[Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic field
The following link discusses the issues about angular momentum of the electron: http://www.physics.mcmaster.ca/phys3mm3/notes/whatisspin.pdf As suggested in the above link, I think that the effective energy—mass-- of a rotating electric field may very well constitute an angular momentum associated with the electron which is not related to a dimension, but only the energy of the field. The obvious question is what is the explanation of the charge of the electron that creates the field? What is it that exists within the small size of the electron that creates or explains the charge? It is an intrinsic, empirical property at this point of understanding IMHO. I think that until we understand what happens down to the Planck dimensions, will not understand the electron. We have only about 20 orders of magnitude to go. Bob Cook From: John Berry Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 8:39 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic field Strange, I pasted the link, but then the email accidentally sent prematurely without the link: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/126986/where-does-the-electron-get-its-high-magnetic-moment-from On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:38 PM, John Berry wrote: Robin, the question and perhaps some of the following comments made here lend evidence to you being correct. On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:34 PM, John Berry wrote: Robin, for what its worth I think you are probably right. A free electron having a magnetic moment makes no sense to me. On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Where does the photon get its angular momentum, when it and its twin appear from positron-electron enillalation? I am not familiar with what line splitting the cyclotron frequency is. Bob Cook -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic field In reply to Bob Cook's message of Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:29:26 -0800: Hi, [snip] IMO free electrons have no magnetic moment, because they have no "spin", which is not an intrinsic property of the electron, but rather a direct consequence of being bound to an atom. Now I would say that is a departure from conventional thinking. Yup. Can you further explain this conclusion? I would guess that you would say that an electron has no intrinsic angular momentum as well as photons having none. No, I think photons do have angular momentum, though I don't think electrons do. But it's just a hunch. One of the things that makes me think this is the fact when a free electron circles in a magnetic field, you get cyclotron radiation, but I would expect line splitting of the cyclotron frequency if free electrons also had an intrinsic magnetic moment. Bob Cook Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:EIA graphs shows the decline in coal use, increase in natural gas and wind
I wrote: > . . . the power companies do have a valid point. You cannot expect them to > act as distribution grid for PV electricity for free. If PV becomes a > significant fraction of all electricity they will have to start charging > everyone a "toll" for use of the distribution network, even people with > large PV arrays who produce a net amount of electricity more than they use. > They do not actually have to charge these people anything. What they have to do is pay the producer some dollar amount and then mark up the electricity and charge other people a lot more for it. In other words, they have to act like any broker does, such as a company that buys wheat from farmers and then sells it to bakers. I believe they already do mark up the electricity they buy from people with solar panels. I guess they need to mark it up more, charge more at night, and also raise overall rates to pay for the new distribution network infrastructure needed to handle rooftop PV excess electricity. As noted in the WaPost, what the Brothers Koch want to do is gauge anyone who installs solar panels to keep the panels from being cost effective. That's different. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:EIA graphs shows the decline in coal use, increase in natural gas and wind
Bob Higgins wrote: One of the states where there is an ongoing war between the electric > utility companies, the solar homeowners, and solar businesses is Arizona. > It seems to be a centroid of a lot of utility changes. I have read about > the utility companies holding private large scale cross-utility conferences > to develop a strategy to combat home sited solar. > Yes. I think we discussed this here before. See: "Utilities wage campaign against rooftop solar" https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/utilities-sensing-threat-put-squeeze-on-booming-solar-roof-industry/2015/03/07/2d916f88-c1c9-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html I expect the fight against cold fusion will be far more vicious. It has not yet begun, but it is inevitable. As you might expect, the Koch brothers are in vanguard of the fight against home solar panels: Legislation to make net metering illegal or more costly has been introduced in nearly two dozen state houses since 2013. Some of the proposals were virtual copies of model legislation drafted two years ago by the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a nonprofit organization with financial ties to billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. If they live long enough to see cold fusion, I expect they will spend tens of billions of dollars to combat it. Their net worth is ~$42 billion. They will understand right away that if cold fusion succeeds, they will be bankrupted. The Saudis will also understand this. I predict that hundreds of billions of dollars will be marshaled in worldwide legislative lobbying efforts (bribes) and mass media advertising to crush cold fusion. I expect the wind and solar industries will join fossil fuels in opposition to cold fusion. . . . However, as I said, in the fight against solar the power companies do have a valid point. You cannot expect them to act as distribution grid for PV electricity for free. If PV becomes a significant fraction of all electricity they will have to start charging everyone a "toll" for use of the distribution network, even people with large PV arrays who produce a net amount of electricity more than they use. We have a similar problem with electric cars. The owners do not pay a gasoline tax, so they do not contribute to the cost of maintaining the roads. If electric cars become more widespread governments will haveto start charging a fee for electric cars. They are already doing that in Georgia. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:EIA graphs shows the decline in coal use, increase in natural gas and wind
One of the states where there is an ongoing war between the electric utility companies, the solar homeowners, and solar businesses is Arizona. It seems to be a centroid of a lot of utility changes. I have read about the utility companies holding private large scale cross-utility conferences to develop a strategy to combat home sited solar. On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > The Hawaiian Electric Power Company is squawking about the effects of > rooftop solar: > > > http://www.hawaiianelectric.com/heco/_hidden_Hidden/CorpComm/Hawaiian-Electric-Companies-propose-plan-to-sustainably-increase-rooftop-solar > > They make valid points here. It is not reasonable to ask the power company > to act as distribution network for PV electricity while not paying them for > that service. > > As I said, I doubt cold fusion will need any kind of distribution network > for backup. No one will sell excess power from home generators because it > will be worth nothing, once cold fusion penetrates a large fraction of the > market. (I am guessing maybe half.) I am assuming that by that time, cold > fusion generators will be about as reliable as today HVAC equipment, > meaning that outages and emergency repairs will happen less often than > today's power company outages, for fewer hours per year. > > Needless to say, this will lead to the quick demise of the power companies. > > Interesting quote: > > Across the three Hawaiian Electric Companies, more than 51,000 customers > have rooftop solar. As of December 2014, about 12 percent of Hawaiian > Electric customers, 10 percent of Maui Electric customers and 9 percent of > Hawaii Electric Light customers have rooftop solar. This compares to a > national average of one-half of 1 percent (0.5 percent) as of December > 2013, according to the Solar Electric Power Association. > > > If ~10% of mainland U.S. customers in places like Florida and Georgia > install rooftop solar, the power companies in Florida and Georgia will be > in the same kind of trouble the Hawaiian power companies are in. Going from > 0.5% to 10% is not such a leap. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:EIA graphs shows the decline in coal use, increase in natural gas and wind
The Hawaiian Electric Power Company is squawking about the effects of rooftop solar: http://www.hawaiianelectric.com/heco/_hidden_Hidden/CorpComm/Hawaiian-Electric-Companies-propose-plan-to-sustainably-increase-rooftop-solar They make valid points here. It is not reasonable to ask the power company to act as distribution network for PV electricity while not paying them for that service. As I said, I doubt cold fusion will need any kind of distribution network for backup. No one will sell excess power from home generators because it will be worth nothing, once cold fusion penetrates a large fraction of the market. (I am guessing maybe half.) I am assuming that by that time, cold fusion generators will be about as reliable as today HVAC equipment, meaning that outages and emergency repairs will happen less often than today's power company outages, for fewer hours per year. Needless to say, this will lead to the quick demise of the power companies. Interesting quote: Across the three Hawaiian Electric Companies, more than 51,000 customers have rooftop solar. As of December 2014, about 12 percent of Hawaiian Electric customers, 10 percent of Maui Electric customers and 9 percent of Hawaii Electric Light customers have rooftop solar. This compares to a national average of one-half of 1 percent (0.5 percent) as of December 2013, according to the Solar Electric Power Association. If ~10% of mainland U.S. customers in places like Florida and Georgia install rooftop solar, the power companies in Florida and Georgia will be in the same kind of trouble the Hawaiian power companies are in. Going from 0.5% to 10% is not such a leap. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:EIA graphs shows the decline in coal use, increase in natural gas and wind
Since 2000, wind has gone from producing 0.3% as much as coal to 11%. You can see why the coal companies are in a panic, and trying to stop the expansion in wind energy. Overall U.S. electricity production has not increased much since 2007, so any increase in wind, natural gas or solar means less coal is used. Electricity overview: http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/index.cfm?tbl=T07.01#/?f=A Note the increased generation by the industrial sector (green line), rather than by power companies, starting in 1988. The EIA says that this year for the first time, solar power generated by individuals -- the so-called "behind the meter" sector, mainly rooftop PV systems -- has produced a significant amount of electricity. They will start tracking it in more detail soon. "EIA electricity data now include estimated small-scale solar PV capacity and generation" http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=23972 This is having a big impact in Hawaii, as I noted here before: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19731 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/business/energy-environment/solar-power-battle-puts-hawaii-at-forefront-of-worldwide-changes.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/16/hawaii-solar-industry_n_4452177.html This is what I expect cold fusion will do, only faster on a much larger scale. Cold fusion, unlike solar, will allow the user to cut off all connections to the power company. I assume the user will buy a cold fusion generator large enough to produce all electricity, with no need for a power company backup. Of course it will also work at night, unlike solar. It will not need much of a battery. Maybe a super-capacitor will do. - Jed
[Vo]:EIA graphs shows the decline in coal use, increase in natural gas and wind
The EIA site has a wealth of data for every major source of energy. Here is an interesting graph of annual coal consumption since 1949: http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/index.cfm?tbl=T06.02#/?f=A&start=1949&end=2014&charted=1-5-12-13-14 In 1950 most coal was consumed by industry. Mainly steel production I expect. In 1960 electricity became the largest use, with 0.177 billion tons consumed. Coal used for electricity increased and then peaked in 2007 at 1.045 billion tons. By 2014 it had fallen to 0.851 billion, a decrease of 19%. Most of the decrease has been made up by natural gas, as you see here: http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/index.cfm?tbl=T07.02A#/?f=A For 2014: This shows Million Kiolowatthours, which for coal does not exactly track tons of coal consumed. Electricity production from coal has fallen by 21%, a little more than the decrease in consumption. Wind now produces 11% as much energy as coal. That is a huge chunk of coal company profits. Both US and Chinese coal companies are in big trouble. In the U.S. three big companies have filed for bankruptcy: PatriotCoal, Walter Energy, and Alpha Natural Resources. The U.S. companies are being hit by a drop in demand in the U.S. and in China. Wind produces 23% as much energy as nuclear power. The U.S. has 99 nukes, so that means wind turbines produce roughly as much as 24 nukes. Here is some recent information on wind energy: http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/FileDownloads/pdfs/3Q2015%20AWEA%20Market%20Report%20Public%20Version.pdf The graph on p. 4 is dramatic. Extrapolating from total nameplate megawatts shown there, 69,471 MW, I get an average capacity factor of around 30%, which is what industry sources usually quote. On some occasions, in some weather, wind turbines produce much more than that. See, for example, several days at an 83% capacity factor in Texas: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=23632 In Texas, electricity at night is sometimes so abundant the power company lowers the rate to zero. They give electricity away for nothing, to encourage people to shift usage to night. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic field
hmmm I wonder... If spin is a spin of the electrons field, then maybe electrons are like earth moon, and for each revolution around the center, they revolve once so as to always show the same side to the nucleus. This way each orbit would produce one revolution. And it would mean spin only happens in orbit, but not be the orbit (which apparently doesn't add up from what I've read). Does this make sense? On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:51 PM, wrote: > > If free electrons had a spin magnetic moment, then I would expect this to >> also >> happen for cyclotron radiation. >> >> If it does, then I'm obviously wrong about electron intrinsic spin. >> > > It would be interesting to know about whether there's line splitting in > cyclotron radiation. > > If the electron does not have intrinsic spin, we would need to rethink > Fermi statistics and electron degeneracy pressure. > > Following a link in an answer to the physics.SE question that was posed > yesterday, I found this interesting article that says that the "intrinsic" > spin of the electron is not magical in the way it is sometimes described > and instead corresponds to actual angular momentum in the EM field of the > electron: > > http://www.physics.mcmaster.ca/phys3mm3/notes/whatisspin.pdf > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic field
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:51 PM, wrote: If free electrons had a spin magnetic moment, then I would expect this to > also > happen for cyclotron radiation. > > If it does, then I'm obviously wrong about electron intrinsic spin. > It would be interesting to know about whether there's line splitting in cyclotron radiation. If the electron does not have intrinsic spin, we would need to rethink Fermi statistics and electron degeneracy pressure. Following a link in an answer to the physics.SE question that was posed yesterday, I found this interesting article that says that the "intrinsic" spin of the electron is not magical in the way it is sometimes described and instead corresponds to actual angular momentum in the EM field of the electron: http://www.physics.mcmaster.ca/phys3mm3/notes/whatisspin.pdf Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic field
In reply to Bob Cook's message of Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:02:40 -0800: Hi, [snip] > > >Where does the photon get its angular momentum, when it and its twin appear >from positron-electron enillalation? Both have opposite spins, so the net is zero. > >I am not familiar with what line splitting the cyclotron frequency is. If I'm not mistaken, line splitting occurs when the magnetic field, due to the spin of a bound electron in a magnetic field, causes what would otherwise be a single spectral line to be split into two close lines, one above the original frequency, and one below. When the magnetic field is turned off, the 2 lines are replaced by 1. If free electrons had a spin magnetic moment, then I would expect this to also happen for cyclotron radiation. If it does, then I'm obviously wrong about electron intrinsic spin. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment
Well Jed, you have seen the last half dozen posts that show just how rotten climate science has become. You might conclude that climate science is not a "hard" science like physics but more like psychology where theory changes like fashions over time because hard facts are missing. It wasn't so long ago some were forecasting a coming ice age and indeed some Russian scientists have now forecast that global temperatures will start to drop in a decade's time due to the sun entering another Maunder Minimum. What is critically wrong is leading experts and groups like the IPCC being so definite about the results of climate models that have already been falsified, and claiming "the debate is over." The believers are getting many orders of magnitude more money than the skeptics and they are the gatekeepers who hold the purse strings. Their papers are given pal review not peer reviews. I would believe Steve McIntyre over any climate expert you care to name and he is not a climatologist. He was the one that first showed the errors in Mann's famous hockey stick. I got a sad laugh over his latest analysis of a paper by “renowned climate scientists" linked here http://climateaudit.org/2015/12/07/what-science-is-telling-us-about-climate-damages-to-canada/
Re: [Vo]:Re: N. Y. Times article comment
He's looking at this as if it were a black-and-white issue. That he's either right and they are wrong or they are wrong and he's right. I think there is a reasonable probability that climate change is being caused by fossil feels. I think there is also a pretty good possibility that fossil fuel's are leading to the pollution that Beijing is suffering from. Also I believe that fossil feels are directly financing global terrorism such as ISIS. Finally I believe that fossil fuels are running out. For all these reasons I cannot imagine why anyone would expend any energy to deny efforts to redirect our global energy supply to alternative sources. On Monday, December 14, 2015, Bob Cook wrote: > higgins gets a thumbs up from me. > > Bob Cook > > *From:* Bob Higgins > > *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2015 9:04 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment > > For fear of being branded a card carrying republican, I hate to comment on > such topics. I believe the "global warming movement" is a false flag - > just another lie being broadcast as propaganda to achieve some government's > pet objective. It is not that I don't believe the earth is warming - I > do. The reality is that the earth goes through cold and hot cycles. Ice > cores show a period of 100k-200k years between glaciations (peak cold). > What happens in the middle between peak cold glaciations? The answer is a > peak hot earth. We are only about 25k years from the last peak cold > glaciation, and probably 25k-75k years from peak hot earth. The earth is > presently in a gradual heating portion of the cycle as we move toward the > peak hot earth. The false flag is the promotion that warming as being > caused by man - the science is not good enough to say this with any > reliability. Yes, there is rise in CO2 and there is warming, but the earth > would be warming even if there were no CO2 additions. The question is only > whether there is a small change in rate of warming caused by the CO2 > addition. Cutting CO2 emissions drastically will likely have no > significant effect on warming but may incur significant cost. Wouldn't > that money be better spent in elimination of world poverty? > > Having said that, I believe there is good reason to design out the use of > fossil fuel burning: it is poisoning the air we breath. It is particularly > acute in the cities and worse in the industrial coal burning cities in > China. The average person does not realize that with every 20 gallons of > gas they burn in their car, they are adding over 300 pounds of CO2 to the > air. Another side benefit is elimination of the fighting that has its > roots in oil supply favoritism. > > The justification for LENR is clean air, and clearing the landscape from > power distribution ugliness through distributed power generation without > the scale, danger, and nuclear waste of the fission industry. The third > world will benefit from this readily because they don't have a grid to > start with. Availability of small, non-polluting power generation systems > (particularly CHP) will help their rise from poverty via access to energy > without the expense of a grid and without need for world controls on > nuclear proliferation. And what about solving the world's fresh water > crisis? This is a real opportunity: LENR powered desalinization. > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > >> Calling all cold fusion flacks! >> >> I added a comment to this article at 10:15 (that's how you can find it). >> I would appreciate up-votes to make it more visible: >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/opinion/hope-from-paris.html >> >> - Jed >> >> >> >> > >
Re:[Vo]:Undecidability of the Spectral Gap
Jack Cole wrote: > We show that the spectral gap problem is undecidable. Specifically, > we construct families of translationally-invariant, nearest-neighbor > Hamiltonians on a 2D square lattice of d-level quantum systems > (d constant), for which determining whether the system is gapped or > gapless is an undecidable problem[...] Interesting issue. I believe it's undecidable if dimension is unbounded. (See - Corollary 8 (Undecidability of spectral gap for unconstrained dimension, in the reference - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.04573v2.pdf) I was the first to conjecture the power of adiabatic quantum computation. (See "Adiabatic Quantum Computation & Eigenvalue Gaps" https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.theory.dynamic-sys/fdC1qvp_qxw/Vhex2D14A4YJ - and - "Adiabatic Quantum Computation and Search" https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics.research/9N_-WbzsapI/H4SuchFYf-kJ) - predating anything in Arxiv, so, this is an issue I'm interested in. For finite N-dimensional hamiltonians, (N=2^n where n = # of 'qubits') though, the size of the spectral gap is definitely computable, but takes 'exponential' time (time~2^n) - so is probably 'NP-complete' -- 'n' is effectively the size of the 'classical' system.
[Vo]:LENR to be discussed with personalities mainly
Is LENR included in the great plans of Clean Energy? Who knows? http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/12/dec-15-2015-with-whom-to-discuss-and.html I have changed OTHER to LENR CONTEXT 1- scientific technical 2-managerial, philosophical Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment
Bob, Thanks for explaining the nuances of the modeling issue… I agree. I’ve commented on this topic before in the Vort Collective… I did my thesis (1990) under Dr. James Telford, atmospheric physicist. One of his pet peeves was all the $ going into GCMs (Global Climate Models) when they really didn’t know what even half the variables were – for instance, the effect of cloud cover; and many of the efforts didn’t even have real data. Telford was unusual in that he was both a theorist and an experimentalist, building many of his own instruments and data collection system which they flew on aircraft to collect in-situ data. He was a recognized expert on cloud microphysics. In his view, global climate modeling was so complex that it would likely never result in accurate models. -mark From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 7:10 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment Jed, I think a problem in this dialog is that you are not an expert even in a related field. I happen to be an expert in a related field. I spent my career in computer modeling of linear and nonlinear systems. The climate modeling problem suffers in many ways from the same problem as LENR. Poincare proved that even the 3-body orbit problem was infinitely complex. There are infinite solutions depending upon the starting state vector. In LENR, because the interaction with condensed matter comprises many, many bodies, the solution depends entirely on the simplifying assumptions made to formulate the problem mathematically. The problem is nearly infinitely complex to formulate with so many bodies participating, and it is impossible to completely know the starting state vector. And, this is with the presumption that the forces-reactions are linear. The instant you add non-linearity to even the smallest problem, the results become infinitely complex, highly dependent on the starting conditions, and highly dependent on the amplitude of the reaction. Getting solutions in such a domain generally requires already knowing the answer to start, and then working back to understand what caused it. There has been a century of evolution in paleoclimatology - grand research in determining the climate of the last million years. It has shown the positive feedback effect of greenhouse gasses and how quickly the planet snaps out of a glaciation and into peak warm earth with no influence of man. This is a highly, highly nonlinear process that simply cannot be computed with accuracy today - perhaps never. If we stopped adding all greenhouse gasses today, we would not be able to predict with any confidence the rate of temperature rise, the difference in temperature rise, the change in timing of the temperature rise snap, nor the peak warming that will be reached. If you look at hurricane track modeling, and look at the disparity between solutions for track and intensity by different models, you see the problem. Beyond a day the results diverge significantly. Yes, you can compute the average track, but the hurricane doesn't usually follow the average. Like many things that are uncorrelated, the average is simply a useless number. I assert that consensus in the climate issue is akin to "averaging" and is a useless metric. If all of the models are wrong (and due to the simplifications, problem complexity, and the nonlinearity, they are all by definition wrong), then the average is wrong too. I have no confidence what-so-ever in consensus in climate modeling. Some one model may be closer to being correct but we don't know whose, and the correct solution is probably not close to the average of the predictions. Such inaccuracy in modeling begs for a moderate response. I say, do the right thing in general, and proceed with moderation. Kerry is proposing that the Paris Accord will cost the US $50T over 35 years. If we spent $1T on LENR, much of the problem would be solved. The remaining $49T is such a huge amount that it could relieve 1B of the world's most poverty stricken population. Expending it instead in emergency elimination of carbon emissions, and the number in poverty will probably grow. On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Here’s the real issue Jed… Didn’t you once argue vociferously, that science is NOT done by consensus??? As Damon Runyon said, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet." What I am saying is that when you are an outsider to a field, and especially when the issue is highly technical and takes years to master, your best bet is to assume that the consensus is correct. This sometimes leads you to make an error of judgement, especially a Fallacious Appeal to Authority. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html For exam
Re: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment
Jed, if all three gave you the same useless recommendation and you disagreed and did something else that worked. I would say you had a better understanding than the experts. I am not very good at medicine. However, I often knows better about my body than the doctor. Sometimes they are just plain wrong. I think the answer to vaccination is less than clear. California has mandated vaccination and that might be more good than bad. The problem is that we now make vaccine for illnesses that are less severe and like any alteration in the body vaccination has risks. It is a danger that the benefits do not outweigh the risks and because of the political mandate any evaluation will become impossible / not required. It is not cut and dry. Instead it is a good example of something the experts has different opinions about and perhaps there is room for many solutions. It also shows you that a society with no competition / debate will eventually end up with stupid and dangerous decisions. California's mandatory vaccination policy fits big pharma and the politicians and it is easy to enforce. Scientists are depending on politicians and big pharma for grants, who is going to critically examine the vaccination policy and new vaccines? You have a clear misunderstanding of how well the majority can determine what is best / correct. That we have a global warming seems undeniable. That we had a global cold spell in the 17 century or so. None of those facts is disputed. Also it is my understanding that most people agree that pollution due to fossil fuel is no good. The connection between global warming and our burning of fossil fuel is not so undisputed. Regardless it will require economical and political *wants* and *determination* to make that shift away from fossil fuel. Many issues are connected with this change and it will take time as there is no determination or real will. LENR might help speed up the process. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Lennart Thornros wrote: > > >> You go to three experts and the one who gives the correct answer is the >> REAL expert. That is the problem in a nutshell - experts are often wrong >> even if they say they are experts and it is hard to see which one is THE >> expert. I assume you did not go to the two first experts even as you know >> they were less of an exper,t than the third one:) >> > > Suppose all three had given me the same advice. I would be a fool to claim > that I know better, wouldn't I? Suppose I were to go several hundred > doctors, and almost every one of them recommended the same treatment? I > would be insane not to believe them. > > To take a real-life medical example, the vast majority of doctors will > tell you it is good idea to vaccinate your children. Only a few dangerous > quack doctors will disagree. You should definitely go with the majority > consensus, because you do not want to see your child die in agony from > tetanus. > > In the case of global warming, nearly every expert agrees. Okay, you will > find a small minority who disagree, but as a non-expert, you should go with > the consensus. > > > Getting back to the actual case of my rash, the second doctor, a GP, said > to me: "Well if it is not getting better, why don't you go see Dr. > So-and-so? He knows a lot about rashes." It is the mark of a true expert > that he knows the limits of his own knowledge. He does not suffer from the > Dunning-Kruger effect. He knows what he does not know. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment
about experts, I've exchanged and seen exchange an dposition by many experts on facts around climate story. for example for paludisme, experts say climate is not the main driver, but not too lood, and they say climate change is real . numerical experts say modeling of climate cannot be correct and seems too full of knob to be usefull and solid, but they tust climate change. meteorologists say there is no increase in extreme events, as oceanologist (like Judith curry who started to doubt when she hide evidence of no increase)... but they trust climate change. physicists support greenhouse theory, (like most skeptics) but know that the only serious question is feedback... but they trust AGW claims. climatologists have reduced climate sensibility to modest values below 3 (trend is toward 0, but you know trends... ) but they support conclusions assuming 6+. Oceanologist see no acceleration since the little ice age, but they support the model who predict acceleration... Climatologist say the hiatus it is explained by unmesurable ocean change, that there is no hiatus since it need only to correct the land temperature a little more (most of warming is just increasing corrections from the IPCC beginning). They say warming should first be seen in troposphere but sattelite disagree and they prefer to use the only of the 3 temperature series which can easily be tweaked because it is land based. AIEA say they suppot IPCC repor on energetic transition, but all it's report in fact say the opposite. what I see is cognitive dissonance, or rather people who say that for their domain of expertise IPCC is wrong, but that for the rest they trust IPCC. what I've clearly heard from skeptics, real one, mostly ex-believers (no oil conspiracy), is that they were shocked by the bad quality of the science, the corruption, the harassment against questioners, but most serious are simply puzzled and sadly have no theory... problem is intractable. This is why it is impossible to convince tru-believers because as Thomas Kuhn have said, a paradigm can only covince if it provide theory, and practical responses. IPCC have a good paradigm that trough theory, self-referent modelization, tunable data, terror against dissenters, allow wagons of money to be sent to the supporters without allowed opposition. Best invention since taxes. The only theories I've seen recently is Russian finding that solar activity can cause tendency for jet-stream to lock. that sun activity change duration of day, through zonal wind averaged on the globe. and Judith curry theory of "Stadium Wave" that climate oscillate by coupling of various ocean oscillations. I know little on chaotic system, and she seems to have the good approach to find orbits in subsystems and modelize how they couple... full physics modelization for such chaotic system is absurd. beside the epistemologist who have studied the story see mostly few key actor (one canadian oil baron, hansen...) who have pushed a deep ecology malthusianist theory, which created an environment where the ideology supported by few activist could spread without opposition in US, US/UK, EU, corps, academics... because each group imagined to get a personal advantage, reason to exist, funding source... I'm not the best professor on that story as I don't care any more on the science. the real things to analyse is not the science but the epistemology, the methods. What I've heard from that is that when we will provide the solution to climate change, CO2, pollution,, poverty, demography, we will be insulted, hated, as we are destroying the ideological substrate, and the funding substrate of very wealthy groups. I've heard horrible things about how honest people where treated, and worst of all how honest students became templar knights for the truth. One of those is leading both US science and one of the great high impact journal, and was trained by one of the most competent french skeptic, who was a believer until recently. From the eye of the professor, I imagin how sad he is. as if you were the professor of Huizenga. 2015-12-15 16:10 GMT+01:00 Bob Higgins : > Jed, I think a problem in this dialog is that you are not an expert even > in a related field. I happen to be an expert in a related field. I spent > my career in computer modeling of linear and nonlinear systems. The > climate modeling problem suffers in many ways from the same problem as LENR. > > Poincare proved that even the 3-body orbit problem was infinitely > complex. There are infinite solutions depending upon the starting state > vector. In LENR, because the interaction with condensed matter comprises > many, many bodies, the solution depends entirely on the simplifying > assumptions made to formulate the problem mathematically. The problem is > nearly infinitely complex to formulate with so many bodies participating, > and it is impossible to completely know the starting state vector. And, > this is with the presumption that the forces-reac
RE: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment
If the fanatics were to get the reins and turn the "Global Warming" theory into an emergency, it would cause a shift of lower middle class individuals into poverty to pay for the emergency efforts. Many would die from not being able to heat their house, buy food, or go to work. Exactly so. It continues to amaze me that atheist/agnostic/non religious people can behave in such a fanatical, ‘religious’ way – as with calling scientists “heretics”. The world is ruled by an elite 1% that can afford gated housing , armed guards and even protected bunkers. They are wrecking entire nations ( Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Greece….) Thank God there are a few visionaries among them.
Re: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment
Jed, I think a problem in this dialog is that you are not an expert even in a related field. I happen to be an expert in a related field. I spent my career in computer modeling of linear and nonlinear systems. The climate modeling problem suffers in many ways from the same problem as LENR. Poincare proved that even the 3-body orbit problem was infinitely complex. There are infinite solutions depending upon the starting state vector. In LENR, because the interaction with condensed matter comprises many, many bodies, the solution depends entirely on the simplifying assumptions made to formulate the problem mathematically. The problem is nearly infinitely complex to formulate with so many bodies participating, and it is impossible to completely know the starting state vector. And, this is with the presumption that the forces-reactions are linear. The instant you add non-linearity to even the smallest problem, the results become infinitely complex, highly dependent on the starting conditions, and highly dependent on the amplitude of the reaction. Getting solutions in such a domain generally requires already knowing the answer to start, and then working back to understand what caused it. There has been a century of evolution in paleoclimatology - grand research in determining the climate of the last million years. It has shown the positive feedback effect of greenhouse gasses and how quickly the planet snaps out of a glaciation and into peak warm earth with no influence of man. This is a highly, highly nonlinear process that simply cannot be computed with accuracy today - perhaps never. If we stopped adding all greenhouse gasses today, we would not be able to predict with any confidence the rate of temperature rise, the difference in temperature rise, the change in timing of the temperature rise snap, nor the peak warming that will be reached. If you look at hurricane track modeling, and look at the disparity between solutions for track and intensity by different models, you see the problem. Beyond a day the results diverge significantly. Yes, you can compute the average track, but the hurricane doesn't usually follow the average. Like many things that are uncorrelated, the average is simply a useless number. I assert that consensus in the climate issue is akin to "averaging" and is a useless metric. If all of the models are wrong (and due to the simplifications, problem complexity, and the nonlinearity, they are all by definition wrong), then the average is wrong too. I have no confidence what-so-ever in consensus in climate modeling. Some one model may be closer to being correct but we don't know whose, and the correct solution is probably not close to the average of the predictions. Such inaccuracy in modeling begs for a moderate response. I say, do the right thing in general, and proceed with moderation. Kerry is proposing that the Paris Accord will cost the US $50T over 35 years. If we spent $1T on LENR, much of the problem would be solved. The remaining $49T is such a huge amount that it could relieve 1B of the world's most poverty stricken population. Expending it instead in emergency elimination of carbon emissions, and the number in poverty will probably grow. On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > > Here’s the real issue Jed… >> >> >> >> Didn’t you once argue vociferously, that science is NOT done by >> consensus??? >> > > As Damon Runyon said, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle > to the strong, but that's the way to bet." > > What I am saying is that when you are an outsider to a field, and > especially when the issue is highly technical and takes years to master, > your best bet is to assume that the consensus is correct. This sometimes > leads you to make an error of judgement, especially a Fallacious Appeal to > Authority. > > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html > > For example if you assume that the people at the DoE are experts on cold > fusion, you will incorrectly conclude their opinion on the subject is valid. > > If you know little or nothing about a subject, it is safest to say: "I > assume the experts are right, but it is possible they are wrong. I cannot > judge." > > Some technical issues are not difficult to judge. For example, most well > educated people have enough knowledge of statistics to see that vaccinating > children is safer than not vaccinating them even though in very rare cases > children die from vaccinations. Climate change, on the other hand is very > complex. I have read enough about it to confirm that. I have written > technical manuals and papers for the general public on cold fusion. I am > usually pretty good at judging when an area of science or technology can be > grasped by ordinary laymen -- or even a Georgia politician -- and when it > is likely to be far over their heads. Climate change is one of these things > that most people do not have the
Re: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment
Jeb, You wrote: "You should at least acknowledge that I am defending the opinions of experts. Educated people may disagree with experts but it goes to far to say this is "indefensible." You, for some reason, imagine you know better than these experts. Given the complexity of modern society and the advanced nature of our science, I think your claim is more extreme than mine. Perhaps you are suggesting that these climate researchers are fakes engaged in a massive conspiracy. That seems far-fetched, to say the least." As far as global warming goes, yes, I think I know more than the "consensus" I see reported in the media. Possibly I have been following it more closely than you. You don't have to have a PhD in climate science to do the math and the climate scientists have got it wrong in some cases. They don't have PhDs in related subjects either - the degree didn't even exist when they were at school. It would be helpful if more of them were qualified in statistics too. I think the basic problem has been laid out well by Prof. Akasofu in the following link. Note Fig 2b. http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf The real bottom line is that new clean sources of energy WILL make the problem go away. I am optimistic about LENR for one. The real damage of the consensus is the thousands of billions of dollars being wasted by various governments on AGW and the MILLION deaths per year in the poor countries, caused by the green polices preventing the banks from providing loans for coal fired plants so they could have electricity. No. I am not confused about CO2. I am well aware what causes smog.
[Vo]:Undecidability of the Spectral Gap
We show that the spectral gap problem is undecidable. Specifically, we construct families of translationally-invariant, nearest-neighbour Hamiltonians on a 2D square lattice of d-level quantum systems (d constant), for which determining whether the system is gapped or gapless is an undecidable problem. This is true even with the promise that each Hamiltonian is either gapped or gapless in the strongest sense: it is promised to either have continuous spectrum above the ground state in the thermodynamic limit, or its spectral gap is lower-bounded by a constant in the thermodynamic limit. Moreover, this constant can be taken equal to the local interaction strength of the Hamiltonian. This implies that it is logically impossible to say in general whether a quantum many-body model is gapped or gapless. Our results imply that for any consistent, recursive axiomatisation of mathematics, there exist specific Hamiltonians for which the presence or absence of a spectral gap is independent of the axioms. These results have a number of important implications for condensed matter and many-body quantum theory. See: http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04573 Jack
RE: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
Bob you said the light entering the field would regain its original characteristics upon exiting - which I agree with but it does suggest some interesting experiments of a different nature, shaped and nested fields of electromagnets or electrostatics [maybe both] with variable spacing [focus] along a LOS for a camera to try and unbalance and amplify like a telescope or microscope -also wrt to Robins suggestion would a microscope focused on the region "float" the original image to our frame or would it become unfocused as it translates out of the field? Both questions above are basically the same, can "lenses" embedded in two different fields utilize focus effects on light to overcome the normal return to original characteristics? Changing the path and orientation in different frames would be small but like a telescope multiple lenses would multiply the effect. Fran -Original Message- From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 11:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement That sounds like a good experiment. Bob Cook -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement In reply to Bob Cook's message of Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:21:38 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Light entering the intense magnetic field would regain its original >characteristic upon exiting the field. However, if your eyes were also in >the magnetic field they would sense the changes effected by the magnetic >field IMHO. It should be possible to put a camera in close proximity to a powerful magnet, then see if any change is detected as the magnet is turned on and off (would need to be an electromagnet). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
Bob, Your reply to Robin touches on something I have been trying to articulate - the possibility that magnetic fields can have a synergetic effect upon regions of Casimir suppression or NAE as found in these reactors and skeletal catalysts. My point being that all these rules for conservation are at war with the anomalous effects we are trying to amplify and simply using the present variables our buckets are leaking too fast to reveal any robust effects, perhaps the difficulty in reproduction is because we are not containing all the variables. Along with heat, NAE, and gas loading the anomalies to date may have hidden magnetic shielding or field variables that go unrealized or documented [somebody mentioned Parkhov having his reactor in an iron pot?] . if correct this bodes well for intentional manipulation of these variables by experiment. ideas that come to mind are self contained experiments [battery powered] inside a faraday shield, or outer reactor walls designed as the center core of a magnetic armature [transformer without a secondary]. The recent threads wrt magnetic field and 5d [calvert and others] remain unproven as do all the anomalous over unity claims and IMHO we need to do a little wild catting wrt to synergy between these seemingly unrelated parameters because just like refrigeration you don’t get measurable temperature effects until you contain ALL the parameters. [it's not just P1V1=P2V2 if you are trying to change temperature] Fran -Original Message- From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 10:22 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement Robin-- My comment was intended to apply to the local point in space that the light and magnetic field were occupying. For example light passing through glass slows down and may change directions all due to the magnetic and electric fields it encounters in the glass. The direction can be changed without the frequency or much intensity being being changed. However both frequency and intensity can also change, particularly intensity--the amplitude of the light oscillating fields. The frequency can also change significantly, but only in rare conditions where a Doppler shift can occur. I can imagine that this could happen in a fast moving or rotating electric or magnetic field. Light entering the intense magnetic field would regain its original characteristic upon exiting the field. However, if your eyes were also in the magnetic field they would sense the changes effected by the magnetic field IMHO. Bob Cook -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 1:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement In reply to Bob Cook's message of Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:35:08 -0800: Hi, [snip] >My thought was that a strong magnetic field may disrupt the oscillating >nature of the light—disturbance—as it passes through the magnetic field, >changing its frequency and or intensity and direction of propagation. I >would assume that the magnetic field intensities would add at any instant >of time and space. If this were so, then one should see distortions of the background image when looking at powerful magnets. There are none AFAIK. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
