date:20120527


I agree with what you say here Jed.  I am mainly attempting to put into words 
the concept that safety is a relative issue.  You could be considered safe if 
you survive the ordeal and in this case I would assume that the decision makers 
would not have proceeded with the landing of the shuttle had they known for a 
fact that it would destruct.  That would have been a criminal act.

They apparently did not wish to see additional evidence that a delay would have 
been wise.  How much damage could a shuttle sustain and not fail?  I suspect 
that the answer to that question is complex and the final decision makers were 
overconfident in the design.  It became a fatal and terrible mistake that none 
would have chosen to make.

Perhaps there were numerous issues that had to be brushed under the rug if any 
flights were to proceed at all.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 5:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980


I mean that when they finally did the test, the was that SIZE. Big enough to 
put your head into. The resolution of the spy sat. cameras is not known, and 
the size of the hole is not known, but it was probably large enough to spot 
easily.


Unfortunately, this Shuttle did not have an arm. If it had they might have 
checked with that. Although I expect the managers would not have allowed even 
that check. They were determined not to allow any bad news, and not to allow 
anyone below them to make any decisions that might reflect badly on NASA.


These events were well documented in an extensive investigation, but they did 
not trigger an "uproar." They triggered intense and largely successful efforts 
to cover up the facts and whitewash the truth. The same thing happened after 
the Three Mile Island disaster. An NRL engineer who warned that the valve had 
malfunctioned twice and it was likely to happen again with disastrous 
consequences was forced out. The managers who had ignored his recommendation 
and later ordered him to shut up were given large cash bonuses and promotions.


That is the way the world works. If cold fusion ever succeeds I am confident 
that the establishment people who opposed it will take credit for its success. 
They will be promoted, rewarded and lionized. The people who worked to bring it 
about -- including me -- will be given "the frozen boot," as the Russians say. 
No good deed goes unpunished. That is the way the world works now, and always 
has, and probably always will.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR

2012-05-27 Thread Eric Walker

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:47 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

 Guys, this thread has gotten very far off the subject.  I request that you
> rename it and continue.  I would really appreciate a discussion concerning
> tritium associated with Ni-H LENR.
>
> Dave
>

We seem to be reaching the limits of our knowledge of tritium and the Ni-H
system.  Up to this point we've gotten as far as concluding that it is
sometimes observed and speculating on what might be going on (e.g.,
hydrinos, or a kind of tunneling of three protons into one another
simultaneously, or, left unmentioned up to this point but my favorite,
neutron production).  One place you might look for more information is
lenr-canr.org.  A search for "nickel tritium" yields 177 results.  Not all
of these links will be relevant, but I'm sure some of them will be
interesting.  The more concrete details we have to work with, the more
interesting the discussion will be.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

2012-05-27 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Chemical Engineer  wrote:
> I was thinking more along the lines of Sleestak...
>
> Humans sometime behave more like the creatures on the show.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Land_of_the_Lost_characters_and_species

Indeed they do!

I always had a problem with the Lost resolution.

T

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

I was thinking more along the lines of Sleestak...

Humans sometime behave more like the creatures on the show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Land_of_the_Lost_characters_and_species

On Sunday, May 27, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote:

> Well?  Silence yields consent?
>
> :-)
>
> T
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Terry Blanton 
> >
> wrote:
> > Everyone should know it was the Elohim.
> >
> > http://www.salemctr.com/newage/center31.html
> >
> > T
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

2012-05-27 Thread Terry Blanton

Well?  Silence yields consent?

:-)

T

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> Everyone should know it was the Elohim.
>
> http://www.salemctr.com/newage/center31.html
>
> T

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

James Bowery  wrote:

> You caught me in a technicality, Jed.  The distinction between retirement
> and tenure, especially in Fleischmann's case, is specious . . .

It is not specious. He was doing cold fusion when he was still an acting
professor. He did not do experiments because he never did them himself. He
was not good in the lab. He always collaborated with a hands-on person,
Pons in this case.

> Whether it is independence that is the foundation of scientific
> revolutions, or the "guidance" of our esteemed institutions.
>

Both. In many case such as aviation, independent researchers brought forth
the technology. In the case of the Internet, Uncle Sam did it all. That was
developed by civil servants on the government payroll. Transistors were the
product of Bell Labs, one of the most esteemed mainstream institutions in
history. Bell Labs also invented most other important telecom technology.

Many other important breakthroughs such as lasers were developed
independently but with government money. Most cold fusion breakthroughs are
in this category: independent, but paid for mainly by governments. The
project at U. Missouri, for example, is being paid for with private money,
but the lab facilities and much of the funding is from U. Mo.'s incubator
funding. It would never have happened if the state had not taken the
initiative, under Duncan's leadership.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Agreed, as the shuttle work has also led to new technologies.

The Apollo program also lost Astronauts but gave us great technologies and
movies.

On Sunday, May 27, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> We are lambasting NASA about this, and yeah they deserve it. But don't
> forget they also launched the Mars explorers. That is one one the greatest
> achievements in the history of science and technology.
>
> NASA is a big organization. Some parts are good, and some are bad. As I
> said, when they are good, they are very, very good.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

You caught me in a technicality, Jed.  The distinction between retirement
and tenure, especially in Fleischmann's case, is specious given what is at
issue:

Whether it is independence that is the foundation of scientific
revolutions, or the "guidance" of our esteemed institutions.

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> On the other hand . . . Fleischmann worked in government-funded
>>> institutions all of his life
>>>
>>
>> And not until he retired was he allowed to pursue the breakthrough.
>>
>
> That is incorrect. He was working on cold fusion when he was still at the
> university -- you can see his affiliation in the papers. They never
> objected because he was tenured. Not to mention an FRS. Some professors,
> such as Bockris, met with opposition despite tenure, but most did not.
> Mizuno met with opposition and had to spend his own money, but no one tried
> to stop him or any other Japanese professor.
>
> If it were not for the tenure system, cold fusion would never have been
> replicated. Most of the replications were done by tenured professors using
> university labs. Pons put some of his own money into the experiment, but
> the equipment and lab space was at U. Utah, so most of it was public money.
>
> You could not possibly get tenure if you talked about cold fusion today.
> You would never be hired in the first place. That is why there are no
> professors under 60 doing cold fusion. The field will die out soon if this
> does not change.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

We are lambasting NASA about this, and yeah they deserve it. But don't
forget they also launched the Mars explorers. That is one one the greatest
achievements in the history of science and technology.

NASA is a big organization. Some parts are good, and some are bad. As I
said, when they are good, they are very, very good.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

2012-05-27 Thread Terry Blanton

Everyone should know it was the Elohim.

http://www.salemctr.com/newage/center31.html

T

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


At 09:30 AM 5/27/2012, James Bowery wrote:

OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.

Go fuck yourself.


Let's say that Jojo's post failed to inspire James

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


At 09:11 AM 5/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.

What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?

Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the 
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent 
Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance 
mutations.  Random processes never create Information, because 
information is "Order", the exact opposite of Randomness.


The conclusion is being assumed. It is easy to demonstrate 
information in random output with or without output selection. 
"Information" is not defined here, and I suspect that the undisclosed 
definition again incorporates the conclusions.


There is order in the non-living, presumably mechanistic, universe, 
by any reasonable definition of order. We associate very high levels 
of order with life, normally, for life organizes material, it can be 
one of the definitions of life.


For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent 
sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being.


Easy to demonstrate otherwise. Make a random sequence generator, then 
select the output which makes sense. Humans actually do this 
detection well, almost too well, sometimes, we will indeed "make 
sense" of random combinations. And then people will insist that the 
sense that they make from this stuff is "intended," a "code" that 
proves something or other. Like that the Torah is from God ("Torah 
Code") or the Qur'an from Allah ("The Miracle of the Nineteen.")


Gambler's Fallacy is a phenomenon related to this.

  If your throw a bunch of Scrabble letters on the ground, the 
following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.


"There is a God"

"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign 
language.  This is a random mixture of the same letters above.)


Yes. But if you have a Scrabble set tossed to make random words, but 
you have a setup which rejects what is not in a dictionary, the 
second set is impossible, it will not be kept. There is *not* an 
equal chance as you assume.


The genetic code is not randomly mutated, in the sense you think. 
Many mutations would result in copying failure, for starters. Many 
more mutations would result in organism failure. In complex 
organisms, many more mutations would not be viable. Even more might 
be temporarily viable, but would not survive to reproduce. Or might 
only last a few generations, either by accident or because of loss of 
survivability.


And many mutations are irrelevant, have no effect on the function of 
the DNA, so the DNA behind a particular functional part of an 
organism is, in fact, a family of patterns, not a single one.


That "junk DNA" can be mutations waiting to become, through some 
further process, something active. It might represent something that 
was active in the past but which is no longer active, that mutated 
out of activity but caused no damage because any necessary function 
was also carried elsewhere.


This is all just how DNA functions. It proves nothing about 
"creation" one way or another. What is the real issue here?


What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as 
far as randon chance is concerned.


The first sentence *might* have been created by random chance and, in 
fact, I could demonstrate this if I thought it were important. The 
key is that I'd set up an algorithm using random letter selection. 
"There is a God" is short enough that I could get this result with 
fairly little computer time, and that's why web sites advise more 
complex passwords!


What you have shown, Jojo, is that your own selection process is not 
"random chance." This proves?


It *certainly* does not prove that random chance cannot produce 
sensible words, but you seem to think so, which demonstrates what?


Are you familiar with the Torah Code? See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code



Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge difference.


Sure. That is, to an Intelligent Entity, which you assume yourself to 
be, of limited intelligence. A *huge* difference. Which the 
intelligent entity made up. That's what intelligent entities, in 
fact, do, they make up meaning. It's a useful process, often. Not 
always. Gambler's Fallacy.



What differentiates the 2 sentences?  It is Information of course.


That's debatable. What information? What I see in the first sentence 
is grammatically correct, but "information" is actually supplied by 
the reader. You *say* that the second sentence is not a foreign 
language, but that is your *assumption.*


In the end, both sentences are assemblages of letters, and whether or 
not they mean something is dependent upon the *reader* -- or reading device.


What is *meant* by "God"? Indeed, what is "meant" by any of the 
words, most especially "is"? Is what, is where, is how? All these are 
supplied by the reader, in "making sense" of the sentence. You may 
say that there is an *intended

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

No, it was the Hubble program that produced cool screen savers and I bet
you have some too.

The government has made very poor funding decisions as of late:

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/FINAL-DOE-Loan-Guarantees-Report.pdf

I worked on a project for one of the recipients, what a goat f$:)&!  and a
waste of our money.

The US goverment needs to fund basic research of all types, including LENR
and get out of the business of picking winners and losers in the capital
markets.

I like the fact NASA is pushing projects down to contractors like SpaceX
once the technology is understood.

I also like the fact we are using automated drones for things like space
cargo and defense and saving the precious and expensive astronauts & pilots
for the difficult tasks.  Better ROI and less risk.

On Sunday, May 27, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> At 12:10 PM 5/26/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:
>
>> Jed,
>>
>> I suggest you remove all of those Hubble screen savers and wallpapers off
>> your PC.  It cost way too much to produce them
>>
>> On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:
>> If that was the only accomplishment of the shuttle i might give your
>> argument some weight
>>
>> On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>> Randy Wuller  wrote:
>>
>> You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of the
>> Shuttle and its operation.
>>
>>
>> That is true. See the book "Hubble Wars." The cost of the Shuttle mission
>> to repair the Hubble was greater than the cost of launching a new Hubble
>> would have been. I regret to say this, but it was a publicity stunt.
>>
>
> Brilliant. The Shuttle program was justified because it produced cool
> screen-savers? Why should we toss out those expensive screen-savers? We
> should keep them as reminders of how billions of dollars can be spent to
> produce some great images.
>
> Now, for the future, can we produce even better images with an improve
> space telescope, launched far more cheaply?
>
> I bet there are some great images of tokamaks and other hot fusion
> machines. I've seen some great steampunk stuff from the Soviet program. Big
> Old Machines, rusting away. This means?
>
> Big Science is almost intrinsically a problem, it requires massive
> bureaucracy, which is readily self-preserving, just not surprising. Science
> is now tending toward much smarter investments, and to distributed
> intelligence.
>

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

2012-05-27 Thread Daniel Rocha

I think it would be a dream having multiple Hubbles for many researchers,
but the problem is that requiring multiple modules would require a lot of
extra funding, before the beginning of the project, and basic science is
something that people do not appreciate much since it has too much a fame
of being wasted money, unfortunately. They rather waste their tax money in
useless wars or saving stupid banks, in much bigger quantities.

But I think tolerance for failures with space for upgrades was something
taken into consideration before sending it to space. Otherwise, Hubble
would not be built into modules and its fixing would not have taken just a
few days.

2012/5/27 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 

> At 02:55 PM 5/26/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> This argument is not right. It is not valid also to compare it to a
>> computer or aircraft projects. The development of Hubble led to a unique
>> architecture, not to mass production. It would take a long time to build
>> another one. So, fixing it in space, even if required a lot of money, was
>> necessary or a lot of fundamental research would be long delayed.
>>
>
> That's arguable. However, it also points to long-term planning failure. It
> points to the hazard of betting everything on a single implementation. It's
> been pointed out in this discussion that building several space telescopes
> would not have cost several times as much money. Only launch costs would
> have seen such a multiplication, maybe. Maybe not!
>
> Further, if more than one worked, great. Easier access to more
> researchers.
>

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:Capsule Declared 'Mission Ready' for Record Freefall Attempt

2012-05-27 Thread Harry Veeder

Capsule Declared 'Mission Ready' for Record Freefall Attempt

March 8, 2012 – The capsule that will bring Austrian pilot Felix
Baumgartner to the edge of space for his attempt to set a new world
record free fall is "mission ready," according to the Red Bull Stratos
science team. A stratospheric balloon will lift the capsule to more
than 120,000 feet; then Baumgartner will jump out in an attempt to
break four records held by Joe Kittinger and set more that 50 years
ago. A spokesperson from Red Bull said the team hopes to achieve the
120,000-foot attempt this summer.

On August 16, 1960, Col. Joe Kittinger of the United States Air Force
set the longstanding highest ascent record, riding a balloon to
102,800 feet during the historic Excelsior III project, then leapt out
and made the highest skydive on record. Baumgartner also hopes to
become the first person to break the speed of sound without the
protection of an aircraft, and set a record for the longest freefall
(estimated at 5 minutes, 30 seconds) ...

http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-03-08_capsule.asp

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980


At 02:55 PM 5/26/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote:
This argument is not right. It is not valid also to compare it to a 
computer or aircraft projects. The development of Hubble led to a 
unique architecture, not to mass production. It would take a long 
time to build another one. So, fixing it in space, even if required 
a lot of money, was necessary or a lot of fundamental research would 
be long delayed.


That's arguable. However, it also points to long-term planning 
failure. It points to the hazard of betting everything on a single 
implementation. It's been pointed out in this discussion that 
building several space telescopes would not have cost several times 
as much money. Only launch costs would have seen such a 
multiplication, maybe. Maybe not!


Further, if more than one worked, great. Easier access to more researchers.

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980


At 02:47 PM 5/26/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

In other countries such as Italy, Japan and China as well, nearly 
all funding is from the governments. Granted, Toyota and some others 
contributed a little, but only in tandem with governments.


And when it became clear that the Pons-Fleischmann approach to LENR 
had very little commercial promise, if any, that it was *difficult* 
to make this reliable, and, of course, reliability is essential to 
commercial application, Toyota backed out. They did not make it clear 
why they were doing this, which is unfortunate, it gets presented as 
if they found cold fusion was bogus. They did not.


By the time Toyota backed out, it was clear that cold fusion was 
real. But *difficult* to make reliable. It is possible to imagine 
making cold fusion useful if it can be shown to be statistically 
reliable, but it's a lot more work, requiring simultaneous 
miniaturization and multiplication.


Jed's basic point stands. This is mostly blue-sky research, with no 
*immediate* commercial application, if we set aside the wild cards, 
i.e., Rossi et al. Most of that research, really, remains to be done, 
there are fundamental questions about cold fusion that have never 
been adequately investigated, so heavy was the pressure to try to 
make cells "reliable," with higher energy output, instead of 
carefully and repeatedly investigating what was already found.


I.e., doing science, as distinct from trying to engineer what is not 
understood, a process that can be little more than stabbing in the 
dark. If Rossi found a "secret sauce," it would probably have little 
to do with a theoretical understanding and much more to do with 
simply trying a lot of stuff. Too bad he had no understanding of 
scientific protocols, he thought that "controls" were laughable. 
Supposedly he already knows what a control E-cat would do, i.e., nothing.


But it would not do *nothing* if it had the same power input as his 
test E-cat. It would show the behavior of an E-cat without the 
"secret sauce," compared to with it. It would have largely killed the 
objections to his tests, leaving only pure fraud (which is impossible 
to completely disprove aside from truly independent testing.)

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980


At 12:10 PM 5/26/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:

Jed,

I suggest you remove all of those Hubble screen savers and 
wallpapers off your PC.  It cost way too much to produce them


On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:
If that was the only accomplishment of the shuttle i might give your 
argument some weight


On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Randy Wuller  wrote:

You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of 
the Shuttle and its operation.



That is true. See the book "Hubble Wars." The cost of the Shuttle 
mission to repair the Hubble was greater than the cost of launching 
a new Hubble would have been. I regret to say this, but it was a 
publicity stunt.


Brilliant. The Shuttle program was justified because it produced cool 
screen-savers? Why should we toss out those expensive screen-savers? 
We should keep them as reminders of how billions of dollars can be 
spent to produce some great images.


Now, for the future, can we produce even better images with an 
improve space telescope, launched far more cheaply?


I bet there are some great images of tokamaks and other hot fusion 
machines. I've seen some great steampunk stuff from the Soviet 
program. Big Old Machines, rusting away. This means?


Big Science is almost intrinsically a problem, it requires massive 
bureaucracy, which is readily self-preserving, just not surprising. 
Science is now tending toward much smarter investments, and to 
distributed intelligence.

Re: [Vo]:"Localized time- space curvature demonstrated from 3 phase alternator powered 666 machine"

At 12:19 PM 5/26/2012, Harvey Norris wrote:

64 views before announcement...
beforeitsnews.com/story/2177/069/Localized_time-_space_curvature_demonstrated_from_3_phase_alternator_powered_666_machine.html

This measurement showed in the video is the most important
measurement ever made regarding relativity, besides that of the
eclipse of the sun verifying Einstein's concepts. It furthermore
shows that it is not necessary to make astronomical measurements to
show the principles involved with relativity, and that machines
exhibiting a "localized" time space curvature are indeed possible.

Topological Evidence of Time Distortion in the 666 Machine
youtu.be/uakJJKGf-mM
Biography: Founder of Tesla Research Group
nventor of the 666 machine, a special torsional device that can
either expand or compress the time periods acting between the three
phases of a three phase power source. This utilyses a higher
dimensional vector expressed in the 3D space, whereas the vectors of
ordinary three phase machines will show their resultant voltages
plotted as vectors in time as a 2D flat diagram. 3 dimensional
representation of voltage vectors in time are necessary to show the
results of the 666 machine's operation. If we try to represent them
in the conventional manner employed with a 2D vector diagram; we
wind up with the quandary of a 3rd resultant vector solution
appearing to exist as two different vectors on that 2D vector
diagram. By cutting out the piece of pie between these two vector
solutions: and then folding the entire diagram into a 3D cone shape
by connecting the two solutions into a single solution; we now have
a 3D vector system to show the actions of the

machine by its plotted vectors. [...etc.]

I'm going to point out the obvious that often doesn't get pointed
out. Harvey, if you don't realize how insane you will seem, with what
you write, by most of us, you don't understand enough about other
people to successfully communicate with them.

So what are you attempting to accomplish?

None of this means you are "wrong." It does probably mean that
whether or not you are right or wrong is irrelevant, it won't make
any difference at all.

Now, I'm going to suggest a bypass, a way that if you should actually
be "right," could get around the communication barrier. If you can
convince *one other person*, who is knowledgeable and cogent, that
your work is worth looking at, who will represent it to others, you
will have made a major step forward. If you can't do this, though,
the most I could suggest is that you write it down, maybe it will be
discovered by future generations. If you want to see results in your
lifetime, you'll need to do something much more than write as you
have been writing.

And it's far more likely -- just my personal impression -- that you
don't actually know what you are doing. But I'm not inspired to
follow you enough to find out either where you are right or where you
are wrong.

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

I mean that when they finally did the test, the was that SIZE. Big enough
to put your head into. The resolution of the spy sat. cameras is not known,
and the size of the hole is not known, but it was probably large enough to
spot easily.

Unfortunately, this Shuttle did not have an arm. If it had they might have
checked with that. Although I expect the managers would not have allowed
even that check. They were determined not to allow any bad news, and not to
allow anyone below them to make any decisions that might reflect badly on
NASA.

These events were well documented in an extensive investigation, but they
did not trigger an "uproar." They triggered intense and largely successful
efforts to cover up the facts and whitewash the truth. The same thing
happened after the Three Mile Island disaster. An NRL engineer who warned
that the valve had malfunctioned twice and it was likely to happen again
with disastrous consequences was forced out. The managers who had ignored
his recommendation and later ordered him to shut up were given large cash
bonuses and promotions.

That is the way the world works. If cold fusion ever succeeds I am
confident that the establishment people who opposed it will take credit for
its success. They will be promoted, rewarded and lionized. The people who
worked to bring it about -- including me -- will be given "the frozen
boot," as the Russians say. No good deed goes unpunished. That is the way
the world works now, and always has, and probably always will.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


At 04:17 AM 5/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
There appears to be some interest in this subject, so I will 
continue discussing it as long as people want to discuss it by 
responding.  Apoligies to Bill in advance if this is inappropriate.


What was clearly inappropriate was such a thorough hijacking of the thread.

First, let me make something very clear.  My goal in brining up this 
discussion is to try to draw a parallel between what is happening 
with Hot Fusion and Darwinian Evolution Theory.   Maybe, we can 
begin to understand the hostility towards Cold Fusion and as part of 
the Scientific Community, begin to rectify it.


In Hot Fusion, the science appears to be "Established".  There are 
decades of work associated with it.  There appears to be some 
"established" theories.  Hence, when people like Parks, Huzienga and 
others dismiss Cold Fusion out of hand, they are simply appealing to 
the "Triumph" of the prevailing theories.  In their minds, these 
theories are well founded and well established.


They are, in their territory. The problem was in extending them 
beyond what was known, and assuming that such extensions were *part 
of the known theory.* In fact, there were plenty of scientists in 
1989-1990 who knew that existing theory did not rule out cold fusion 
and, in fact, one example of catalyzed cold fusion was known, 
muon-catalyzed fusion. So why could there not be another? The 1989 
DoE review explicitly recognized that the "impossiblity" argument was 
weak and impossible, itself, to prove. Rather, in 1989, what could be 
said -- and this was at least somewhat reasonable then -- was that it 
had not been "conclusively demonstrated" that LENR was real.


In the minds of those to whom LENR was a threat, either to their 
comfort level with the depth of their understanding of what was 
possible in physics, or more directly to funding for hot fusion 
projects, this was translated into "bogus." Kind of a leap, eh? And 
then the color of "bogus" was smeared over all reports considered 
similar, thus completely bypassing the normal process of scientific 
inquiry. It was a socio-political phenomenon, and has been covered 
well by Simon (2002, Undead Science).


In Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism thought, once again, there "appears" 
to be some "established" theories (Albeit a theory you can drive a 
Mack Truck thru.).


Straw man argument, Jojo.

  In the same vein, people like Jed who dismiss Intelligent Design 
and Creationism as "quack" science, are just as quick to point out 
the Darwinian Evolution is "fact" just as Parks would point out 
that Hot Fusion is "fact" to the exclusion of anything else.  You 
see, the point that I am making is that without realizing it, Jed 
has the same close-minded tendencies as Parks do.


The straw man is "Darwinian Evolution." What's that? By name, it is 
referred to a person and to ideas expressed in the 19th century.


Why doesn't Jed study the principles of Irreducible Complexity, or 
Specified Complexity, or Biological Chirality, or Abiogenesis, or 
Improbabality or DNA Information, or Cell complexity, or the 
Bacterial Flagellum etc. These are legitimate fields of science 
where there are published papers.


Because he's not interested, my guess. Why should he be?

For me, I'll ask "what is the *experimental evidence"? The stories we 
tell about our experience are not evidence. Theories, *all of them* 
are stories. They are useful to the extent that they empower us to 
predict the consequences of actions.


But there is another realm of theory, theory that "explains" the 
past. That can be useful as a mnemonic device, that's about it. Such 
theories can collapse very complex sets of data into something simple 
for memory to grasp, and this is useful, as well, as a possible way 
to predict new discovery about the past, and perhaps, sometimes, to 
predict the results of controlled experiment; but controlled 
experiment in the field you are addressing, Jaro, is not so easy to come by.


What happens with this kind of theory is that people line up based on 
whether they like the implications of the theory or don't. People who 
take the concept of divine creation as if it were some kind of 
scientific principle, in contradiction with some sort of mechanistic 
concept of evolution that they imagine -- or know -- that others 
hold, are offended by theories of evolution. But, in fact, they made 
up the contradiction. And, I'll assert, it has nothing to do with 
real faith. It's more along the lines of imagining a splinter in the 
eyes of others, while ignoring the beam in one's own.


And "scientists" who use theories of evolution as if they were some 
sort of refutation of creation stories are simply doing the same 
thing on the other side, making up a story of contradiction. That has 
nothing to do with science.


I suspect that if I meet Jed in person, and hand him a math paper by 
Stephen Myers on Specified Complexity and Improbability, he would 
let that paper d

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

David Roberson  wrote:

Can you imagine the uproar that would have occurred had a group of
> engineers come forward and told their managers about their concern at the
> time?
>

They did come forward! Read the article. While the Shuttle was in orbit,
they came forward, contacted the Air Force, and asked them to look at the
Shuttle with a spy satellite. The Air Force agreed to do this, but at the
last minute the top managers at NASA cancelled the check.

The engineers also asked for a space walk to check the wing. That would
have been easy to do. The managers refused to allow that either.

A spy sat. would easily have spotted the problem. The hole was probably
large enough to put head into. When they finally arranged a test on earth,
the insulation punched a hole of that side.

The managers fought tooth and nail to prevent the test on earth as well.
They did not want proof. They gave the excuse that the test would ruin
$700,000 worth of material. This was after spending $300 million on the
investigation.

The manager's behavior resembles that of people opposed to cold fusion.
They go to any lengths to prevent tests and hide the facts. This kind of
behavior is common in all government agencies, corporations, in the
Catholic Church, in the Board of Trade investigation of the Titanic
disaster, and in all other institutions.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video

2012-05-27 Thread Alan Fletcher

> From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 11:25:34 AM
> But the title of this thread is Zawodny's video. 

It was my fault bringing up Le Clair .. but I was following up on Bushnell's 
quote (linked in the original post) about "Labs blown up" and "windows melted".

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980


It is not hard to envision the complex waiting procedure shown below with the 
knowledge that we posses today.  Things would have been far different for the 
decision makers at the time since no one actually believed that the mission 
would degrade as it did.  Actually, we could move the decision point further 
back in time all the way to the basic design decisions that were made at the 
beginning of the project.  Now, not like then, most engineers would realize 
that falling foam damage might cause failure to the craft and it will never 
show up again in future designs.  This is the nature of unknowns and they 
always exist.

Can you imagine the uproar that would have occurred had a group of engineers 
come forward and told their managers about their concern at the time?  Remember 
the famous O-ring meetings?  I suspect that operating upon issues that 'might' 
happen is routinely suppressed.  It is difficult to imagine any scenario 
involving a complex craft such as the shuttle that is 100% safe under any and 
all conditions which might arise.  We can certainly argue that the loss of 
tiles in a critical area falls under the category of major concern, but plenty 
of other faults could end a mission as well.  Unfortunately danger is always a 
part of life.

It is not possible to go back in time(at least not yet) to follow an alternate 
path which averts destruction.  How could we be sure that the other possible 
plans do not have serious misconceptions lurking within them?  I am afraid that 
we are bound by the decisions made by those in authority.  There will always be 
errors in judgement and designs will need to be modified to compensate.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 1:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980


Here is another interesting article in Slate's series, on the Columbia disaster:


http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2003/11/langewiesche.htm


This is about the dysfunctional corporate culture in NASA.


When Columbia was in orbit, some people thought it might be damaged by the 
falling insulation. Some said that even if it was damaged, nothing could be 
done about it. Here is something I did not know:


[NASA administrator] Linda Ham was wrong. Had the hole in the leading edge been 
seen, actions could have been taken to try to save the astronauts' lives. The 
first would have been simply to buy some time. Assuming a starting point on the 
fifth day of the flight, NASA engineers subsequently calculated that by 
requiring the crew to rest and sleep, the mission could have been extended to a 
full month, to February 15. During that time the Atlantis, which was already 
being prepared for a scheduled March 1 launch, could have been processed more 
quickly by ground crews working around the clock, and made ready to go by 
February 10. If all had proceeded perfectly, there would have been a five-day 
window in which to blast off, join up with the Columbia, and transfer the 
stranded astronauts one by one to safety, by means of tethered spacewalks. Such 
a rescue would not have been easy, and it would have involved the possibility 
of another fatal foam strike and the loss of two shuttles instead of one; but 
in the risk-versus-risk world of space flight, veterans like Mike Bloomfield 
would immediately have volunteered, and NASA would have bet the farm.

The fallback would have been a desperate measure—a jury-rigged repair performed 
by the Columbia astronauts themselves. It would have required two spacewalkers 
to fill the hole with a combination of heavy tools and metal scraps scavenged 
from the crew compartment, and to supplement that mass with an ice bag shaped 
to the wing's leading edge. In theory, if much of the payload had been 
jettisoned, and luck was with the crew, such a repair might perhaps have 
endured a modified re-entry and allowed the astronauts to bail out at the 
standard 30,000 feet. The engineers who came up with this plan realized that in 
reality it would have been extremely dangerous, and might well have led to a 
high-speed burn-through and the loss of the crew. But anything would have been 
better than attempting a normal re-entry as it was actually flown. 


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video

2012-05-27 Thread Axil Axil

As I have posted before, it’s the shape of the crystal(AKA Rydberg matter,
Clusters) that is important, not what the crystal is made of.

In this regard, a nanowire can be made of carbon (Mint Candy – negative
charge concentration), water (LeClair - positive charge concentration), alkali
metals (Rossi, DGT - positive charge concentration), or cracks or voids
(Storms - negative charge concentration).

These crystals serve to concentrate charge of either polarity which lowers
the coulomb barrier.

As I have said before, the LeClair effect cannot be neutron based (aka-hot
fusion) because he is still alive after exposure to his process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process

The R process is what LeClair says is going on in his reaction. LeClair has
no clue to what he is talking about.

The *r-process* is a
nucleosynthesisprocess,
occurring in core-collapse
supernovae  (see also supernova
nucleosynthesis )
and in nuclear weapon
explosions, which is
responsible for the creation of approximately half of
the neutron -rich atomic
nucleithat are heavier
than iron . The process entails
a succession of *rapid* neutron
captures(hence the name
*r-process*) on seed nuclei ,
typically Ni-56. The other predominant mechanism for the production of
heavy elements is the s-process ,
which is nucleosynthesis by means of *slow* neutron captures, primarily
occurring in AGB stars,
and together these two processes account for a majority of galactic
chemical evolution  of
elements heavier than iron.

The LeClair process is a proton fusion process just like all the other ones
mentioned above base on charge accumulation.

I have no idea what catalyst mint Candy is using for a catalyst but I hope
he posts his patent when he gets one.

The Rossi catalyst concentrates positive charge by using heat. This is very
hard to control. Direct negative charge accumulation from a spark plug is
very controllable.

Cheers and good luck: Axil

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> **
> Axil,  In your opinion, is LeClair process the same mechanism as the Mitt
> Candy Hexane/Propane process?
>
> It seems LeClair is more Hot Fusion than LENR, and appears to be totally
> different from Rossi, DGT, both of which seems different from Mitt Candy.
>
> Any ideas/suggestions on what Mitt Candy's catalyst might be.
>
> Due primarily to your recent comments, I have had a change of heart
> regarding the Hexane/Propane process.  I will be attempting a parallel
> replication attempt of Mitt Candy's process.
>
> Are you of the opinion that all these apparent LENR process are based on
> the acculumation of extreme charges on nanotubules or Rydberg Matter?
>
>
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Monday, May 28, 2012 1:41 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC
> YouTube video
>
>
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Initiation%20of%20nuclear%20reactions.pdf
>
>
>
> A number of experiments that feature violent activity in water share the
> same characteristics that LeClair observed in his LENR experiments. I see
> the referenced experiment listed above demonstrating the production of
> Protonated Water Clusters in the plasma when a laser beam ionizes gold Nano
> particles in an aqueous solution of uranium salts. LeClair can also
> produce his reaction using a laser beam.
>
> The referenced experiment is less energetic than the LeClair experiment
> because no sacrificial attractive material is present.
>
> But in both experiments, collapsing cavatation bubbles are formed and
> Protonated Water Clusters are generated which catalyze proton based cold
> fusion reactions.
>
> What the other commenter miss in this type of reaction is that cavatation
> can provide a continuum of energy levels from weak to extreme. It is
> adjustable. LeClair has mentioned that he can adjust the energy level in
> his reaction to produce only heat without radiation to a full range of
> element transmutation which is accompanied by heavy radiation.
>
> Until the other evaluators of this reaction understand its true dynamics,
> they will continual to misunderstand what underlying processes are going on
> in the LeClair effect.
>
>
>
> To wit, if there is no attractive shock wave produced to provide added
> kinetic energy, then transmutation is gentle and well behaved. Yes the
> shock wave is optional with th

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Chemical Engineer  wrote:

>
> To label NASA as a dysfunctinal corporate culture seems a stretch since
> they are a bureaucratic goverment agency in which both cases managers
> failed to move on actionable data.
>

That's what I mean. That's the same thing. It was a dysfunctional corporate
culture so the managers failed. It probably still is.

I did not mean "corporate" as in corporation. I meant "group" or aggregate.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video

Axil,  In your opinion, is LeClair process the same mechanism as the Mitt Candy 
Hexane/Propane process?

It seems LeClair is more Hot Fusion than LENR, and appears to be totally 
different from Rossi, DGT, both of which seems different from Mitt Candy.

Any ideas/suggestions on what Mitt Candy's catalyst might be.  

Due primarily to your recent comments, I have had a change of heart regarding 
the Hexane/Propane process.  I will be attempting a parallel replication 
attempt of Mitt Candy's process.

Are you of the opinion that all these apparent LENR process are based on the 
acculumation of extreme charges on nanotubules or Rydberg Matter?





Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 1:41 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube 
video


  
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Initiation%20of%20nuclear%20reactions.pdf



  A number of experiments that feature violent activity in water share the same 
characteristics that LeClair observed in his LENR experiments. I see the 
referenced experiment listed above demonstrating the production of Protonated 
Water Clusters in the plasma when a laser beam ionizes gold Nano particles in 
an aqueous solution of uranium salts. LeClair can also produce his reaction 
using a laser beam.

  The referenced experiment is less energetic than the LeClair experiment 
because no sacrificial attractive material is present. 

  But in both experiments, collapsing cavatation bubbles are formed and 
Protonated Water Clusters are generated which catalyze proton based cold fusion 
reactions.

  What the other commenter miss in this type of reaction is that cavatation can 
provide a continuum of energy levels from weak to extreme. It is adjustable. 
LeClair has mentioned that he can adjust the energy level in his reaction to 
produce only heat without radiation to a full range of element transmutation 
which is accompanied by heavy radiation.

  Until the other evaluators of this reaction understand its true dynamics, 
they will continual to misunderstand what underlying processes are going on in 
the LeClair effect. 



  To wit, if there is no attractive shock wave produced to provide added 
kinetic energy, then transmutation is gentle and well behaved. Yes the shock 
wave is optional with the addition of an attractive sacrificial metal within 
six bubble diameters of bubble formation. At its root, the LeClair effect is 
cold fusion.



  Cheers: Axil








  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  
wrote:

At 04:28 PM 5/25/2012, David Roberson wrote:

  The scenario that they mention is beyond frightening and anyone who 
remained in the vicinity of that experiment should be given a metal for bravery.

  I can imagine the description of damage being used as part of the plot to 
a wild science fiction movie.  What a shame that the occurrence was not better 
documented!

  Are you sure this was not part of an April fools joke?



Funny Dave should ask that. It was my first hit when the Nanospire story 
first broke.

But I'd expect, by now, someone would have been observed giggling and 
running away from the window, as with Mr. Mischief in the Mr. series of 
children's books. LeClair is real, has talked with real people (such as Krivit 
and Storms).

And that's about how far it's gone, as to anything verifiable.

[Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Jed,

There were definitely bad management decisions made in both disasters based
upon technical information available.

To label NASA as a dysfunctinal corporate culture seems a stretch since
they are a bureaucratic goverment agency in which both cases managers
failed to move on actionable data.

On Sunday, May 27, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Here is another interesting article in Slate's series, on the Columbia
> disaster:
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2003/11/langewiesche.htm
>
> This is about the dysfunctional corporate culture in NASA.
>
> When Columbia was in orbit, some people thought it might be damaged by the
> falling insulation. Some said that even if it was damaged, nothing could be
> done about it. Here is something I did not know:
>
> [NASA administrator] Linda Ham was wrong. Had the hole in the leading edge
> been seen, actions could have been taken to try to save the astronauts'
> lives. The first would have been simply to buy some time. Assuming a
> starting point on the fifth day of the flight, NASA engineers subsequently
> calculated that by requiring the crew to rest and sleep, the mission could
> have been extended to a full month, to February 15. During that time the
> Atlantis, which was already being prepared for a scheduled March 1 launch,
> could have been processed more quickly by ground crews working around the
> clock, and made ready to go by February 10. If all had proceeded perfectly,
> there would have been a five-day window in which to blast off, join up with
> the Columbia, and transfer the stranded astronauts one by one to safety, by
> means of tethered spacewalks. Such a rescue would not have been easy, and
> it would have involved the possibility of another fatal foam strike and the
> loss of two shuttles instead of one; but in the risk-versus-risk world of
> space flight, veterans like Mike Bloomfield would immediately have
> volunteered, and NASA would have bet the farm.
>
> The fallback would have been a desperate measure—a jury-rigged repair
> performed by the Columbia astronauts themselves. It would have required two
> spacewalkers to fill the hole with a combination of heavy tools and metal
> scraps scavenged from the crew compartment, and to supplement that mass
> with an ice bag shaped to the wing's leading edge. In theory, if much of
> the payload had been jettisoned, and luck was with the crew, such a repair
> might perhaps have endured a modified re-entry and allowed the astronauts
> to bail out at the standard 30,000 feet. The engineers who came up with
> this plan realized that in reality it would have been extremely dangerous,
> and might well have led to a high-speed burn-through and the loss of the
> crew. But anything would have been better than attempting a normal re-entry
> as it was actually flown.
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video

At 04:43 PM 5/25/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://pesn.com/2012/04/28/9602083_NanoSpire_Inc_on_Harnessing_Cavitation_Zero_Point_Energy_to_Produce_Fusion_and_Transmutation_in_Water/

the pictures from LeClair are in the comments section of this blog.

Thanks. Not many photos there. Only one, it seems. I do not know
what to make of it. Ed Storms is quoted:

I examined the material sent by NanoSpire and saw nothing unusual. I
have no reason to doubt the experience they claim, but I have no
reason to believe it either. As for the theory, it makes no sense
based on my understanding of science.

That is sensible.

LeClair points to a comment previously by Ed Storms:

Hi Mark,

Just so that we are all clear about how to describe what you saw,
let me explain some things *** does not understand. Two different
types of nuclear reactions are now know; that which produces
energetic radiation (1) and that which does not (2). Hot fusion and
all nuclear reactions that are initiated by applying significant
energy fall into the first category. This is the realm of normal
physics. The one unique aspect of the other branch of nuclear
physics is the absence of energetic radiation even though
significant heat energy is generated. This branch includes cold
fusion, which like hot fusion, results in fusion as well as
transmutation. You triggered a reaction in the first branch by
applying high energy. In addition, you triggered many kinds of very
energetic nuclear reactions, not just fusion. Therefore, your
reaction is not LENR or cold fusion. Nevertheless, the reaction you
triggered is novel and unexpected.

There is a rather obvious attempt here to claim contradiction in what
Storms wrote. In fact, though, the prior comment from Storms was
merely following a normal courtesy of assuming that what a writer
claims as to their own experience is true. Storms' focus was on
distinguishing hot fusion from cold fusion and LENR. What LeClair has
reported is obviously not LENR.

Sterling Allan, in reporting what LeClair claims, is demonstrating
phenomenal naivete. He seems to think that an ability to string
together pseudoscientific word-salad is equivalent to "genius."
Possibly. But LeClair clearly has a whole story he's invented to
explain his results, including "self-accelerated" water crystals
powered by Zero Point Energy, but LeClair has been asked about what
the experimental basis is for his conclusions about mechanism. He's
never answered, as far as I've seen. He just repeats his story, his theory.

He made up the theory, that's clear. Brilliant? Well, if it is
confirmed, we might conclude so. Allan seems to overlook that almost
none of LeClair's story has been confirmed.

If the "LeClair Effect" is confirmed, it will still be rather
apparent that this "genius" is "crazy." "Crazy" has no clear
definition, it is a social concept, in fact. LeClair either does not
know how to communicate with scientists, or he doesn't care to try.
He does not communicate the observations on which his complex
theoretical structure is based. What we know from his accounts is
that he creates a bubble in a specific location with respect to a
plate with holes in it, so that when the bubble collapses, the shock
wave -- or other resulting effect -- is focused on a target on the
other side of the plate. Or maybe he's, in the relevant experiments,
doing something else. We have seen no sober experimental reports from
him that give the specific details.

To a non-scientist, LeClair's "explanations" may be appealing.
However, this appeal seems to be based on "Gee, he sounds like he
knows what he's talking about," and "I don't understand this at all,
but, wow, this could be really important. Therefore he's a genius."

Maybe he's a genius, it does take a certain kind of mind to be able
to absorb those concepts (apparently LeClair did not originate the
concept of ZPE being involved with sonoluminescence) and put them
together into sentences

But there is no evidence visible, even if we take every report from
LeClair as representing what actually happened (i.e., what he and
others would have *seen*), that connects his reports with the
theories he liberally uses to describe what happened. For example,
why does he describe a "crystal"? If you look at his full set of
claims, those "crystals" are travelling at close to the velocity of
light. Okay, how did he observe them? He'd see evidence of impact,
say. How did he infer "crystal" from the evidence of impact? How did
he infer self-acceleration, and the massive violation of conservation
of momentum? How does he distinguish this from high energy at generation?

LeClair does not know how to communicate to those who might actually
understand h

[Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

Peter,

If you are asking me I am Baptized Methodist and keep an open mind about
all things religion.  I think the Bible is a great human teaching and was
constrained by the limits of human scientific knowledge at the time it was
written.  My 8th great grandfather arrived on the second Mayflower vessel
and I have 8 generations of Yeoman farmers backing me.

I wonder how much the anthropic principle comes into play in our existance
and experience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

I think the f/$:! word was not needed.

I give Jojo credit for his work on a reactor and would like to hear more
about how that is coming.  i am getting ready to try something myself.



On Sunday, May 27, 2012, Peter Gluck wrote:

> or or means simply that Darwinism and ID cannot be both true in the same
> time and even any intermediate or combined solution is not possible. Just
> from curiosity are you a Bible literalist as my friend G. including
> Creation and Noah's Ark. You can write directly to  me< I respect your
> faith.
> Peter
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>
> **
> As I indicated before, I hesitated in posting about the fallacies of
> Darwinian Evolution in this forum as I find this forum extremely useful and
> don't want to clutter it with other subjects.  There is no need to ask me
> to stop as I have stopped and said I will only respond to any question
> posted about it.
>
> Besides, the point that I wanted to make was clearly illustrated.
>
> While, I respect and admire you, I wished you had been more unbiased.  If
> I being an adherent of Intelligent Design and beleiver were to violate the
> rules of civility of this forum and suggested to James to contort and
> perform that unmanageable sexual act, I would be roundly criticized and
> asked to leave, and no doubt by you.  Am I not right?
>
> Where is the unbiased, moral outrage from you regarding the blatant
> violation of the rules of civility of this forum?
>
> Demonstrate to me that you can be level-headed and demand an apology from
> James and my admiration meter for you will jump.
>
> While an apology from James is not required for me to refrain from
> discussing this topic, the lack of moral outrage from members regarding its
> absence will greatly diminish my respect for members of this forum and
> further serve to reinforce my assessment that members here are not really
> as open-minded as they claim to be.
>
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> BTW, what do you mean by OR/OR dispute?
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Peter Gluck
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Monday, May 28, 2012 12:00 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>
> Dear Jojo,
>
> I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the
> simple reason that
> the analogy is not valid.
> Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative,
> in a way complementary solutions.
> Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we
> (you too)
> can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am
> reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist
> preacher keeps me informed with ID.
> I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
> was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.
>
> Peter
>
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>
> **
> OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major
> cognitive dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge
> yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a
> central nerve?  I thought we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just
> pissed you off too much with facts and logic.
>
> OK.  Whatever.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

Here is another interesting article in Slate's series, on the Columbia
disaster:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2003/11/langewiesche.htm

This is about the dysfunctional corporate culture in NASA.

When Columbia was in orbit, some people thought it might be damaged by the
falling insulation. Some said that even if it was damaged, nothing could be
done about it. Here is something I did not know:

[NASA administrator] Linda Ham was wrong. Had the hole in the leading edge
been seen, actions could have been taken to try to save the astronauts'
lives. The first would have been simply to buy some time. Assuming a
starting point on the fifth day of the flight, NASA engineers subsequently
calculated that by requiring the crew to rest and sleep, the mission could
have been extended to a full month, to February 15. During that time the
Atlantis, which was already being prepared for a scheduled March 1 launch,
could have been processed more quickly by ground crews working around the
clock, and made ready to go by February 10. If all had proceeded perfectly,
there would have been a five-day window in which to blast off, join up with
the Columbia, and transfer the stranded astronauts one by one to safety, by
means of tethered spacewalks. Such a rescue would not have been easy, and
it would have involved the possibility of another fatal foam strike and the
loss of two shuttles instead of one; but in the risk-versus-risk world of
space flight, veterans like Mike Bloomfield would immediately have
volunteered, and NASA would have bet the farm.

The fallback would have been a desperate measure—a jury-rigged repair
performed by the Columbia astronauts themselves. It would have required two
spacewalkers to fill the hole with a combination of heavy tools and metal
scraps scavenged from the crew compartment, and to supplement that mass
with an ice bag shaped to the wing's leading edge. In theory, if much of
the payload had been jettisoned, and luck was with the crew, such a repair
might perhaps have endured a modified re-entry and allowed the astronauts
to bail out at the standard 30,000 feet. The engineers who came up with
this plan realized that in reality it would have been extremely dangerous,
and might well have led to a high-speed burn-through and the loss of the
crew. But anything would have been better than attempting a normal re-entry
as it was actually flown.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

2012-05-27 Thread Daniel Rocha

I agree with Brad, JoJo is free to believe in whatever he wants. James owes
JoJo an apology.

2012/5/27 ecat builder 

> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:54 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
> > Jojo, just so you don't feel too bad, I would consider it to be morally
> > justifiable to draw and quarter the editors of Nature magazine that
> > suppressed replication of cold fusion.  Your dedication to theory over
> > experiment is merely worthy of contempt.
> >
> James,
>
> So telling Jojo to "Go fuck yourself" is also "morally justified" in
> your view? I am a little late to read this thread, but that comment
> seems egregiously uncivil. An apology is in order.
>
> Jojo, I wish you all the best with your experiments. Keep us posted.
>
> - Brad
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video

2012-05-27 Thread Axil Axil

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf

Sorry. try this link.




On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Initiation%20of%20nuclear%20reactions.pdf
>
>
>
> A number of experiments that feature violent activity in water share the
> same characteristics that LeClair observed in his LENR experiments. I see
> the referenced experiment listed above demonstrating the production of
> Protonated Water Clusters in the plasma when a laser beam ionizes gold Nano
> particles in an aqueous solution of uranium salts. LeClair can also
> produce his reaction using a laser beam.
>
> The referenced experiment is less energetic than the LeClair experiment
> because no sacrificial attractive material is present.
>
> But in both experiments, collapsing cavatation bubbles are formed and
> Protonated Water Clusters are generated which catalyze proton based cold
> fusion reactions.
>
> What the other commenter miss in this type of reaction is that cavatation
> can provide a continuum of energy levels from weak to extreme. It is
> adjustable. LeClair has mentioned that he can adjust the energy level in
> his reaction to produce only heat without radiation to a full range of
> element transmutation which is accompanied by heavy radiation.
>
> Until the other evaluators of this reaction understand its true dynamics,
> they will continual to misunderstand what underlying processes are going on
> in the LeClair effect.
>
>
>
> To wit, if there is no attractive shock wave produced to provide added
> kinetic energy, then transmutation is gentle and well behaved. Yes the
> shock wave is optional with the addition of an attractive sacrificial metal
> within six bubble diameters of bubble formation. At its root, the LeClair
> effect is cold fusion.
>
>
>
> Cheers: Axil
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
> wrote:
>
>> At 04:28 PM 5/25/2012, David Roberson wrote:
>>
>>> The scenario that they mention is beyond frightening and anyone who
>>> remained in the vicinity of that experiment should be given a metal for
>>> bravery.
>>>
>>> I can imagine the description of damage being used as part of the plot
>>> to a wild science fiction movie.  What a shame that the occurrence was not
>>> better documented!
>>>
>>> Are you sure this was not part of an April fools joke?
>>>
>>
>> Funny Dave should ask that. It was my first hit when the Nanospire story
>> first broke.
>>
>> But I'd expect, by now, someone would have been observed giggling and
>> running away from the window, as with Mr. Mischief in the Mr. series of
>> children's books. LeClair is real, has talked with real people (such as
>> Krivit and Storms).
>>
>> And that's about how far it's gone, as to anything verifiable.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video

2012-05-27 Thread Axil Axil

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Initiation%20of%20nuclear%20reactions.pdf

A number of experiments that feature violent activity in water share the
same characteristics that LeClair observed in his LENR experiments. I see
the referenced experiment listed above demonstrating the production of
Protonated Water Clusters in the plasma when a laser beam ionizes gold Nano
particles in an aqueous solution of uranium salts. LeClair can also produce
his reaction using a laser beam.

The referenced experiment is less energetic than the LeClair experiment
because no sacrificial attractive material is present.

But in both experiments, collapsing cavatation bubbles are formed and
Protonated Water Clusters are generated which catalyze proton based cold
fusion reactions.

What the other commenter miss in this type of reaction is that cavatation
can provide a continuum of energy levels from weak to extreme. It is
adjustable. LeClair has mentioned that he can adjust the energy level in
his reaction to produce only heat without radiation to a full range of
element transmutation which is accompanied by heavy radiation.

Until the other evaluators of this reaction understand its true dynamics,
they will continual to misunderstand what underlying processes are going on
in the LeClair effect.

To wit, if there is no attractive shock wave produced to provide added
kinetic energy, then transmutation is gentle and well behaved. Yes the
shock wave is optional with the addition of an attractive sacrificial metal
within six bubble diameters of bubble formation. At its root, the LeClair
effect is cold fusion.

Cheers: Axil

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 04:28 PM 5/25/2012, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> The scenario that they mention is beyond frightening and anyone who
>> remained in the vicinity of that experiment should be given a metal for
>> bravery.
>>
>> I can imagine the description of damage being used as part of the plot to
>> a wild science fiction movie.  What a shame that the occurrence was not
>> better documented!
>>
>> Are you sure this was not part of an April fools joke?
>>
>
> Funny Dave should ask that. It was my first hit when the Nanospire story
> first broke.
>
> But I'd expect, by now, someone would have been observed giggling and
> running away from the window, as with Mr. Mischief in the Mr. series of
> children's books. LeClair is real, has talked with real people (such as
> Krivit and Storms).
>
> And that's about how far it's gone, as to anything verifiable.
>

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

2012-05-27 Thread ecat builder

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:54 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
> Jojo, just so you don't feel too bad, I would consider it to be morally
> justifiable to draw and quarter the editors of Nature magazine that
> suppressed replication of cold fusion.  Your dedication to theory over
> experiment is merely worthy of contempt.
>
James,

So telling Jojo to "Go fuck yourself" is also "morally justified" in
your view? I am a little late to read this thread, but that comment
seems egregiously uncivil. An apology is in order.

Jojo, I wish you all the best with your experiments. Keep us posted.

- Brad

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

Actually, Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution are not mutually 
exclusive.  There is a theory called "Theistic Evolution" that posits an 
Intelligent Being starting the process of Darwinian Evolution.  IMO, it is a 
sad attempt at compromise.

Theistic Evolution would solve one major problem of Darwinian Evolution - the 
problem of Abiogenesis.  Where and how did the first life get started.  
Currently Darwinian Evolutionist are having great great difficulty in 
explaining biogenesis.


Jojo


I am not a Theistic Evolutionist.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter Gluck 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  or or means simply that Darwinism and ID cannot be both true in the same time 
and even any intermediate or combined solution is not possible. Just from 
curiosity are you a Bible literalist as my friend G. including Creation and 
Noah's Ark. You can write directly to  me< I respect your faith.
  Peter


  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

As I indicated before, I hesitated in posting about the fallacies of 
Darwinian Evolution in this forum as I find this forum extremely useful and 
don't want to clutter it with other subjects.  There is no need to ask me to 
stop as I have stopped and said I will only respond to any question posted 
about it.

Besides, the point that I wanted to make was clearly illustrated.  

While, I respect and admire you, I wished you had been more unbiased.  If I 
being an adherent of Intelligent Design and beleiver were to violate the rules 
of civility of this forum and suggested to James to contort and perform that 
unmanageable sexual act, I would be roundly criticized and asked to leave, and 
no doubt by you.  Am I not right?

Where is the unbiased, moral outrage from you regarding the blatant 
violation of the rules of civility of this forum?

Demonstrate to me that you can be level-headed and demand an apology from 
James and my admiration meter for you will jump.

While an apology from James is not required for me to refrain from 
discussing this topic, the lack of moral outrage from members regarding its 
absence will greatly diminish my respect for members of this forum and further 
serve to reinforce my assessment that members here are not really as 
open-minded as they claim to be.




Jojo



BTW, what do you mean by OR/OR dispute?




  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter Gluck 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:00 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  Dear Jojo, 


  I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the 
simple reason that
  the analogy is not valid.
  Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, 
alternative, in a way complementary solutions.
  Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and 
we (you too)
  can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am 
reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist preacher 
keeps me informed with ID.
  I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
  was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.


  Peter




  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major 
cognitive dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself 
to is not as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a central nerve?  
I thought we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just pissed you off too 
much with facts and logic.

OK.  Whatever.

Jojo


PS.  Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, 
nothing will.  Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents.  When 
someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive 
dissonance and react like this.

Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold 
Fusion.  Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism 
of its Darwinian religion.

The parallel has been clearly illustrated.  My point is proven.  




  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. 


  Go fuck yourself.


  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.

What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your 
question?

Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the 
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inferenc

Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video


At 04:42 PM 5/25/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:

Reads like the catalyst may have been
Lysergic acid diethylamide


It does read that way. LeClair does not report the primary 
observational data, but, rather, his high-level abstract impressions, 
his *interpretations* of the data, and that is precisely what occurs 
in hallucinatory states, generally. It is the interpretation that is 
believed and remembered, and presented as fact, not the sensory information.


I've been there, I know what this is like, at least partially.

(Indeed, the collapse of interpretation with actual sensory 
experience is *normal,* almost all of us do this routinely, unless we 
are trained to do something different. Science, as a method, is 
designed to compensate for this. When it works.)


(With schiziod breaks, the interpretation faculty becomes so active, 
so able to create interpretations, that only the most slender thread 
still connects interpretation with sensory evidence, almost any 
interpretation can be created from nothing or almost nothing.)


But the title of this thread is Zawodny's video. Zawodny is 
apparently doing the kind of thing I've long been suggesting: massive 
parallel experimentation. I mostly thought of parallel identical 
cells, essentially manufactured, but his design of what appears to be 
"experiments on a chip" could be even more powerful. That all the 
"cells" are created by the same process is a powerful approach. 
However, he will still need to make and test multiple devices, i.e., 
many of these multi-cell chips.


It's disappointing to see so much enthusiastic "this could 
revolutionize energy generation" (which has been obvious for more 
than twenty years) with so little detail on what the hell he's actually doing.


The material on W-L theory is practically irrelevant. W-L theory is 
still awaiting some kind of experimental verification; the obvious 
expectations of what would happen with ULM neutron generation don't 
match experimental results, and that's waved away with *another* 
unobserved and unconfirmed phenomenon, 100% absorption of gammas by 
the "heavy electron patches" that are theorized to allow p-e 
combination to form the neutrons.


The theory raises more questions than it resolves, obvious questions, 
and none of the (again enthusiastic) reports address those questions. 
We'd expect to see, for starters, leftover intermediate products, 
since there is no reason to think that the neutrons would react with 
high preference with the intermediate products, and the original 
(first) reaction rate is very low. Experimentally, the reaction 
series created must complete, but mechanism for that is ignored. 
Further, there must be no leakage of gammas from the expected neutron 
activation of elements present must not only be absorbed by the heavy 
electron patches, there must be no leakage (presumably from the "edges").


That gamma shield must be (1) thin, and (2) perfect. Yes, we 
understand why Larsen might not want to talk about it. Commercial 
interest, intellectual property, yatta yatta. But all this means that 
we *cannot* consider W-L theory to be anything like established, 
whereas Zawodny treats it as this amazing idea that finally explains 
cold fusion. Maybe he knows something we don't, that's always possible.


But LENR was clearly established by the mid-1990s, and this does not 
depend on any theory at all, beyond what is most simple: *something* 
is converting deuterium to helium in P-F class experiments, as shown 
by Miles, confirming earlier, sketchier reports, and as confirmed by 
other research groups around the world, with there being extremely 
little contrary evidence. Strictly speaking, that it is deuterium 
being converted is only a reasonable, perhaps default, conjecture, 
reinforced by some work that shows that the ratio of helium to heat 
is close to the deuterium fusion value, and much more work on the 
reaction Q is seriously indicated.


Which, by the way, was the unanimous position of the 2004 U.S. DoE 
review, more research is needed. If we want to talk about 
hallucinations, as a product of projecting personal beliefs back onto 
sensory evidence, the pseudoskeptics who imagine they represent 
science have read the 2004 review as continuing to reject cold 
fusion. Nope. The review, in fact, shows that the issue is very much 
alive, and needs further research, just as was the real conclusion in 
1989. "Not convincing" is read as "Thoroughly rejected, bogus, forget 
about it." Isn't that weird?


But it's how people think when they have become nailed to what they 
believe. These pseudoskeptics, of late, have switched positions with 
the "believers," imagining that the balance of publication in 
peer-reviewed journals is purely a result of bias. They don't notice 
that the balance switched drastically, and, in fact, switched long 
ago, sometime around 1991. But with difficulties getting funding, 
and, yes, difficulties getting research published, peer-revie

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

Yes, I am a Bible Literalist.  Not because I forced myself to be that; but 
because the evidence I have studied points in that direction.

Science is about the search for the Truth.  It is not about the religion of 
Naturalistic Methodologism.  Science must consider all possible causes, not 
just causes we can smell, see, hear, taste and touch.  The search for the truth 
must be allowed to reach its logical conclusion.  If the evidence points to a 
naturalistic solution, so be it.  On the other hand,  If the evidence points to 
a metaphysical solution, then it must not be excluded.

BTW, this might further cause Cognitive Dissonance for some people here, but 
realize that the patriach of Modern Science was a Believer and Bible 
Literalist.  Isaac Newton wrote thousands of pages of Bible commentary. 


Jojo







  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter Gluck 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  or or means simply that Darwinism and ID cannot be both true in the same time 
and even any intermediate or combined solution is not possible. Just from 
curiosity are you a Bible literalist as my friend G. including Creation and 
Noah's Ark. You can write directly to  me< I respect your faith.
  Peter


  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

As I indicated before, I hesitated in posting about the fallacies of 
Darwinian Evolution in this forum as I find this forum extremely useful and 
don't want to clutter it with other subjects.  There is no need to ask me to 
stop as I have stopped and said I will only respond to any question posted 
about it.

Besides, the point that I wanted to make was clearly illustrated.  

While, I respect and admire you, I wished you had been more unbiased.  If I 
being an adherent of Intelligent Design and beleiver were to violate the rules 
of civility of this forum and suggested to James to contort and perform that 
unmanageable sexual act, I would be roundly criticized and asked to leave, and 
no doubt by you.  Am I not right?

Where is the unbiased, moral outrage from you regarding the blatant 
violation of the rules of civility of this forum?

Demonstrate to me that you can be level-headed and demand an apology from 
James and my admiration meter for you will jump.

While an apology from James is not required for me to refrain from 
discussing this topic, the lack of moral outrage from members regarding its 
absence will greatly diminish my respect for members of this forum and further 
serve to reinforce my assessment that members here are not really as 
open-minded as they claim to be.




Jojo



BTW, what do you mean by OR/OR dispute?




  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter Gluck 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:00 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  Dear Jojo, 


  I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the 
simple reason that
  the analogy is not valid.
  Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, 
alternative, in a way complementary solutions.
  Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and 
we (you too)
  can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am 
reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist preacher 
keeps me informed with ID.
  I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
  was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.


  Peter




  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major 
cognitive dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself 
to is not as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a central nerve?  
I thought we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just pissed you off too 
much with facts and logic.

OK.  Whatever.

Jojo


PS.  Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, 
nothing will.  Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents.  When 
someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive 
dissonance and react like this.

Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold 
Fusion.  Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism 
of its Darwinian religion.

The parallel has been clearly illustrated.  My point is proven.  




  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. 


  Go fuck yourself.


  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

I find your assesment of me rather amusing.  

So I am more theory than experiment?   OK, whatever.  

This will be my last response to you.  You're welcome to have the last word.


Jojo





  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  Jojo, just so you don't feel too bad, I would consider it to be morally 
justifiable to draw and quarter the editors of Nature magazine that suppressed 
replication of cold fusion.  Your dedication to theory over experiment is 
merely worthy of contempt.


  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

Why on Earth would you think that I think experiments are unneccesary?   I 
am spending a small fortune right now conducting experiments.  And that my 
friend is more than what you are currently doing or prepared to do.

You know, one thing is clear.  Your hostility towards me is not stemming 
from any Cold Fusion experiments I am doing or for any other post I've made,  
but simply because I indicated I am a believer and I brought up some good 
points that is causing you a tizzy spell.



Jojo




  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:06 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  No, Jojo has no business in this forum for the simple reason that he 
thinks experiments are unnecessary to science.  Nature magazine, too, decided 
that experiments were unnecessary when the British editor deferred to the US 
editor regarding Oriani's replication of cold fusion, and the US editor 
rejected the paper, because it went against prevailing theory.


  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Peter Gluck  
wrote:

Dear Jojo, 


I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the 
simple reason that
the analogy is not valid.
Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, 
alternative, in a way complementary solutions.
Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and 
we (you too)
can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am 
reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist preacher 
keeps me informed with ID.
I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.


Peter




On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

  OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major 
cognitive dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself 
to is not as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a central nerve?  
I thought we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just pissed you off too 
much with facts and logic.

  OK.  Whatever.

  Jojo


  PS.  Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, 
nothing will.  Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents.  When 
someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive 
dissonance and react like this.

  Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold 
Fusion.  Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism 
of its Darwinian religion.

  The parallel has been clearly illustrated.  My point is proven.  




- Original Message - 
From: James Bowery 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. 


Go fuck yourself.


On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  
wrote:

  I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.

  What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your 
question?

  Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find 
the presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent 
Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.  Random 
processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the exact 
opposite of Randomness.

  For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent 
sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being.  If your throw a bunch of 
Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance of 
occuring.

  "There is a God"

  "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language. 
 This is a random mixture of the same letters above.)


  What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as 
far as randon chance is concerned.  Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a 
huge di

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

Jojo, just so you don't feel too bad, I would consider it to be morally
justifiable to draw and quarter the editors of Nature magazine that
suppressed replication of cold fusion.  Your dedication to theory over
experiment is merely worthy of contempt.

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> **
> Why on Earth would you think that I think experiments are unneccesary?   I
> am spending a small fortune right now conducting experiments.  And that my
> friend is more than what you are currently doing or prepared to do.
>
> You know, one thing is clear.  Your hostility towards me is not stemming
> from any Cold Fusion experiments I am doing or for any other post I've
> made,  but simply because I indicated I am a believer and I brought up some
> good points that is causing you a tizzy spell.
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* James Bowery 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Monday, May 28, 2012 12:06 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>
> No, Jojo has no business in this forum for the simple reason that he
> thinks experiments are unnecessary to science.  Nature magazine, too,
> decided that experiments were unnecessary when the British editor deferred
> to the US editor regarding Oriani's replication of cold fusion, and the US
> editor rejected the paper, because it went against prevailing theory.
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
>> Dear Jojo,
>>
>> I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the
>> simple reason that
>> the analogy is not valid.
>> Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible,
>> alternative, in a way complementary solutions.
>> Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and
>> we (you too)
>> can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am
>> reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist
>> preacher keeps me informed with ID.
>> I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
>> was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>> OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major
>>> cognitive dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge
>>> yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a
>>> central nerve?  I thought we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just
>>> pissed you off too much with facts and logic.
>>>
>>> OK.  Whatever.
>>>
>>> Jojo
>>>
>>>
>>> PS.  Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough,
>>> nothing will.  Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents.  When
>>> someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive
>>> dissonance and react like this.
>>>
>>> Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold
>>> Fusion.  Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid
>>> criticism of its Darwinian religion.
>>>
>>> The parallel has been clearly illustrated.  My point is proven.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> *From:* James Bowery 
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>>>
>>> OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.
>>>
>>> Go fuck yourself.
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>>>
 **
 I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.

 What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?

 Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the
 presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent
 Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.  Random
 processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the
 exact opposite of Randomness.

 For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence
 requires the input of an Intelligent being.  If your throw a bunch of
 Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance
 of occuring.

 "There is a God"

 "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.  This
 is a random mixture of the same letters above.)

 What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as far
 as randon chance is concerned.  Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a
 huge difference.  What differentiates the 2 sentences?  It is Information
 of course.  There is information in the first sentence that conveys an
 idea?  And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.

 Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long;
 you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of
 Information in our DNA.

 Jojo

>>

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

2012-05-27 Thread Peter Gluck

or or means simply that Darwinism and ID cannot be both true in the same
time and even any intermediate or combined solution is not possible. Just
from curiosity are you a Bible literalist as my friend G. including
Creation and Noah's Ark. You can write directly to  me< I respect your
faith.
Peter

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> **
> As I indicated before, I hesitated in posting about the fallacies of
> Darwinian Evolution in this forum as I find this forum extremely useful and
> don't want to clutter it with other subjects.  There is no need to ask me
> to stop as I have stopped and said I will only respond to any question
> posted about it.
>
> Besides, the point that I wanted to make was clearly illustrated.
>
> While, I respect and admire you, I wished you had been more unbiased.  If
> I being an adherent of Intelligent Design and beleiver were to violate the
> rules of civility of this forum and suggested to James to contort and
> perform that unmanageable sexual act, I would be roundly criticized and
> asked to leave, and no doubt by you.  Am I not right?
>
> Where is the unbiased, moral outrage from you regarding the blatant
> violation of the rules of civility of this forum?
>
> Demonstrate to me that you can be level-headed and demand an apology from
> James and my admiration meter for you will jump.
>
> While an apology from James is not required for me to refrain from
> discussing this topic, the lack of moral outrage from members regarding its
> absence will greatly diminish my respect for members of this forum and
> further serve to reinforce my assessment that members here are not really
> as open-minded as they claim to be.
>
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> BTW, what do you mean by OR/OR dispute?
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Peter Gluck 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Monday, May 28, 2012 12:00 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>
> Dear Jojo,
>
> I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the
> simple reason that
> the analogy is not valid.
> Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative,
> in a way complementary solutions.
> Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we
> (you too)
> can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am
> reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist
> preacher keeps me informed with ID.
> I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
> was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.
>
> Peter
>
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>
>> **
>> OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major
>> cognitive dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge
>> yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a
>> central nerve?  I thought we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just
>> pissed you off too much with facts and logic.
>>
>> OK.  Whatever.
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>> PS.  Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough,
>> nothing will.  Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents.  When
>> someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive
>> dissonance and react like this.
>>
>> Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold
>> Fusion.  Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid
>> criticism of its Darwinian religion.
>>
>> The parallel has been clearly illustrated.  My point is proven.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* James Bowery 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>>
>> OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.
>>
>> Go fuck yourself.
>>
>> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>> I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
>>>
>>> What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?
>>>
>>> Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the
>>> presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent
>>> Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.  Random
>>> processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the
>>> exact opposite of Randomness.
>>>
>>> For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence
>>> requires the input of an Intelligent being.  If your throw a bunch of
>>> Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance
>>> of occuring.
>>>
>>> "There is a God"
>>>
>>> "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.  This
>>> is a random mixture of the same letters above.)
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as far as
>>> randon chance is concerned.  Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge
>>> difference.  What differ

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

Guys,

Just to muddy things some more:

The SPAWAR presentation I posted a link to this morning mentioned that
energy output measurements implied that both "hot" and "cold/LENR" type
reactions might be taking place concurrently so the reactions may not be
mutually exclusive...

Also, based upon my experience, intelligence is relative and effected by
environment.

On Sunday, May 27, 2012, Peter Gluck wrote:

> Dear Jojo,
>
> I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the
> simple reason that
> the analogy is not valid.
> Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative,
> in a way complementary solutions.
> Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we
> (you too)
> can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am
> reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist
> preacher keeps me informed with ID.
> I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
> was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.
>
> Peter
>
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>
> **
> OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major
> cognitive dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge
> yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a
> central nerve?  I thought we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just
> pissed you off too much with facts and logic.
>
> OK.  Whatever.
>
> Jojo
>
>
> PS.  Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing
> will.  Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents.  When someone
> brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance
> and react like this.
>
> Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold
> Fusion.  Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid
> criticism of its Darwinian religion.
>
> The parallel has been clearly illustrated.  My point is proven.
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* James Bowery
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>
> OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.
>
> Go fuck yourself.
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>
> **
> I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
>
> What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?
>
> Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the
> presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent
> Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.  Random
> processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the
> exact opposite of Randomness.
>
> For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence
> requires the input of an Intelligent being.  If your throw a bunch of
> Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance
> of occuring.
>
> "There is a God"
>
> "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.  This is
> a random mixture of the same letters above.)
>
>
> What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as far as
> randon chance is concerned.  Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge
> difference.  What differentiates the 2 sentences?  It is Information of
> course.  There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea?
> And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.
>
> Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letter
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

I think you missed the point.

The first sentence is equally a jumble of letters as the second.  But what 
makes the first different.  It is because it contains Information assigned to 
its specific arrangement.  And where did this information get its "meaning".  
Isn't it from the same Intelligent Beings who assigned meaning to that specific 
arrangement? The same Intelligent Beings who came up with the syntactic, 
semantic and grammtical constraints and rules.

And what is the difference between your 2 year old from your 9 year old.  Isn't 
it that the latter has more "Intelligence"?

My point is, there are patterns we can see and we can immediately perceive that 
it contains information and hence an Intelligent being was behind it.   When we 
look at our DNA coding, it is clear that the arrangement is not just random.  
It was arranged specifically to contain Information, that will code for genes, 
proteins, etc.  When we look at such a pattern, there can only be one logical 
conclusion.  There is an Intelligent Designer behind that pattern.  That is all 
the concept of Intelligent Design is saying.  It says nothing about a Christian 
God.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Chemical Engineer 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:18 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  Jojo,


  I thought scrabble was a word game not a sentence game as there are no spaces.


  You say the chances are aqual for the tiles results.  I would think the 
chances of the tiles coming up with a non grammatically correct jumble of 
letters would be much higher than meeting all the constraints of our chosen 
english language since there are a limited number of results that meet that 
criteria using your available letters.



  Also, my 9 year old, with the same DNA at age 2 would most likely arrange 
nonsense while at 9 probably something closer to your proof of  intelligent 
design.


  BTW I do not have a strong enough belief in either theory.





  On Sunday, May 27, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major 
cognitive dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself 
to is not as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a central nerve?  
I thought we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just pissed you off too 
much with facts and logic.

OK.  Whatever.

Jojo


PS.  Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing 
will.  Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents.  When someone brings 
up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance and react 
like this.

Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold 
Fusion.  Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism 
of its Darwinian religion.

The parallel has been clearly illustrated.  My point is proven.  




  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. 


  Go fuck yourself.


  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.

What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?

Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the 
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent Designer, 
not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.  Random processes 
never create Information, because information is "Order", the exact opposite of 
Randomness.

For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence 
requires the input of an Intelligent being.  If your throw a bunch of Scrabble 
letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.

"There is a God"

"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.  This 
is a random mixture of the same letters above.)


What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as far 
as randon chance is concerned.  Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge 
difference.  What differentiates the 2 sentences?  It is Information of course. 
 There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea?  And Ideas 
are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.

Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long; 
you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of 
Information in our DNA.


Jojo







  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  No.  I'm talking about th

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


In my opinion the nasty comments directed toward Jojo are not acceptable.  His 
beliefs may be in opposition to most of the members of the group but he is 
entitled to have them none the less.  Surely we can discuss issues such as this 
without resorting to bad form.

Jojo, it would be better for you to move discussions of that nature to other 
forums and concentrate your talents toward LENR while posting here.  Thanks.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jojo Jaro 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 12:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


Why on Earth would you think that I think experiments are unneccesary?   I am 
spending a small fortune right now conducting experiments.  And that my friend 
is more than what you are currently doing or prepared to do.
 
You know, one thing is clear.  Your hostility towards me is not stemming from 
any Cold Fusion experiments I am doing or for any other post I've made,  but 
simply because I indicated I am a believer and I brought up some good points 
that is causing you a tizzy spell.
 
 
 
Jojo
 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: James Bowery 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


No, Jojo has no business in this forum for the simple reason that he thinks 
experiments are unnecessary to science.  Nature magazine, too, decided that 
experiments were unnecessary when the British editor deferred to the US editor 
regarding Oriani's replication of cold fusion, and the US editor rejected the 
paper, because it went against prevailing theory.


On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

Dear Jojo, 


I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the simple 
reason that
the analogy is not valid.
Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative, in a 
way complementary solutions.
Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we (you 
too)
can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am reading 
Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist preacher keeps 
me informed with ID.
I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.


Peter





On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:


OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major cognitive 
dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself to is not 
as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a central nerve?  I thought 
we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just pissed you off too much with 
facts and logic.
 
OK.  Whatever.
 
Jojo
 
 
PS.  Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing 
will.  Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents.  When someone brings 
up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance and react 
like this.
 
Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold Fusion.  
Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism of its 
Darwinian religion.
 
The parallel has been clearly illustrated.  My point is proven.  
 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: James Bowery 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. 


Go fuck yourself.


On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:


I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
 
What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?
 
Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the presence of 
Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent Designer, not 
Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.  Random processes never 
create Information, because information is "Order", the exact opposite of 
Randomness.
 
For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence 
requires the input of an Intelligent being.  If your throw a bunch of Scrabble 
letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.
 
"There is a God"
 
"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.  This is a 
random mixture of the same letters above.)
 
 
What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as far as randon 
chance is concerned.  Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge 
difference.  What differentiates the 2 sentences?  It is Information of course. 
 There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea?  And Ideas 
are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.
 
Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long; you 
might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of 
Information in our DNA.
 
 
Jojo
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: James Bowery 
To: vortex-l@eskimo

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution

2012-05-27 Thread Peter Gluck

Memetics explains well what you say/feel.
We live in memecracies- the word is in the English dictionary.
On my blog I wrote about the possibility to increase a lot the immunity
about memes, first of all killer memes as those of hatred, violence,
unlimited greed etc. The people with brains protected against memes are the
Bisinisencephalians- it is a metaphor for brains that do not absorb
damaging ideas.
Unfortunately in Europe due to the   prolonged  Crisis and to the practice
of "austerity" that hits the basic human feature called "loss aversion"
the worst memes from the history are returning massively. Democracy is
under siege.
Please take this as a personal message.
Peter

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:17 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> It is very difficult to expend the energy required to modify ones deeply
> held convictions.  Many years and difficult study have allowed the
> scientist to develop their understanding of how the world operates and they
> honestly believe that they are correct in their thinking.  This set of
> feelings is further enhanced by the group thinking that most of their
> colleagues engage in.
>
> Now, something such as cold fusion comes along which challenges these
> beliefs and they tend to dismiss it without much effort.  This behavior is
> totally understandable.  Why waste so much of their precious effort and
> time just to reprove to themselves that they were correct all along?  It is
> tiring and not necessary for them to perform this process when they most
> likely suspect that the same issues will reappear as time progresses.
>
> I suspect that a well defined experiment that can not be refuted might
> begin the process of reevaluation of a scientist beliefs.  The analysis of
> this new data set should not require much time or effort from the skeptic
> since he would rather dismiss the new data than to waste his
> valuable resources.
>
> Had Rossi run his experiments for days instead of hours we might not be
> where we are today still trudging thorough the fog of proof.  Most of the
> people following this list know the score, but unfortunately we are in a
> small minority.  I just hope that the time between now and the future earth
> changing developments in LENR is compressed.
>
> Deeply held thoughts are difficult to extract but it can happen.  We must
> make our best efforts toward exposing the merits of LENR for the general
> public.
>
> Dave
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Jojo Jaro 
> To: Vortex 
> Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 4:14 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>
>  The parallel between Hot fusion and Darwinian Evolution is not in the
> theory per se, but in how people treat each theory.
>
> It has become a religion to their respective adherents,   There is no
> other truth to them.  Nothing you say will change their minds.  Parks will
> never consider any evidence of Cold Fusion and I suspect Jed will never
> consider any evidence of Intelligent Design.  Parks will persecute any
> adherent of Cold Fusion by mockery and ridicule and labelling them quack
> pseudoscientists.  I suspect Jed does the same.
>
> The parallel is clear, and the behavior is the same.  The sooner we
> realize that this is a religiious movement, the sooner will can understand
> why people will not accept any evidence for Cold Fusion.  Adherents of
> respective theories must slowly die away for the paradigm to shift to new
> thinking.  Old adherents have too much to loose by changing their minds
> now.  They will stick it out to the end despite the daily acculumation of
> piles of evidence to the contrary.
>
> It is futile to expect old adherents to accept "Tritium Evidence"  or any
> other evidence for that matter, just as it is futile for me to expect Jed
> to accept any "DNA Information" evidence pointing to Intelligent Design.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Guenter Wildgruber 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 26, 2012 6:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>
>
>
>   --
> *Von:* Jojo Jaro 
> *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Gesendet:* 11:17 Samstag, 26.Mai 2012
> *Betreff:* [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>
> There appears to be...
> #
> Jojo,
>
> ...My goal in brining up this discussion is to try to draw a parallel
> between what is happening with Hot Fusion and Darwinian Evolution Theory ...
> -
> My take::
> -
> The immediate connection is not clear to me.
>
> 'Hot fusion' seems to be an established fact to me. Will say: It happens
> within our observing distance.
>
> The question is whether it can be brought down to earth, so to say.
> Which a technical issue, and NOT an epistemological or even scientific one.
>
>
> You say:
> ...
> In Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism thought, once again, there "appears" to be
> some "established" theories...

Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video


At 04:28 PM 5/25/2012, David Roberson wrote:
The scenario that they mention is beyond frightening and anyone who 
remained in the vicinity of that experiment should be given a metal 
for bravery.


I can imagine the description of damage being used as part of the 
plot to a wild science fiction movie.  What a shame that the 
occurrence was not better documented!


Are you sure this was not part of an April fools joke?


Funny Dave should ask that. It was my first hit when the Nanospire 
story first broke.


But I'd expect, by now, someone would have been observed giggling and 
running away from the window, as with Mr. Mischief in the Mr. series 
of children's books. LeClair is real, has talked with real people 
(such as Krivit and Storms).


And that's about how far it's gone, as to anything verifiable.

Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video


At 04:17 PM 5/25/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Le Clair is quoted:

The experiment gave off powerful crested cnoid de Broglie Matter 
wave soliton wave packages that were doubly periodic and followed 
the Jacobi Elliptic functions exactly, mostly in the form of large 
doubly-periodic vortices. Hundreds of wave trains and vortices 
appeared everywhere and are permanently burned into walls, objects 
and trees surrounding the lab.



Good heavens. It is amazing they survived.

Did they take photographs of these things? Did they preserve some of 
the hundreds of samples of damaged wood and other materials from the 
surroundings? If they did not take photos and samples, I doubt this 
account is accurate.


Maybe I should not be so dismissive, since Fleischmann and Pons did 
not take photos or preserve samples from their explosion. It was 
very stupid of them not to. Very unprofessional. I said that to 
Martin, and he ruefully agreed.


Sure. That makes sense. Beaudette reports an independent account of 
the shambles in the lab after that meltdown. One recent account of 
this had it as damaging the concrete floor of their "garage," showing 
a kind of standing assumption that cold fusion research takes place 
in garages of wild-eyed high-functioning lunatics.


However, with the LeClair reports, allegedly LeClair and his partner 
almost did not survive, they got very, very sick. But notice: these 
effects, described as "wave traiins and vortices" showing the intense 
interpretations of what was actually observed -- if anything was 
"actually" observed -- are also described as "permanently burned" 
into "walls, objects and trees surrounding the lab."


Okay, surely this could be independently verified. Still. Unless, of 
course, you cut the trees down and dispose of them, you raze the 
building or rebuild the walls, etc. Pons and Fleischmann, they just 
cleaned up the lab, replaced the lab table with the hole in it, and 
patched the concrete floor. That patch could probably still be found, 
unless the building has been razed. Perhaps some U of Utah student 
would like to recover a piece of history, that meltdown was very 
important as the first major sign to P and F that they had stumbled 
onto something far bigger than they had expected. Note: they then 
scaled down, for obvious reasons.


When I first encountered the LeClair reports, I thought it was likely 
to be a practical joke, intended to see just how bloody gullible we 
all are. That remains a possibility, though some sort of 
psychopathology is more likely. I'd put reality of the effect way 
down the scale, but, pursuing that, the radiation may have left 
LeClair impaired. I was unable to pursue confirmation myself, 
travelling is currently difficult for me, but there were others who 
indicated they might take it on. I haven't heard of any results.


Apparently Nanospire has recently announced they are ceasing 
research. Why? Not explained. The research would not be particularly 
dangerous, as long as reasonable precautions were followed, mostly by 
starting small. You don't wisely turn this thing on and get enough 
heat to measure, except maybe at the limits of sensitivity, if that, 
or if you are behind adequate shielding. This is hot fusion, very 
dangerous in large scale, but small-scale hot fusion is handled all 
the time by amateurs, with Farnsworth Fusors. If you want to scale up 
to heat generation, then you need to build the device to handle the 
expected radiation. Yet Nanospire was enthusiastically promoting this 
as something useful for home hot water heating a tad premature, eh?

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

Why on Earth would you think that I think experiments are unneccesary?   I am 
spending a small fortune right now conducting experiments.  And that my friend 
is more than what you are currently doing or prepared to do.

You know, one thing is clear.  Your hostility towards me is not stemming from 
any Cold Fusion experiments I am doing or for any other post I've made,  but 
simply because I indicated I am a believer and I brought up some good points 
that is causing you a tizzy spell.



Jojo




  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:06 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  No, Jojo has no business in this forum for the simple reason that he thinks 
experiments are unnecessary to science.  Nature magazine, too, decided that 
experiments were unnecessary when the British editor deferred to the US editor 
regarding Oriani's replication of cold fusion, and the US editor rejected the 
paper, because it went against prevailing theory.


  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

Dear Jojo,


I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the simple 
reason that
the analogy is not valid.
Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative, 
in a way complementary solutions.
Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we 
(you too)
can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am 
reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist preacher 
keeps me informed with ID.
I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.


Peter




On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

  OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major 
cognitive dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself 
to is not as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a central nerve?  
I thought we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just pissed you off too 
much with facts and logic.

  OK.  Whatever.

  Jojo


  PS.  Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, 
nothing will.  Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents.  When 
someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive 
dissonance and react like this.

  Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold 
Fusion.  Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism 
of its Darwinian religion.

  The parallel has been clearly illustrated.  My point is proven.  




- Original Message - 
From: James Bowery 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. 


Go fuck yourself.


On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

  I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.

  What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your 
question?

  Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the 
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent Designer, 
not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.  Random processes 
never create Information, because information is "Order", the exact opposite of 
Randomness.

  For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent 
sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being.  If your throw a bunch of 
Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance of 
occuring.

  "There is a God"

  "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.  
This is a random mixture of the same letters above.)


  What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as far 
as randon chance is concerned.  Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge 
difference.  What differentiates the 2 sentences?  It is Information of course. 
 There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea?  And Ideas 
are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.

  Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters 
long; you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence 
of Information in our DNA.


  Jojo







- Original Message - 
From: James Bowery 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


No.  I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong 
inference. 


In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis.  You 
are admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

As I indicated before, I hesitated in posting about the fallacies of Darwinian 
Evolution in this forum as I find this forum extremely useful and don't want to 
clutter it with other subjects.  There is no need to ask me to stop as I have 
stopped and said I will only respond to any question posted about it.

Besides, the point that I wanted to make was clearly illustrated.  

While, I respect and admire you, I wished you had been more unbiased.  If I 
being an adherent of Intelligent Design and beleiver were to violate the rules 
of civility of this forum and suggested to James to contort and perform that 
unmanageable sexual act, I would be roundly criticized and asked to leave, and 
no doubt by you.  Am I not right?

Where is the unbiased, moral outrage from you regarding the blatant violation 
of the rules of civility of this forum?

Demonstrate to me that you can be level-headed and demand an apology from James 
and my admiration meter for you will jump.

While an apology from James is not required for me to refrain from discussing 
this topic, the lack of moral outrage from members regarding its absence will 
greatly diminish my respect for members of this forum and further serve to 
reinforce my assessment that members here are not really as open-minded as they 
claim to be.




Jojo



BTW, what do you mean by OR/OR dispute?




  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter Gluck 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:00 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  Dear Jojo,


  I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the simple 
reason that
  the analogy is not valid.
  Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative, in 
a way complementary solutions.
  Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we 
(you too)
  can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am 
reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist preacher 
keeps me informed with ID.
  I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
  was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.


  Peter




  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major 
cognitive dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself 
to is not as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a central nerve?  
I thought we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just pissed you off too 
much with facts and logic.

OK.  Whatever.

Jojo


PS.  Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing 
will.  Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents.  When someone brings 
up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance and react 
like this.

Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold 
Fusion.  Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism 
of its Darwinian religion.

The parallel has been clearly illustrated.  My point is proven.  




  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. 


  Go fuck yourself.


  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.

What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?

Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the 
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent Designer, 
not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.  Random processes 
never create Information, because information is "Order", the exact opposite of 
Randomness.

For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence 
requires the input of an Intelligent being.  If your throw a bunch of Scrabble 
letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.

"There is a God"

"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.  This 
is a random mixture of the same letters above.)


What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as far 
as randon chance is concerned.  Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge 
difference.  What differentiates the 2 sentences?  It is Information of course. 
 There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea?  And Ideas 
are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.

Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long; 
you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of 
Information in our DNA.


Jojo







  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@e

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

Jojo,

I thought scrabble was a word game not a sentence game as there are no
spaces.

You say the chances are aqual for the tiles results.  I would think the
chances of the tiles coming up with a non grammatically correct jumble of
letters would be much higher than meeting all the constraints of our chosen
english language since there are a limited number of results that meet that
criteria using your available letters.

Also, my 9 year old, with the same DNA at age 2 would most likely arrange
nonsense while at 9 probably something closer to your proof of  intelligent
design.

BTW I do not have a strong enough belief in either theory.



On Sunday, May 27, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

> **
> OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major
> cognitive dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge
> yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a
> central nerve?  I thought we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just
> pissed you off too much with facts and logic.
>
> OK.  Whatever.
>
> Jojo
>
>
> PS.  Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing
> will.  Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents.  When someone
> brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance
> and react like this.
>
> Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold
> Fusion.  Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid
> criticism of its Darwinian religion.
>
> The parallel has been clearly illustrated.  My point is proven.
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* James Bowery 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com  'vortex-l@eskimo.com');>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>
> OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.
>
> Go fuck yourself.
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>
> **
> I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
>
> What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?
>
> Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the
> presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent
> Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.  Random
> processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the
> exact opposite of Randomness.
>
> For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence
> requires the input of an Intelligent being.  If your throw a bunch of
> Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance
> of occuring.
>
> "There is a God"
>
> "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.  This is
> a random mixture of the same letters above.)
>
>
> What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as far as
> randon chance is concerned.  Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge
> difference.  What differentiates the 2 sentences?  It is Information of
> course.  There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea?
> And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.
>
> Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long;
> you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of
> Information in our DNA.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  - Original Message -
> *From:* James Bowery
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>  *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>
> No.  I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference.
>
> In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis.  You are
> admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and
> attempting to most economically compare them.  It is legitimate, of course,
> to have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison.
>
> In this case, there are two hypotheses:  Darwinian Evolution and
> Intelligent Design.
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>
> **
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video


At 04:04 PM 5/25/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

At 01:49 PM 5/25/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

 "Hundreds of wave trains and vortices appeared everywhere and are 
permanently burned into walls, objects and trees surrounding the lab."


Came from Le Clair himself,  in response to Krivit

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/31/new-energy-times-issue-36-letters/ 



There is an exchange of comments between LeClerc and Krivit at that 
page. Krivit states:


Based on what you described and have shown to me, I believe you have 
accomplished a clear demonstration of low-energy nuclear reactions. 
Your work appears worthy of much credit and support, though your 
claim of fusion at room temperature does not.


That's an unfortunate comment, because if LeClair's reports are 
accurate at all, this would definitely not be LENR. It is not 
"room-temperature" fusion, and LeClair doesn't claim that it is. The 
effects reported by LeClair are exotic, not resembling reports of 
LENRs, which tend to show very low levels of radiation, if any.


Krivit is promoting, it's clear, Widom-Larsen theory, which has, as 
its principal appeal, that it is allegedly "not fusion." It's a 
semantic issue, for if an effect converts deuterium to helium, by 
whatever mechanism and through whatever intemediates, it has 
*accomplished* fusion. LeClair's work would have nothing to do with 
W-L theory, which requires a surface catalyzing slow neutron formation.


It is common to see bubble fusion confused with cold fusion. It would 
be a bit like claiming that tokamak fusion is at room temperature, 
because, after all, the tokamak is at room temperature (or close). 
I've also seen those little neutron generators, that use a 
piezoelectric effect to fuse deuterium, called "cold fusion." Not. 
Hot, very hot, but the device is nice and cool.


Bubble collapse is known to generate extremely high temperatures at 
the point of collapse, and the controversy over bubble fusion centers 
on whether or not the temperatures are *high enough* for fusion. 
There is also some controversy over whether or not the reports of 
"bubble fusion" are fusion as well, with some discussion of the 
possibility of a Zero Point Energy effect.


But nobody with knowledge of the work and the issues is claiming that 
bubble fusion -- or the "LeClair effect," in this case -- is LENR, 
except, here, for Krivit. And if it was "clear," I wonder what he 
meant by "clear."


I'm not sure it matters now, but perhaps someone will ask Krivit.

I did read the Wikipedia article on Bubble fusion. It leads with 
calling bubble fusion "a now-discredited nuclear fusion reaction." 
The citation provided says nothing about bubble fusion being "now 
discredited." If so, that is merely "buzz." Taleyarkhan was stripped 
of his professorship in 2008, over what amount to technical 
administrative violations, having nothing to do with the quality of 
the research, *on the face.* The latest experimental work reported in 
the Wikipedia article was an independent *confirmation*.


My own summary: bubble fusion is unlikely to result in commercial 
power generation, even if it's real, which it might be, and, as a 
result, there is no high motivation to confirm or conclusively reject 
it. It's an old story: a few negative replications means very little, 
because replications can fail for many reasons. What would be 
interesting would be *replication*, i.e., reporting what had been 
reported by, say, Taleyarkhan, followed by a clear *demonstration* 
that this was artifact.


LeClair's work, which allegedly focuses a shock wave, produced by 
bubble collapse, on a target, could be something different. Quite 
some time ago, when LeClair's claims surfaced, I suggested that there 
were vast military implications, that LeClair's work was known to 
people with access to the military, and that it was likely there had 
been a military investigation (such as talking to the EMTs that 
allegedly responded, and the HazMat team that showed up, and a visit 
to LeClair's lab, examining the trees and walls allegedly having 
"permanent" markings), with the probable result being "nothing to 
look at here." If the results had been real, it would have been 
likely that the whole thing would have been declared secret, LeClair 
would have been compensated, etc.


Of course, perhaps, then, LeClair's apparent ravings are part of the 
plan, designed to discredit what might have leaked out there is 
no limit to the stories that can be made up

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution


It is very difficult to expend the energy required to modify ones deeply held 
convictions.  Many years and difficult study have allowed the scientist to 
develop their understanding of how the world operates and they honestly believe 
that they are correct in their thinking.  This set of feelings is further 
enhanced by the group thinking that most of their colleagues engage in.

Now, something such as cold fusion comes along which challenges these beliefs 
and they tend to dismiss it without much effort.  This behavior is totally 
understandable.  Why waste so much of their precious effort and time just to 
reprove to themselves that they were correct all along?  It is tiring and not 
necessary for them to perform this process when they most likely suspect that 
the same issues will reappear as time progresses.

I suspect that a well defined experiment that can not be refuted might begin 
the process of reevaluation of a scientist beliefs.  The analysis of this new 
data set should not require much time or effort from the skeptic since he would 
rather dismiss the new data than to waste his valuable resources.

Had Rossi run his experiments for days instead of hours we might not be where 
we are today still trudging thorough the fog of proof.  Most of the people 
following this list know the score, but unfortunately we are in a small 
minority.  I just hope that the time between now and the future earth changing 
developments in LENR is compressed.

Deeply held thoughts are difficult to extract but it can happen.  We must make 
our best efforts toward exposing the merits of LENR for the general public.

Dave  



-Original Message-
From: Jojo Jaro 
To: Vortex 
Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 4:14 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


The parallel between Hot fusion and Darwinian Evolution is not in the theory 
per se, but in how people treat each theory.
 
It has become a religion to their respective adherents,   There is no other 
truth to them.  Nothing you say will change their minds.  Parks will never 
consider any evidence of Cold Fusion and I suspect Jed will never consider any 
evidence of Intelligent Design.  Parks will persecute any adherent of Cold 
Fusion by mockery and ridicule and labelling them quack pseudoscientists.  I 
suspect Jed does the same.
 
The parallel is clear, and the behavior is the same.  The sooner we realize 
that this is a religiious movement, the sooner will can understand why people 
will not accept any evidence for Cold Fusion.  Adherents of respective theories 
must slowly die away for the paradigm to shift to new thinking.  Old adherents 
have too much to loose by changing their minds now.  They will stick it out to 
the end despite the daily acculumation of piles of evidence to the contrary.
 
It is futile to expect old adherents to accept "Tritium Evidence"  or any other 
evidence for that matter, just as it is futile for me to expect Jed to accept 
any "DNA Information" evidence pointing to Intelligent Design.
 
 
Jojo
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Guenter Wildgruber 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)








Von: Jojo Jaro 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 11:17 Samstag, 26.Mai 2012
Betreff: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


There appears to be...
#
Jojo,

...My goal in brining up this discussion is to try to draw a parallel between 
what is happening with Hot Fusion and Darwinian Evolution Theory ...
-
My take::
-
The immediate connection is not clear to me.

'Hot fusion' seems to be an established fact to me. Will say: It happens within 
our observing distance.

The question is whether it can be brought down to earth, so to say.
Which a technical issue, and NOT an epistemological or even scientific one.


You say:
...
In Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism thought, once again, there "appears" to be some 
"established" theories... 
...
Well.
To connect LENR to Darwinism and then to intelligent design, seems dubious to 
me, to say the least.

You say:
...
Folks, there is a parallel here. We all have our pet "Hot Fusion" theories that 
we can not and will not deviate from.  For Parks, its Hot Fusion, for Jed, its 
Darwinian Evolution, for me, its Intelligent Design and Creationism.
...
Well.
Not all 'pet theories' are created equal.

To Your excuse:
Even Popper was confused at times wether 'Evolution' was a tautology or not, 
but retracted that.
(A tautology is nonfalsifiable, and as such is not debatable, except as a 
-ahem- non-debatable axiom.
The debatability of axioms is a serious issue, and ultimately can lead to the 
destruction of our human habitat, which I not really appreciate as an option.)

The LENR issue commands our utmost attention!

So please do not confuse the issue by crossreferencing it to 'Evolution', which 
is,

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

No, Jojo has no business in this forum for the simple reason that he thinks
experiments are unnecessary to science.  Nature magazine, too, decided that
experiments were unnecessary when the British editor deferred to the US
editor regarding Oriani's replication of cold fusion, and the US editor
rejected the paper, because it went against prevailing theory.

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> Dear Jojo,
>
> I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the
> simple reason that
> the analogy is not valid.
> Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative,
> in a way complementary solutions.
> Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we
> (you too)
> can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am
> reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist
> preacher keeps me informed with ID.
> I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
> was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.
>
> Peter
>
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>
>> **
>> OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major
>> cognitive dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge
>> yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a
>> central nerve?  I thought we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just
>> pissed you off too much with facts and logic.
>>
>> OK.  Whatever.
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>> PS.  Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough,
>> nothing will.  Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents.  When
>> someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive
>> dissonance and react like this.
>>
>> Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold
>> Fusion.  Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid
>> criticism of its Darwinian religion.
>>
>> The parallel has been clearly illustrated.  My point is proven.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* James Bowery 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>>
>> OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.
>>
>> Go fuck yourself.
>>
>> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>> I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
>>>
>>> What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?
>>>
>>> Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the
>>> presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent
>>> Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.  Random
>>> processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the
>>> exact opposite of Randomness.
>>>
>>> For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence
>>> requires the input of an Intelligent being.  If your throw a bunch of
>>> Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance
>>> of occuring.
>>>
>>> "There is a God"
>>>
>>> "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.  This
>>> is a random mixture of the same letters above.)
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as far as
>>> randon chance is concerned.  Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge
>>> difference.  What differentiates the 2 sentences?  It is Information of
>>> course.  There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea?
>>> And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.
>>>
>>> Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long;
>>> you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of
>>> Information in our DNA.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jojo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  - Original Message -
>>> *From:* James Bowery 
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>>  *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>>>
>>> No.  I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference.
>>>
>>> In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis.  You are
>>> admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and
>>> attempting to most economically compare them.  It is legitimate, of course,
>>> to have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison.
>>>
>>> In this case, there are two hypotheses:  Darwinian Evolution and
>>> Intelligent Design.
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>>>
 **
 Distinguish what from what?

 Are you asking if there are experiments in Darwinian Evolution and
 experiments in Intelligent Design?



  - Original Message -
 *From:* James Bowery 
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:08 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

2012-05-27 Thread Peter Gluck

Dear Jojo,

I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the simple
reason that
the analogy is not valid.
Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative,
in a way complementary solutions.
Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we
(you too)
can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am
reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist
preacher keeps me informed with ID.
I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.

Peter


On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> **
> OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major
> cognitive dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge
> yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a
> central nerve?  I thought we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just
> pissed you off too much with facts and logic.
>
> OK.  Whatever.
>
> Jojo
>
>
> PS.  Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing
> will.  Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents.  When someone
> brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance
> and react like this.
>
> Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold
> Fusion.  Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid
> criticism of its Darwinian religion.
>
> The parallel has been clearly illustrated.  My point is proven.
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* James Bowery 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>
> OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.
>
> Go fuck yourself.
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>
>> **
>> I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
>>
>> What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?
>>
>> Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the
>> presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent
>> Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.  Random
>> processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the
>> exact opposite of Randomness.
>>
>> For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence
>> requires the input of an Intelligent being.  If your throw a bunch of
>> Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance
>> of occuring.
>>
>> "There is a God"
>>
>> "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.  This
>> is a random mixture of the same letters above.)
>>
>>
>> What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as far as
>> randon chance is concerned.  Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge
>> difference.  What differentiates the 2 sentences?  It is Information of
>> course.  There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea?
>> And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.
>>
>> Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long;
>> you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of
>> Information in our DNA.
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>> *From:* James Bowery 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>  *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>>
>> No.  I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference.
>>
>> In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis.  You are
>> admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and
>> attempting to most economically compare them.  It is legitimate, of course,
>> to have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison.
>>
>> In this case, there are two hypotheses:  Darwinian Evolution and
>> Intelligent Design.
>>
>> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>> Distinguish what from what?
>>>
>>> Are you asking if there are experiments in Darwinian Evolution and
>>> experiments in Intelligent Design?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  - Original Message -
>>> *From:* James Bowery 
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:08 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>>>
>>> Jojo,
>>>
>>> Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the two?
>>>  There are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion.
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

OH my!  What is your major malfunction?  Are you experiencing major cognitive 
dissonance?  The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself to is not 
as factual as you thought it was?   Did I just hit a central nerve?  I thought 
we were discussing with civility?  I guess I just pissed you off too much with 
facts and logic.

OK.  Whatever.

Jojo


PS.  Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing 
will.  Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents.  When someone brings 
up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance and react 
like this.

Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold Fusion.  
Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism of its 
Darwinian religion.

The parallel has been clearly illustrated.  My point is proven.  




  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.


  Go fuck yourself.


  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.

What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?

Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the 
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent Designer, 
not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.  Random processes 
never create Information, because information is "Order", the exact opposite of 
Randomness.

For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence 
requires the input of an Intelligent being.  If your throw a bunch of Scrabble 
letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.

"There is a God"

"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.  This is 
a random mixture of the same letters above.)


What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as far as 
randon chance is concerned.  Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge 
difference.  What differentiates the 2 sentences?  It is Information of course. 
 There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea?  And Ideas 
are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.

Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long; you 
might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of 
Information in our DNA.


Jojo







  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  No.  I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference. 


  In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis.  You are 
admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and 
attempting to most economically compare them.  It is legitimate, of course, to 
have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison.


  In this case, there are two hypotheses:  Darwinian Evolution and 
Intelligent Design. 


  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

Distinguish what from what? 

Are you asking if there are experiments in Darwinian Evolution and 
experiments in Intelligent Design?


  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  Jojo,  


  Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the 
two?  There are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion.

Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video


Not LENR.

If what was reported by LeClair actually happened, which is 
substantially in doubt, no independent account has come to light, and 
LeClair's reports are full of unsupported and wild theoretical 
interpretations shallow on actual experimental evidence, this would 
not be LENR at all, but bubble fusion.


Bubble fusion is hot fusion, and would produce the normal hot fusion 
radiation. Indeed, neutron production has been the alleged sign of 
it, in what reports we have.


It should be easy to scale the "LeClair effect" down in order to 
avoid danger. LeClair reportedly creates bubbles using a laser and 
focuses the collapse energy on a target, so he can readily control 
the number of reaction opportunities. From the Nanospire reports of 
energy release, massive radiation would be expected. If he exposed 
himself and his partner to such radiation, as he claims, it was quite 
foolish. I.e., they were unprepared for success, while trying to 
demonstrate it.


Even less can be concluded from the Nanospire reports than from the 
reports from Rossi and Defkalion. In the latter case, at least, there 
were independent witnesses to alleged power generation, though no 
independent confirmation (i.e., fraud or puffery remain possible). 
And it would be LENR, if real.


At 03:49 PM 5/25/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

At 12:41 PM 5/25/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Alan J Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote:
Any other links to "labs blowing up" and "window melting" ?
I don't know about windows melting.


There's also :

Re: [Vo]:the desktop supernova - The Mail Archive
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg64497.html

Points to :

http://pieeconomics.blogspot.com/p/cold-fusion-comedy.html

UPDATES:

2/22/12: A new NanoSprire 
press 
release  http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=44551 states: 
"Nanospire has announced that its investigative study on fusion 
created by cavitation in water has come to an end."


It's good that they have stopped testing for now. During the nuclear 
fusion reaction that occurred when they did their test, "Hundreds of 
wave trains and vortices appeared everywhere and are permanently 
burned into walls, objects and trees surrounding the lab."


[ All references to that quote come back to this pieeconomics blog ]

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.

Go fuck yourself.

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> **
> I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
>
> What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?
>
> Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the
> presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent
> Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.  Random
> processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the
> exact opposite of Randomness.
>
> For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence
> requires the input of an Intelligent being.  If your throw a bunch of
> Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance
> of occuring.
>
> "There is a God"
>
> "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.  This is
> a random mixture of the same letters above.)
>
>
> What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as far as
> randon chance is concerned.  Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge
> difference.  What differentiates the 2 sentences?  It is Information of
> course.  There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea?
> And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.
>
> Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long;
> you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of
> Information in our DNA.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* James Bowery 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>
> No.  I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference.
>
> In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis.  You are
> admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and
> attempting to most economically compare them.  It is legitimate, of course,
> to have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison.
>
> In this case, there are two hypotheses:  Darwinian Evolution and
> Intelligent Design.
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>
>> **
>> Distinguish what from what?
>>
>> Are you asking if there are experiments in Darwinian Evolution and
>> experiments in Intelligent Design?
>>
>>
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>> *From:* James Bowery 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:08 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>>
>> Jojo,
>>
>> Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the two?
>>  There are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.

What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?

Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the presence of 
Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent Designer, not 
Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.  Random processes never 
create Information, because information is "Order", the exact opposite of 
Randomness.

For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence 
requires the input of an Intelligent being.  If your throw a bunch of Scrabble 
letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.

"There is a God"

"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.  This is a 
random mixture of the same letters above.)


What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as far as randon 
chance is concerned.  Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge 
difference.  What differentiates the 2 sentences?  It is Information of course. 
 There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea?  And Ideas 
are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.

Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long; you 
might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of 
Information in our DNA.


Jojo







  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  No.  I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference.


  In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis.  You are 
admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and 
attempting to most economically compare them.  It is legitimate, of course, to 
have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison.


  In this case, there are two hypotheses:  Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent 
Design. 


  On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

Distinguish what from what? 

Are you asking if there are experiments in Darwinian Evolution and 
experiments in Intelligent Design?


  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


  Jojo,  


  Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the two?  
There are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion.

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

No.  I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference.

In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis.  You are
admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and
attempting to most economically compare them.  It is legitimate, of course,
to have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison.

In this case, there are two hypotheses:  Darwinian Evolution and
Intelligent Design.

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> **
> Distinguish what from what?
>
> Are you asking if there are experiments in Darwinian Evolution and
> experiments in Intelligent Design?
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* James Bowery 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:08 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
>
> Jojo,
>
> Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the two?
>  There are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

James Bowery  wrote:

> On the other hand . . . Fleischmann worked in government-funded
>> institutions all of his life
>>
>
> And not until he retired was he allowed to pursue the breakthrough.
>

That is incorrect. He was working on cold fusion when he was still at the
university -- you can see his affiliation in the papers. They never
objected because he was tenured. Not to mention an FRS. Some professors,
such as Bockris, met with opposition despite tenure, but most did not.
Mizuno met with opposition and had to spend his own money, but no one tried
to stop him or any other Japanese professor.

If it were not for the tenure system, cold fusion would never have been
replicated. Most of the replications were done by tenured professors using
university labs. Pons put some of his own money into the experiment, but
the equipment and lab space was at U. Utah, so most of it was public money.

You could not possibly get tenure if you talked about cold fusion today.
You would never be hired in the first place. That is why there are no
professors under 60 doing cold fusion. The field will die out soon if this
does not change.

- Jed

[Vo]:SPAWAR LENR FiNDINGS

Please excuse if this link has already been provided.  Sounds pretty
convincing to me.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/26/spawar-space-and-naval-warfare-lenr-proof/

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

Distinguish what from what? 

Are you asking if there are experiments in Darwinian Evolution and experiments 
in Intelligent Design?

  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

  Jojo, 

  Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the two?  There 
are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion.

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

Jojo,

Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the two?
 There are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion.

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)