[Vo]:subscribe

[Frank Znidarsic]

[Vo]:Pictures of debris from the Roswell Crash Site

[Frank Znidarsic]

Subject: Pictures of debris from the Roswell Crash Site

I had a chance to get my hands on the debris.
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/images/roswell.jpg

Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:Pictures of debris from the Roswell Crash Site

[Frank Znidarsic]

I had a chance to get my hands on the debris.
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/images/roswell.jpg

Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Orchestrated Objective Reduction

[Jones Beene]

 Just to clarify - Norront is not exactly a hot fusion company. Their website 
gives that impression and it may be intentional.

In one version they have licensed the discovery of Holmlid of an efficient way 
to produce muons. They have other processes as well - which look more like cold 
fusion.

The "cheap muons" can be used in one of the oldest "proven" versions of hot 
fusion, which is muon catalyzed fusion. This version works on a small scale 
geometry and does not require the expense of plasma magnetic confinement 
although it could provide an enormous boost to say a Tokamak (or to ICF).

http://www.norrontfusion.com/



| 
 |   |

  

Re: [Vo]:Orchestrated Objective Reduction

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:33 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:30:34 + (UTC):
> Hi Jones,
> [snip]
> > I think these guys are positioned to get to market ahead of anyone else
> who is trying to commercialize dense hydrogen.
> >
> >http://www.norrontfusion.com/
> >
> I'm not so sure about that.
>

Hot fusion companies are a dime-a-dozen these days:

https://www.hb11.energy/

And whatever happened to Lockmart's CFR?


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: [Vo]:Orchestrated Objective Reduction

[Robin]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:30:34 + (UTC):
Hi Jones,
[snip]
> I think these guys are positioned to get to market ahead of anyone else who 
> is trying to commercialize dense hydrogen.
>
>http://www.norrontfusion.com/
>
I'm not so sure about that. The copyright on their web page is 2016. If they 
had something workable, it should have made
a bigger splash by now. Furthermore they claim that it's clean, but I doubt 
that is possible given the vast number of
high energy neutrons they would be producing. Furthermore they appear to expect 
the energy to be released in their
reactor, but most of it is going to end up in the neutron shielding, so the 
design would need a major re-work before it
should be built.

Re: [Vo]:Orchestrated Objective Reduction

[Jones Beene]

 I think these guys are positioned to get to market ahead of anyone else who is 
trying to commercialize dense hydrogen.

http://www.norrontfusion.com/


Robin  wrote:  
 
 In reply to  Ken Deboer's message of Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:04:44 -0600:
Hi Ken,

You might also want to check out this site:-

https://brilliantlightpower.com/

If this pans out it would supply humanity with energy for billions of years, as 
would CF.

>I have an open-ended question for this group, which I have great admiration
>for. I'm a biologist and am writing a book on, especially, the population
>problem. One of the chapters is on energy, mainly from the viewpoint of
>future energy sources. The only one I am at all even partly able to judge
>fairly is biomass, and to some extent solar, wind and similar 'standard'
>ones. I am helpless about nuclear, and like Daniel Yergin in "Quest" dont
>say much about it. What do y'all see as real possibilities in 50 years?
>regards, ken deboer
[snip]
  

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 >>Thoughts?<<
there are problems combining relativity (especially general relativity) with 
quantum physics, so when people try to talk from things combining them then 
they are not on solid ground.
>From my point-of-view relativity has been mistranslated and misunderstood so 
>false claims are made about it. My latest video-I think it was mainly written 
>by his wife.




On Wednesday, 3 June 2020, 17:25:51 BST, H LV  wrote: 
 
 
 Quantum Non-locality explained by Sabine 
Hossenfelderhttps://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo

I disagree with the conclusion that non-locality cannot be used to send an FLT 
message. What is overlooked is that an indeterminate state, i.e. unmeasured 
state is also a type of information. 
If the transmitter and the receiver have synchronised clocks (which is possible 
in SR) then the transmitter can send a message by a sequence of binary choices: 
either measure or not measure the particle's spin in the diagonal direction at 
a given time. What the receiver detects will be meaningfully informed by the 
sequence of the transmitter's choices. 

Thoughts?
Harry
  

Re: [Vo]:Orchestrated Objective Reduction

[Robin]

In reply to  Ken Deboer's message of Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:04:44 -0600:
Hi Ken,

You might also want to check out this site:-

https://brilliantlightpower.com/

If this pans out it would supply humanity with energy for billions of years, as 
would CF.

>I have an open-ended question for this group, which I have great admiration
>for. I'm a biologist and am writing a book on, especially, the population
>problem. One of the chapters is on energy, mainly from the viewpoint of
>future energy sources. The only one I am at all even partly able to judge
>fairly is biomass, and to some extent solar, wind and similar 'standard'
>ones. I am helpless about nuclear, and like Daniel Yergin in "Quest" dont
>say much about it. What do y'all see as real possibilities in 50 years?
>regards, ken deboer
[snip]

Re: [Vo]:Orchestrated Objective Reduction

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

On 03.06.2020 19:04, Ken Deboer wrote:
I have an open-ended question for this group, which I have great 
admiration for. I'm a biologist and am writing a book on, especially, 
the population problem. One of the chapters is on energy, mainly from 
the viewpoint of future energy sources. The only one I am at all even 
partly able to judge fairly is biomass, and to some extent solar, wind 
and similar 'standard' ones. I am helpless about nuclear, and like 
Daniel Yergin in "Quest" dont say much about it. What do y'all see as 
real possibilities in 50 years? regards, ken deboer 


Classic nuclear energy is not cost efficient in many ways and thus more 
than dead. It's uphold for political (= private corruption) needs as 
seen e.g.  in UK. The main reason is that you invest (for construction 
maintenance - fuel production - decommissioning) at least 30% of the 
total energy produced by the nuke what makes a new nuke a true 
contribution earliest after about 6 years now. Of course there is no 
real solution yet to handle the waste. (Best in Sweden). Nuclear energy 
was introduced by the military complex to get "free Plutonium" for bombs...


Hot fusion is the biggest fraud as all (e.g. energy of sun) what the 
physicists do claim is a blatant lie. Already 40 years ago people knew 
that hot D+T fusion is impossible due to the high rate of very hot 
neutrons produced what will affect all material of the reactor. ITER is 
just a sun & fun project for obedient physicists.


There is a good chance that finally only cold fusion will survive as we 
now understand how it works. But we still have great difficulties to 
produce a stable long time working reaction. Cold fusion produces no 
nuclear waste. Of course cold fusion still is suppressed ( by the sun 
and fun physicists + military/oil complex )  and the projects do run 
with minimal money and resources. And many are run under the surface by 
the various military complexes world wide.


We only can hope that Fukushima was the last accident. But this is just 
a wish ...


J.W.



-- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 
18 +41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Orchestrated Objective Reduction

[Terry Blanton]

Just one word:  Thorium.  :)

https://youtu.be/PSxihhBzCjk?t=32

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:48 PM Bob Higgins  wrote:

> This would be a good question to pose to Jed Rothwell.  Jed has
> studied and written much about the energy landscape - history & present -
> and probably has a lot to say about the future.  He monitors this list.
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:05 AM Ken Deboer  wrote:
>
>> I have an open-ended question for this group, which I have great
>> admiration for. I'm a biologist and am writing a book on, especially, the
>> population problem. One of the chapters is on energy, mainly from the
>> viewpoint of future energy sources. The only one I am at all even partly
>> able to judge fairly is biomass, and to some extent solar, wind and similar
>> 'standard' ones. I am helpless about nuclear, and like Daniel Yergin in
>> "Quest" dont say much about it. What do y'all see as real possibilities in
>> 50 years? regards, ken deboer
>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:Orchestrated Objective Reduction

[Bob Higgins]

This would be a good question to pose to Jed Rothwell.  Jed has studied and
written much about the energy landscape - history & present - and probably
has a lot to say about the future.  He monitors this list.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:05 AM Ken Deboer  wrote:

> I have an open-ended question for this group, which I have great
> admiration for. I'm a biologist and am writing a book on, especially, the
> population problem. One of the chapters is on energy, mainly from the
> viewpoint of future energy sources. The only one I am at all even partly
> able to judge fairly is biomass, and to some extent solar, wind and similar
> 'standard' ones. I am helpless about nuclear, and like Daniel Yergin in
> "Quest" dont say much about it. What do y'all see as real possibilities in
> 50 years? regards, ken deboer
>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Orchestrated Objective Reduction

[Ken Deboer]

I have an open-ended question for this group, which I have great admiration
for. I'm a biologist and am writing a book on, especially, the population
problem. One of the chapters is on energy, mainly from the viewpoint of
future energy sources. The only one I am at all even partly able to judge
fairly is biomass, and to some extent solar, wind and similar 'standard'
ones. I am helpless about nuclear, and like Daniel Yergin in "Quest" dont
say much about it. What do y'all see as real possibilities in 50 years?
regards, ken deboer

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:30 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:

>
> Thanks for the update!  I hope Jack is in good health.  He should be
> around  80 yrs.
>
> Did anyone on the current Vort list participate in the Quantum Mind forum
> at the University of Arizona in the early 90's.  Not long ago, that list
> was available still and I intended to d/l it; however, I can no longer find
> it.  
>
> Those were fun times, including the summer Sarfatti invited Shipov to
> California to discuss torsion fizzicks!  :)
>
> Cheers!
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 11:45 AM ROGER ANDERTON <
> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> History of it is alternative physics.
>>
>> Mainstream physics based on ignoring Einstein's search for unified field
>> theory (UFT).
>>
>> But this alternative physics is built on it.
>>
>> Bohm was student of Einstein taking up UFT research. But Bohm ran into
>> problems of being called a communist and ran foul of McCarthy Witch hunt.
>> Similarly, Bohm's student Vigier ran into same sort of problem.
>>
>> Vigier Conferences named after physicist Vigier known as "The Heretic of
>> France".
>>
>> Latest problem being looked at seems to be: the failure of Einstein's
>> Equivalence Principle et al. When heat an object by E=mc2 would expect its
>> mass to increase, but the opposite seems to happen. Paper abstract for this
>> year's presentation at: http://www.noeticadvancedstudies.us/LoXII.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, 31 May 2020, 16:27:35 BST, ROGER ANDERTON <
>> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> many of them now go to Vigier Conferences, this year's organization of
>> conference messed up by covid19
>>
>>
>> Vigier 12 
>>
>> Vigier 12
>>
>> 
>> I video many of the talks.
>>
>> I think main theory being promoted (at moment) is Rowland's theory, talk
>> by Michael Houlden:
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael Houlden talk on Rowlands' theory
>> 
>>
>> Michael Houlden talk on Rowlands' theory
>>
>> 
>>
>> Sarfatti hasn't been to Vigier Conference in ages.
>>
>>
>> There is also ANPA Conference:
>>
>>
>> Alternative Natural Philosophy Association - Alternative Natural
>> Philosophy Association 
>>
>> Alternative Natural Philosophy Association - Alternative Natural
>> Philoso...
>>
>> Alternative Natural Philosophy Association
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, 31 May 2020, 16:17:39 BST, Terry Blanton 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'll answer for Jonesie.
>>
>> It's a bit older than that:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Fysiks_Group
>>
>> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 11:09 AM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
>> bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jones—
>>
>>
>>
>> Is the  Fysics group you referenced the one that Allen Smith at LENR
>> Forum organized?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Jones Beene 
>> *Sent: *Saturday, May 30, 2020 10:53 AM
>> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Orchestrated Objective Reduction
>>
>>
>>
>> all the members of the "Fundamental Fysiks Group" [sic] reportedly merged
>> into a single quantum entangled meme...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Terry Blanton wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> ...and what ever happened to Jack Sarfatti?  :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

[Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[H LV]

Quantum Non-locality explained by Sabine Hossenfelder
https://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo

I disagree with the conclusion that non-locality cannot be used to send an
FLT message. What is overlooked is that an indeterminate state, i.e.
unmeasured state is also a type of information.

If the transmitter and the receiver have synchronised clocks (which is
possible in SR) then the transmitter can send a message by a sequence of
binary choices: either measure or not measure the particle's spin in the
diagonal direction at a given time. What the receiver detects will be
meaningfully informed by the sequence of the transmitter's choices.

Thoughts?

Harry