Re: [Vo]:Lyndon Larouche found at Before its News as Todays news.
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ --- On Sun, 2/3/13, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: From: Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Lyndon Larouche found at Before its News as Todays news. To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sunday, February 3, 2013, 1:29 PM The number one rule for Before its news is to consider the source... LaRouche is a documented nutcase. and the article is worthless without details. The only case LaRouche may be referring to is the NLRB recess appointments that were a href=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_RECESS_APPOINTMENTS?SITE=APSECTION=HOMETEMPLATE=DEFAULTCTIME=2013-01-25-10-49-05;struck down/a by a 3-judge panel. A violation of the spirit of the constitution (separation of powers), but hardly impeachable, and the decision may even be overturned by the supreme court. - Brad Yes he did seem to make a mountain out of a molehill. I figured it was something important, but it was not. He has championed cold,(and hot) fusion in the past. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: LaRouche is impossible. Thank goodness he is not actively involved in cold fusion these days. - Jed
[Vo]: MFMP AFC Heat Pump
The MFMP guys have a new air flow calorimeter that is being calibrated which they are going to use to verify excess power generated by the Celani cells under test. This device is most interesting and everyone hopes that it will be capable of capturing whatever heat is released during the experimentation. For some reason it has been more difficult to calibrate than was expected so I decided to take a look at the mechanism outlined on their web site. I would categorize it as a good design with consideration given to just about every major problem that should arise. I think that eventually this unit will perform as needed and any questions as to whether or not excess power is being generated will be put to rest. I found one characteristic last evening that seemed a little strange, but nevertheless should cause an effect. The design has a built in heat pump activity that I find most interesting. The fan located near the exit point driving the air warmed by the device under test as well as any other sources of heat is a form of compressor. It is not a very efficient one, but it takes the restricted air that has entered the opposite end of the AFC and increases its pressure to atmospheric. This process adds a small amount of heat energy to the already warm air and exhausts the mix into the ambient. All of the heat that leaves the AFC is thus spread out within the room. Meanwhile, some stable ambient room air enters the AFC at the end away from the fan. There are several baffles and heaters and heat sensors lined up after this air entry point which are used to accurately filter and process the air that reaches the cell under test. Of course, the restrictions leading eventually to the fan input generate a drop in pressure that is exactly equal to that supplied by the fan (compressor) during its operation. It is well known that a gas undergoing a drop in pressure will exhibit a temperature drop. This reduction in temperature will thus allow more heat to be extracted by the air flow than just that associated with the convection. This constitutes the heat pump action that I realize must be occurring. The calibration process has relied upon an extremely accurate measurement of the temperature rise associated with a 1 watt internal source that is surrounded by baffles to even out the air flow. Now, with the heat pump action exposed, I suspect that the accuracy of that rise is being effected by the pump process and can be calculated out of the final determination. A heat pump of this type operates in a manner consistent with the reverse Brayton cycle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brayton_cycle) Sometimes I find it amazing how simple devices can harbor such unexpected processes. The more I look into the measurement of LENR devices, the more I respect the work of the researchers that have labored in the past to resolve the many similar issues that have arisen as they pursue ever greater accuracy. Dave
[Vo]:Shale Cost vs Alternative
Shale oil/gas projections have come under fire because such fracking projects frequently have a short life span relative to past 'easy oil'. This may mean that while such a resource is abundant - and seems to be growing as reserves appear from week to week - they may be expensive. So, we might not ever run out of oil but being able to pay for it is another matter. The good news is that the Saudis will not be able to prevent the development of alternatives because their days as dominant swing producer are over. The price may stay high. This manipulation of oil prices to defund alternatives was discussed years ago in the Wall Street Journal.
Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:16:51 -0800: Hi, [snip] Oh wait a minute, if the electron is inside the proton, doesnt the whole structure look like a neutron, ie it wont see a coulomb barrier and can fuse with another hydrogen at will ? See Horace Heffner's Deflation Fusion theory at www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
Eric Walker wrote: If the mass of an orbiting satellite is sufficient to deflect the incoming asteroid, I doubt the asteroid is big enough to do much upon impact. If the asteroid is big enough to do much, I doubt the mass of a satellite would deflect it even by a small amount. I agree. Bear in mind that most satellites are light objects because rocket payloads are small. Most satellites are about 1 ton (1000 kg) I think. A 50 m asteroid weights approximately 200,000 tons, according to Deep Space Industries, Inc. I think asteroids are considered dangerous when the size is 30 to 50 m. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:100% conversion of heat to electricity with thermophotovoltaics
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:14:17 -0800: Hi Jones, [snip] In the end - if you want to find a practical and gainful heat-to-electricity device close to ambient, then provide the virtual sink well below ambient. That may be difficult, but Dirac permits it and I would never argue with PAM. ..wasn't it you who first mentioned mercury based semiconductors with a very low bandgap on this list? Quite apart from that however consider that the kinetic energy of molecules tends to be distributed across all energy levels, so if energy can be withdrawn at *any* level, then that level will eventually be replenished by energy from the other levels (the sum of which will become depleted by the amount withdrawn). This is essentially what happens with wind-chill. There is a specific amount of energy required to break the hydrogen bonds between water molecules, and this is supplied by thermal energy of those molecules with sufficient kinetic energy, with the temperature of the liquid dropping to compensate for the lost energy, as the energy of the other molecules is redistributed. The implication of this is that a semiconductor with any bandgap should work, though I would think that those with a smaller bandgap would probably work faster as there is a larger population of low energy electrons than of high energy electrons. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:02:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] Eric Walker wrote: If the mass of an orbiting satellite is sufficient to deflect the incoming asteroid, I doubt the asteroid is big enough to do much upon impact. If the asteroid is big enough to do much, I doubt the mass of a satellite would deflect it even by a small amount. I agree. Bear in mind that most satellites are light objects because rocket payloads are small. Most satellites are about 1 ton (1000 kg) I think. A 50 m asteroid weights approximately 200,000 tons, according to Deep Space Industries, Inc. I think asteroids are considered dangerous when the size is 30 to 50 m. - Jed This one is not as wide as it is long, so I estimate the mass at about 7 tons. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: This one is not as wide as it is long, so I estimate the mass at about 7 tons. So it is about the same as a 1.5 ton car whacking into 20 g songbird. Not likely to deflect the path much. But even a tiny effect will change the orbit significantly over time. That is why they are talking about deflection techniques for meteorites such as painting one side white, to increase the effect of sunlight. Like a Crooks radiometer. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
I'm probably going to make a few enemies, but the deniers of global warming (skeptic is too kind, Contrarian is more like it) really need to head over to NOAA.gov or Climate.gov and see what all of many different satellite data are showing. First, let's answer Craig's comments about not knowing if CO2 was from man burning fossil fuels or something. Some people have the mistaken idea that atmospheric CO2 can come from other places, like space. The total amount of carbon in earth is actually fix. The total amount neither increases or decreases. It's just that it moves from on place to another. It's either sequestered in the earth in the form of carbon based minerals, fossil fuels, shale, coal... etc, or its biomass on the earth's surface and oceans, or it is CO2 uptake into the oceans, or lastly it's in the air. I'm describing what is called the Carbon Cycle. Wikipedia has nice entry about the carbon cycle that is worth a good read if you want to talk about global warming and understand all of the issue. There are sources of CO2 and sinks of CO2. The interesting point about the carbon cycle is that of millions of years, the carbon cycle has not really changed much in it's amounts up until the 1950's So when we are talking global warming from CO2, we mainly are referring to atmospheric CO2 levels. There are naturals sources of CO2, like Volcanoes, wild fires, and ocean out gassing. The source-to-sink was balanced with atmospheric CO2 levels from 170ppmv to 289ppmv. So for millions of years, CO2 has been less than 300ppm until 1950, the era of Big Oil, Coal, Gas. From 1950 to present, CO2 levels have skyrocketed from 289 to 396ppmv (part per million volume). Everything is the same except, burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. And it is massive; 362.7 kilograms of C02 produced per barrel of oil; or 0.3627 Tons of CO2 per barrel of Oil. So more than 1/3 of a ton per barrel of crude oil. Coal is even better; it produces 3.7 tons of CO2 per ton of coal (the extra tonnage comes from the 2 oxygen atoms that are pulled from the air during combustion). A 1 ppmv rise in global atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 7.82 Gigatons (billion tons) of additional atmospheric CO2. Since 1950, that comes out to just about 900 BILLION TONS of ADDITIONAL atmospheric CO2 in just 63 Years! The deniers must believe in Unicorns and pixie dust if they think they can account for that amount of CO2 without it coming from fossil fuels. So to the climate deniers out there, how do you explain the build up of an additional 900Gigatons of CO2 since 1950? http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/co2-emissions-changes-in-atmospheric-levels/ Next question, we know the CO2 is a green house so how does that directly effect global warming. This is best explained in a diagram; http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/heattrapping-gases-faq.PNG http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming (an excellent source of real sicence). From wikipedia Solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect The bottom line is that there a plenty of examples of the greenhouse gas effect, from the planet Venus, to your friendly little terrarium that your kids might have. CO2 concentration is a major player in the efficiency of the heat trapping. So it is very logical to see the connection between CO2 concentrations and gobal average temperature. A simple extrapolation of current data gives this nice little linear equation, the predicted temp is about 10.31 degreeC + (0.0114 degreeC /ppmv). The bottom line is I just don't understand the thinking of the Global Warming Deniers, the contrarians. Global Warming is so blatantly obvious in the data, observations, theory and models that the only reason I can think that anyone would argue against it's reality is someone being paid to do so. Either that or your just a plain gullible person. Of course, I should add humorously that that is what some people think of cold fusion too, but we all know they are wrong. Best Regards, Chuck On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The reason is both political and based on the very slow response of the earth system to any change man might make. This makes no sense to me. The earth system is responding to CO2. Suppose we quickly remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, with a megaproject to plant trees and with reverse combustion, as I suggested in my book. As soon as we do that the earth system will stop responding. It will not gradually warm up once CO2 levels return to where they were before people began burning large
Re: [Vo]:100% conversion of heat to electricity with thermophotovoltaics
Ok, I think there is something that David and I myself are unclear on... Let's say you take IR radiation, so what is that? A high frequency EM wave in the Teraherz range, if you have a nano antenna and diodes suited it could maybe be rectified directly to usable power, since this can be done with microwave energy I do not see any issues with doing it at IR at least in theory. Now I do know anything really about photovoltaic cells, but I imagine they do something like this, they rectify terahertz to DC. So is a temperature differential required to convert EM into DC electrical power? If you had a solar cell on the sun that somehow could survive such radiant temperatures, would it have no DC output? I guess it just seems (perhaps incorrectly?) that solar cells are somehow getting past the normal thermodynamic laws because they tap the EM radiation (which can be focused, polarized and interacted with electromagnetically) and not thermal energy directly. So are you saying that EM flux can not be tapped without a temperature differential? That if IR Emectromagnetic radiation were too homogeneous you could not rectify it??? John On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:05 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:14:17 -0800: Hi Jones, [snip] In the end - if you want to find a practical and gainful heat-to-electricity device close to ambient, then provide the virtual sink well below ambient. That may be difficult, but Dirac permits it – and I would never argue with PAM. ..wasn't it you who first mentioned mercury based semiconductors with a very low bandgap on this list? Quite apart from that however consider that the kinetic energy of molecules tends to be distributed across all energy levels, so if energy can be withdrawn at *any* level, then that level will eventually be replenished by energy from the other levels (the sum of which will become depleted by the amount withdrawn). This is essentially what happens with wind-chill. There is a specific amount of energy required to break the hydrogen bonds between water molecules, and this is supplied by thermal energy of those molecules with sufficient kinetic energy, with the temperature of the liquid dropping to compensate for the lost energy, as the energy of the other molecules is redistributed. The implication of this is that a semiconductor with any bandgap should work, though I would think that those with a smaller bandgap would probably work faster as there is a larger population of low energy electrons than of high energy electrons. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
The unspoken assumption is that the asteroid is composed of normal matter - and if so, then it would take substantial mass to deflect it. What would be the effect of an asteroid composed of other kinds of matter - such as mirror matter in our solar system, and was there a precedent for that already (1908) ? It is true that Antimatter may not exist in our galaxy, but mirror matter could coexist. There is the Wiki site but it is deficient on many details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter .there are some who think that the Tunguska event was a comet or asteroid composed of another kind of matter. Notably, Robert Foot has expressed a fairly convincing hypothesis. and if the Siberia event was a true precedent for the aftermath of an even closer near-miss then, then we can surmise a small satellite could be more problematic following a collision than its mass would suggest. http://books.google.com/books/about/Shadowlands.html?id=3evE2K-ylVIC Robin wrote This one is not as wide as it is long, so I estimate the mass at about 7 tons. So it is about the same as a 1.5 ton car whacking into 20 g songbird. Not likely to deflect the path much. But even a tiny effect will change the orbit significantly over time. That is why they are talking about deflection techniques for meteorites such as painting one side white, to increase the effect of sunlight. Like a Crooks radiometer. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
Interesting. I had not heard of mirror matter before, Definite shares of a certain Star Trek episode. On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The unspoken assumption is that the asteroid is composed of normal matter – and if so, then it would take substantial mass to deflect it. ** ** What would be the effect of an asteroid composed of “other” kinds of matter – such as mirror matter in our solar system, and was there a precedent for that already (1908) ? ** ** It is true that Antimatter may not exist in our galaxy, but mirror matter could coexist. There is the Wiki site but it is deficient on many details: ** ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter ** ** …there are some who think that the Tunguska event was a comet or asteroid composed of another kind of matter. Notably, Robert Foot has expressed a fairly convincing hypothesis… and if the Siberia event was a true precedent for the aftermath of an even closer near-miss then, then we can surmise a small satellite could be more problematic following a collision than its mass would suggest. ** ** http://books.google.com/books/about/Shadowlands.html?id=3evE2K-ylVIC ** ** ** ** *Robin wrote* This one is not as wide as it is long, so I estimate the mass at about 7 tons. ** ** So it is about the same as a 1.5 ton car whacking into 20 g songbird. Not likely to deflect the path much. But even a tiny effect will change the orbit significantly over time. That is why they are talking about deflection techniques for meteorites such as painting one side white, to increase the effect of sunlight. Like a Crooks radiometer. ** ** - Jed ** **
[Vo]:OT Global Warming
http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-live-on-the-edge-of-financial-ruin-cfed-report-2013-2 The above provides the latest evidence that the US economy is hanging by threads. Much the same goes for Europe and Japan. About half of US households cannot weather any financial emergency nor finance long term needs such as housing, healthcare or college. and if you like graphs of nonlinear effects, then you ought to consider what happens when gasoline or food increases in price yet again and people can't afford medication or car repairs. I see little need for strident warnings when a coming failed global economy will reduce emissions dramatically, as will slashed birth rates and suicides among those being lectured to by the rich or tenured.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Falling technology to lower levels due to slow degredation, and burning (literally) of our infrastructure won't end up being more greenhouse gases? On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-live-on-the-edge-of-financial-ruin-cfed-report-2013-2 The above provides the latest evidence that the US economy is hanging by threads. Much the same goes for Europe and Japan. About half of US households cannot weather any financial emergency nor finance long term needs such as housing, healthcare or college. and if you like graphs of nonlinear effects, then you ought to consider what happens when gasoline or food increases in price yet again and people can't afford medication or car repairs. I see little need for strident warnings when a coming failed global economy will reduce emissions dramatically, as will slashed birth rates and suicides among those being lectured to by the rich or tenured.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: I see little need for strident warnings when a coming failed global economy will reduce emissions dramatically . . . That does not follow at all! Per capita emissions are much higher in Mexico and China than they are in the U.S. and Japan. Poverty causes pollution. Rich nations can afford things like nuclear power, wind power, electric lighting and modern hybrid automobiles. Nuclear and wind are more expensive than coal up front. They are far cheaper when you factor in the cost of the damage and the people killed by coal. A country that can afford to pay a little more upfront for clean energy ends up saving much more money. It is a vicious circle. Kerosene illumination is the bane of the Third World. It causes huge damage and cost far more per capita than electric lighting, and hundreds of times more per lumen. , as will slashed birth rates and suicides among those being lectured to by the rich or tenured. Poverty tends to increase birth rates. Also infant mortality, but not as much. The poorest countries in the world, in Africa, have the highest birthrate. This causes catastrophic levels of overpopulation and environmental degradation. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Rich nations can afford. No, they can't. That's the point. Their populations are suffering and it's going to get much worse. Nor do developing nations operate in a vacuum as markets are now more tightly correlated than ever, contrary to many predictions. Virtuous cycle? That would be theology. The birthrate in the US just plunged to the lowest ever. Much of Europe and Japan isn't even replacement level anymore.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
I wrote: Per capita emissions are much higher in Mexico and China than they are in the U.S. and Japan. Poverty causes pollution. Rich nations can afford things like nuclear power, wind power, electric lighting and modern hybrid automobiles. To be a little more concrete, look at the recent photos of the catastrophic air pollution in Beijing. You can find similar pictures from Mexico city. Now look at photos of London in 1952, and Philadelphia, PA in 1950. You see the same thing: massive, uncontrolled air pollution caused by horribly inefficient industrial processes and lack of air pollution control equipment. In the 1990s before the Chinese began to modernize, they produced ~20 times less economic output per joule of energy than the U.S. or Japan did. (I think it was ~20.) They were throwing away vast amounts of coal and oil. Now they are building 30 nuclear power plants and the equivalent number of wind plants. They are fixing the problem, just as we fixed our problems in the 1950s and 60s. Our pollution is WAY down, and our efficiency is WAY up. Driving in 50 mpg Prius get you to your destination just as quickly as 12 mpg car did circa 1965. In the event of an accident you are far more likely to survive unhurt in a Prius than you would have been 1965. That means insurance costs are way down, and so is overall cost of ownership. Highway fatalities are way down. You pay more upfront, but much less overall. Go to Mexico city and you find a million cars using 1970s technology, wasting fuel and destroying the environment. The 10 most polluted cities in the world. They are all in the Third World: http://opishposh.com/most-polluted-cities-in-the-world/ I expect you would find ~90 of the top 100 most polluted cities are in the Third World. The ones in the U.S. and Japan are the poorest. As I said before, our power companies still kill ~20,000 people per year with impunity, because these are poor people living downwind of coal fired plants. If they killed off that many middle class people they would be shut down in no time. Poor people have to live with pollution and filth because they have no money and no political influence. In the U.S., if they would vote, we would clean up their communities and we have far less pollution than we now have. The air pollution in London in 1952 killed ~4,000 people and this -- finally -- triggered public outrage and reform. Many of the technical solutions had been sitting on the shelf for 200 years. Even in Elizabethan times they knew how to reduce smoke and improve efficiency. Pollution is misplaced resources. It is useful material in the wrong place. It is money flushed down the sewer for no reason. It is caused by stupidity, and foolish self-destructive greed. There is no need for pollution, and no need for global warming either. It would not cost any money to fix these problems even with present-day technology, never mind cold fusion. We could fix them and save money doing it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** Rich nations can afford. No, they can't. That's the point. Their populations are suffering and it's going to get much worse. If we would start to address the problems we will grow richer, not poorer. In the past when we built the transcontinental railroad, the highway system, the Internet and when we invested to reduce pollution that increased everyone's wealth. Nations grow poor when they sit on their butts doing nothing. Not fixing problem. Not reducing pollution or improving efficiency. When you build high speed railroads and nuclear power plants like in Japan or China, everyone gets wealthier. It does not COST money, it MAKES money. Nor do developing nations operate in a vacuum as markets are now more tightly correlated than ever, contrary to many predictions. Developing nations such as China are improving efficiency and implementing things like nuclear power faster than any nation in history. Much faster. The birthrate in the US just plunged to the lowest ever. Much of Europe and Japan isn't even replacement level anymore. That could be fixed overnight. Literally. That is not a problem at all. As soon as the government and corporations in Japan start treating women with respect, and start providing decent childcare, they will have children again. Many Japanese women and young couples have said that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
I have been wondering about another possible situation with regard to the near miss. What are the chances that gravitational gradient from the Earth might break this asteroid into many smaller pieces that then might cause havoc in small chunks. Remember the large comet that impacted Jupiter. It was torn into a long chain of individual meteors or whatever you want to call them by a similar close encounter. Does anyone have information concerning this scenario? Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 4, 2013 5:13 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully The unspoken assumption isthat the asteroid is composed of normal matter – and if so, then it wouldtake substantial mass to deflect it. What would be the effectof an asteroid composed of “other” kinds of matter – such asmirror matter in our solar system, and was there a precedent for that already(1908) ? It is true that Antimattermay not exist in our galaxy, but mirror matter could coexist. There is the Wikisite but it is deficient on many details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter …there are some whothink that the Tunguska event was a comet or asteroid composed of another kindof matter. Notably, Robert Foot has expressed a fairly convincing hypothesis…and if the Siberia event was a true precedent for the aftermath of an evencloser near-miss then, then we can surmise a small satellite could be moreproblematic following a collision than its mass would suggest. http://books.google.com/books/about/Shadowlands.html?id=3evE2K-ylVIC Robin wrote This one is not as wide as it is long, so I estimatethe mass at about 7 tons. So it is about the same as a 1.5 ton car whacking into20 g songbird. Not likely to deflect the path much. But even a tiny effect willchange the orbit significantly over time. That is why they are talking aboutdeflection techniques for meteorites such as painting one side white, toincrease the effect of sunlight. Like a Crooks radiometer. - Jed
[Vo]:Observational Evidence for Two Cosmological Predictions Made by Bit-String Physics
Observational Evidence for Two Cosmological Predictions Made by Bit-String Physics H. Pierre Noyes Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94309 Abstract A decade ago bit-string physics predicted that the baryon/photon ratio at the time of nucleogenesis η = 1/256^4 and that the dark matter/baryonic matter ratio ΩDM/ΩB = 12.7. Accepting that the normalized Hubble constant is constrained observationally to lie in the range 0.6 h0 0.8, this translates into a prediction that 0.325 ΩM 0.183. This and a prediction by E.D.Jones, using a modelindependent argument and ideas with which bit-string physics is not inconsistent, that the cosmological constant ΩΛ = 0.6 ± 0.1 are in reasonable agreement with recent cosmological observations, including the BOOMERANG data. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-8779.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: …there are some who think that the Tunguska event was a comet or asteroid composed of another kind of matter. If this is something like anti-matter and it whacks into a satellite, I assume that would cause a large explosion. Wouldn't it? I doubt the Tunguska event was caused by anything other than normal matter, but on the other hand they have found no sign of the meteorite. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
Dave, Earth Grazing Meteorites have been known to enter Earth's atmosphere and break up into multiple pieces. A large one came in 1860, after the Carrington Event/Solar Storm in 1859. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-grazing_fireball I studied Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 that struck Jupiter in 1994 and a few things stuck out that helped lead me to my comet nuclei/dark matter theory: 1) Shoemaker Levy broke into 21 separate nuclei, ripped apart gravitationally by Jupiter 2) Astronomers had expected to see the fireballs from the impacts, but did not have any idea in advance how visible the atmospheric effects of the impacts would be from Earth. Observers soon saw a huge dark spot after the first impact. The spot was visible even in very small telescopes, and was about 6,000 km (3,700 mi) (one Earth radius) across. This and subsequent dark spots were thought to have been caused by debris from the impacts, and were markedly asymmetric, forming crescent shapes in front of the direction of impact.[16]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9#cite_note-Hammel-16 3) One dark spot was the size of the pacific ocean 4) Radio observations revealed a sharp increase in continuumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body emission at a wavelength of 21 cm. This was thought to be synchrotron radiation. 5) About an hour after fragment K entered Jupiter, observers recorded auroral http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(phenomenon) emission near the impact region, as well as at the antipodehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipodal_point of the impact site (The antipode is the opposite side of Jupiter from the impact) with respect to Jupiter's strong magnetic fieldhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field. The cause of these emissions was difficult to establish due to a lack of knowledge of Jupiter's internal magnetic fieldhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field and of the geometry of the impact sites 6) Counterintuitively, the atmospheric temperature dropped to normal levels much more quickly at the larger impact sites than at the smaller sites 7) Astronomers did not observe large amounts of water following the collisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9 Of course I took some of the above oddities to help reinforce my theory that comet nuclei are clumped dark matter and fragment K actually orbited THROUGH and around Jupiter for awhile... 8) The good news in my model is that although the universe is probably teeming with massive amounts of dark matter/energy, most of it is very tiny, energetic and gravitationally clumped in space. A typical coronal mass ejection (CME) is 1e+12 kg. If you take a micro black hole ball of entropy weighing 1e+10 kg or 1% of that CME mass, its radius would be 1.5e-17 meters. In other words, relatively massive dark matter particles are tiny and weakly interacting so their effects are fairly minimal unless they orbit through and around the Earth for awhile, triggering low pressure disturbances in the atmosphere and sinkhole/seismic events in the Earth. I have some videos on my blog and I believe relatively massive dark matter particles are orbiting in an elliptical Kepler orbit in the dark band between a double rainbow known as Alexander's band, named after some dude from 200 AD wearing a toga. I believe double rainbows are condensing water vapor, electrically charging the atmosphere and triggering intense low pressure systems. They are seen many times after severe storms, tornadoes and derichos. Items 1-7 were from Wilkipedia, item 8 is my gravitationally warped view of the world. Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have been wondering about another possible situation with regard to the near miss. What are the chances that gravitational gradient from the Earth might break this asteroid into many smaller pieces that then might cause havoc in small chunks. Remember the large comet that impacted Jupiter. It was torn into a long chain of individual meteors or whatever you want to call them by a similar close encounter. Does anyone have information concerning this scenario? Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 4, 2013 5:13 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully The unspoken assumption is that the asteroid is composed of normal matter – and if so, then it would take substantial mass to deflect it. What would be the effect of an asteroid composed of “other” kinds of matter – such as mirror matter in our solar system, and was there a precedent for that already (1908) ? It is true that Antimatter may not exist in our galaxy, but mirror matter could coexist. There is the Wiki site but it is deficient on many details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter …there are some who think that the Tunguska event was a comet or asteroid composed
Re: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
On 02/04/2013 04:59 PM, Chuck Sites wrote: The bottom line is I just don't understand the thinking of the Global Warming Deniers, the contrarians. Global Warming is so blatantly obvious in the data, observations, theory and models that the only reason I can think that anyone would argue against it's reality is someone being paid to do so. Either that or your just a plain gullible person. What's blatantly obvious in the data is a correlation. But it's not possible to prove causation from a correlation. That's just a fact. It just means that CO2 is not an independent variable. What I think is happening is that CO2 is contributing something to the temperature rise, but it's also being pulled by the temperatures. We can see this on an annual basis, as the CO2 level moves up and down in response to seasonal temperature variations. http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif But there's no way to know if CO2 is driving the correlation, or if it's the temperature. So you have to guess and say, Well, it's probably the CO2 which is the primary cause of the change in temperature. It's just a guess because you can't model the entire world, with all of its complexities and feedback loops. Even if you know that CO2 WILL act as a greenhouse gas in a sterile environment, you don't know how it's acting in the atmosphere. But check this out! https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSMHExcF9OVFRQSGM/edit?usp=sharing Just the simple correlation between temperature and sunspots is 0.81! So if the simple correlation between temperature and sunspots is 0.81 and the simple correlation between temperature and CO2 is 0.96, then isn't it 'possible' that solar activity is driving the temperature and the temperature is driving the CO2 increases -- to SOME degree? Since there is no logical way that temperature changes could drive solar activity, then solar activity is driving the temperature to some degree. That's the only thing that makes sense. CO2 may be affecting it somewhat, but it's not the only thing. Craig PS: I put the worksheet together. It averages temperature anomalies and sunspots over each solar cycle. I am basically compiling a total number of sunspots for each solar cycle, and then subtracting a base number. If the number of sunspots is greater than the base number, then temperatures go up. If the number of sunspots is less than the base number, then temperatures go down. Then I'm scaling down the curve, and centering it, but that's it. There's no forward referencing or any thing else. It also correlates to temperature at 0.916 from 1954 'til present.
RE: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
FWIW - this interesting paper turned up just now in pursuit of other models of mirror hydrogen (there are many besides the one of Robert Foot, which is the most well-known). http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0111381.pdf Stewart's view seems to be somewhat similar, but now we are presented with an introduction to the desirability of self-interaction to explain certain cosmological phenomena - which is poorly defined - despite having a Wiki entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-interacting_dark_matter In layman's terms, it suggest why cold dark matter has plenty of internal energy. Amazing that cosmologists get away with that kind of speculation simply because disproof is so difficult . but this type of mirror hydrogen would probably not be seen outside of galactic cores. Self-interacting sounds a bit like LENR gain on a larger scale however :-) In fact, if we continue with what they are started, there could be a version of mirror hydrogen that can be formed in Solar flares and exist in Earth-like environments, or even be formed in relativistic conditions on Earth. In fact, Randell Mills version of redundant ground states goes part of the way there. The mirror symmetry would exist in the negative (reflected) valence and ground states, which can be imagined as a mirror of positive states - but to be complete, this kind of mirror hydrogen would need to be combined with a bit of QCD magic in mirrored quarks - for the self-interaction (even if is of a smaller degree), such as can be inferred from the Mohapatra paper above. It would be nice to see this paper updated within a broader scope. If one accepts cosmological self-interaction, what is prohibit a local version, at least as seen in the Ni-H reaction? It could be a limited variety of self-interaction of mirror hydrogen formed in situ and having self-oscillation between highly redundant ground states and QCD color change - in mirrored quarks.
Re: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
Craig, I agree with your thinking. We are intrinsically connected to the sun thru sunspots, solar flares CME's as well as the solar wind and typical radiation . I think Earth is just a nodal battery in what is primarily a dark matter/entropic Matrix... On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/04/2013 04:59 PM, Chuck Sites wrote: The bottom line is I just don't understand the thinking of the Global Warming Deniers, the contrarians. Global Warming is so blatantly obvious in the data, observations, theory and models that the only reason I can think that anyone would argue against it's reality is someone being paid to do so. Either that or your just a plain gullible person. What's blatantly obvious in the data is a correlation. But it's not possible to prove causation from a correlation. That's just a fact. It just means that CO2 is not an independent variable. What I think is happening is that CO2 is contributing something to the temperature rise, but it's also being pulled by the temperatures. We can see this on an annual basis, as the CO2 level moves up and down in response to seasonal temperature variations. http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif But there's no way to know if CO2 is driving the correlation, or if it's the temperature. So you have to guess and say, Well, it's probably the CO2 which is the primary cause of the change in temperature. It's just a guess because you can't model the entire world, with all of its complexities and feedback loops. Even if you know that CO2 WILL act as a greenhouse gas in a sterile environment, you don't know how it's acting in the atmosphere. But check this out! https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSMHExcF9OVFRQSGM/edit?usp=sharing Just the simple correlation between temperature and sunspots is 0.81! So if the simple correlation between temperature and sunspots is 0.81 and the simple correlation between temperature and CO2 is 0.96, then isn't it 'possible' that solar activity is driving the temperature and the temperature is driving the CO2 increases -- to SOME degree? Since there is no logical way that temperature changes could drive solar activity, then solar activity is driving the temperature to some degree. That's the only thing that makes sense. CO2 may be affecting it somewhat, but it's not the only thing. Craig PS: I put the worksheet together. It averages temperature anomalies and sunspots over each solar cycle. I am basically compiling a total number of sunspots for each solar cycle, and then subtracting a base number. If the number of sunspots is greater than the base number, then temperatures go up. If the number of sunspots is less than the base number, then temperatures go down. Then I'm scaling down the curve, and centering it, but that's it. There's no forward referencing or any thing else. It also correlates to temperature at 0.916 from 1954 'til present.
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
I think 95% of the universe's energy is collapsed and locked behind that small surface area of particles that I consider micro black hole balls of entropy. Which is very good for life else the tremendous heat and radiation would kill us. Interestingly, if you run the calculator at the following link: http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ You will see that at around a mass of 4.5e+20 kg, the surface of a micro black hole is ~ 32 F, masses below that quickly get very hot, with a particle of mass 1e+10 kg hot enough to trigger thermonuclear fusion at its surface. Masses above that get very cold, approaching 0 K very fast. The reason I believe we are protected as humans is that there is not enough surface area there to transfer much heat to our world, plus quantum gravity red-shifts any radiation leaving the surface. If you consider the core of the earth a black hole @ a mass of 1.2 e+23kg, you get a core temperature of 1 deg. K and a radius of 0.007 inches. The electromagnetic radiation leaving a black hole is 40 times the gravitational force energy. In other words I believe the Earth's core dynamo is a black hole, which explains our magnetic fields, tail and coronal discharge after CMEs. At 0.007 inches the core cannot suck in the Earth due to its outer core atmosphere/pressure it creates from the radiation. All of the dark matter particles the Sun expells at us just coalesce with the core of the Earth, effectively recharging her battery, and emit about 3% as cosmic rays, some of which I believe contribute to Earth's Energy Balance. I believe those particles are orbiting the sun in those magnetic flux tubes, with an average mass of approx 1e+15 kg and 1.5 M Kelvin and when there is a flare/CME those flux tubes break and expell these orbiting particles at Earth. Our major low pressure weather systems on Earth are those same magnetic flux tubes we see on the sun. This stuff is energetic and orbiting in our jet streams at hundreds and thousands of miles per second. I also have a problem with cosmologists that cannot see the forest thru the trees. I have a disprovable theory here on Earth and I am using it to predict events, and learning as I go. Hurricanes are caused by orbiting entropic particles expelled from the sun during CMEs, I am convinced. The weirdest thing is that is what some of the crop circles have been showing us and I have never believed in weird stuff like that, I used to be a normal engineer like Terry... Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: FWIW – this interesting paper turned up just now in pursuit of other models of “mirror hydrogen” (there are many besides the one of Robert Foot, which is the most well-known). ** ** http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0111381.pdf ** ** Stewart’s view seems to be somewhat similar, but now we are presented with an introduction to the desirability of “self-interaction” to explain certain cosmological phenomena - which is poorly defined – despite having a Wiki entry. ** ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-interacting_dark_matter ** ** In layman’s terms, it suggest why cold dark matter has plenty of internal energy. Amazing that cosmologists get away with that kind of speculation simply because disproof is so difficult … but this type of mirror hydrogen would probably not be seen outside of galactic cores. ** ** “Self-interacting” sounds a bit like LENR gain on a larger scale however JIn fact, if we continue with what they are started, there could be a version of mirror hydrogen that can be formed in Solar flares and exist in Earth-like environments, or even be formed in relativistic conditions on Earth. In fact, Randell Mills version of redundant ground states goes part of the way there. The “mirror” symmetry would exist in the negative (reflected) valence and ground states, which can be imagined as a mirror of positive states - but to be complete, this kind of mirror hydrogen would need to be combined with a bit of QCD magic in mirrored quarks - for the self-interaction (even if is of a smaller degree), such as can be inferred from the Mohapatra paper above. It would be nice to see this paper updated within a broader scope. ** ** If one accepts cosmological self-interaction, what is prohibit a local version, at least as seen in the Ni-H reaction? It could be a limited variety of “self-interaction” of mirror hydrogen formed in situ and having self-oscillation between highly redundant ground states and QCD color change - in mirrored quarks.
Re: [Vo]:100% conversion of heat to electricity with thermophotovoltaics
In reply to John Berry's message of Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:12:21 +1300: Hi John, Ok, I think there is something that David and I myself are unclear on... Let's say you take IR radiation, so what is that? A high frequency EM wave in the Teraherz range, if you have a nano antenna and diodes suited it could maybe be rectified directly to usable power, since this can be done with microwave energy I do not see any issues with doing it at IR at least in theory. Agreed. Now I do know anything really about photovoltaic cells, but I imagine they do something like this, they rectify terahertz to DC. No exactly, but the result is the same. Electrons in solar cells absorb the energy of the incoming EM freeing them from their atoms, and giving them the energy to cross the semi-conductor diode junction. So is a temperature differential required to convert EM into DC electrical power? I don't think so. However there is also a leakage current in solar cells, which presumably goes in the wrong direction, and is temperature dependent. When no temperature difference exists, do the forward and backward currents equal out? I don't know the answer, and suspect that an experiment is the only way to find out. One interesting point to note however is that sunlight has an effective blackbody temperature of about 91 ºC by the time it reaches the surface of the Earth, so there is definitely a temperature difference with the surroundings. (i.e. a black body of that temperature would radiate the same amount of power / m^2 as we receive from the Sun; about 1 kW/m^2.) If you had a solar cell on the sun that somehow could survive such radiant temperatures, would it have no DC output? See above. I guess it just seems (perhaps incorrectly?) that solar cells are somehow getting past the normal thermodynamic laws because they tap the EM radiation (which can be focused, polarized and interacted with electromagnetically) and not thermal energy directly. So are you saying that EM flux can not be tapped without a temperature differential? See above. That if IR Emectromagnetic radiation were too homogeneous you could not rectify it??? First, I'm not sure what you mean by homogeneous in this context, but I suspect you mean the opposite of coherent. The answer in that case is that I don't think it makes any difference whether it is coherent of not. Second, as mentioned above this is not exactly rectification that is taking place, though that may just be a semantic argument. John On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:05 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:14:17 -0800: Hi Jones, [snip] In the end - if you want to find a practical and gainful heat-to-electricity device close to ambient, then provide the virtual sink well below ambient. That may be difficult, but Dirac permits it and I would never argue with PAM. ..wasn't it you who first mentioned mercury based semiconductors with a very low bandgap on this list? Quite apart from that however consider that the kinetic energy of molecules tends to be distributed across all energy levels, so if energy can be withdrawn at *any* level, then that level will eventually be replenished by energy from the other levels (the sum of which will become depleted by the amount withdrawn). This is essentially what happens with wind-chill. There is a specific amount of energy required to break the hydrogen bonds between water molecules, and this is supplied by thermal energy of those molecules with sufficient kinetic energy, with the temperature of the liquid dropping to compensate for the lost energy, as the energy of the other molecules is redistributed. The implication of this is that a semiconductor with any bandgap should work, though I would think that those with a smaller bandgap would probably work faster as there is a larger population of low energy electrons than of high energy electrons. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
In reply to Craig's message of Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:37:26 -0500: Hi, [snip] Since there is no logical way that temperature changes could drive solar activity, then solar activity is driving the temperature to some degree. That's the only thing that makes sense. CO2 may be affecting it somewhat, but it's not the only thing. I agree that Solar activity also influences the temperature, which probably explains the drop between maxima over the last 10 years. However the net effect is rather like a staircase. The variation in Solar activity is responsible for the steps on the staircase, while the CO2 increase represents the inclination of the staircase. In short, on average temperatures are going to continue to rise, however with a roughly 11 year periodicity superimposed upon it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:31:30 -0500: Hi, [snip] So it is about the same as a 1.5 ton car whacking into 20 g songbird. Not likely to deflect the path much. But even a tiny effect will change the orbit significantly over time. That is why they are talking about deflection techniques for meteorites such as painting one side white, to increase the effect of sunlight. Like a Crooks radiometer. ..since they usually spin, I doubt that would be a useful approach. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:100% conversion of heat to electricity with thermophotovoltaics
I like to use thought experiments to answer questions if possible since many times that can show the direction that processes take. It is a known fact that if you take a red hot ball of iron and place it into deep empty space that the heat will slowly radiate away in the form of black body radiation. Eventually most of the heat will be lost until it becomes in equilibrium with the effective background temperature of the empty space that it is placed within. We could have placed into the empty space a device such as you describe which takes a portion of that energy and rectifies it into DC that can then be used to drive a motor or stored within battery banks, etc. If we had a lot of ambition, we could place a very large number of these devices at a distance from the hot material and collect a significant portion of the energy being emitted. Radio dipole antennas that are receiving RF energy actually radiate some of it back into space which I assume would happen with the IR dipoles that you are proposing. To capture most of the radiated energy would require a large array of individual antennas that would constantly be passing energy among each other and perhaps back to the hot source. I can think of no reason to assume that this process would not continue for a long time as the heat is being converted into other forms of energy. Some of the energy would ping pong back and forth between the vast array of antennas, but the only losses expected would be due to resistive heating and that could be eliminated by using super conductor antennas. It seems theoretically possible for you to construct this antenna system as many devices embedded into empty space for a great distance beyond the heat source. Eventually, such an arrangement would absorb all of the heat with essentially none getting past the farthest removed antennas. Of course it is understood that different tuning of antennas is required to grab the different frequencies being radiated. So, the bottom line is that heat energy should be capable of being converted into other forms of energy with high efficiency under the right set of circumstances. One form of energy is apparently no better than the second form and they can be converted. The laws of thermodynamics prevent a heat engine from doing the conversion very well, but they do not stop you from further conversion if you are determined. I think that this is a logical argument, but perhaps others can see a fallacy. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 4, 2013 10:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:100% conversion of heat to electricity with thermophotovoltaics In reply to John Berry's message of Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:12:21 +1300: Hi John, Ok, I think there is something that David and I myself are unclear on... Let's say you take IR radiation, so what is that? A high frequency EM wave in the Teraherz range, if you have a nano antenna and diodes suited it could maybe be rectified directly to usable power, since this can be done with microwave energy I do not see any issues with doing it at IR at least in theory. Agreed. Now I do know anything really about photovoltaic cells, but I imagine they do something like this, they rectify terahertz to DC. No exactly, but the result is the same. Electrons in solar cells absorb the energy of the incoming EM freeing them from their atoms, and giving them the energy to cross the semi-conductor diode junction. So is a temperature differential required to convert EM into DC electrical power? I don't think so. However there is also a leakage current in solar cells, which presumably goes in the wrong direction, and is temperature dependent. When no temperature difference exists, do the forward and backward currents equal out? I don't know the answer, and suspect that an experiment is the only way to find out. One interesting point to note however is that sunlight has an effective blackbody temperature of about 91 ºC by the time it reaches the surface of the Earth, so there is definitely a temperature difference with the surroundings. (i.e. a black body of that temperature would radiate the same amount of power / m^2 as we receive from the Sun; about 1 kW/m^2.) If you had a solar cell on the sun that somehow could survive such radiant temperatures, would it have no DC output? See above. I guess it just seems (perhaps incorrectly?) that solar cells are somehow getting past the normal thermodynamic laws because they tap the EM radiation (which can be focused, polarized and interacted with electromagnetically) and not thermal energy directly. So are you saying that EM flux can not be tapped without a temperature differential? See above. That if IR Emectromagnetic radiation were too homogeneous you could not rectify it??? First, I'm not sure what you mean by homogeneous in this context, but I suspect you mean the opposite of
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
Even if they spin, the reflection from the painted side would generate a net force away from the sun's location. This assumes your paint is more reflective than the raw untreated surface. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 4, 2013 11:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:31:30 -0500: Hi, [snip] So it is about the same as a 1.5 ton car whacking into 20 g songbird. Not likely to deflect the path much. But even a tiny effect will change the orbit significantly over time. That is why they are talking about deflection techniques for meteorites such as painting one side white, to increase the effect of sunlight. Like a Crooks radiometer. ..since they usually spin, I doubt that would be a useful approach. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 4 Feb 2013 20:20:49 -0500: Hi, [snip] I doubt the Tunguska event was caused by anything other than normal matter, but on the other hand they have found no sign of the meteorite. .if it was a gravel meteorite then it may have broken up completely while still in the air, resulting in a huge heat flash, but little matter actually impacting the surface. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** Rich nations can afford. No, they can't. That's the point. Their populations are suffering and it's going to get much worse. Nor do developing nations operate in a vacuum as markets are now more tightly correlated than ever, contrary to many predictions. This is the same rationale that poor people use to take out high-interest loans; to buy items at the store in tiny quantities, which ends up costing more overall; or to forgo car insurance, hoping they won't get caught -- they cannot obtain a mortgage that is not on usurious terms, and it is hard to justify a big expenditure on bulk items when you're living from paycheck to paycheck. In the end, you have to have money to save money, and you have to be willing to spend it up front, rather than backload all of your expenditures until the time that disaster strikes. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 4 Feb 2013 23:29:27 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Even if they spin, the reflection from the painted side would generate a net force away from the sun's location. This assumes your paint is more reflective than the raw untreated surface. True, however I don't see the sense in painting only one side white. Why not the whole thing? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
Have you ever tried to paint an asteroid? :-) I would assume that a lot depends upon the magnitude of the force that you calculate is needed to force the thing away from the Earth. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 4, 2013 11:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 4 Feb 2013 23:29:27 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Even if they spin, the reflection from the painted side would generate a net force away from the sun's location. This assumes your paint is more reflective than the raw untreated surface. True, however I don't see the sense in painting only one side white. Why not the whole thing? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:27 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Have you ever tried to paint an asteroid? :-) You could have a lot of fun time with rockets filled with paint and high explosives. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully
Yeah, I think so. How do you volunteer for this mission? Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2013 12:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:27 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Have you ever tried to paint an asteroid? :-) You could have a lot of fun time with rockets filled with paint and high explosives. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Observational Evidence for Two Cosmological Predictions Made by Bit-String Physics
bit string physics unifies cosmology and all particles since 1962, H. Pierre Noyes, SLAC 16p full text 2001.03.21 -- actual retrocausality in quantum reality -- unity of physics, math, infinite awareness: Rich Murray 2013.02.04 [ A. F. Parker Rhodes published first scheme in January 1962. ] http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-8779.pdf full text 16 pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Pierre_Noyes born 1923 [ major player in inventing hydrogen bombs.. ] Around this time (1972-3), he heard a report from Ted Bastin on his combinatorial hierarchy work and met with Bastin and his collaborators: J. C. Amson, C. W. Kilmister, and A. F. Parker Rhodes. The research conducted during this interaction resulted in the development of and many papers on finite and discrete physics and cosmology called bit-string physics.[6] This work became Noyes’ focus for much of the rest of the century. His contributions to the new field include:[2] He showed that show that, thanks to a 1952 paper by Freeman Dyson, the integer value of ћc/e2 = 137 given by the first three levels of the combinatorial hierarchy could be given physical interpretation as the maximum number of electron-positron pairs which could be discussed within a radius of ћ/2me, using renormalized quantum electrodynamics. Further, the rest energy of this system (137 x (2mec2)) ≈ mπ could then suggest that the breakdown of quantum electrodynamics found by Dyson might be due to the strong interactions mediated by pions. The same argument extended to the fourth level suggested that the closure of the scheme at the fourth level, characterized by 2^127, could be understood as the formation of a black hole with the Planck mass by that number of baryons of protonic mass concentrated within ћ/mpc. Noyes, however, remained profoundly skeptical of these results until a decade later when David McGoveran showed that the scheme not only allowed one to derive the Sommerfeld-Dirac formula for the fine structure spectrum of hydrogen and then to correct the 137 approximation by correctly calculating the next four significant figures in the inverse fine-structure constant in agreement with experiment, but also to correct the value for Newton's gravitational constant and compute several other elementary particle coupling constants and mass ratios. Work with Michael Manthey led to a cosmological model which predicted long ago that there was not enough matter to close the universe and that the ratio of dark matter to baryonic matter is 12.7. A consistent scheme developed by Ed Jones (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories) also predicted a positive cosmological constant of the magnitude that was only observed in 2011.[citation needed] He compiled Selected Papers on Bit-String Physics to serve as an introduction to this new field.[citation needed] From an analysis based on quantum entropy, it is proposed that quantum measurement is a unitary three-interaction, with no collapse, no fundamental randomness, and no barrier to backward influence. http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/causality.htm Causality, randomness, and related papers (More BI papers: Theoretical, Experimental) Understanding Retrocausality - Can a Message Be Sent To the Past?, Richard Shoup, 2011 [slides-PDF, paper-PDF] Abstract: We examine why exactly it is that a message cannot be sent into the past and received there using quantum physics, yet certain anomalous correlations can make it appear just that way. To accomplish this, we must first explore more deeply the usual concepts of superposition, entanglement, measurement, locality, and causality. From these reinterpreted concepts, and through analyses of the usual forward EPR experimental arrangement and a time-symmetrical backward version, we can better understand the fundamental inadequacy of the idea of causality (both forward and backward). We also discuss possible explanations for apparent retrocausal anomalies such as those of the recent experiments by psychologist Daryl Bem. Presented at Quantum Retrocausation: Theory and Experiment, University of San Diego, June 2011. To be published in AIP Conference Proceedings for 92nd Meeting of AAAS Pacific Division, D. P. Sheehan editor. Physics without Causality-Theory and Evidence, Richard Shoup, 2006 [slides-PDF, paper-PDF] Abstract: The principle of cause and effect is deeply rooted in human experience, so much so that it is routinely and tacitly assumed throughout science, even by scientists working in areas where time symmetry is theoretically ingrained, as it is in both classical and quantum physics. Experiments are said to cause their results, not the other way around. In this informal paper, we argue that this assumption should be replaced with a more general notion of mutual influence -- bi-directional relations or constraints on joint values of two or more variables. From an analysis based on quantum entropy, it is proposed that quantum measurement is a
