RE: [Vo]:Who could it be???
There is one missing in the list below: Brian Ahern who has released some patents and has joined the MFMP team. _ From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: dimanche 23 novembre 2014 03:23 To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Who could it be??? Since Rossi says that the system in question is based on E-Cat technology, then the system must be from Piantelli. On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi does not believe Defkalion has anything, so you can take that off your list. Michael C. H. McKubre lists the following LENR players: Those embarked on practical demonstration include: Black Light Power (US) - raised ~80M, know little about them. Not CF?* Piantelli (Italy) - visited 2012, confirmed results, still working on science.* Rossi (Italy and US) - sold, bought*X verified? Report reviewed in October. Defkalion (Greece, Italy and Canada) - Rossi spin-off, real product?*X Brillouin (US) - working with SRI.* That leaves only 3. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
Beside what you say, there is some common error. This is to imagine that education can help people be more rational. In fact education is there not only to give tools and informations, but also to structure the mind to accept those tools and information. This is well explaine by Thomas Kuhn as the notion of paradigm. http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html a paradigm is in a way a selective blindness designed to make you focus on what works in the paradigm, to avoid losing time money and energy looking beside. see how the skeptics battle not to prove LENR is wrong, but to save money by not searching for it... it is a specialization of intelligence. as all specialization it have it's domain of validity, and thus the domaine where it is an illusion, an error, a tragedy. this is why less educate people can, by accident, show more intelligent behavior not by their superior IQ or deep intelectual tooling, but because they have less tools, and simpler reasoning that allow them to focus on key arguments, and not be fooled by inverted clamps and missing gamma. among the skeptic I have seen a behavior which is the black an white... they prove something is not perfect, then conlude you can ignore it, and since nothing is perfect they can ignore all... if precision is not good, the the result is null... they don't know what is grey. it is a tactic, but also a paradigm as they think in a paradigm where thing have some given precision and they cannot think out of that... simpler people can adapt their precision and their conclusions, instead of dismiss all once the precision is below the standard. as I say, LENR will be accepted when a kid of 5 would be able to ridicule a PhD who deny reality. not before. 2014-11-22 23:07 GMT+01:00 John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com: Most relivant quotes from the article: “People have been conditioned by 40 years of cultural programming to have an aversion to cannabis (cold fusion/aether etc...).* It doesn’t really matter what sort of evidence is presented*, most people simply react emotionally to the claim rather than rationally evaluating the evidence for it. People confuse the ideal of science with how science actually operates in the real world, and then working from that assumption they *assume this issue would have been conclusively proven and endorsed by the establishment if it were true.* Unfortunately this is an overly simplistic understanding of how the system works” said Dr Lucifero. “Even amongst educated people the issue is still controversial. Research has shown over and over that a person's opinion on a scientific issue, whether it be evolution or climate change or what have you, has more to do with their political identification than it does with their level of scientific literacy. This is equally true for those who have the highest level of scientific literacy in our society as it is for those who have the lowest” he explained. “When it all comes down to it, this isn’t a scientific issue, it’s a political issue. “ Sound familiar? On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I think the video I shared previously ( http://vimeo.com/22956103 ) shows why there should be a lot less close-mindedness around 'fringe' topics including aetheric and so-called LENR research as there is so much we don't know we can't know what all that unknown does to influence what we otherwise think is certain. Well if I was presenting something, I would also make mention of this: http://moosecleans.ca/content/scientists-prove-nobody-cares-cannabis-cures-cancer This proves that peoples beliefs follow along with their world view, with their identification with a certain group or system. By exposing people to the fact that we allow people to die of cancer all the time because the cure does not fit our collective notion of what a cure should be or who it should come from... It helps expose the truth and yet to a degree (temporarily) inoculate those listening from writing something off because the thing being presented comes with a shot of cognitive dissonance about who and where a breakthrough should come from. While the best way to change peoples minds is with undeniable buy one in a shop near you proof, until then it would help to become masters of persuasion, persuasion not to trick, but to stop people from tricking themseves. John
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
My mentor used to tell me: The best things are invented by those who don't know it can't be done. Bob Higgins On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Beside what you say, there is some common error. This is to imagine that education can help people be more rational. In fact education is there not only to give tools and informations, but also to structure the mind to accept those tools and information. This is well explaine by Thomas Kuhn as the notion of paradigm. http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html a paradigm is in a way a selective blindness designed to make you focus on what works in the paradigm, to avoid losing time money and energy looking beside. see how the skeptics battle not to prove LENR is wrong, but to save money by not searching for it... it is a specialization of intelligence. as all specialization it have it's domain of validity, and thus the domaine where it is an illusion, an error, a tragedy. this is why less educate people can, by accident, show more intelligent behavior not by their superior IQ or deep intelectual tooling, but because they have less tools, and simpler reasoning that allow them to focus on key arguments, and not be fooled by inverted clamps and missing gamma. among the skeptic I have seen a behavior which is the black an white... they prove something is not perfect, then conlude you can ignore it, and since nothing is perfect they can ignore all... if precision is not good, the the result is null... they don't know what is grey. it is a tactic, but also a paradigm as they think in a paradigm where thing have some given precision and they cannot think out of that... simpler people can adapt their precision and their conclusions, instead of dismiss all once the precision is below the standard. as I say, LENR will be accepted when a kid of 5 would be able to ridicule a PhD who deny reality. not before.
Re: [Vo]:Who could it be???
* Hank Mills October 13th, 2014 at 10:22 PM Hello Everyone, A new article on PESN has been posted about how Dr. Brian Ahern, a scientist and long time LENR researcher, has changed his opinion about the paper documenting the month long test of a high temperature E-Cat. Initially, he indicated that he believed no excess heat had been produced. Such a statement aligns with his previous skeptical comments about the technology. But after consulting with an expert in IR measurements – who declared the cameras and methodologies used during the test were correct and the same as he would have chosen – his doubts were resolved. He now feels the results are accurate. Please read the full article at: http://pesn.com/2014/10/13/9602546_Hell-Freezes-Over–Brian-Aherns_Doubts_on_E-Cat_Test_Resolved/ Perhaps he will be one of many previously skeptical individuals to recognize the truth that the E-Cat works. * Andrea Rossi October 13th, 2014 at 10:52 PM Hank Mills: Dr Brian Ahern is a sincere and honest scientist. He says what he sincerely thinks to be right. Sometimes with excess of nerve, but I prefer go to the core of problems, ignoring the form outside. Speaking of things that count, and not of the useless blabla, the work made by Ahern with nickel and hydrogen is smart, as I already said in the period during which we got not very tender words from him. I confirm my opinion that he will be probably the first one to arrive to an industrial product after us. His publication has been very convincing for us. Thank you for the kind information. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
In my experience the 'truth' about LENR cannot be told to any group. One need to convince one at a time. Large organization mostly prepare for changes by providing information they think people will understand and therefore they will see the positive in changes to come. It fails almost every time. The reason I think you can find in what has been said here about how we educate people. In my opinion one should just give the basic and then stimulate natural curiosity. The difference is between forcing the concept of differential equations on someone interested in biology or have somebody interested in biology finding out about differential equations so he better can understand biology. I know my idea will not be implemented as it makes it hard to administrate - the policies becomes just fluff and no bureaucrat can enforce them. From having executed many changes I have learnt that the only way is by selling the idea to one person and then to another and select people who has an interest in effective organisation and to create result. Sooner or later (often later) you will get into the snowball effect 2 convinces 2 and they then convinces 2 each. It is very hard to sell the LENR concept as it is surrounded by unknowns. 80% of the population will not jump to new grounds without being sure they land on secure ground. I agree that when you can buy a LENR generator at Homedepot then it is easy. If the theory was chiseled in stone then academia could perhaps be a factor to help the acceptance. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: My mentor used to tell me: The best things are invented by those who don't know it can't be done. Bob Higgins On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Beside what you say, there is some common error. This is to imagine that education can help people be more rational. In fact education is there not only to give tools and informations, but also to structure the mind to accept those tools and information. This is well explaine by Thomas Kuhn as the notion of paradigm. http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html a paradigm is in a way a selective blindness designed to make you focus on what works in the paradigm, to avoid losing time money and energy looking beside. see how the skeptics battle not to prove LENR is wrong, but to save money by not searching for it... it is a specialization of intelligence. as all specialization it have it's domain of validity, and thus the domaine where it is an illusion, an error, a tragedy. this is why less educate people can, by accident, show more intelligent behavior not by their superior IQ or deep intelectual tooling, but because they have less tools, and simpler reasoning that allow them to focus on key arguments, and not be fooled by inverted clamps and missing gamma. among the skeptic I have seen a behavior which is the black an white... they prove something is not perfect, then conlude you can ignore it, and since nothing is perfect they can ignore all... if precision is not good, the the result is null... they don't know what is grey. it is a tactic, but also a paradigm as they think in a paradigm where thing have some given precision and they cannot think out of that... simpler people can adapt their precision and their conclusions, instead of dismiss all once the precision is below the standard. as I say, LENR will be accepted when a kid of 5 would be able to ridicule a PhD who deny reality. not before.
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
There are two characteristics that eliminate the vast majority of the population from any possibility of recognizing the reality of LENR: 1) Understanding how fundamental to the veracity of scientific fact is the distinction between experiment and argument/theory. 2) Being willing to look seriously at something that risks social censure for doing so. Even if the presenter can resist putting forth their pet theory -- thereby obscuring the distinction in #1 for presentees who might otherwise be willing to look at experiments -- there isn't much you can do about either of these characteristics. People either have what it takes or they don't and very few do. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: In my experience the 'truth' about LENR cannot be told to any group. One need to convince one at a time. Large organization mostly prepare for changes by providing information they think people will understand and therefore they will see the positive in changes to come. It fails almost every time. The reason I think you can find in what has been said here about how we educate people. In my opinion one should just give the basic and then stimulate natural curiosity. The difference is between forcing the concept of differential equations on someone interested in biology or have somebody interested in biology finding out about differential equations so he better can understand biology. I know my idea will not be implemented as it makes it hard to administrate - the policies becomes just fluff and no bureaucrat can enforce them. From having executed many changes I have learnt that the only way is by selling the idea to one person and then to another and select people who has an interest in effective organisation and to create result. Sooner or later (often later) you will get into the snowball effect 2 convinces 2 and they then convinces 2 each. It is very hard to sell the LENR concept as it is surrounded by unknowns. 80% of the population will not jump to new grounds without being sure they land on secure ground. I agree that when you can buy a LENR generator at Homedepot then it is easy. If the theory was chiseled in stone then academia could perhaps be a factor to help the acceptance. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: My mentor used to tell me: The best things are invented by those who don't know it can't be done. Bob Higgins On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Beside what you say, there is some common error. This is to imagine that education can help people be more rational. In fact education is there not only to give tools and informations, but also to structure the mind to accept those tools and information. This is well explaine by Thomas Kuhn as the notion of paradigm. http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html a paradigm is in a way a selective blindness designed to make you focus on what works in the paradigm, to avoid losing time money and energy looking beside. see how the skeptics battle not to prove LENR is wrong, but to save money by not searching for it... it is a specialization of intelligence. as all specialization it have it's domain of validity, and thus the domaine where it is an illusion, an error, a tragedy. this is why less educate people can, by accident, show more intelligent behavior not by their superior IQ or deep intelectual tooling, but because they have less tools, and simpler reasoning that allow them to focus on key arguments, and not be fooled by inverted clamps and missing gamma. among the skeptic I have seen a behavior which is the black an white... they prove something is not perfect, then conlude you can ignore it, and since nothing is perfect they can ignore all... if precision is not good, the the result is null... they don't know what is grey. it is a tactic, but also a paradigm as they think in a paradigm where thing have some given precision and they cannot think out of that... simpler people can adapt their precision and their conclusions, instead of dismiss all once the precision is below the standard. as I say, LENR will be accepted when a kid of 5 would be able to ridicule a PhD who deny reality. not before.
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: In my experience the 'truth' about LENR cannot be told to any group. One need to convince one at a time. Yes. For the reasons described by James Bowery: because human nature and education prevent the vast majority of the population from any possibility of recognizing the reality of LENR . . . Finding supporters is like like looking for a needle in a haystack. That is the way it has always been, and probably always will be. There is no point to complaining about it, or wishing it were otherwise. We have to take people as they are. We have start with society as it is and change the trajectory of things a little. As Margaret Mead put it: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. Because potential supporters are few and far between, there is no point to going out and proselytizing to individuals, or writing letters. You have make the information available on the Internet and then hope that people will read what you have to say instead of reading Wikipedia or the *Scientific American*. A few people will. People download 4,000 to 8,000 papers a week from LENR-CANR.org, depending on the time of year and the academic schedule at universities. I tend to see this problem as rooted in our primate nature. We are afraid of novelty, for good reason. Machiavelli described the problem in terms of society (which is another way of looking what I call primate nature): It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
As for 1) I think this highlight the most important aspect of the problem. It should be unquestioned as an obvious truth that experiment ultimately trumps arguments and theory. That anyone with any respect for truth, reality or logic should argue that theory should cause experimental results to be discounted is almost inconceivable. And much like the failure for education to create curiosity and allow one to discover for ones self, I wonder if a lifetime of having to give the answer that convention accepts instead of the answer you think is correct might be largely to blame. Ultimately I think this could be the most important thing, not just in respect to results trumping theory, but all cases where truth occurs more as something Orwellian rather than logic. There is much concern that a machine that gained consciousness? would quickly gain too much power), this might be true simply because it seems to us social truth trumps actual logical truth, such a machine would have a potentially huge advantage even if it had less processing power than the human mind. John On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:24 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There are two characteristics that eliminate the vast majority of the population from any possibility of recognizing the reality of LENR: 1) Understanding how fundamental to the veracity of scientific fact is the distinction between experiment and argument/theory. 2) Being willing to look seriously at something that risks social censure for doing so. Even if the presenter can resist putting forth their pet theory -- thereby obscuring the distinction in #1 for presentees who might otherwise be willing to look at experiments -- there isn't much you can do about either of these characteristics. People either have what it takes or they don't and very few do. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: In my experience the 'truth' about LENR cannot be told to any group. One need to convince one at a time. Large organization mostly prepare for changes by providing information they think people will understand and therefore they will see the positive in changes to come. It fails almost every time. The reason I think you can find in what has been said here about how we educate people. In my opinion one should just give the basic and then stimulate natural curiosity. The difference is between forcing the concept of differential equations on someone interested in biology or have somebody interested in biology finding out about differential equations so he better can understand biology. I know my idea will not be implemented as it makes it hard to administrate - the policies becomes just fluff and no bureaucrat can enforce them. From having executed many changes I have learnt that the only way is by selling the idea to one person and then to another and select people who has an interest in effective organisation and to create result. Sooner or later (often later) you will get into the snowball effect 2 convinces 2 and they then convinces 2 each. It is very hard to sell the LENR concept as it is surrounded by unknowns. 80% of the population will not jump to new grounds without being sure they land on secure ground. I agree that when you can buy a LENR generator at Homedepot then it is easy. If the theory was chiseled in stone then academia could perhaps be a factor to help the acceptance. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: My mentor used to tell me: The best things are invented by those who don't know it can't be done. Bob Higgins On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Beside what you say, there is some common error. This is to imagine that education can help people be more rational. In fact education is there not only to give tools and informations, but also to structure the mind to accept those tools and information. This is well explaine by Thomas Kuhn as the notion of paradigm. http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html a paradigm is in a way a selective blindness designed to make you focus on what works in the paradigm, to avoid losing time money and energy looking beside. see how the skeptics battle not to prove LENR is wrong, but to save money by not searching for it... it is a specialization of intelligence. as all specialization it have it's domain of validity, and thus the domaine where it is an illusion, an error, a tragedy. this is why less educate people can, by accident, show more intelligent behavior not by their superior IQ or deep intelectual tooling, but because they have less tools,
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Which of course makes them not new, I didn't know Machiavelli had such a good sense of humor, I guess he saw some advantage in it. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: In my experience the 'truth' about LENR cannot be told to any group. One need to convince one at a time. Yes. For the reasons described by James Bowery: because human nature and education prevent the vast majority of the population from any possibility of recognizing the reality of LENR . . . Finding supporters is like like looking for a needle in a haystack. That is the way it has always been, and probably always will be. There is no point to complaining about it, or wishing it were otherwise. We have to take people as they are. We have start with society as it is and change the trajectory of things a little. As Margaret Mead put it: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. Because potential supporters are few and far between, there is no point to going out and proselytizing to individuals, or writing letters. You have make the information available on the Internet and then hope that people will read what you have to say instead of reading Wikipedia or the *Scientific American*. A few people will. People download 4,000 to 8,000 papers a week from LENR-CANR.org, depending on the time of year and the academic schedule at universities. I tend to see this problem as rooted in our primate nature. We are afraid of novelty, for good reason. Machiavelli described the problem in terms of society (which is another way of looking what I call primate nature): It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visits Norway
25 years of results that can't boil a cup of tea. Fun. On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:38 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: A Trip to Norway Michael C.H. McKubre November 12, 2014 http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue119/norway.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
In reply to H Veeder's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:30:46 -0500: Hi Harry, I think there might be some nuclear/chemical effects at very close range, but that's just a guess. The range would be determined by the lifetime of the virtual particles. [snip] What I was wondering is if the reaction of the quantum vacuum has other observable effects besides the thrust. For example, the thrust generated by a standard engine results in an exhaust which can be seen to disturb other bodies nearby. If one can push against the quantum vacuum will this disturb other bodies as well? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: As for 1) I think this highlight the most important aspect of the problem. It should be unquestioned as an obvious truth that experiment ultimately trumps arguments and theory. That anyone with any respect for truth, reality or logic should argue that theory should cause experimental results to be discounted is almost inconceivable. It seems inconceivable to people who have been trained in the experimental scientific method from a young age. But you should realize this is still a new and fragile idea, and most people have no scientific training. That is why, for example, 60% of Americans think that lasers work by focusing sound waves (NSF survey described below). People have been doing science for hundreds of thousands of years, but as a formal, written, organized practice, it only began in 1600. It was first articulated by Francis Bacon in his book Novum Organum (written in Latin). He did a better job describing the scientific method than the working scientists who came a generation later did, such as Newton. Newton's ideas about the scientific method were retrograde in many ways. Many of the ideas in Bacon's books are still alien to most people. We are still far from fulfilling his goals for society, and benefitting from the scientific method. It is a myth that modern society is science-based. Only a small fraction of the people in a first-world country have knowledge of science. Most are opposed to it because it conflicts with traditional beliefs, especially religion. I have often quoted H. G. Wells on this. What he wrote in 1913 is as true today as it was then. In his novel, a person in 1950 is looking back at 1913: It is wonderful how our fathers bore themselves towards science. They hated it. They feared it. They permitted a few scientific men to exist and work -- a pitiful handful 'Don't find out anything about us,' they said to them; 'don't inflict vision upon us, spare our little ways of life from the fearful shaft of understanding. But do tricks for us, little limited tricks. Give us cheap lighting. And cure us of certain disagreeable things, cure us of cancer, cure us of consumption, cure our colds and relieve us after repletion' http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1059/1059-h/1059-h.htm Most people also have no training in basic logic. Without that, you cannot proceed to the scientific method. They have no idea they are making logical fallacies, even though these fallacies were compiled thousands of year ago: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ These fallacies are as common today in newspapers, magazines, or in comments on the Internet as they were the Romans invented names for them. People did not understood logic in the past. It isn't as if there was some golden age when they were educated. Such knowledge does not come naturally, any more that ability to do algebra or calculus does for most people. Science is supported by governments with billions of dollars despite the fact that much of the population despises it. This is because science is needed to make weapons, and to compete economically. No government is actually in favor of science for its own right, although leaders often pay lip service to that concept. The GOP will continue to fund the Pentagon and the CDC even though its base and many GOP elected officials from places like Georgia loath science, saying things like: All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. Most people in most countries do not care about facts, or science, or learning. They find it boring. They are interested in their own personal lives and immediate concerns. This has always been the case. It was true 100 years ago and 200 years ago. It is the case in Japan just as much in U.S. Public opinion polls show that ~20% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth: http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx As I mentioned, 60% think that lasers work by focusing sound waves. People in Japan are just about as ignorant: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/append/c7/at07-10.pdf The only major difference between the countries in this public opinion survey is in questions related to religious beliefs, especially evolution: Human beings are developed from earlier species of animals. Many Americans, Koreans and Russians disagree on religious grounds so ~65% say no. There happens to be no religious opposition to evolution in Japan, so only only 22% say no. They are merely ignorant, not opposed. Japan has a reputation for being a high-tech, highly educated society. I have not found it so. Based on the mass media, I have the impression that most people in Japan are not interested in science, and they know little about it. Government ministers and corporate muckety-mucks reject cold fusion for the same reasons American authorities do.
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem) then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the popular belief might be. But I never had any training in logic, so I assumed it was something that most people naturally had but chose to reject (which we can all do as our right brain often wins out). But I guess that my logic came inbuilt as part of my being an INTJ. INTJ's have the highest IQ of any of the 16 Myers Briggs types, so are perhaps more likely to generate their own logic without any education. Introversion, intuition, thinking and judging sounds like the ingredients to invent logic independently. Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough. Increasingly emotional arguments, persuasion, conversational hypnosis and psychological pressure are looking like justifiable tools to get the needed agreement. Pioneer hypnotist Dr. Milton H. Erickson once won over a number of Doctors/Professors who had visited him with the intent of disallowing his work in some respect (I forget the details and I can't find a reference, would be in respect to psychology or psychiatry). Of course he used conversational hypnosis to reverse their intention. I would normally have considered it wrong to persuade right thinking people this way, but increasingly I am not sure they are common enough for that moral concern to be valid. If logic can't work, then I am unsure there are any other options, except as you say, going fishing. Let those bright enough join in if they will. John
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Dave I do not understand what you are talking about. But if consider the following, it might? Generate the same conundrum while not violating the conservation of momentum or energy. Take a spring, compress it. As the spring is allowed to decompress generates light (by either friction, or electromagnetic induction to an efficient form of lighting. The light is projected in one direction, providing a small but real thrust. This would have propulsion with unchanging mass (other forms of energy storage could be used instead). Does this also generate the same 'problem' for you? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Ok, just a thought... But if there are particles popping into (semi)existence for a moment... If it were full existence their annihilation would not be so eventless. Then could these particles be effected by magnetic and electric fields? Could they react as other materials do? Could they actually act as at least part of the electric and magnetic field carrying capacity of the vacuum? (the permittivity and permeability of free space). I am unsure what interesting implications come from this line of reasoning, but I bet there are some. John On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
If the created particles were mesons, these particles would decay into electrons and neutrinos. I suspect that an experiment can be prepared to detect those electrons. Also the mesons would effect the rate of nuclear decay of radioactive isotopes. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:56 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, just a thought... But if there are particles popping into (semi)existence for a moment... If it were full existence their annihilation would not be so eventless. Then could these particles be effected by magnetic and electric fields? Could they react as other materials do? Could they actually act as at least part of the electric and magnetic field carrying capacity of the vacuum? (the permittivity and permeability of free space). I am unsure what interesting implications come from this line of reasoning, but I bet there are some. John On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
John Berry I agree with your conclusion. I do not agree with that Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough. On the contrary that class will make logic even more unusual.. Maybe that Milton H. Erickson did wrong I do not know the circumstances. However, I know that to persuade anyone else you need to engage both halves of the brain and somehow a connection between two people's right brain really helps to get information over. Yes, it can be misused (like most other powers). Sometimes this connection is called trust and it is hard to catch. Today there is a very slim chance to convince somebody that LENR is real. A lot of the trusted say the opposite (most of the academia). Not only is the best 'medicine' to let them bright enough join on their own terms, it is also best for LENR. The table will turn quickly when the first generator is available. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:20 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem) then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the popular belief might be. But I never had any training in logic, so I assumed it was something that most people naturally had but chose to reject (which we can all do as our right brain often wins out). But I guess that my logic came inbuilt as part of my being an INTJ. INTJ's have the highest IQ of any of the 16 Myers Briggs types, so are perhaps more likely to generate their own logic without any education. Introversion, intuition, thinking and judging sounds like the ingredients to invent logic independently. Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough. Increasingly emotional arguments, persuasion, conversational hypnosis and psychological pressure are looking like justifiable tools to get the needed agreement. Pioneer hypnotist Dr. Milton H. Erickson once won over a number of Doctors/Professors who had visited him with the intent of disallowing his work in some respect (I forget the details and I can't find a reference, would be in respect to psychology or psychiatry). Of course he used conversational hypnosis to reverse their intention. I would normally have considered it wrong to persuade right thinking people this way, but increasingly I am not sure they are common enough for that moral concern to be valid. If logic can't work, then I am unsure there are any other options, except as you say, going fishing. Let those bright enough join in if they will. John
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Dave-- If the mass is converted into mass of virtual particles in the Dirac space, it is obvious that the man in the space ship would never see the results. The standard conversion of energy normally happens in a measurable 3-D space the space man knows. The other situation involves the Dirac space in addition to the standard 3-D space, but still conserves energy/mass, its just not observable yet. You must think outside the 3-D box. Engineers do this better than scientists. Note Bob Higgins recent comment attributed to a mentor of his. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Biefeld–Brown effect
Axil, great observation and I agree totally, I have stated previously that this may be observable when LENR reactors become available by placing a battery operated reactor on one side of a beam balance scale and intentionally unbalancing the counterweights, first with the unit off to establish a baseline and then a second time with the unit on. I posit that this would side step the likely cancellation of much of the reactionless bias for any spatial vector and instead demonstrate a much more marked change in inertia where changes in counter weight values react very slowly due to this increased linkage to the virtual dimension. I do think it will eventually lead to reactionless drive but Difiore et all had difficulty with stacking cavities to any effect and almost negligible dilation factors for laser beams measured through a Casimir cavity makes me suspect there is an issue with addressing the “aperature” into this dimension in a spatially biased manner… which is why I think inertia effects might be the easier goal to prove the effect at a more measurable level. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:24 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Biefeld–Brown effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect Biefeld–Brown effect snip There has been follow-ups on the claims that this propulsive force can be produced in a full vacuum, meaning it is an unknown anti-gravity force, and not just the more well known http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_wind ion wind, with several researchers (R. L. Talley in a 1990 US Air Force study, NASA scientist Jonathan Campbell in a 2003 experiment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld–Brown_effect#cite_note-6 [6] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Tajmar Martin Tajmar in a 2004 paper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld–Brown_effect#cite_note-7 [7]) finding that no thrust could be observed in a vacuum, consistent with the phenomenon of ion wind. Campbell pointed out to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired_(magazine) Wired magazine reporter that creating a true vacuum similar to space for the test requires tens of thousands of dollars in equipment. EndSnip There is a striking parallel between LENR and reactionless propulsion. On the most basic level, LENR is a result of the production of charged subatomic particles out of the vacuum through the action of focused EMF. These bosons are mesons produced by a highly focused beam of EMF. Reactionless propulsion could be the result of the same mechanism where huge EMF is pointed in a focused direction that could produce subatomic particles out of the vacuum and push against those particles giving them momentum in that direction to exert a propulsive force in the opposite direction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive The EmDrive If the EmDrive and LENR spring from basically the same source, would it not be reasonable to expect a connection be drawn between LENR and reactionless propulsion. Might not LENR produce Em-Propulsion and the EmDrive mechanism produce LENR. This common mechanism involves the momentary realization of subatomic particles out of the vacuum. Another connect might be drawn in. Antigravity seems to be produced by electron vortexes that exist on the surface of superconductors. We would expect that these vortexes produced a focused EMF beam perpendicular to the plain of vortex rotation. Could Anti-gravity be a manifestation of the EmDrive and LENR? Could there be a connection?
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
Well I guess the class in logic I was imagining was created by logical people to help make a logical improvement in logic. Of course if it is created by illogical and corrupt people to destroy and control logic, then I agree. Overall the best schooling is a brick of salt a a ton of books. John. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: John Berry I agree with your conclusion. I do not agree with that Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough. On the contrary that class will make logic even more unusual.. Maybe that Milton H. Erickson did wrong I do not know the circumstances. However, I know that to persuade anyone else you need to engage both halves of the brain and somehow a connection between two people's right brain really helps to get information over. Yes, it can be misused (like most other powers). Sometimes this connection is called trust and it is hard to catch. Today there is a very slim chance to convince somebody that LENR is real. A lot of the trusted say the opposite (most of the academia). Not only is the best 'medicine' to let them bright enough join on their own terms, it is also best for LENR. The table will turn quickly when the first generator is available. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:20 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem) then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the popular belief might be. But I never had any training in logic, so I assumed it was something that most people naturally had but chose to reject (which we can all do as our right brain often wins out). But I guess that my logic came inbuilt as part of my being an INTJ. INTJ's have the highest IQ of any of the 16 Myers Briggs types, so are perhaps more likely to generate their own logic without any education. Introversion, intuition, thinking and judging sounds like the ingredients to invent logic independently. Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough. Increasingly emotional arguments, persuasion, conversational hypnosis and psychological pressure are looking like justifiable tools to get the needed agreement. Pioneer hypnotist Dr. Milton H. Erickson once won over a number of Doctors/Professors who had visited him with the intent of disallowing his work in some respect (I forget the details and I can't find a reference, would be in respect to psychology or psychiatry). Of course he used conversational hypnosis to reverse their intention. I would normally have considered it wrong to persuade right thinking people this way, but increasingly I am not sure they are common enough for that moral concern to be valid. If logic can't work, then I am unsure there are any other options, except as you say, going fishing. Let those bright enough join in if they will. John
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Wait, virtual particle don't decay though, they annihilate don't they? (I am unsure what the significant difference might be) And annihilation of virtual particles don't create any energy since there was none... But this makes me wonder, what about particles that there isn't an antimatter version of? I am not well versed on particle physics, but I can only think of the photon. Is there an anti-higgs? But while there isn't an anti-photon, photons do kinda cancel in an EMF sense, this can be seen whe one looks at the EMF around a receiving antenna, it creates an opposing EMF. But this reminds me of a thought I have often had, we assume that light absorbed (to our senses) is light somehow stopped, but could not not be seen as the superimposition of an opposite photon, both of which then carry on to the ends of the universe unimpeded as they interact with nothing as they equal zero? But still existing, just as the net zero magnetic flux around a torrid transformer can induce a voltage. Sure, this might not be able to make it's presence felt in the same way, but logically it would still exist as I guess information. John On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If the created particles were mesons, these particles would decay into electrons and neutrinos. I suspect that an experiment can be prepared to detect those electrons. Also the mesons would effect the rate of nuclear decay of radioactive isotopes. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:56 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, just a thought... But if there are particles popping into (semi)existence for a moment... If it were full existence their annihilation would not be so eventless. Then could these particles be effected by magnetic and electric fields? Could they react as other materials do? Could they actually act as at least part of the electric and magnetic field carrying capacity of the vacuum? (the permittivity and permeability of free space). I am unsure what interesting implications come from this line of reasoning, but I bet there are some. John On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways.
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. Maybe it is not so depressing. The human race has always been this way, and I suppose it will remain this way, yet we have made great progress in the past. Maybe we can get along okay with only a small number of logical people who do science. After all, we don't need many people capable of composing music, acting in movies or programming computers. Why should we need lots more scientists? It is a specialized profession. As long as the opposition to science is kept under control, I don't see a problem with it being a elite occupation, that attracts only a small number of people. A society composed mainly of logical people and scientists would be boring. On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem) then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the popular belief might be. It is not clear to me this would be a big improvement. It would probably increase funding for research, because more people would be sympathetic, instead of thinking science comes from the pit of hell. But it is not clear to me that the world needs lots more logical thinking. Maybe just less emotional thinking, and more self-centered but enlightened self-interest type thinking. But I never had any training in logic . . . You probably have more exposure than you realize. People who gravitate to logic learn about it from examples in science, engineering, math and other fields, even if they do not study it explicitly. Experiments soon teach the folly of wishful thinking, for example. So does agriculture, but the link between logic and the task at hand may be more clearly delineated in technical disciplines such as experimental science or programming. , so I assumed it was something that most people naturally had but chose to reject (which we can all do as our right brain often wins out). I doubt that people reject it. Most of them are never exposed to it in the first place. Try explaining to someone why it is a fallacy to appeal to the consequences of a belief: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html You will see that in most cases, the thought that this might be invalid never crossed their mind. They will not be able to grasp what is wrong with it. This error may be even more common than ad hominem. You will find it everywhere, including New York Time op ed columns by distinguished politicians, businessmen, opinion makers and especially people who have appointed themselves in charge of the Public's Morality and Virtue, such as William J. Bennett. This particular fallacy closely resembles a true, logical assertion, which may be why so many people fall for it. I think most people have to be taught this kind of subtle distinction step by step. This fallacy in one form is: X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences. Take the example of a town in which the crime rate is low because everyone thinks the police always catch criminals, whereas in fact the police seldom catch them. It is better if everyone (especially crooks!) mistakenly believes our police are effective. Replace X is true . . . with: It is better for society if people believe X is true . . . . . . because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences. OR (in one formulation): Sometimes delusions make things go better. Put that way, this is not an idea the New York Times wants in an op-ed, and it would go over like a lead balloon in a sermon, but this is the logical expression of the core idea. It is said that an elderly Victorian woman when she first heard of Darwin's theory expressed the logical version succinctly: Let us hope that is not true, or if it is true, that it does not become generally known. - Jed
[Vo]:Thus spoke Dr. Mills, and thus have I
Over the weekend Dr. Mills posted the following statement out on Yahoo SCP in response to someone who may have been getting a little impatient in his desire to help vindicate Dr. Mill's GUT-CP theory. He wondered if there might be another demo in December... presumably to keep skeptics and debunkers at bay. Dr. Mills responded with: We have achieved some great technological advances since the last demonstration on July 21st. We will start releasing information when we are pushing to bring in more corporate partners, especially for power distribution since our strategy entails engaging a lot of entrepreneurial companies, small and large. It is our understanding that BLP is currently working with one or more outside engineering firms to develop the first SunCell(TM) prototype. I believe the prototype, once delivered, is supposed to be capable of generating somewhere in the neighborhood 100 kilowatts of electricity, presumably completely off the grid. One assumes the recent cash infusion to the amount of $16M generously supplied from private benefactors continues to attend to these on-going engineering efforts. I am still under the impression that BLP hopes to have the first of these prototypes delivered before the end of December, next month. No way in hell do I believe that the December delivery date will be met. BLP also wisely gave themselves ample wiggle room to expect the possibility of delays with statements such as: current management estimate, subject to change. This is not an attempt on my part to express skepticism of BLP's chances for success. It is nothing more than personal opinion of mine based on a 36+ year career in IT software development for the State of Wisconsin. It had been my personal experience that few deadlines in software development have ever been met where original requirements and expectations had been faithfully met. (Fact is: Unanticipated bugs happen... they happen a'lot!) Why should the development of this first one-of-a-kind a prototype be any different. Quite frankly I'll be ecstatic if BLP can get a prototype publicly demonstrated by the end of 2015. Better yet, should BLP manage to get one publicly demoed significantly earlier no one would be more pleased than me than to have my provincial speculation skewered by The Doctor. * * * * In the meantime, for your enjoyment and potential edification I have just published a 40 page PDF file on Blacklight Power. (1.5 meg - graphics included.) The contents are based on my personal observations of BlackLight power written from the perspective of a outsider, a spectator who has on a rare occasion managed to interact with a couple of individuals far more deeply involved in the on-going BLP saga than I. You may download a copy of the report at: http://personalpen.orionworks.com/blacklight-power.htm Please keep in mind this publication is not a technical report. It would be more accurate to describe the contents as a layman's attempt to wrap his provincial sensibilities and curiosity around an extremely controversial subject which, as of this date, has yet to be vindicated. Much of the content I touch on has been out in the public domain for some time now, scattered to the winds here and there. I have attempted to assemble and distill much of the scattered controversy into easy digestible bits that a layman might better understand or at least appreciate. I've also included a couple of interactions (experiences) I had with one or two key individuals, the ramifications of which I suspect are less well known out in the public domain, but IMHO should be. Should anyone run across gross grammatical errors or inaccurate facts drop me a line and point them out to me. Assuming your criticism does not devolve into personal commentary to the effect that GUT-CP is a stupid unworkable theory (quite frankly, I don't know whether GUT-CP is a correct theory or not), I'll do my best to correct provable errors. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
Yes, I am sure it is logical. Not everything that sounds logical is logical. As a matter of fact I think you have to find logic. You cannot teach it. Yes, you can give the theory but that is not what we talk about. I haven't heard your salt and books idea. Why the salt? Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Well I guess the class in logic I was imagining was created by logical people to help make a logical improvement in logic. Of course if it is created by illogical and corrupt people to destroy and control logic, then I agree. Overall the best schooling is a brick of salt a a ton of books. John. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: John Berry I agree with your conclusion. I do not agree with that Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough. On the contrary that class will make logic even more unusual.. Maybe that Milton H. Erickson did wrong I do not know the circumstances. However, I know that to persuade anyone else you need to engage both halves of the brain and somehow a connection between two people's right brain really helps to get information over. Yes, it can be misused (like most other powers). Sometimes this connection is called trust and it is hard to catch. Today there is a very slim chance to convince somebody that LENR is real. A lot of the trusted say the opposite (most of the academia). Not only is the best 'medicine' to let them bright enough join on their own terms, it is also best for LENR. The table will turn quickly when the first generator is available. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:20 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem) then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the popular belief might be. But I never had any training in logic, so I assumed it was something that most people naturally had but chose to reject (which we can all do as our right brain often wins out). But I guess that my logic came inbuilt as part of my being an INTJ. INTJ's have the highest IQ of any of the 16 Myers Briggs types, so are perhaps more likely to generate their own logic without any education. Introversion, intuition, thinking and judging sounds like the ingredients to invent logic independently. Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough. Increasingly emotional arguments, persuasion, conversational hypnosis and psychological pressure are looking like justifiable tools to get the needed agreement. Pioneer hypnotist Dr. Milton H. Erickson once won over a number of Doctors/Professors who had visited him with the intent of disallowing his work in some respect (I forget the details and I can't find a reference, would be in respect to psychology or psychiatry). Of course he used conversational hypnosis to reverse their intention. I would normally have considered it wrong to persuade right thinking people this way, but increasingly I am not sure they are common enough for that moral concern to be valid. If logic can't work, then I am unsure there are any other options, except as you say, going fishing. Let those bright enough join in if they will. John
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
That is a tricky one indeed, though it is not logical proof, it is often logical to accept an argument because of the consequences IF the answer can not be otherwise established. Global warming falls into this category, that is maybe a lack of unambiguous evidence to reach a final 100% conclusion that CO2 from cars is causing problematic global warming. But the consequence of taking action that is not needed is minor compared to the consequence of not taking action that was needed. Actually I think the evidence is pretty solid and little is 100%, so this does not reflect my opinion.. In the same way the consequence of ignoring an extraordinary claim can sometimes be great enough that it becomes an argument for investigation despite contradictory beliefs or doubts. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. Maybe it is not so depressing. The human race has always been this way, and I suppose it will remain this way, yet we have made great progress in the past. Maybe we can get along okay with only a small number of logical people who do science. After all, we don't need many people capable of composing music, acting in movies or programming computers. Why should we need lots more scientists? It is a specialized profession. As long as the opposition to science is kept under control, I don't see a problem with it being a elite occupation, that attracts only a small number of people. A society composed mainly of logical people and scientists would be boring. On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem) then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the popular belief might be. It is not clear to me this would be a big improvement. It would probably increase funding for research, because more people would be sympathetic, instead of thinking science comes from the pit of hell. But it is not clear to me that the world needs lots more logical thinking. Maybe just less emotional thinking, and more self-centered but enlightened self-interest type thinking. But I never had any training in logic . . . You probably have more exposure than you realize. People who gravitate to logic learn about it from examples in science, engineering, math and other fields, even if they do not study it explicitly. Experiments soon teach the folly of wishful thinking, for example. So does agriculture, but the link between logic and the task at hand may be more clearly delineated in technical disciplines such as experimental science or programming. , so I assumed it was something that most people naturally had but chose to reject (which we can all do as our right brain often wins out). I doubt that people reject it. Most of them are never exposed to it in the first place. Try explaining to someone why it is a fallacy to appeal to the consequences of a belief: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html You will see that in most cases, the thought that this might be invalid never crossed their mind. They will not be able to grasp what is wrong with it. This error may be even more common than ad hominem. You will find it everywhere, including New York Time op ed columns by distinguished politicians, businessmen, opinion makers and especially people who have appointed themselves in charge of the Public's Morality and Virtue, such as William J. Bennett. This particular fallacy closely resembles a true, logical assertion, which may be why so many people fall for it. I think most people have to be taught this kind of subtle distinction step by step. This fallacy in one form is: X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences. Take the example of a town in which the crime rate is low because everyone thinks the police always catch criminals, whereas in fact the police seldom catch them. It is better if everyone (especially crooks!) mistakenly believes our police are effective. Replace X is true . . . with: It is better for society if people believe X is true . . . . . . because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences. OR (in one formulation): Sometimes delusions make things go better. Put that way, this is not an idea the New York Times wants in an op-ed, and it would go over like a lead balloon in a sermon, but this is the logical expression of the core idea. It is said that an elderly Victorian woman when she first heard of Darwin's theory expressed the logical version succinctly: Let us hope that is not true, or if it is true, that it does not become generally known. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
It is a saying. Taking things with a pinch of salt is often needed to avoid blindly accepting something doubtful. The block of salt is needed because if you are going to make breakthrough despite reading old information you are going to need to use a lot of salt, much of that information will need to be incorrect, incomplete or wrong if you are going to make a breakthrough, see a new paradigm. Additionally I think that reading a little and thinking a lot, both before and after to avoid simply becoming 'programmed'. There is a huge difference between being force fed information, regurgitating answers And reading a book based on your own interest with no test and without the need to accept everything you read as final. The latter will make more discoverers (and discoveries) than the first method. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Yes, I am sure it is logical. Not everything that sounds logical is logical. As a matter of fact I think you have to find logic. You cannot teach it. Yes, you can give the theory but that is not what we talk about. I haven't heard your salt and books idea. Why the salt? Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Well I guess the class in logic I was imagining was created by logical people to help make a logical improvement in logic. Of course if it is created by illogical and corrupt people to destroy and control logic, then I agree. Overall the best schooling is a brick of salt a a ton of books. John. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: John Berry I agree with your conclusion. I do not agree with that Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough. On the contrary that class will make logic even more unusual.. Maybe that Milton H. Erickson did wrong I do not know the circumstances. However, I know that to persuade anyone else you need to engage both halves of the brain and somehow a connection between two people's right brain really helps to get information over. Yes, it can be misused (like most other powers). Sometimes this connection is called trust and it is hard to catch. Today there is a very slim chance to convince somebody that LENR is real. A lot of the trusted say the opposite (most of the academia). Not only is the best 'medicine' to let them bright enough join on their own terms, it is also best for LENR. The table will turn quickly when the first generator is available. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:20 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem) then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the popular belief might be. But I never had any training in logic, so I assumed it was something that most people naturally had but chose to reject (which we can all do as our right brain often wins out). But I guess that my logic came inbuilt as part of my being an INTJ. INTJ's have the highest IQ of any of the 16 Myers Briggs types, so are perhaps more likely to generate their own logic without any education. Introversion, intuition, thinking and judging sounds like the ingredients to invent logic independently. Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough. Increasingly emotional arguments, persuasion, conversational hypnosis and psychological pressure are looking like justifiable tools to get the needed agreement. Pioneer hypnotist Dr. Milton H. Erickson once won over a number of Doctors/Professors who had visited him with the intent of disallowing his work in some respect (I forget the details and I can't find a reference, would be in respect to psychology or psychiatry). Of course he used conversational hypnosis to reverse their intention. I would normally have considered it wrong to persuade right thinking people this way, but increasingly I am not sure they are common enough for that moral concern to be valid. If logic can't work, then I am unsure there are any other options, except as you say, going fishing. Let those bright enough join
RE: [Vo]:Thus spoke Dr. Mills, and thus have I
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson * * * * In the meantime, for your enjoyment and potential edification I have just published a 40 page PDF file on Blacklight Power Nice effort. Hope springs eternal.
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
No problem with that concept John. Pressing the spring initially adds the energy that is latter released. Notice that the light energy carries mass which of course has momentum. The momentum that is imparted upon the ship is matched by that of the light. That is a normal propulsion system. A reactionless system would have the ship with the spring begin to move in some direction without any type of ejection mass. That is my objection. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. Dave I do not understand what you are talking about. But if consider the following, it might? Generate the same conundrum while not violating the conservation of momentum or energy. Take a spring, compress it. As the spring is allowed to decompress generates light (by either friction, or electromagnetic induction to an efficient form of lighting. The light is projected in one direction, providing a small but real thrust. This would have propulsion with unchanging mass (other forms of energy storage could be used instead). Does this also generate the same 'problem' for you? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Yes, and the faster the ship moves the lower frequency an observer in the initial frame will see the exhaust. I have no problem as I said in understanding how this conserves momentum and energy. But I have no idea what you were talking about with relative mass changes etc... On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:25 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: No problem with that concept John. Pressing the spring initially adds the energy that is latter released. Notice that the light energy carries mass which of course has momentum. The momentum that is imparted upon the ship is matched by that of the light. That is a normal propulsion system. A reactionless system would have the ship with the spring begin to move in some direction without any type of ejection mass. That is my objection. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. Dave I do not understand what you are talking about. But if consider the following, it might? Generate the same conundrum while not violating the conservation of momentum or energy. Take a spring, compress it. As the spring is allowed to decompress generates light (by either friction, or electromagnetic induction to an efficient form of lighting. The light is projected in one direction, providing a small but real thrust. This would have propulsion with unchanging mass (other forms of energy storage could be used instead). Does this also generate the same 'problem' for you? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Yes Axil. The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem dissolves. This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless drive believe is occurring from what I have determined. They suggest that there is nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum. Why call it a reactionless drive if exhaust can be measured? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
If the particles appear and then annihilate each other so that nothing is left then they would not carry away any momentum or energy. Normal drives require that an amount of momentum that equals that which is imparted into the ship be ejected in an opposite direction. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. Ok, just a thought... But if there are particles popping into (semi)existence for a moment... If it were full existence their annihilation would not be so eventless. Then could these particles be effected by magnetic and electric fields? Could they react as other materials do? Could they actually act as at least part of the electric and magnetic field carrying capacity of the vacuum? (the permittivity and permeability of free space). I am unsure what interesting implications come from this line of reasoning, but I bet there are some. John On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
OK Bob, I tend to think outside of the box quite often, but sometimes that does not get me to where I would like to go. I would love to find that a reactionless drive is possible, but so far the evidence is strongly against that concept. You must become the spaceman inside his ship in order to see where the problem exists. If the mass and energy leaving the ship is not visible or measurable by the guy then he will become quite upset to see his ship vaporizing into nothing as the drive operates. As far as he can determine his ship is at rest in space once the drive is shut down. He can then take an inventory of the mass of his machine and wonders where most of it went, particularly if a large amount of it is converted into energy used to power the drive. With a normal drive every morsel of the original mass and energy can be located. Actually, I believe that the center of mass of the original ship remains in the same location and has the same magnitude after the normal drive is activated. The same is not true for a reactionless drive. Each external observer will determine that the center of mass of a normal ship remains at a constant location. This is true regardless of the final velocity of the ship relative to those guys. This is certainly true for very slow moving ships such as we would measure under non relativistic situations being presently discussed. The conservation of momentum ensures that this occurs. I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the obvious problems to offer their input. Start by explaining how the spaceman could accept the change in mass of his ship without any measurable emissions into space remembering that velocity is entirely relative. In this case I am playing the part of the skeptic but will make every effort to prove myself wrong. I honestly want to be wrong about this type of system. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 6:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. Dave-- If the mass is converted into mass of virtual particles in the Dirac space, it is obvious that the man in the space ship would never see the results. The standard conversion of energy normally happens in a measurable 3-D space the space man knows. The other situation involves the Dirac space in addition to the standard 3-D space, but still conserves energy/mass, its just not observable yet. You must think outside the 3-D box. Engineers do this better than scientists. Note Bob Higgins recent comment attributed to a mentor of his. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
There is no such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be being produced in the vacuum by EMF. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Yes Axil. The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem dissolves. This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless drive believe is occurring from what I have determined. They suggest that there is nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum. Why call it a reactionless drive if exhaust can be measured? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
I am sorry that my thoughts are not being clearly put into writing. Perhaps as the subject is further discussed you can determine exactly what I am thinking and accept or reject my ideas. My tendency is to choose an observation frame that simplifies the understanding of a problem. In this particular case that frame appears to be attached to the ship undergoing acceleration due to the drive. Measurements by the guy onboard strongly reject the consequences that result from the use of a reactionless drive. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 10:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. Yes, and the faster the ship moves the lower frequency an observer in the initial frame will see the exhaust. I have no problem as I said in understanding how this conserves momentum and energy. But I have no idea what you were talking about with relative mass changes etc... On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:25 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: No problem with that concept John. Pressing the spring initially adds the energy that is latter released. Notice that the light energy carries mass which of course has momentum. The momentum that is imparted upon the ship is matched by that of the light. That is a normal propulsion system. A reactionless system would have the ship with the spring begin to move in some direction without any type of ejection mass. That is my objection. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. Dave I do not understand what you are talking about. But if consider the following, it might? Generate the same conundrum while not violating the conservation of momentum or energy. Take a spring, compress it. As the spring is allowed to decompress generates light (by either friction, or electromagnetic induction to an efficient form of lighting. The light is projected in one direction, providing a small but real thrust. This would have propulsion with unchanging mass (other forms of energy storage could be used instead). Does this also generate the same 'problem' for you? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the obvious problems to offer their input. One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in the recent news is the EmDrive. That one involves the generation of microwaves and their reflection in a cavity. It's not clear whether anyone other than Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as advertised. But if it does, note that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, e.g., by a battery, to which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply. Eric
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
I agree Axil. And those particles that are produced are then given the momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship. Also, they must remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time interval. The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their are no measurable particles remaining to locate after the momentum is imparted into the ship. That is where I can not agree. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 11:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. There is no such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be being produced in the vacuum by EMF. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Yes Axil. The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem dissolves. This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless drive believe is occurring from what I have determined. They suggest that there is nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum. Why call it a reactionless drive if exhaust can be measured? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might not be easy, but it can be done. The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It just vanished, which makes no sense. With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is what has been demonstrated so far in real life. In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are possible. How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive. It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that point. The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show for its loss. If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be converted into energy by some nuclear process to supply power for the drive mechanism. After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself. He sees that his ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it went. With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the obvious problems to offer their input. One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in the recent news is the EmDrive. That one involves the generation of microwaves and their reflection in a cavity. It's not clear whether anyone other than Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as advertised. But if it does, note that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, e.g., by a battery, to which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply. Eric
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 9:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. If the guy with the spaceship with the EmDrive could bend the laws of physics for a moment and arrange for tracer photons, perhaps he could see microwave photons exiting the cavity of the drive in the opposite direction, accounting for the anomalous thrust. (Perhaps I'm missing your point.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
First off I believe that Newtons laws break down with regular engineering, there are multiple mechanical devices that do genuinely appear to create a net thrust. However these can not be proven from conjecture, they must be accurately replicated to maybe prove they work, and disproof may barely be possible due to subtle factors being potentially at work. Nevertheless, here is a reaction-less thruster that is capable of being mathematically proven or disproven. Take 2 identical flywheels spinning in opposite directions, these are rotating so far so as to have a useful increase in relativistic mass. Throw it from the front of your spaceship to the back, as it is moving to the rear of the ship they stop rotating, store the energy and now once they are not rotating they compress a spring at the other end of the ship. Because the relativistic mass is less when they are being stopped, you can gain net momentum, additionally you can move then back to the front of the ship and one there spin them up again and throw them aft repeatedly. So if the relativistic mass increase is not considered real, then what is stopping us from accelerating mass beyond light speed if the resistance to acceleration is unchanged? Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not seem to contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a different rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring uncompressed. So if we can store energy in a way that has no mass, then we can also then turn that energy into mass, for instance the particle products of a proton-proton collision can be much greater than the mass of the 2 protons. So if we can make and destroy (increase and decrease) rest mass at will then we can again move a weight that is heavier when we push off then when it comes to a stop. Neither of these seem close to practical, but are they flawed? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that point. The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show for its loss. If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be converted into energy by some nuclear process to supply power for the drive mechanism. After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself. He sees that his ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it went. With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the obvious problems to offer their input. One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in the recent news is the EmDrive. That one involves the generation of microwaves and their reflection in a cavity. It's not clear whether anyone other than Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as advertised. But if it does, note that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, e.g., by a battery, to which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply. Eric
