boorish behavior but perfectly legitimate and legal. The basic issue is trust. Do we trust Steve or do we not trust him? You would be crazy to trust someone who has explicitly declared he will not follow your rules! If someone shows you a trick coin with heads on both sides, would you bet tails? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The evolution of good governance
Jones wrote: We could produce more if needed; but, we already have surpluses and pay farmers not to plant crops. Is this still going on despite record prices for corn? If so, it weakens the no food-grain for fuel argument. That is: if we have land which is not being planted and is receiving subsidies instead. I would have thought that program would have been erased by market conditions. That [no food-grain for fuel argument] would probably stand on moral grounds, as well, and almost no rational person would say that we should not switch to non-food inputs, such as switchgrass or especially algae -- for the carbon needed to make the fuel. Which brings us back to the Dutch and what they are doing with their own efficient Ag. base to confront the biofuel situation. http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQ3sAwA4Lwa15Z-fIiZyWJejgRUg I suspect that they will probably bring this process to market before we can do it here. You may be right, but isn't the Valcent-Vertigro (American) company fairly advanced in this field? I really don't see why more attention isn't being paid to this technology. Seems like a winner to me. M.
Re: [Vo]:The evolution of good governance
It is, and I've pointed it out several times when the whole, no food for fuel arguement comes up. There is still corn being grown for no purpose but to grind up for soil conditioning. On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry, We could produce more if needed; but, we already have surpluses and pay farmers not to plant crops. Is this still going on despite record prices for corn? If so, it weakens the no food-grain for fuel argument. That is: if we have land which is not being planted and is receiving subsidies instead. I would have thought that program would have been erased by market conditions. That [no food-grain for fuel argument] would probably stand on moral grounds, as well, and almost no rational person would say that we should not switch to non-food inputs, such as switchgrass or especially algae -- for the carbon needed to make the fuel. Which brings us back to the Dutch and what they are doing with their own efficient Ag. base to confront the biofuel situation. http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQ3sAwA4Lwa15Z-fIiZyWJejgRUg I suspect that they will probably bring this process to market before we can do it here.
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science
Terry Blanton wrote: There is not even a semblance of privacy on the internet, even in so-called private groups. . . . It is soon to be so in all of reality. You can walk from one end of London to the other and never leave big brother's eye today. Soon it will be true everywhere. Privacy is diminishing, but not disappearing completely. I think that society is reverting to the way it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, and the way it still is in small towns and villages. People have to worry more about their reputations than they have done in conditions of 20th century urban anonymity. This is not such a bad thing. leaking pen wrote: Also, while the original poster is all fired up about his civil liberties, he completely ignores the groups individual RIGHT TO PRIVACY. This has nothing to do with the legal right to privacy, as it is defined in the U.S. (I do not know about other countries.) It does not violate any criminal or civil statues. You would violate a criminal statute if you stole the information, or wiretapped it, or hacked a computer with it. You would violate civil statutes if you signed an NDA, or if you are an employee, which is an implied NDA. There are also right to privacy laws about things such as your medical information, and how much money you have in the bank. Doctors and bank employees have a legal obligation to keep these things confidential. But your opinion about an experiment, freely expressed to a large group of people who have not signed NDA's, is not covered by any privacy laws. I know a thing or two about this, because it was part of my job many years ago. I discussed it with lawyers. My information may be out of date. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Off Topic Threads
Thomas sez: Jed Rothwell posted This is kind of off-topic but also on topic. You got that right, I just deleated the whole Evolution of Good Government thread, and the secrecy thread too. How about someone looking at the video on the website linked in that energy from air link that I posted, and then lets have a discussion about Respines, or induced LENR's or, anything but the Bailout Bill, of who won the VP debate. How about that Sarah! I'm going to debate what I want to, and I'm not going to follow your rules. This is indeed getting off-topic. But then, it IS an election year, so I think the Vortex collective can be allowed a little temporary insanity as we machinate our way through the imperfect process of electing a new leader. A lot's at stake. I also hope someone knowledgeable might care to address the interesting link you brought up at: www.airturbineengine.com And now, trespassing once again back into the treacherous off-topic landscape of presidential Vice Presidential candidates, I see you admire that spunky lass Palin. Indeed I think she did come off as a tad more impressive during the Thursday night debate as compared to previous interviews. Considering Biden's considerable experience, particularly in foreign affairs, Sarah did better than most expected. I was also heartened to see that after the debate both VP candidates (and extended family) seemed to mingle with each other a lot. I noticed that Biden and Palin seemed to have spent a great deal of time in face-to-face conversation, presumably on off-the-record topics. I gather you especially admired Palin's debating tactic - to debate what she wants to and not someone else's rules. I assume such statements impress some, presumably those who admire the ideals of Maverickdom. Unfortunately, the proclamation has a tendency to horrify others such as those who wonder if Palin may turn out to be too much of a loose cannon, someone incapable of finding common ground with others. Palin also states that she represents Joe Six-Pack, as if the admission should be considered endearing, a badge of authenticity and sincerity. I dunno about others, but it's been my experience that after I consumed a six-pack my views on just about any topic should NOT be represented. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The Off Topic Threads
OrionWorks wrote: Palin also states that she represents Joe Six-Pack, as if the admission should be considered endearing, a badge of authenticity and sincerity. I dunno about others, but it's been my experience that after I consumed a six-pack my views on just about any topic should NOT be represented. Now that you mention it, Palin did sound inebriated: . . . We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain's call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse. And the colleagues in the Senate weren't going to go there with him. So we have John McCain to thank for at least warning people. And we also have John McCain to thank for bringing in a bipartisan effort people to the table so that we can start putting politics aside, even putting a campaign aside, and just do what's right to fix this economic problem that we are in. It is a crisis. It's a toxic mess, really, on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street. And now we have to be ever vigilant and also making sure that credit markets don't seize up. That's where the Main Streeters like me, that's where we would really feel the effects. . . . Not quite as bad as the Courin interview, that was repeated nearly verbatim on SNL: PALIN: But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the -- oh, it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is part of that. Here is the SNL version: FEY AS PALIN: Like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this. We're saying, 'Hey, why bail out Fanny and Freddie and not me?' But ultimately what the bailout does is, help those that are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy to help...uh...it's gotta be all about job creation, too. Also, too, shoring up our economy and putting Fannie and Freddy back on the right track and so healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending...'cause Barack Obama, y'know...has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans, also, having a dollar value meal at restaurants. That's gonna help. But one in five jobs being created today under the umbrella of job creation. That, you know...Also... This is not only the most critical election of our generation, it is also the most hilarious. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The evolution of good governance
Michael You may be right, but isn't the Valcent-Vertigro (American) company fairly advanced in this field? I really don't see why more attention isn't being paid to this technology. Seems like a winner to me. Yes - as a matter of fact, the lack of attention which does appear to be strange, given the advantages -- this could be a deliberate strategy - since there are many companies: possibly the biggest players of all, who have NOT come out publicly with very much info (in recent years) on what they are actually doing now, or in the case of Shell - they have only exposed the tip of the iceberg (not a great analogy for a project in Hawaii). http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11db0836-82d2-11dd-a019-77b07658.html Because of this hidden undercurrent of under-published efforts and RD - which is likely to be out there, since there was lots more of it 5-8 years ago which seemed to disappear (but did it?) ... the algoil thing is poised to actually explode on the alternative energy scene... and possibly with special relevance to operators of coal-burning grid plants who are located next to the strip mines which supply the coal. Since these plants are already in the earth-moving business in a huge way - how costly is it for them to construct very cheap algae ponds in the former strip-mine site and then channel the CO2 over from the plant -- to feed the algae and increase the growth rate? That goes beyond win-win - heck it goes all the way to win-win-win-win when you consider the net effect of converting cheap but dirty coal into power, selling the power, then cleaning the operation up via the algae, instead of costly bag-houses, and then selling the oil and protein derived from the algae for much more than the coal cost to begin with, and all the while doing most of the work yourself, with paid-for equipment already on-site. Is there a greater opportunity available in the entire free-enterprise system? There are possibly 200 such plants in the USA above 500 megawatt capacity adjacent to strip mines or at least ample flat terrain. This is a gross simplification of a complex process, sure - but one can reasonably expect that once a tipping point in the technology-base has been reached for grid plants to do this with the normal ROI - then it will be a major societal shifting of assets - literally a paradigm-shift which could happen much more swiftly than DoE and assorted pundits suspect it will. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Off Topic Threads
Has any one noticed that Palin cannot complete a logical thought to its logical end without injecting random ideas? This way of thinking is similar to the unscripted Bush. Do we need another Saturday Night Live character? Ed On Oct 3, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: OrionWorks wrote: Palin also states that she represents Joe Six-Pack, as if the admission should be considered endearing, a badge of authenticity and sincerity. I dunno about others, but it's been my experience that after I consumed a six-pack my views on just about any topic should NOT be represented. Now that you mention it, Palin did sound inebriated: . . . We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain's call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse. And the colleagues in the Senate weren't going to go there with him. So we have John McCain to thank for at least warning people. And we also have John McCain to thank for bringing in a bipartisan effort people to the table so that we can start putting politics aside, even putting a campaign aside, and just do what's right to fix this economic problem that we are in. It is a crisis. It's a toxic mess, really, on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street. And now we have to be ever vigilant and also making sure that credit markets don't seize up. That's where the Main Streeters like me, that's where we would really feel the effects. . . . Not quite as bad as the Courin interview, that was repeated nearly verbatim on SNL: PALIN: But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the -- oh, it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is part of that. Here is the SNL version: FEY AS PALIN: Like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this. We're saying, 'Hey, why bail out Fanny and Freddie and not me?' But ultimately what the bailout does is, help those that are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy to help...uh...it's gotta be all about job creation, too. Also, too, shoring up our economy and putting Fannie and Freddy back on the right track and so healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending...'cause Barack Obama, y'know...has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans, also, having a dollar value meal at restaurants. That's gonna help. But one in five jobs being created today under the umbrella of job creation. That, you know...Also... This is not only the most critical election of our generation, it is also the most hilarious. - Jed
[Vo]:FW: PRINCIPIA of Pumba's Triggershrimp: BIG-BANG as DarkSpace CAVITATION collapse EXPULSION event
TO ALL to wit: I agree: the CAPITALS are ANNYOYING; however, my style is a make-shift literary prosthesis for a 'incipient dislexia condition;' however I 'see' mulit-dextrously.~;-) It's difficult for me to 'express' in linear-script, so that the CAPTITALS kind've come out reflexively like TOURETTES! # % $ @! in print.~;-) So please forgive the 'terminally redundant' style: This is cleaned-up a bit. Jake Harbach-O'Sullivan TRIGGER SHRIMP holds the key to our BIG BANG birth out of DARKENERGY-DARKFLOW SuperCosmos PARENT Aexoverse! * * * AKNOWLEDGEMENT to 'Mooj' the Metrologist and J. Fields of Austin Instruments for their synchronistic 'CAVITATION'BRAIN-STORM. . . which I agree with absolutely and with DELIGHT! * * * PUMBA the TRIGGERshrimp 'R' right! * * * DarkSpace Gyro-toroidal Maelstroms become Hyper-Speed/Dense GravionicCentrific and thusly precipitously collapse upon the LOW-DENSITY incipient singularty eye-sphincter which they have created attheir respective CENTRES. And thusly like the TRIGGERSHRIMP and PUMBA in a pond they 'Fire' sub-EC^3cubed-just below DarkSpace/DarkEnergy threshold hyper-plasma through the eye-sphincter and thusly BIG-BANG a new BUBBLE-UNIVERSE of whichDarkSpace rountinely an infinite myriad champagne of, OF WHICH our own Low-Density Space-Time Normal home bubble universe is but one of. It is quite possible that a 'single Cavitative-Collapse BIG-BANG Expulsion event can fan out a MULTIPLE ARRAY of bubble universesinto the current dynamics of Parent DarkSpace of which some might even be TWINNED, /or CONJOINED, /or in MULTIPLE CLUSTERforms of mini-multiverses. GLOSSARY OF TERMS: A 'Seemless Whole' Unified-Field Hyper-Gravity/DarkSpace Theory.' #1. AE=EC^3ubed=DARK SPACE= Parent Aexoverse=Dark Energy also Dark Energy ingress to DarkSpace via BLACK-HOLE singularities=Adjacent Space 'back-of-tapestry' for ALL atomic protons-hadrons as Gray-HoleIncipient singularity Electro-Valent System rather than JUST being solo-discreet particle clusters. *KEY: Modification of term 'E' for Energy as specified ONE ENERGY as theoretical PILLAR. . . #2. 'E'=ONE ENERGY=Base Ambient Energy Average Speed-Density for Interstellar Sheet-SpaceTimeNormal. #3. Solving for 'M'-mass modification of classic Einstein E=MC^2quared-to now readM=EC^2quared.AND THUSLY multiplying for 'M'-mass(galactic mass atomic average /or Mass of ONE-HYDROGEN respectively)by 'C'-light-speed identifies the GRB-Bubble Universe outer DarkSpace bounary where the atom-gray hole singularitycentres become BLACK-HOLEized as simultaneously does also the balanced GRAY-HOLE Galactic Singularity Centre.And thusly from our BIG-BANG paroxismal WHITE-HOLE birth out of DarkSpace to the RE-ingress of galactic-mass@ 'C' Light Speed at the outer Bubble Universe Border with DarkSpace; it thusly constitutes a great Dark-Space High-Density to Low-Density to High-Density CIRCULATING SUPERCOSMIC SYSTEM. And this in formula is simply M=EC^2quared---and---AE=EC^3ubed. #4. EC=simply LIGHT= average photonic energy speed-density. * * *Exerpt from 'The Dream Dancers' * * * The Dream-time sang in the night. The sound of the digereedoo playing 'was' the very air all around in the darkness that was full of wildly gyrating dancing firelight shadows.And this pantheon was hidden in the small clearing of the sweet-gum forest while the taller than normal blackfellas ruled the 'Worldfor this moment that they danced this borning new age of timelessness into our 'normal' plane of existence for the entire planet it seemed. These all straw-headed aboriginals seemed like alien leaping mantis like beings whose shadows cavorted in their perculiar stamp-danceceremony cast surreally against the forest walls. And they would say that the 'whitefellas' soon need to get used to 'time' going around kind of all 'sideways' not reallying beingexactly 'time' anymore. And they would be grinning in their sly good humoured way as they said it. Could these be the very beings that had sang-danced a column of living sparks from there at Gordon Cooper's outback monitoring stationup to envelope John Glen's orbiting capsule high above? Yes; there are more things in Heaven Earth than we have ever dreamed of in our philosophies Horatio! (Old Will) **Mooj, This sounds like our ideas merged: DARK FLOW! ! ! ! CAVITATION EVENT ! ! ! aka LOW-DENSITY CENTRE within the 'eye' of a SUPERSPACE/DARK ENERGY TOROID-MAELSTOM= LOW DENSITY BUBBLE formation(Quasi-Big-Bang) CAVITATION EVENT. HA! The TRIGGER-SHRIMP held the KEYS TO THE FORMATION OF THE UNIVERSE! ! !~;-)* * * CONSIDER: The DarkEnergy/DarkFlow HYPERSPACE/SUPERCOSMOS Aexoversal Medium supporting FRACTALATING EDDIES characterized as HYPERDENSE TOROID-MAELSTROMS that create gyroscopically HYPER-HYPER SPEED DENSE ring Gravionic-Centrific OUTPULLING-STRESS upon the
Re: [Vo]:The Off Topic Threads
Edmund Storms wrote: Has any one noticed that Palin cannot complete a logical thought to its logical end without injecting random ideas? This way of thinking is similar to the unscripted Bush. Very similar. I have not seen this before. Bush and Palin are both smart in many ways, but they are incurious, unorganized and incapable of expressing coherent thought. Also, you might say they have no respect for facts. Palin was described in the Atlanta Journal the other day: . . . many Alaska political observers have advised against underestimating her. Several former rivals have pointed to her uncanny ability to make emotional connections with voters, even when she can't answer a question. Andrew Halcro, who lost the governor's race to Palin in 2006, wrote in the Anchorage Daily News last week that she was unintimidated by his mastery of policy details. 'Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers and yet when asked questions you spout off facts, figures and policies and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of that matter?' ' he recalls Palin telling him after a debate. . . . http://www.ajc.com/search/content/opinion/stories/2008/10/01/tucked.html The Bush administration's contempt for facts was made famous by this quote: The aide [who was upset with the author] said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.' http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html This contempt for facts is typical of anti-cold fusion people as well. See also Altemyer's web site on Authoritarian thought processes: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ - Jed
[Vo]:Offshore wind
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/new-jersey-approves- offshore-wind-farm/?hp http://tinyurl.com/4fxxgm Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Offshore wind
Those tinyurl things don't work for me, lately. Here is the URL on one unbroken line, I hope: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/new-jersey-approves-offshore-wind-farm/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Off Topic Threads
I see this characteristic in many faith-based people. Having faith reduces the strain on the logical brain and allows a person who is lacking logic to function. The rules and decisions are made by the religious leaders. However, we see in Bush what havoc a nonlogical thinker can create. Unfortunately, the nonlogical thinker does not have the ability to make the logical connection between Bush and the result. In the process of this election, we are seeing the population separate itself into faith-based (or emotion-based) and logic-based thinking. Bush and Palin seem to be about 10% logic, McCain seems about 50% logic while Obama is nearly 95% logic. We shall see which form of thinking has the genetic upper-hand in the population. Ed On Oct 3, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Has any one noticed that Palin cannot complete a logical thought to its logical end without injecting random ideas? This way of thinking is similar to the unscripted Bush. Very similar. I have not seen this before. Bush and Palin are both smart in many ways, but they are incurious, unorganized and incapable of expressing coherent thought. Also, you might say they have no respect for facts. Palin was described in the Atlanta Journal the other day: . . . many Alaska political observers have advised against underestimating her. Several former rivals have pointed to her uncanny ability to make emotional connections with voters, even when she can't answer a question. Andrew Halcro, who lost the governor's race to Palin in 2006, wrote in the Anchorage Daily News last week that she was unintimidated by his mastery of policy details. 'Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers and yet when asked questions you spout off facts, figures and policies and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of that matter?' ' he recalls Palin telling him after a debate. . . . http://www.ajc.com/search/content/opinion/stories/2008/10/01/tucked.html The Bush administration's contempt for facts was made famous by this quote: The aide [who was upset with the author] said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.' http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html This contempt for facts is typical of anti-cold fusion people as well. See also Altemyer's web site on Authoritarian thought processes: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Off Topic Threads
On Oct 3, 2008, at 8:09 AM, thomas malloy wrote: ...I just deleated the whole Evolution of Good Government thread, and the secrecy thread too. I'm a mere 766 messages behind in reading vortex. I barely have time to do science or even do my daily chores. No time to read political views. How about someone looking at the video on the website linked in that energy from air link that I posted, and then lets have a discussion about Respines, or induced LENR's or, anything but the Bailout Bill, of who won the VP debate. If you want people to look then I would suggest you be courteous enough to post the URL for any references you make. If it is not worth your time to find one then it certainly isn't worth every one else's effort duplicated n-fold. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:HARBACK jak - PlEaSe STOP breaking LIST RULES
MESSAGES posted to VORTEX-L should NOT include MULTIPLE recipients OR CC's. I DO have to WONDER, ARE Jake Harbach-O'Sullivan's POSTS actually totally HUMAN CRAFTED? 8^) If NOT, WHAT would Alan Turing THINK? 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[VO]: Algoil Rides Again
Algae, as Jones mentioned before, holds the #2 spot on potential for alternate fuels. Many newsmakers are hyping ET ( energy technology as the next investment oportunity) after the IT era. However, our local push to get something moving on co-operative research programs for algae has sorta dropped off the edge of the pond. There is a silence out there... Yep! it's quiet out there..Too quiet. Some large players are at work. One that interests me is the Australian research group CSIRO, The Australian Research Consortium is gaining speed. http://www.csiro.au/news/UltraBattery.html Richard Michael wrote, You may be right, but isn't the Valcent-Vertigro (American) company fairly advanced in this field? I really don't see why more attention isn't being paid to this technology. Seems like a winner to me. Jones wrote, Yes - as a matter of fact, the lack of attention which does appear to be strange, given the advantages -- this could be a deliberate strategy - since there are many companies: possibly the biggest players of all, who have NOT come out publicly with very much info (in recent years) on what they are actually doing now, or in the case of Shell - they have only exposed the tip of the iceberg (not a great analogy for a project in Hawaii). http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11db0836-82d2-11dd-a019-77b07658.html Because of this hidden undercurrent of under-published efforts and RD - which is likely to be out there, since there was lots more of it 5-8 years ago which seemed to disappear (but did it?) ... the algoil thing is poised to actually explode on the alternative energy scene... and possibly with special relevance to operators of coal-burning grid plants who are located next to the strip mines which supply the coal. Since these plants are already in the earth-moving business in a huge way - how costly is it for them to construct very cheap algae ponds in the former strip-mine site and then channel the CO2 over from the plant -- to feed the algae and increase the growth rate? That goes beyond win-win - heck it goes all the way to win-win-win-win when you consider the net effect of converting cheap but dirty coal into power, selling the power, then cleaning the operation up via the algae, instead of costly bag-houses, and then selling the oil and protein derived from the algae for much more than the coal cost to begin with, and all the while doing most of the work yourself, with paid-for equipment already on-site. Is there a greater opportunity available in the entire free-enterprise system? There are possibly 200 such plants in the USA above 500 megawatt capacity adjacent to strip mines or at least ample flat terrain. This is a gross simplification of a complex process, sure - but one can reasonably expect that once a tipping point in the technology-base has been reached for grid plants to do this with the normal ROI - then it will be a major societal shifting of assets - literally a paradigm-shift which could happen much more swiftly than DoE and assorted pundits suspect it will. Jones
[Vo]:Thixotropy and the Aether
Word of the day - thixotropy Thixotropy is the property of some kinds of thick (usually) mud-like fluids - which will show a marked decrease in viscosity under shear stress. A normal gel, mud, gunk or clay can end up acting like a super-lubricant in the extreme case. Is thixotropy also a property (real or metaphoric) of the aether - which serves to regulate the laws of thermodynamics to some degree? After all - in some of the better aether hypotheses, the aether is said to be very thick stuff - at least in another dimension, yet it does not affect our motion in 3-space very much- yet OTOH - it does give a twisted justification for inertia to some degree. All of these factors: thixotropy, the aether, inertia, and the laws of thermodynamics may be tied together at an intrinsic level. Maybe this is already a part of someone's theory, and if so, I hope it will be mentioned and credited to the proper source . The most often mentioned natural examples of thixotropy are so-called quicksand and other clays, like the ones under parts of San Francisco which exhibit characteristics of liquefaction during an earthquake. Drilling muds used in the oil industry can be thixotropic. Honey can also exhibit this property under certain conditions. Anyway, it has occurred to me recently that the reason that the Laws of Thermodynamics work so diabolically well, particularly with regard to magnetic motors (which are so difficult to make self-powering)-- is that these laws may be enforced by a reversible kind of thixotropy. The reversible thixotropy could be an inherent property of the aether... especially if/when that decrease in viscosity under shear becomes pushed to a limit such that it reverses and actually becomes a self-regulating increases in viscosity. IOW under extreme conditions (such as when a process becomes too efficient) the aether thixotropy reverses itself. This makes it a proactive element in keeping the LoT sacrosanct. This seems to be putting a certain amount of feedback and discretion, or intelligence, into the laws of thermodynamics, and that can sound too anthropomorphic - but so be it. It is certainly diabolical the way nature seems to step-in and keep devices from performing as the software models say that they should at higher speed, when based on real results at lower speed. i.e. power is (or should be) a ~6:1 factor increase with increasing rpm: Power = torque x 2pi x rpm (rotational speed) But this is not always the case, based on extending the results of what is transpiring at a lower speed. IOW - a magnet-motor (magmo) like that of Howard Johnson - may from time to time give glimpses and short-term evidence of true overunity, and that is why they are so appealing. But this claimed OU has not been replicated in public thus far - and perhaps that is due to the aether's self-regulating mechanism. This then would be the aether add-on hypothesis - the case where the thixotropy of the aether reverses itself - to prevent overunity, as it were. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Thixotropy and the Aether
The LoT is IMO easily defeated (at least in appearance as it is impossible to ever solve the question absolutely) when the aether is correctly conditioned. The aether is the medium of all matter and energy and if you engineer it's state you can change the rules, if you change the board on which matter and energy plays the game you can change all the rules. On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: becomes a self-regulating increases in viscosity. IOW under extreme conditions (such as when a process becomes too efficient) the aether thixotropy reverses itself. This makes it a proactive element in keeping the LoT sacrosanct.
Re: [Vo]:Thixotropy and the Aether
Jones wrote, The most often mentioned natural examples of thixotropy are so-called quicksand and other clays, like the ones under parts of San Francisco which exhibit characteristics of liquefaction during an earthquake. Drilling muds used in the oil industry can be thixotropic. Honey can also exhibit this property under certain conditions. Barium, like quicksand doesn't always play fair, evidenced by watching a density meter as drilling mud is pumped during a drilling process. Honey in a comb does not flowas when it's removed. Strange , the hex structure of the comb is often given credit for this anomaly. Jones wrote, But this is not always the case, based on extending the results of what is transpiring at a lower speed. IOW - a magnet-motor (magmo) like that of Howard Johnson - may from time to time give glimpses and short-term evidence of true overunity, and that is why they are so appealing. But this claimed OU has not been replicated in public thus far - and perhaps that is due to the aether's self-regulating mechanism. Even stranger, breaking the circuit to an electric motor can exhibit some mind teasing anomalies outside of your standard surge . There is the occasional motor that can produce an incredible voltage spike when the circuit is interrupted, either momentarily of on disconnect, even small fractional HP motors. Some motors above 150 HP starting and stopping across the line can produce incredible spikes unless they are surrounded by grounding rings. Even so, it is not uncommon to have the lights come on momentarily in a dark building. Fun stuff happens in adjacent areas with electronics. I have suspected a link beween these type events and the problems with mag motors. Richard
Re: [Vo]:The Off Topic Threads
Has any one noticed that Palin cannot complete a logical thought to its logical end without injecting random ideas? This way of thinking is similar to the unscripted Bush. Several former rivals have pointed to her uncanny ability to make emotional connections with voters, even when she can't answer a question. Both of the above are major *FLAGS* for ADHD. I should know .. I have this condition. I have long suspected that Prez Bush and Bill Gates have ADD. These people can be very chrismatic, are experts at circular logic and usually pathological liars. When they are unscripted, they have major issues with memory LINKAGE. They have the memories but have delayed access to them, usually minutes - hours - days after needed. This results in a subconscious effort to fill in the memory holes; hence the pathological lies. Since they believe in what they are saying (at the moment), and the memory fills are tailored to the event/person in front of them, they can be chrismatic. http://www.attentiondeficit-add-adhd.com/famous-people-with-ADHD.html http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/showarticle/2258 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder -DonW- - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Off Topic Threads Edmund Storms wrote: Has any one noticed that Palin cannot complete a logical thought to its logical end without injecting random ideas? This way of thinking is similar to the unscripted Bush. Very similar. I have not seen this before. Bush and Palin are both smart in many ways, but they are incurious, unorganized and incapable of expressing coherent thought. Also, you might say they have no respect for facts. Palin was described in the Atlanta Journal the other day: . . . many Alaska political observers have advised against underestimating her. Several former rivals have pointed to her uncanny ability to make emotional connections with voters, even when she can't answer a question. Andrew Halcro, who lost the governor's race to Palin in 2006, wrote in the Anchorage Daily News last week that she was unintimidated by his mastery of policy details. 'Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers and yet when asked questions you spout off facts, figures and policies and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of that matter?' ' he recalls Palin telling him after a debate. . . . http://www.ajc.com/search/content/opinion/stories/2008/10/01/tucked.html The Bush administration's contempt for facts was made famous by this quote: The aide [who was upset with the author] said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.' http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html This contempt for facts is typical of anti-cold fusion people as well. See also Altemyer's web site on Authoritarian thought processes: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity?
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:52:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] However, consider the case where a black hole swallows a planet sized chunk of matter. How long will it be before the *change* in strength of the gravitational field of the BH will be felt outside the event horizon? ...and perhaps more to the point how does the information pertaining to that change in mass escape? It doesn't. The planet-sized chunk of matter starts out OUTSIDE the event horizon. From the point of view of an observer outside, the result is the same as if the planet just smashed itself out flat *on* the event horizon, and never crossed it. Then perhaps that's exactly what happens. The matter is completely converted to energy which circulates around the center of mass at the event horizon. That would mean that there is no point mass at the center of a black hole, in fact there isn't anything there at all. If so, then this results in an interesting question:- Suppose that the circulating energy forms a ring rather than a spherical shell. What would happen to something passing down the axis of that ring? Suggestion, suppose that matter is created from space time directly by the field from the ring, and is spewed out along the axis (resulting in the frequently seen jets emitted from the cores of many galaxies). The gravitational field, as measured by a distant observer, is unaffected by the planet's traversal of the horizon. In that scenario, nothing escapes. The mass starts out outside, and its influence remains outside. The appearance, from the outside, is very much as though the entire mass of the black hole is distributed in an infinitesimally thin layer right on the event horizon. You can't see anything inside. In fact, as viewed by a distant observer, it appears that time slows to a stop for objects which approach the event horizon, as a result of which an outside observer can never actually observe anything crossing the event horizon, in either direction. (Hawking radiation also originates just outside the event horizon, as I understand it, which isn't very well.) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Yet another ultra
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:13:24 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Bottom line - GM has said the volt lithium batteries will cost the buyer $10,000 for the 40 mile range. With this UltraBattery instead, although the weight would be considerably more, the cost would be only $3000. The higher weight will decrease the range, which will result in even more battery weight. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Thixotropy and the Aether
What kinds of motors? I am actually planning to do an experiment similar to this soon and I do have a nice Synchronous motor. I actually believe that this is 'the key' to OU, I have noted some correlations that 'prove' it IMO. On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:10 PM, R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Even stranger, breaking the circuit to an electric motor can exhibit some mind teasing anomalies outside of your standard surge . There is the occasional motor that can produce an incredible voltage spike when the circuit is interrupted, either momentarily of on disconnect, even small fractional HP motors. Some motors above 150 HP starting and stopping across the line can produce incredible spikes unless they are surrounded by grounding rings. Even so, it is not uncommon to have the lights come on momentarily in a dark building. Fun stuff happens in adjacent areas with electronics. I have suspected a link beween these type events and the problems with mag motors.* ** Richard
