from:"Alexander Hollins"

TECHNICALLY, if the statement is the odds of such a thing happening on the
same day, then the odds are one in 4.34 million. (the number of days you
calculated).  That said, one in a million odds, when talking about things
on a celestial time frame, broken up by days, are pretty damn good odds.

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:36 AM, George Paulson georgepaulso...@hotmail.com
 wrote:

  271.8*16,000 comes out to 4,348,800 days. 4,348,800/365 comes out to
 11,915 years.

 So like I said we can expect an event like this roughly every 10,000 years
 or so.

 That's a far cry from the one in one billion odds or the one in one
 million odds after discounting by a factor of a thousand, isn't it?


 --
 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:04:34 -0600
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
 From: jabow...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


 You quote me incorrectly.  My actual words were less than one in a
 million.  I stated so because mine was a naive calculation that came up
 with 1/133225 to which I then applied a discount by a factor of a
 thousand precisely to address such arguments as yours.

 To normalize your calculation properly you have to multiply 271.8*16,000.

 Now, can you do that arithmetic for us to complete your critique?


 On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:13 PM, George Paulson 
 georgepaulso...@hotmail.com wrote:

  In an earlier message, James Bowery claimed that the odds of the Russian
 meteor and asteroid DA14 passing Earth on the same day were one in a
 billion:

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76844.html

 The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
 million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that
 independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

 1/(365*100)^2
 = 1/133225

 Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand for
 whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

 This is not a coincidence.

 This is incorrect. It is more like the birthday problem, where we're looking
 for the number of years that pass until two wandering asteroids have the
 same birthday. A birthday here is when they fly by the Earth.

 We can expect the fly by of a DA14 type object every 40 years. If we
 also assume that something like the Russian meteor passes by every 40 years,
 this gives us a 16,000 day year, and with a Taylor expansion you get a

 99% probability of there being a coincident birthday after 271.8 years,
 or roughly 10,000 of our years.

 So we can expect an event like this once every 10,000 years.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds

Well, a million days is 2700 years, roughly, not 10,000.  Not really sure
what arithmetic you'd like shown, since there is no calculation here,
beyond what's already been stated by others. The discussion is over what
kind of odds constitute a coincidence versus not a coincidence, and if the
odds are that it happens every 10k odd years, well, then its happened,
lessee, estimated age of Earth is 4.54 billion years, then it can be
estimated to have happened 454 THOUSAND times in Earth's history.

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:02 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Now you're throwing in a whole new level of sophistry to the argument, Mr.
 Hollins:

 So what if 10,000 years is small on a celestial time frame?

 Civilization as we know it hasn't even been around that long, let alone a
 human lifetime.

 Please, stop with the verbiage and show your arithmetic!


 On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Alexander Hollins 
 alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:

 TECHNICALLY, if the statement is the odds of such a thing happening on
 the same day, then the odds are one in 4.34 million. (the number of days
 you calculated).  That said, one in a million odds, when talking about
 things on a celestial time frame, broken up by days, are pretty damn good
 odds.

 On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:36 AM, George Paulson 
 georgepaulso...@hotmail.com wrote:

  271.8*16,000 comes out to 4,348,800 days. 4,348,800/365 comes out to
 11,915 years.

 So like I said we can expect an event like this roughly every 10,000
 years or so.

 That's a far cry from the one in one billion odds or the one in one
 million odds after discounting by a factor of a thousand, isn't it?


 --
 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:04:34 -0600
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
 From: jabow...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


 You quote me incorrectly.  My actual words were less than one in a
 million.  I stated so because mine was a naive calculation that came up
 with 1/133225 to which I then applied a discount by a factor of a
 thousand precisely to address such arguments as yours.

 To normalize your calculation properly you have to multiply 271.8*16,000.

 Now, can you do that arithmetic for us to complete your critique?


 On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:13 PM, George Paulson 
 georgepaulso...@hotmail.com wrote:

  In an earlier message, James Bowery claimed that the odds of the
 Russian meteor and asteroid DA14 passing Earth on the same day were one in
 a billion:

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76844.html

 The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
 million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that
 independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

 1/(365*100)^2
 = 1/133225

 Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand for
 whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

 This is not a coincidence.

 This is incorrect. It is more like the birthday problem, where we're looking
 for the number of years that pass until two wandering asteroids have the
 same birthday. A birthday here is when they fly by the Earth.



 We can expect the fly by of a DA14 type object every 40 years. If we
 also assume that something like the Russian meteor passes by every 40 years,
 this gives us a 16,000 day year, and with a Taylor expansion you get a



 99% probability of there being a coincident birthday after 271.8 years,
 or roughly 10,000 of our years.

 So we can expect an event like this once every 10,000 years.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds

if it were in orbit around it, there would have been an additional vector
to its motion.  Tracking information verified a straight line trajectory
from what I've read.  Good thought though.

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 I suggested an explanation that apparently was lost in the discussion.
 Suppose each asteroid has a swarm of smaller rocks in orbit around it.
  Suppose one of these rocks was in an orbit that caused it to approach the
 earth from the opposite direction at the time of the meteor strike in
 Russia. Overlooked in this discussion was at least one other large meteor
 reported near Cuba, which could have been part of the same swarm. This is
 important because any close encounter with an asteroid might result in the
 earth being bombarded by large rocks coming from directions different from
 the path of the asteroid as the asteroid gets close. This makes protection
 that much more difficult.

 Ed



 On Feb 28, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

  I would point out:

 1. The event did occur.

 2. A causal connection between the two objects seems exceedingly
 unlikely, since they came from different directions at different times. No
 one has suggested how there could be a connection, as far as I know.

 3. Therefore it is coincidence, no matter how unlikely that may seem.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds

the flyby is a longer event than a single hour.

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:41 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 You obviously misunderstand the Poisson process and/or my calculation.

 There is nothing about any specific date in it.



 On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:22 PM, George Paulson 
 georgepaulso...@hotmail.com wrote:

  James,

 Your calculation was of the odds of a simultaneous flyby occurring on
 February 15th, 2013, that is, occurring on a specific date. The odds of it
 occurring on another specific date, say tomorrow, March 1st, 2013, are also
 as low as you calculated.

 The odds of it happening in general, that is on any day rather than on a
 particular date, are much higher.

 If we're trying to make some reasonable judgments about possible causes,
 it seems we should test our speculations against these latter odds, rather
 than the former odds, unless there is something special about that
 particular date, Feb. 15th, 2013, or some other reason or piece of
 information that suggests we should pay attention to the odds of the flyby
 occurring on that day, rather than any day.

 --
 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:30:52 -0600

 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
 From: jabow...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

 If my counting units had been years then you'd be right to imply my
 degree of error was wildly off the mark, but they weren't.  If the two
 events had occurred within the same hour instead of within the same day, my
 calculation would have been an even greater far cry from the time base of
 years but it is still reasonable to base the calculation on counting units
 derived from the distance in time between the events.  What if they had
 occurred within the same minute?  The same second?

 In fact, the two events occurred within 16 hours of each other, not 24
 hours.

 Otherwise, thanks for pursuing a less naive calculation but you failed to
 show your work.  Taylor expansion doesn't cut it.

 Please update it for 16 hours rather than 24 hours and show your work.
  By work I mean something more specific than taylor expasion which is
 about as vague as you can get.



 On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:36 AM, George Paulson 
 georgepaulso...@hotmail.com wrote:

  271.8*16,000 comes out to 4,348,800 days. 4,348,800/365 comes out to
 11,915 years.

 So like I said we can expect an event like this roughly every 10,000
 years or so.

 That's a far cry from the one in one billion odds or the one in one
 million odds after discounting by a factor of a thousand, isn't it?


 --
 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:04:34 -0600
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
 From: jabow...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


 You quote me incorrectly.  My actual words were less than one in a
 million.  I stated so because mine was a naive calculation that came up
 with 1/133225 to which I then applied a discount by a factor of a
 thousand precisely to address such arguments as yours.

 To normalize your calculation properly you have to multiply 271.8*16,000.

 Now, can you do that arithmetic for us to complete your critique?


 On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:13 PM, George Paulson 
 georgepaulso...@hotmail.com wrote:

  In an earlier message, James Bowery claimed that the odds of the Russian
 meteor and asteroid DA14 passing Earth on the same day were one in a
 billion:

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76844.html

 The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
 million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that
 independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

 1/(365*100)^2
 = 1/133225

 Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand for
 whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

 This is not a coincidence.

 This is incorrect. It is more like the birthday problem, where we're looking
 for the number of years that pass until two wandering asteroids have the
 same birthday. A birthday here is when they fly by the Earth.




 We can expect the fly by of a DA14 type object every 40 years. If we
 also assume that something like the Russian meteor passes by every 40 years,
 this gives us a 16,000 day year, and with a Taylor expansion you get a




 99% probability of there being a coincident birthday after 271.8 years,
 or roughly 10,000 of our years.

 So we can expect an event like this once every 10,000 years.

Re: [Vo]:Meteor crater

2013-02-19 Thread Alexander Hollins

thats not an impact crater. Looks like a sink hole, looks like the road
itself is in part burning, I'd say gas main leak or natural gas coming up,
sinkhole collapses, and gas pocket went boom, lit the gas on fire long
enough to get the chunks of asphalt lit.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.
hoyt-stea...@cox.netwrote:

 What's burning in this crater -- nickel-iron powder?

 ** **

 ** **

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cT8vZ-7vxQfeature=youtu.be

 ** **

 Hoyt Stearns

 Scottsdale, Arizona US

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-19 Thread Alexander Hollins

Are you familiar with clustering? just because a rare event happens
twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
just happened to hit the probability twice.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model. If your model
says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
revision. The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
model? If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
might not invest all that much money in revising the model.

However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
of line with reality.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that
independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for
whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
source footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events
-- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events
seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently become
advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside of
geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
approach on Feb 15, 2012.

2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to cause
widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense shockwaves
correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for decades.

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since we're
potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon relating not to the
mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but rather to the phenomenon of
public announcement.

It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is hard
for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor enters over land,
and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's surface that is land we
can increase the expected frequency only a few fold at best.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows.
As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere,
where is the common sense?

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s

** **
** **
NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
this Russian video, in slo-mo.
** **
The video could have been altered - with the addition of a fast moving
object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at
about 27 seconds).
** **
Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
military, why not give it some credence?
** **
Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
** **
** **
** **
** **
NASA's blog

Re: [Vo]:better video of alleged meteor shoot down

2013-02-17 Thread Alexander Hollins

In addition, you can see the vapor trails and it's clear that at some point
there was two objects. It looks to me more like a piece of the meteor fell
behind after breaking up, but caught up because the main mass slowed
significantly rigght before exploding, which matches standard behavior, it
hit a thicker layer, caught atmosphere, slowed while creating massive
friction, heated up enough to cause gas pockets to erupt.  the fragment
didn't go THROUGH it, it went past it on a more aerodynamic path.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Here is an explanation for the amazing projectile form which is seen in
 the video exiting the meteor at high speed in the forward vector - at least
 this is the best explanation that I can come up with (besides a faked
 video).

 The initial meteor consists of an agglomeration of two of the better known
 varieties of meteors which have been bound together in space by gravity -
 but they do not intermix and will be affected differently, on entering the
 atmosphere. There is a large segment of a lower melting point chondrite
 composition. Then there is a small nickel-iron-cobalt  component - which is
 much higher in melting point but will soften with heat. The large segment
 enters first heats up, and essentially it melts into a thick blob - and at
 the same time, it protects the smaller iron component as a heat shield, but
 it decelerates rapidly on atmospheric contact. The trailing segment does
 not
 do the same.

 Instead the iron nickel component which is trailing, stays solid but
 softens, and at some point is forced through the liquefied Chondrite blob
 when it decelerates - and is extruded into a projectile shape just as if it
 was a sausage going through an extrusion die. It is also accelerated by the
 extrusion process - and is expelled rapidly in the forward vector.

 Michel Julian once called this type of tubular compression/acceleration the
 sphincter effect...

 I do not think that Michel wants to be exclusively remembered on Vortex for
 that bit of insight, but it may be appropriate here :)

 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-15 Thread Alexander Hollins

 The Moon makes about 13 revolutions in the course of a year.

revolutions around what?

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
  At 12:14 PM 2/15/2013, you wrote:
 
  On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:22 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Obvious question:
  Was the vector correlated with that of the earth approaching asteroid?
 
  No, they were almost perpendicular.  Pure and delightful coincidence.
 
 
  That was my first thought.
 
  
 
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/meteorite-injures-more-than-900-in-
 
 russian-city/2013/02/15/ff67c624-7770-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html?wprss=r
  ss_europe
 
  Sergei Zakharov, regional branch chairman of the Russian Geographic
  Society, told the Interfax news agency that three explosions occurred
  as the meteor blew apart.
 
  “Judging by my observations, the fireball was flying from southeast to
  northwest,” he said. “A bright flare of more than 2,500 degrees
  [Celsius] happened before the three explosions. The first explosion was
  the strongest.”
 
  - - - - -
 
  My quick take (partly copied from elsewhere)
 
  Consider a small object (in this case the meteor) orbiting a large
  object (asteroid), as seen from above the orbit.
 
  If the orbital velocity of the meteor round the asteroid is small,
  then the trajectory of the meteor will look like a sine wave around the
  trajectory of the asteroid.
 
  (Similarly, the trajectory of the moon looks like a sine wave
  superimposed on the orbit of the earth).

 I thought so too 25 years ago, when my instructor in an introductory
 course on astronomy asked
 us what we thought the trajectory of the moon is around the sun. It is
 actually a curve which is always convex...

 http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/convex.html

 It is not a circle, but is close to a 12-gon with rounded corners.
 It is locally convex in the sense that it has no loops and the
 curvature never changes sign.

 harry

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-15 Thread Alexander Hollins

ignore me, i just realized the error in my mental model.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Alexander Hollins 
alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:

  The Moon makes about 13 revolutions in the course of a year.

 revolutions around what?

 On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
  At 12:14 PM 2/15/2013, you wrote:
 
  On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:22 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Obvious question:
  Was the vector correlated with that of the earth approaching asteroid?
 
  No, they were almost perpendicular.  Pure and delightful coincidence.
 
 
  That was my first thought.
 
  
 
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/meteorite-injures-more-than-900-in-
 
 russian-city/2013/02/15/ff67c624-7770-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html?wprss=r
  ss_europe
 
  Sergei Zakharov, regional branch chairman of the Russian Geographic
  Society, told the Interfax news agency that three explosions occurred
  as the meteor blew apart.
 
  “Judging by my observations, the fireball was flying from southeast to
  northwest,” he said. “A bright flare of more than 2,500 degrees
  [Celsius] happened before the three explosions. The first explosion was
  the strongest.”
 
  - - - - -
 
  My quick take (partly copied from elsewhere)
 
  Consider a small object (in this case the meteor) orbiting a large
  object (asteroid), as seen from above the orbit.
 
  If the orbital velocity of the meteor round the asteroid is small,
  then the trajectory of the meteor will look like a sine wave around the
  trajectory of the asteroid.
 
  (Similarly, the trajectory of the moon looks like a sine wave
  superimposed on the orbit of the earth).

 I thought so too 25 years ago, when my instructor in an introductory
 course on astronomy asked
 us what we thought the trajectory of the moon is around the sun. It is
 actually a curve which is always convex...

 http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/convex.html

 It is not a circle, but is close to a 12-gon with rounded corners.
 It is locally convex in the sense that it has no loops and the
 curvature never changes sign.

 harry

Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy

2013-02-08 Thread Alexander Hollins

I take it none of you have played the game Myst?  There is a tall water
tower that can be connected to a windmill that then pumps water from the
ocean into the tower, and the water can then be redirected to machines that
run directly off the pressure, air compressor style.

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  ** **

 *From:* Jed Rothwell 

 ** **

 In many places. But not, for example, in Texas, where the landscape is
 flat. Not a lot of uphill to go to.

 ** **

 They put some wind farms on gigantic mesas in Texas, which are up in the
 air but still pretty flat. Not a lot of water out there, either.

 ** **

 I expect the Pacific Northwest would be ideal for this.

 ** **

 ** **

 Well, to get back to Peter Graneau’s actual proposal – the synergy
 attaches to an already existing hydroelectric facility. 

 ** **

 It is another kind of *in situ* synergy which is not related to
 wind/solar. It would add its own boost as a separate effect, even when
 those are added to pumped storage. Any existing dam or pumped storage
 facility could have this device, assuming it works - as a replacement
 turbine.

 ** **

 Apparently, a lot of folks did not fully understand the implications of
 his original article in IE, myself included. 

 ** **

 In short, his suggestion is to exchange the old type of water turbine
 (which is very efficient but that is not the point) for a new type of
 turbine, and it looks similar but it can capture “hydrogen bond energy” in
 addition to gravitational energy. I suspect that some of the net electrical
 or mechanical power will need to be recycled to do this, but he suggests a
 2:1 net gain.

 ** **

 This is not exactly the same thing as the water arc explosion, if I
 understand it. In effect, more net energy is available from water flow
 itself (according to Peter) but the excess energy is *chemical* not
 gravitational.

 ** **

 However, I think one of the major problems is that this contention is
 lacking in real proof, and in a situation where it should be rather
 straightforward to provide proof and where there would be a lot of interest
 from people like TVA.

 ** **

 Jones

Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming

2013-02-06 Thread Alexander Hollins

Sunspots look dark because they are cooler, not because they put out less
light.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote:

 Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can
 be as high as 15% more or less.   Think about it.  Sunspots are dark; Dark
 spots emit less light.  So more sunspots, less light.  Less light, less
 Solar input.  Less solar input should mean less average global temperature
 rise from sun cycles..  What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The
 Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer
 to the sun than the other half.   So yes Craig, I will agree that on the
 solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables
 that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening
 for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now.

 Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average
 global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human
 activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity
 creating CO2 as a byproduct.

 Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts
 and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high
 altitude clouds.   Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional
 thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming.   I encourage
 everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds.

 --
 Chuck


 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote:
  Haha.  Yeah I saw that story,  It's just bait for the deniers
  (or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks.   For that
  matter, mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of
  global warming.
 
  I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically
  against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming.   First lets
  start with this graphic
  http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif
 
  With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath.   The cycle is
  cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year,
  releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back
  into it's stems and roots during growing season.  It's a cyclic
  effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels.
   The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2
  from human activity.

 I am not arguing against the idea that man made the causes of global
 warming. I am arguing against the certainty that a correlation demands a
 certain causation.

 I'll stand corrected on the cyclical nature of CO2. I understand now,
 that you are correct, in that during the summer, the CO2 levels fall, so
 this would be the opposite to what I had assumed, which was the during
 the summer the CO2 levels rose. Good point.

 
  Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to
  global warming that isn't man made.  All polluters wish they didn't
  pollute I guess.  But solar input isn't the cause of global warming
  either.  For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's
  rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up.  Exactly how  is
  that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots.
   It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much
  heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space.

 Solar input is not reduced by sunspots. This is documented, but I can't
 look for the studies tonight. But higher sunspot activity yields a more
 active sun, and a higher total radiation to Earth. Those who consider
 the issue, but deny it, believe that the increased activity cannot
 possibly yield warmer temperatures. But those same people, who believe
 so strongly in correlations without causation, deny that the
 correlations between the sunspot activity and the Earth's temperatures
 are greater. What if I could show you a greater correlation between
 sunspot activity and the Earth's temperature, over the correlation that
 increases in CO2 can show?

  So Craig, I want to point you to THE OBVIOUS,   The solar input is as
  it has been for the past 1million years.

 No, the Sun's output has been higher, since 1920 or so, than in the
 previous several hundred. Can you show me otherwise?

 Craig

Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming

2013-02-04 Thread Alexander Hollins

Falling technology to lower levels due to slow degredation, and burning
(literally) of our infrastructure won't end up being more greenhouse gases?

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:

 **

 http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-live-on-the-edge-of-financial-ruin-cfed-report-2013-2

 The above provides the latest evidence that the US economy is hanging by
 threads.  Much the same goes for Europe and Japan.  About half of US
 households cannot weather any financial emergency nor finance long term
 needs such as housing, healthcare or college. and if you like graphs of
 nonlinear effects, then you ought to consider what happens when gasoline or
 food increases in price yet again and people can't afford medication or car
 repairs.

 I see little need for strident warnings when a coming failed global
 economy will reduce emissions dramatically, as will slashed birth rates and
 suicides among those being lectured to by the rich or tenured.

Re: [Vo]:How does evolution work without selective pressure

2013-02-02 Thread Alexander Hollins

Not true in the slightest. Different people fall under different economic
and social conditions that enhance or limit the ability to find a mate,
intellectual development changes who CHOOSES to have offspring, which is an
even bigger selective pressure (Idiocracy, anyone?)

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:49 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

Everyone is taken care of and has an equal chance to have offspring.
Do genetic disease tend to propagate in such a situation? What effect
does
unbridled sexual selection have? Do people get nicer looking but sicker?

I don't know. I would like to take a peek 10,000 years into the future
and see what
has happened. I would probably be surprised. We have no past models for
the
evolution and progression of a technological spices. Maybe we will be
like sharks and
never change for millions of years.

Why do you assume we don't face selective pressure?

-Original Message-
From: Alexander Hollins alexander.holl...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Feb 1, 2013 1:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:How does evolution work without selective pressure

Why do you assume we don't face selective pressure?

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:02 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

I have read many times about how we are evolving. How does this work in
the absence of selective pressure? In reverse maybe?

http://www.popsci.com/node/69854/?cmpid=enews013113spPodID=020spMailingID=5126534spUserID=MTY0NTI4MDIwMTES1spJobID=309174560spReportId=MzA5MTc0NTYwS0

Re: [Vo]:How does evolution work without selective pressure

2013-02-01 Thread Alexander Hollins

Why do you assume we don't face selective pressure?

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:02 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

 I have read many times about how we are evolving.  How does this work in
 the absence of selective pressure?  In reverse maybe?



 http://www.popsci.com/node/69854/?cmpid=enews013113spPodID=020spMailingID=5126534spUserID=MTY0NTI4MDIwMTES1spJobID=309174560spReportId=MzA5MTc0NTYwS0

Re: [Vo]:Math question

2013-01-18 Thread Alexander Hollins

by definition, wouldnt it be both terms of the square? or am i
misunderstanding the question?

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:31 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

 When there is one equation and you substitute another equation into one
 of its variables, the solution is a set of numbers that includes
 the conditions of both equations.  It is a simultaneous solution.

  Were there is a squared term in one equation and another equation
 is substituted in for only one of the terms of the square,
 what does the result mean?  Its not exactly a simultaneous solution. Does
 it have a name?

  Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:EPA-Approved E-15 Fuel Voids Warranty in 6 Car Brands

2013-01-14 Thread Alexander Hollins

heres some other info

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/30/aaa-e15-gas-harm-cars/1735793/

From the fox news video, they state it's corrosive, uhh, no.  They say, it
has to be shipped in stainless steel drums!  (thats how we ship ALL
gasoline...)  phase separation? OOOKay...


From the link I just posted, the American Petroleum Institute study seems
to be what's spurring this all. They claim a three year study that states
it's not safe in pre 2012 cars.  So... their study, started in 2009 or
2010, was already looking at 2012 cars?

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:54 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 (Video)
 EPA-Approved E-15 Fuel Voids Warranty in 6 Car Brands (MY2011 and earlier)

 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e7a_1358089233

Re: [Vo]:How to simulate the four-hour heat after death event in your kitchen

2011-10-18 Thread Alexander Hollins

it would also explain the false starts. the solidox might have started
burning, then gone out on its own from cooling too much.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Jed, how about this:

 Enrico Billi tells us that they weighed the E-Cat before and after, but not
 why it mysteriously gained a kilogram of weight. I can offer a plausible
 explanation.

 On the bottom of the E-Cat housing sits a relatively large volume enclosure,
 the reactor module, which we are told houses a small reactor core and large
 amounts of lead shielding. This volume was not opened so its contents were
 not revealed. In fact, neither were its dimensions given and must be
 inferred from a photograph and a few other measurements. It is safe to say
 that it is at least 10 liters and could be as much as 20 liters.

 Enrico says that there were no smells of anything burning, but one of the
 best candidates for a hidden fuel would be and alcohol like methanol or
 ethanol. These are very pure chemicals that burn to produce mostly steam and
 a small amount of carbon dioxide. Their combustion is odorless. Their
 combustion products could easily have been emitted through the reactor
 output hose and never be detected. CO2 is odorless.

 Of course the obvious question is how would it receive oxygen. The not so
 obvious answer is a relatively unknown, but actually ubiquitous technology
 called a chemical oxygen generator. Referred to in the industry as an oxygen
 candle, it consists of a mixture of a strong oxidizer and a powdered metal.
 When ignited at about 600C, it smolders slowly, giving off heat and copious
 amounts of excess oxygen. This is the same process that provides the
 emergency oxygen in commercial aircraft. Its used in mining, emergency
 operations, any place a very compact and stable form of oxygen is required.
 Its storage density, in the case of a Lithium Perchlorate formulation,
 equals that of liquid oxygen!

 About 2 liters of propanol, and 2 liters of a Li Perchlorate formulation
 could provide more enthalpy than was measured in the Oct. 6 demonstration.
 The propanol, which boils at 98C would have started to emit vapor just
 before the water came to a boil during its warm up phase. A resistance
 heater would ignite the oxy candle and the two gasses would meet at the top
 of the housing, which is the underside of the heat exchange fins. That
 surface would be plated with nickel or platinum to catalytically help
 combust the two gasses, just as occurs in an inexpensive camping heater.

 This would burn for several hours, at which time a covert signal would tell
 Rossi its time to shut down the reactor, hence his need to be present.
 During the time the reactor is allowed to cool, small openings would allow
 water to seep into the reactor module case and make up the weight of the
 lost fuel and oxidizer, possibly the same openings which vented the
 combustion products. This would not be an exact process, hence the
 requirement of weighing with inaccurate scales, and the need to overlook a 1
 kilogram weight gain.

 This example accounts for all of the observations that were reported, as
 well as the electrical and plumbing connections that were seen. It explains
 the mysterious weight gain, the need for such a prolonged warm up phase, and
 the need to stop the demonstration after just 4 hours.

Re: [Vo]: Dennis Ritchie passes

2011-10-13 Thread Alexander Hollins

70, goto 10? well, only if you believe in reincarnation, I guess.

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Michele Comitini
michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:
 A Genius.
 He was 70, indeed.

 long: 
 http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/business-of-it/2011/10/13/dennis-ritchie-father-of-unix-and-c-dies-40094176/

 short: http://goo.gl/BRUJc

 mic

 2011/10/13 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net:
 For all you fellow code monkeys out there... Dennis Ritchie died.

 The inventor of C, designer of a universal language syntax, and a major
 contributor to UNIX died this week at the age of 60.

 -m

Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

2011-10-11 Thread Alexander Hollins

jed, if the power were used to, say, run a thermoelectric heat pump,
cooling one side of the pump, and heating something that was otherwise
internally insulated, then heat WOULD go up after power is removed.
(Just saying, if I were going to fake something, that's what I'd do. )



On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 Colin Hercus wrote:

 If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to 124C
 is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly well
 insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to possibly give
 the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at least 3 hours. So a scam
 is possible based on primary temperatures.

 People here keep saying this but there are fundamental physical reasons why
 this is impossible:

 1. Nearly all the heat added to the system clearly emerged from it before
 heat after death began. if that were not the case, the temperature would not
 have risen, and the cooling water would not have removed so much heat. you
 cannot have the same heat emerge from the system twice.

 2. When the power is turned off the temperature declines rapidly as seen at
 15:26 and again at the end of the run 19:43.

 3. The temperature rises after the power is turned off. Stored heat cannot
 do this.

 4. The temperature fluctuates. Stored heat can only decline at a fixed rate.

 This is a physics form. If you are going to make assertions which are
 contrary to the known laws of physics you should at least acknowledge that,
 and try to explain why you believe this is an exception to the laws of
 physics. I also think it is appropriate to do this before you publish
 accusations of a scam.

 The accusation that this is a scam should not get a free pass, and not be
 subject to a rigorous analysis based on the laws of physics.

 Honestly, if you think that stored heat can act this way, I think it is
 incumbent upon you to perform an experiment to demonstrate it. I have
 asserted that laboratory grade handheld thermocouple meters can measure
 temperatures between zero and 100°C to within 1° reliably.  I did not just
 assert this, I tested carefully many times, and I can upload sample data to
 show it. People who make these claims about stored heat should be willing to
 upload data showing how stored heat being released in a stable system with
 no changes to the flow rate or other conditions can suddenly increase the
 temperature.

 - Jed

[Vo]:the OTHER zero point

Vorts,

So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed
it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with
the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm
about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already.
Imagine my dissapointment...


Anyways, I'm a biologist and chemist more than a physicist, so PLEASE,
correct me where I am wrong. As the velocity of an object increases,
its apparent mass increases, and time slows, for that object, yes?
And the time dilation and mass increase is relative to the velocity
based upon the observer being a zero point. For 3 objects moving in a
straight line in the same direction, one at .1 c, one at .2 c, one at
.8 c, time dilation will be different for the .8 c object when vied by
the other two objects, yes?  because its traveling at .7 c compared to
one, and .6 c compared to the other, correct?

If that is the case, is there a zero point?  is there an intrinsic
velocity that pretty much EVERYTHING in the galaxy/universe shares?
If so,  what happens to mass and the flow of time as you approach that
zero point?

Confusedly,
Alexander

Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point

Well, my own mental gymnastics says that at such a velocity, mass
decreases to approach zero, and time slows towards zero as well, no?

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
 Vorts,

 So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed
 it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with
 the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm
 about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already.
 Imagine my dissapointment...


 Anyways, I'm a biologist and chemist more than a physicist, so PLEASE,
 correct me where I am wrong. As the velocity of an object increases,
 its apparent mass increases, and time slows, for that object, yes?
 And the time dilation and mass increase is relative to the velocity
 based upon the observer being a zero point. For 3 objects moving in a
 straight line in the same direction, one at .1 c, one at .2 c, one at
 .8 c, time dilation will be different for the .8 c object when vied by
 the other two objects, yes?  because its traveling at .7 c compared to
 one, and .6 c compared to the other, correct?

 If that is the case, is there a zero point?  is there an intrinsic
 velocity that pretty much EVERYTHING in the galaxy/universe shares?
 If so,  what happens to mass and the flow of time as you approach that
 zero point?

 The velocity of the vaccum. Does the vacuum moves? At which speed? And
 in relation to what? the immobile vacuum?
 Einstein's SR disregards all those questions as nonsense, or better said,
 metaphysics. Speeds are only to be measured between material bodies, and
 not correlated against any absolute reference, because that absolute
 reference cannot be measured or determined.
 Does something that cannot be measured or determined exists? In which
 sense, or where, it exists?

Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point

Wouldn't the light pulses only return at the same time if you also
were at the center of the sphere?

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
 In fact, the questions aren't nonsense; they just need to be carefully posed
 to get sensible answers out of them in a universe where SR applies.

 There is a distinguished frame for the universe:  The rest frame of the
 three degree background radiation.  There just is one inertial frame of
 reference in which that's isotropic -- in all other frames it's red shifted
 in one direction, blue shifted in the other.  That frame is (presumably) the
 frame which is at rest relative to the primordial fireball.

 Furthermore, if the universe is a compact manifold and folds back on
 itself -- such as the surface of a sphere -- then there is an intrinsic
 rest frame as well, which can be found by sending pulses of light
 simultaneously in opposite directions.  If the universe is closed, and the
 light eventually comes back to the emitter, then there is just one inertial
 frame in which the two pulses will arrive back at the emitter
 simultaneously.

 More obscurely, if the universe is closed, then the frame just mentioned is
 the one in which the Sagnac effect is null.  All other frames are (in
 effect) rotating (going 'round and 'round the universe).


 On 11-09-23 01:53 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:

 Vorts,

 So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed
 it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with
 the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm
 about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already.
 Imagine my dissapointment...


 Anyways, I'm a biologist and chemist more than a physicist, so PLEASE,
 correct me where I am wrong. As the velocity of an object increases,
 its apparent mass increases, and time slows, for that object, yes?
 And the time dilation and mass increase is relative to the velocity
 based upon the observer being a zero point. For 3 objects moving in a
 straight line in the same direction, one at .1 c, one at .2 c, one at
 .8 c, time dilation will be different for the .8 c object when vied by
 the other two objects, yes?  because its traveling at .7 c compared to
 one, and .6 c compared to the other, correct?

 If that is the case, is there a zero point?  is there an intrinsic
 velocity that pretty much EVERYTHING in the galaxy/universe shares?
 If so,  what happens to mass and the flow of time as you approach that
 zero point?

 The velocity of the vaccum. Does the vacuum moves? At which speed? And
 in relation to what? the immobile vacuum?
 Einstein's SR disregards all those questions as nonsense, or better said,
 metaphysics. Speeds are only to be measured between material bodies, and
 not correlated against any absolute reference, because that absolute
 reference cannot be measured or determined.
 Does something that cannot be measured or determined exists? In which
 sense, or where, it exists?

Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point

Ahh, I gotcha. interesting.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:


 On 11-09-23 02:42 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote:

 Wouldn't the light pulses only return at the same time if you also
 were at the center of the sphere?

 Sorry, I wasn't clear.  The compact manifold in that case is the surface of
 the sphere.  And in that case, you can't be at the center of the sphere;
 it's not part of the universe.  (And all points on the surface are just like
 all other points on the surface.)

 The contents of the sphere, on the other hand, assuming you don't include
 the surface, wouldn't be compact -- it's an open manifold. (There's no
 well-defined edge, when you're inside looking out: any point which is inside
 the sphere can be surrounded by a tiny ball of stuff which is also inside
 the sphere.)

 The surface of the sphere, which is 2-dimensional, none the less can't be
 embedded in a flat 2-dimensional space.

 At least some cosmologists seem to think the real universe is like the
 surface of the sphere (but with more dimensions, of course):  If you go far
 enough in a straight line you find yourself back where you started.  The
 contents of a sphere isn't like that, of course -- if you're living inside a
 sphere, then you'd need to turn around at some point to get back to where
 you started.


 On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
 wrote:

 In fact, the questions aren't nonsense; they just need to be carefully posed
 to get sensible answers out of them in a universe where SR applies.

 There is a distinguished frame for the universe:  The rest frame of the
 three degree background radiation.  There just is one inertial frame of
 reference in which that's isotropic -- in all other frames it's red shifted
 in one direction, blue shifted in the other.  That frame is (presumably) the
 frame which is at rest relative to the primordial fireball.

 Furthermore, if the universe is a compact manifold and folds back on
 itself -- such as the surface of a sphere -- then there is an intrinsic
 rest frame as well, which can be found by sending pulses of light
 simultaneously in opposite directions.  If the universe is closed, and the
 light eventually comes back to the emitter, then there is just one inertial
 frame in which the two pulses will arrive back at the emitter
 simultaneously.

 More obscurely, if the universe is closed, then the frame just mentioned is
 the one in which the Sagnac effect is null.  All other frames are (in
 effect) rotating (going 'round and 'round the universe).


 On 11-09-23 01:53 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:

 Vorts,

 So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed
 it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with
 the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm
 about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already.
 Imagine my dissapointment...


 Anyways, I'm a biologist and chemist more than a physicist, so PLEASE,
 correct me where I am wrong. As the velocity of an object increases,
 its apparent mass increases, and time slows, for that object, yes?
 And the time dilation and mass increase is relative to the velocity
 based upon the observer being a zero point. For 3 objects moving in a
 straight line in the same direction, one at .1 c, one at .2 c, one at
 .8 c, time dilation will be different for the .8 c object when vied by
 the other two objects, yes?  because its traveling at .7 c compared to
 one, and .6 c compared to the other, correct?

 If that is the case, is there a zero point?  is there an intrinsic
 velocity that pretty much EVERYTHING in the galaxy/universe shares?
 If so,  what happens to mass and the flow of time as you approach that
 zero point?

 The velocity of the vaccum. Does the vacuum moves? At which speed? And
 in relation to what? the immobile vacuum?
 Einstein's SR disregards all those questions as nonsense, or better said,
 metaphysics. Speeds are only to be measured between material bodies, and
 not correlated against any absolute reference, because that absolute
 reference cannot be measured or determined.
 Does something that cannot be measured or determined exists? In which
 sense, or where, it exists?

Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than light

2011-09-22 Thread Alexander Hollins

Note, Faster in ATMOSPHERE than light travels in ATMOSPHERE. not faster than C.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:45 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/22/scitech/main20110236.shtml

 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than light

2011-09-22 Thread Alexander Hollins

http://news.yahoo.com/cern-claims-faster-light-particle-measured-180644818.html

I dont have the good link, but a friend of mine with access to several
journals verified, faster than light IN ATMOSPHERE (which is where
they beamed the neutrinos. through the atmosphere).  Its mildly
interesting (neutrinos dont interact with the atmosphere)  but it ISNT
big news, some reporter who thought they knew what they were talking
about heard about it and blew it out of proportion.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:



 On 11-09-22 06:32 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote:

 Note, Faster in ATMOSPHERE than light travels in ATMOSPHERE. not faster than
 C.

 Say what??  But that would be, like, totally ordinary -- electrons do it all
 the time.  That's where Cherenkov radiation comes from.

 It's also not what the article says.  It says:

 But neutrinos have now been observed smashing past this cosmic speed
 barrier of 186,282 miles per second

 That is very clear.  The only cosmic speed barrier is C itself.
 Furthermore, the speed of light in air is about 186,226 miles per second,
 not 186,282 miles per second, which is the speed value the article says the
 neutrinos exceeded.

 So, either the article is wrong, or the observation really was of neutrinos
 going faster than C.

Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than light

2011-09-22 Thread Alexander Hollins

I stand corrected.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
 I've been looking around at the CERN website and cannot find any mention of
 the experiment... so far.

 Can you friend provide us with the Abstract of the publication where he
 claims it specifically says the neutrino beam traveled thru the atmosphere?

 The Yahoo.com article from your link says nothing about the atmosphere, or
 what the neutrino beam traveled thru, whereas the article at physorg.com
 specifically says the beam traveled 'underground'.  This makes sense since
 the particle accelerator where the beam originates is very likely below
 ground, and the neutrino detector almost surely MUST be underground to
 reduce stray neutrinos as much as possible.  All major neutrino detector
 experiments that I've read about place the detector WAY underground... one
 used an old mine-shaft.

 -Mark

 -Original Message-
 From: itsat...@gmail.com [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alexander
 Hollins
 Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 7:04 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than
 light

 http://news.yahoo.com/cern-claims-faster-light-particle-measured-180644818.h
 tml

 I dont have the good link, but a friend of mine with access to several
 journals verified, faster than light IN ATMOSPHERE (which is where
 they beamed the neutrinos. through the atmosphere).  Its mildly
 interesting (neutrinos dont interact with the atmosphere)  but it ISNT
 big news, some reporter who thought they knew what they were talking
 about heard about it and blew it out of proportion.

 On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
 wrote:



 On 11-09-22 06:32 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote:

 Note, Faster in ATMOSPHERE than light travels in ATMOSPHERE. not faster
 than
 C.

 Say what??  But that would be, like, totally ordinary -- electrons do it
 all
 the time.  That's where Cherenkov radiation comes from.

 It's also not what the article says.  It says:

 But neutrinos have now been observed smashing past this cosmic speed
 barrier of 186,282 miles per second

 That is very clear.  The only cosmic speed barrier is C itself.
 Furthermore, the speed of light in air is about 186,226 miles per second,
 not 186,282 miles per second, which is the speed value the article says
 the
 neutrinos exceeded.

 So, either the article is wrong, or the observation really was of
 neutrinos
 going faster than C.

Re: [Vo]:SDSS J102915+172927 is the star that should not exist

2011-08-31 Thread Alexander Hollins

Its been mined for millions of years by the people who lived in a
planet in orbit around it who learned to mine their sun.

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:
 Hi,

 A faint star in the constellation of Leo (The Lion), called SDSS
 J102915+172927 [1], has been found to have the lowest amount of elements
 heavier than helium (what astronomers call metals) of all stars yet
 studied. It has a mass smaller than that of the Sun and is probably more
 than 13 billion years old.

 A widely accepted theory predicts that stars like this, with low mass and
 extremely low quantities of metals, shouldn't exist because the clouds of
 material from which they formed could never have condensed, [2] said
 Elisabetta Caffau (Zentrum fur Astronomie der Universitat Heidelberg,
 Germany and Observatoire de Paris, France), lead author of the paper. It
 was surprising to find, for the first time, a star in this 'forbidden zone',
 and it means we may have to revisit some of the star formation models.

 Ref. http://www.sciencecodex.com/the_star_that_should_not_exist

 Kind regards,

 MoB

Re: [Vo]:Recent comments from Rossi

2011-08-08 Thread Alexander Hollins

That was my thought.  1000 units throughout the country sounds like
google putting units into some of their mobile server trees.

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:
 Hi,

 On 8-8-2011 20:11, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

 Here's my pick of the hour! ;-)
 Seattle / Microsoft. (Ahhh... Probably not! I don't think Microsoft
 has ever shown that much vision.)

 Hmm, what about this one: Mountain View, Ca (Google HQ) ?

 Kind regards,

 MoB

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and Defkalion Split-up?

2011-08-05 Thread Alexander Hollins

Its not an executable, .dat means its a data file. It has processing
instructions for outlook servers. Basically it means its not just
outlook, but a work server outlook.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
 2011/8/6 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com:
 On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 I meant the winmail.dat attachment ... but that seems to be attached to all
 your posts. I thought it contained the scoop on your hold the presses.

 That results from Jones' use of Outlook as his mailer.


 This is quite brutal advertisement by Microsoft: Hey, I'm using
 Outlook, please click my executable attachment!

 But for the topic, link or did not happen!

 - Jouni

Re: [Vo]:new data global warming is not a problem

2011-07-29 Thread Alexander Hollins

no, it says its not as bad as worst case scenarios.  Still increasing,
still holding in heat.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:04 PM,  fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
 http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

 Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Vortex Could Go Down July 25th

2011-07-19 Thread Alexander Hollins

While I agree with you, this has been argued to DEATH and back.

Of course, I'd be willing to set up a Vortex Fan Page on Facebook if
anyone else here uses it.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 What about a forum instead of a discussion list?

Re: [Vo]:Antigravity- Easy Experiment-via Youtube

2011-07-17 Thread Alexander Hollins

one of the big problems in trying to replicate is going to be the
phone. What carrier are they on, what model of phone?  That will have
an effect on the frequency, which would be tied to the effect if real.
 Personally, it looks like air to me, tubes hidden by the batteries.

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote:
 Greetings Vortex,

 An amazing youtube video on an easy antigravity effect.

 Is this real of photo shopped???  Easy  and not much time to
 reproduce..and extremely inexpensive.  CD Disc, Batteries and Cell Phone and
 a nickel for weight.

 http://www.metacafe.com/watch/448034/secret_science_anti_gravity_revealed_homemade/

 For entertainmet purposes onlyexciting IF real.

 Respectfully,
 Ron Kita, Chiralex

 Certain electrets IF optical pure should diffract gravity.
 google: Kita Sarfatti Gravity

Re: [Vo]:They say liquid water can't be hotter than boiling...

2011-07-15 Thread Alexander Hollins

Superheated, and it requires some special circumstances.

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
 So here's a cute experiment, done by accident while on vacation.

 Take a smooth china mug, and fill it with water.

 Stir the water, so it's swirling nicely (if you don't do this only the
 surface will get hot and the experiment probably won't work).

 Put it in a microwave on high power for a minute or two.  I used 2 minutes,
 but the microwave in question was probably not very high power.

 Take it out, stir it *again* so it's swirling nicely, and pop it back into
 the microwave for another minute or two.

 Take it out.  There may be a few bubbles, but on a good morning, it will
 *not* be boiling, not what most of us mean by boiling, anyway.

 Drop a teabag into the cup of water which isn't boiling.

 Whoa, nelly -- bubbles galore!  Now it's boiling!

 Gosh, what was in the cup before I put the teabag in?

Re: [Vo]:They say liquid water can't be hotter than boiling...

2011-07-15 Thread Alexander Hollins

Ive never done swirling, but if you heat to boiling, then let cool, it
removes a lot of gas, and lets you superheat tap water.

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:

 - Original Message -
 From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Cc:
 Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 5:03:11 PM
 Subject: [Vo]:They say liquid water can't be hotter than boiling...

 So here's a cute experiment, done by accident while on vacation.

 Take a smooth china mug, and fill it with water.

 Stir the water, so it's swirling nicely (if you don't do this only the
 surface will get hot and the experiment probably won't work).

 Put it in a microwave on high power for a minute or two.  I used 2 minutes, 
 but
 the microwave in question was probably not very high power.

 Take it out, stir it *again* so it's swirling nicely, and pop it back into
 the microwave for another minute or two.

 Take it out.  There may be a few bubbles, but on a good morning, it will 
 *not*
 be boiling, not what most of us mean by boiling, anyway.

 Drop a teabag into the cup of water which isn't boiling.

 Whoa, nelly -- bubbles galore!  Now it's boiling!

 Gosh, what was in the cup before I put the teabag in?

 I've heard you can use a microwave oven to superheat distilled water in a 
 smooth china mug.
 This news to me that you can superheat ordinary water as long as the water is 
 swirling in the mug.
 Harry

Re: [Vo]:They say liquid water can't be hotter than boiling...

2011-07-15 Thread Alexander Hollins

ermmm...   putting metal in microwave can be BD, mmmkay.


On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:
 Hi,

 From what I know, is that when you want to boil a cup of water in a
 microwave (b.t.w. over here we tend to call it a magnetron),
 you are required to put a metal spoon in the cup of water to make sure it
 will boil in a regular way.

 I seem to recall it has to do something with the surface structure of the
 spoon, so bubbles will be created.
 A similar kind of experiment was done by Mythbusters and others as well with
 a bottle of Coke and some Mentos.
 It was concluded that structure of the Mentos was one of the main reasons
 the Coke gushed like a fountain out of the bottle.

 Kind regards,

 MoB

Re: [Vo]:Universe Resolution Just Increased 13 Orders

2011-07-01 Thread Alexander Hollins

However, Integral's observations are about 10 000 times more accurate
than any previous and show that any quantum graininess must be at a
level of 10-48 m or smaller.

if none were detectable, thats also recreating the possibility that
there is no minimum size, no grain.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
 At 07:55 AM 7/1/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:

 Many cosmological theories presume the pixel size of the universe is
 the Planck Length (1.616 x 10^-35 m).  ... Recent experimental data
 implicates the universe pixel size is 10^13 smaller:

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630111540.htm

 This means that the ultra computer which runs the Matrix is much more
 powerful than previously thought.  ;-)

 By volume, that's a 10^-39 difference !!

Re: [Vo]:Randall Mills Debunks Rossi in Yahoo's SocietyforClassicalPhysics

2011-06-25 Thread Alexander Hollins

us patent law

http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/35uscs112.html

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:28 AM, MJ feli...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 25-Jun-11 01:57, kbar42...@mypacks.net wrote:

 A patent must teach one skilled in the art how to make and use the
 invention. [...]


    In what planet?

    Mark Jordan

Re: [Vo]:OxyVac?

2011-06-15 Thread Alexander Hollins

The concentration of oxygen at that point would be so slight that most
methods of chemically removing it, any I can think of, simply won't
work.

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Wm. Scott Smith scott...@hotmail.com wrote:
 I have wondered why a better vacuum might be made by filling it with oxygen,
 pumping it out, then chemically trapping the rest of the oxygen. --Not
 saying its a good idea, but does anyone care to comment?

 
 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:42:15 +0300
 Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future
 From: peter.gl...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

 Dear Fran,
 We are thinking differently. In this case Piantelli obtains his nanoNi by a
 physical method method, Molecular Beam Epitaxy with the desired morphology
 and the active sites have to be made free, cleaned. . Not the case of
 partially damaged  sites.
 There are many physical and chemical processes of making nanoNI- perhaps
 Rossi has found a better one.
 Vacuum mills is an excellent idea in principle- how high a vacuum can be
 achieved and maintained?
 Alloys opens a new dimension, it is possible some will work better even than
 Ni- but only experiment can say.
 Re Cleaning I give you an example from my practice. Some acrylic monomers
 are extremely sensible to the presence of Sulphur compunds, even under 1
 ppm. To determine analytically S is an ordeal. The engineers add a spoon of
 copper salt to the batch and S is fixed, harmless. Radical solution.


 On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Roarty, Francis X
 francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

 Peter,

     The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a
  limited method  of partially salvaging damaged   sites.  I would suggest
 instead  to  mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small
 amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the
 geometry is being reduced.  Much smaller geometry should be achieved in
 vacuum without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious
 difficulty is collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and
 alloying them by spin melt or sputtering with the inner reac tor wall
 surface.  Perhaps the external cooling system should be already running and
 kept running to keep the smallest geometry of the forming alloys from
 collapsing due to the stiction forces?  I don’t think pristine nano powder
  should require pressure loading of hydrogen and could even operate with the
 powder still under partial vacuum.



 Fran



 From: Peter Gl uck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future



 Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that
 CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases
 from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know
 how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and
 especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high
 temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of

 foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process.



 We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to
 air and its impurities. Strem menos has told in one of his interviews how it
 was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing.



 I believe that clean metal surface- is a sine qua non condition for a
 working material/setup. This is a simple,

 cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all
 those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories.

 Peter



 On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X
 francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:




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

Re: [Vo]:Roman Dodecahedron Mystery

2011-06-14 Thread Alexander Hollins

Crystaline matrix? Its also the natural shape of garnet.

One thing I've noticed looking online, while the linked example is a
hollow ball, a lot of them weren't completely hollow, they just had
shafts that met at the center, but they ALL had a central opening that
joined all the holes.  I wonder if they wove in thread or leather
thongs?

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:48 PM,  mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
 In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:23:41 -0700:
 Hi,
 [snip]
There aren't many hexavalent molecules.

Uranium and chromium are two that come to mind.

... U12H12 ?


 It looks to me like each corner is just a Carbon atom attached to three other
 Carbon atoms and a Hydrogen atom.
 A sort of mini buckyball.



-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com

It's obviously a model of a molecule, with H atoms at the corners. :)




 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Roman Dodecahedron Mystery

2011-06-13 Thread Alexander Hollins

weird

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/10/dodecahedrons-purpose-remains-mystery/

 (see piccy)

 Can you do what the world's archaeologists can't? Can you explain this -- 
 thing?

 It’s been called a war weapon, a candlestick, a child’s toy, a weather
 gauge, an astronomical instrument, and a religious symbol -- just to
 name a few. But what IS this mystery object, really?

 There are books and websites dedicated to properly identifying it,
 dissertations dedicated to unveiling the truth, textbooks and class
 curriculums spent arguing over what its function is. Fans can even
 “Like” it on Facebook.

 Yet the only thing historians will agree on is a name for the odd
 object: a Roman dodecahedron.

 That part was easy, seeing as the mathematical shape of this artifact
 is a dodecahedron. Best described as a bronze or stone geometric
 object, it has twelve flat pentagonal faces, each with a circular hole
 in the middle (not necessarily the same size). All sides connect to
 create a hollowed out center.

 more

Re: [Vo]:Many Worlds and Multiverse are the SAME THING (?)

2011-06-01 Thread Alexander Hollins

What did you THINK multiverse meant?

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
 The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

 Authors: Raphael Bousso, Leonard Susskind
 http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796

 We argue that the many-worlds of quantum mechanics and the many worlds of
 the multiverse are the same thing, and that the multiverse is necessary to
 give exact operational meaning to probabilistic predictions from quantum
 mechanics.

 Decoherence - the modern version of wave-function collapse - is subjective
 in that it depends on the choice of a set of unmonitored degrees of freedom,
 the environment. In fact decoherence is absent in the complete description
 of any region larger than the future light-cone of a measurement event.
 However, if one restricts to the causal diamond - the largest region that
 can be causally probed - then the boundary of the diamond acts as a one-way
 membrane and thus provides a preferred choice of environment. We argue that
 the global multiverse is a representation of the many-worlds (all possible
 decoherent causal diamond histories) in a single geometry.

 We propose that it must be possible in principle to verify
 quantum-mechanical predictions exactly. This requires not only the existence
 of exact observables but two additional postulates: a single observer within
 the universe can access infinitely many identical experiments; and the
 outcome of each experiment must be completely definite. In causal diamonds
 with finite surface area, holographic entropy bounds imply that no exact
 observables exist, and both postulates fail: experiments cannot be repeated
 infinitely many times; and decoherence is not completely irreversible, so
 outcomes are not definite. We argue that our postulates can be satisfied in
 hats (supersymmetric multiverse regions with vanishing cosmological
 constant). We propose a complementarity principle that relates the
 approximate observables associated with finite causal diamonds to exact
 observables in the hat.

 (Being discussed all over the multiverse, eg
 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/26/are-many-worlds-and-the-multiverse-the-same-idea
 )

Re: [Vo]:Many Worlds and Multiverse are the SAME THING (?)

2011-06-01 Thread Alexander Hollins

Umm...   I've seen the suggestion that each probability event creates
multiple possible worlds, based on outcomes, and splits into separate
'verses with each decision...  I think the oldest reference to that
idea I've seen was from the 50's?  Some of Asimov's essays on the
subject.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
 At 01:12 PM 6/1/2011, Alexander Hollins wrote:

 What did you THINK multiverse meant?

 Generally, multiverse has been used to explain the anthropic/goldilocks (not
 too hot, not too cold) effect (and the 10^billion possible universes in
 string theory).
 But all the multiverses are assumed to have been created at the same time,
 and to have evolved seperately.

 But here the multiverse(s) are the RESULT of many-worlds splitting.  I don't
 think that's been done before.

Re: [Vo]:What is the D2 Canister next to the H2 Canister

2011-05-04 Thread Alexander Hollins

I believe the question is, What is canister D2 in the patent?

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Angela Kemmler angela.kemm...@gmx.de wrote:

  Original-Nachricht 
 Datum: Wed, 4 May 2011 13:48:37 +0300
 Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:What is the D2 Canister next to the H2 Canister

 Dear Angela,
 If you read the patent WO 2010/058288 (co-inventor is Piantelli's
 daughter,
 a physicist) and compare it with Rossi's patent you will see why the later
 has problems.
 Piantelli's patent has logical coherence- you can understand WHY you have
 to
 do what it describes.
 Peter


 Yes Peter I read the patent about 2 month ago. The difference is that he has 
 no secret catalyst. A patent must describe all the details an expert needs to 
 replicate an effect and it must explain the best method available at the 
 moment the patent request is made. I don't remember the details of the two 
 Pantelli patents however. Was that your question? Regards, Angela
 --
 Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
 belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de

Re: [Vo]:Isotopic abundance only from stars?

2011-05-03 Thread Alexander Hollins

in our case, natural is a reference to whats found on earth, yes no?

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Michele Comitini
michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:
 So I wonder what *Natural* isotopic abundance means?  Is it an
 average? Over which part of the universe?

 Natural is keyword in food marketing, but here? :-)

 mic

 2011/5/3 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com:
 But this is fission, the opposite of elemental creation.  All the
 same, more evidence for non-homogeneous isotopic distribution.

 T

 On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Michele Comitini
 michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:
 A different theory:

 http://ow.ly/4M7VL

 mic

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Osama Bin Laden Morte

2011-05-02 Thread Alexander Hollins

The Clinton Administration had been acutely aware BL many years prior to the
Bush administration. BL could not be considered a new phenomenon by any
stretch of the imagination when the Bush administration took over.

Hell, during the changeover, Clinton and Bush had a joint security
meeting to brief bush, and Clinton told him, point blank, Bin Laden
will be the most important thing to deal with in your presidency.

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:04 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
 From John Berry

 But interestingly, the FBI officially confirmed that there is no
 hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks.
 The FBI never put the head of al-Qaeda on the wanted list for the
 attacks, nor are there any other formal charges - which exist for
 several other of the involved terrorists.
 The connection between Bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks was made by
 the Bush administration, at the morning of the attacks, before the
 first tower even collapsed. Nearly ten years later, after intensive
 investigation, a government commission, two wars and the
 interrogation under torture of some 750 people detained in Guantanamo
 Bay without charges, no hard evidence could be found that would confirm
 the initial allegation.
 None the less, the same unfounded 11 am allegation of the Bush
 administration is repeated by countless people, in media and government,
 even today and possibly ad infinitum.

 The implication of this post seems to infer that there is no credible hard
 evidence to support a hypothesis that BL  Co. was involved in bringing
 down the Twin Towers. Perhaps a refresher course consisting of a recovered
 video of BL personally talking about the planning and implementation of 9/11
 to followers of his cause (video shot in Afghanistan back in 2001) of will
 help straighten out any disinformation on this matter.

 http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/feature?section=news/national_worldid=8106572

 The Clinton Administration had been acutely aware BL many years prior to the
 Bush administration. BL could not be considered a new phenomenon by any
 stretch of the imagination when the Bush administration took over.

 Incidentally, I have no desire to debate the wisdom of the Bush
 administration -connecting-the-dots- and deciding to liberate Iraq other
 than to say it was a horribly foolish endeavor - and that I'm mad as hell
 that I was led to believe that WMD existed there. Too many lives have been
 lost or maimed in the process. However, to infer that BL was not involved in
 9/11 strikes me as a woefully ignorant hypothesis to support.

 Regards,
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Massive Rossi Claim: 97 E-Cats In Operation Right Now Across 4 Countries

2011-04-29 Thread Alexander Hollins

You do not say anything about the numbers.  Insulting the people
without talking about the numbers is worthless, and makes you look
like a troll and an imbecile.  Is there something wrong with the
numbers they mentioned?  Can you show math saying it IS possible to do
with chemical energy?

Alexander
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 From: Jed Rothwell



 Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote:



Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times in hundreds of labs, and
 ***conclusively verified*** by people such as Levi and Kullander.



 You are too enthusiastic.

 Even Hanno Essén said (on Italian's Skeptics Society (CICAP) magazine
 (Query)) that the test performed on March 29 was a PRELIMINARY TEST. Don't
 say conclusively because it's not true.

 EK's report says:

 . . .  0.11 gram hydrogen and 6 grams of nickel (assuming that we use one
 proton for each nickel atom) are about sufficient to produce 24 MWh through
 nuclear processes assuming that 8 MeV per reaction can be liberated as free
 energy. For comparison, 3 liters of oil or 0.6 kg of hydrogen would give 25
 kWh through chemical burning.  Any chemical process for producing 25
 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only
 alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that
 gives rise to the measured energy production.

 That sounds conclusive to me.





 I find it closer to delusional than conclusive. These two Swedes are acting
 more like cheer-leaders than top scientists. Kullander is ‘emeritus’ and
 could be approaching senility, as far as a few of his comments are
 concerned. Essen is not listed at KTH as a member of the department of
 nuclear physics. Essen is lecturer to undergraduates. That pretty much tells
 it all.



 Even a second-rate undergraduate would be unlikely to suggest that a nuclear
 reaction can convert nickel to copper at the natural isotope ratio with no
 residual radioactivity. LOL.

Re: [Vo]:Another Asperger's Victim

2011-03-28 Thread Alexander Hollins

I take issue with the diagnosis. One of the primary symptoms of
asberger's is an inability to relate and discuss with other people,
and he seems to have no issue doing that.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369595/Jacob-Barnett-12-higher-IQ-Einstein-develops-theory-relativity.html

Autistic boy,12, with higher IQ than Einstein develops his own theory
of relativity
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

A 12-year-old child prodigy has astounded university professors after
grappling with some of the most advanced concepts in mathematics.

Jacob Barnett has an IQ of 170 - higher than Albert Einstein - and is
now so far advanced in his Indiana university studies that professors
are lining him up for a PHD research role.

The boy wonder, who taught himself calculus, algebra, geometry and
trigonometry in a week, is now tutoring fellow college classmates
after hours.

His mother, not sure if her child was talking nonsense or genius, sent
a video of his theory to the renowned Institute for Advanced Study
near Princeton University.

According to the Indiana Star, Institute astrophysics professor Scott
Tremaine -himself a world renowned expert - confirmed the
authenticity of Jake's theory.

In an email to the family, Tremaine wrote: 'I'm impressed by his
interest in physics and the amount that he has learned so far.

'The theory that he's working on involves several of the toughest
problems in astrophysics and theoretical physics.

'Anyone who solves these will be in line for a Nobel Prize.'

Including a vid of Jacob instructing on methods of integration in calculus.

Re: [Vo]:The Other Side

2011-03-18 Thread Alexander Hollins

25 percent

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 Quick, without Google, take a guess what percentage of land on the
 earth is antipodal, ie a line from the land drawn diametrically
 through the earth touches land?

 I was surprised at the answer.

 T

Re: [Vo]:WTF is this?

2011-03-07 Thread Alexander Hollins

a gui statistics generator.

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 http://www.sharenator.com/w/lenr-canr.org

[Vo]:Traffic Waves

2011-02-21 Thread Alexander Hollins

Hey Bill, your traffic waves video just went viral.  Its been posted
on a bunch of networking sites and webcomics, and several of my
friends have independently posted it various places.

Re: [Vo]:Feature or flaw?

2010-12-03 Thread Alexander Hollins

Some peanut butter jars dont do that...

on the original post, I am familiar with the bottle design.  The top
cup has little measuring marks, and the instructions on the bottle
clearly tell you what to do.  Remember, RTFM!

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:22 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Fran sez:

 ·    Humbled by chidrens mouthwash! I couldn't get the
 mouthwash to pour into my cup - a tube and seal in the
 container kept the liquid trapped every time I tried to pout it!
 unintentionally I squeezed the plastic bottle while picking it
 up and saw the liquid start to fill the throat of the bottle -
 Perhaps I should re-examine my life for similar anti spill
 features instead of always assuming a flaw?

 FWIW,

 I have a similar beef with the folks who designed apple sauce jars.
 For some asinine reason the screw off necks are inappropriately narrow
 making it nearly impossible to extract the last portions of sauce
 tenaciously clinging to the sides of the jar. A rubber spatula helps,
 but it's a messy dirty job any way you tackle it.

 A more appropriate design had long ago been successfully incorporated
 into the shape used in products like peanut butter jars, which are
 made out of plastic by the way. Peanut butter screw-top openings ARE
 the diameter of the top of the jar. No narrowing of the bottleneck.
 Therefore, absolutely no bottleneck problems extracting the last
 molecules of butter out of those plastic containers.

 I suspect it's an issue where the apple sauce product review board has
 simply not cared to ask its customers what they think about the shape
 of the antiquated jars. I think they need an uppity young lad fresh
 out of design school versed in the techniques of 3D modeling software,
 like RHINO, to shake things up a bit. Alas, I'm afraid the old guard
 will have to retire first before a brave new paradigm consisting of
 wide lids can be introduced. ;-)

 Thanks for the story, Fran.

 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Google G-mail has a low opinion of Harbach-O'Sullivan

2010-09-26 Thread Alexander Hollins

It came through to me just fine at gmail.  The spam filter is
personalized to your own settings, and things you have marked as spam
previously yourself.

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 Google's g-mail spam filter trashed the latest contribution to Vortex
 by Jack Harbach-O'Sullivan.
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Are SSD substantially faster than hard disks?

2010-09-24 Thread Alexander Hollins

ssds are generally slower, i thought, in actual use.

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 This is off topic, but if anyone has experience with these SSD things,
 please contact me. Someone told me that the performance improvement is
 small, and the new 15000 rpm hard disks are actually faster. I find that
 hard to believe.

 I cannot find many comparisons. A 2008 NY Times article says an SSD improved
 overall performance by half and disk performance increased fivefold on a
 Mac laptop.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)

2010-09-21 Thread Alexander Hollins

well, their own speed would let the prop spin as drag, but it would
have to slow down eventually.

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 I do not see how this can work! They are going with the wind, so if they
 start to travel at the same speed as the wind, the propeller should stop
 turning.

 Maybe I am missing something.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Talk about nuking the leftovers

2010-08-10 Thread Alexander Hollins

Thank you!  I did not know they changed, but i know my newer pyrex
feels, hefts, and bakes different than older pyrex i have, and is weak
in comparison. that explains it.

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 Curious side note: to the breaking of the Pyrex bowl in this video - via
 plasma contact…



 This breakage should not have happened so quickly, IMHO …



 Pyrex is the brand name for Corning glassware - and it was originally
 borosilicate glass. Very tough stuff. Due to cost (profit, that is) the
 Pyrex manufactured in the US these days for home use is made of tempered
 soda-lime glass, which is much less shock and heat-resistant than
 borosilicate. This change happened many years ago. This kind of “change for
 the worse” is probably why this bowl broke with only moderate plasma contact
 – it was the new and inferior kind of Pyrex. This is a guess.



 OTOH borosilicate would undoubtedly be poised to react, if any neutrons were
 created in the plasma ball (this is because of the high cross-section of
 B10) and the result is a highly energetic alpha particle and lithium ion,
 over 2+MeV, which could create a fracture zone in the glass.



 But neutrons would be highly unlikely, right?



 At any rate, a feature of borosilicate could effectively turn nuking
 (figurative) into nuking (the real thing) especially if there was anything
 in the plasma which could undergo LENR (like D).



 And the second side note: this demonstrates something that the famous
 Russian - Sakharov patented decades ago – a plasma reactor which does not
 require a vacuum, since it naturally forms it own insulating double layer,
 even at STP which keeps the plasma from quenching. That device never found a
 niche, unfortunately.



 However, I am pretty sure this kind of plasma ball - is only viable in the
 ‘radar range’ situation, when there is plenty of soot (nano-carbon) in the
 originating flame. It is doubtful that this plasma could be maintained for
 many seconds when started with an alcohol flame, for instance.



 ERGO as a third side note: there is the graphene à f/H possibility, which
 has been mentioned before:



 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg26913.html



 Two bad Andrei did not know about f/H and graphene … since he was “the
 establishment” at that time.







 From: Jones Beene



 You have heard the term “nuking” used to describe rapid heating in a
 microwave oven.

 Amazingly, here is a low tech way to make a stable plasma, using a common
 candle as the starter for the flame which becomes a plasma ball.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7RFyh5ABcQ

 No vacuum, nor magnetic confinement, nor even a Farnsworth Fusor is
 required.

 In this case, the experiment ran a little too long - and the Pyrex bowl was
 sacrificed (for science)

 Yet … and here is an odd implication: did you realize that deuterated wax is
 available ?

 For a few naive parents of precocious students, realize that your average
 teenage science nerd may have already ordered some of this wax. Talk about
 the scary possibility of “fusion in  a budget” !

 Not sure I care to imagine all of the further possibilities ….

 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Somewhat OFF TOPIC Merchants of Doubt

2010-07-21 Thread Alexander Hollins

yes, like 20 years ago when they were just as intricate, and we all
had gps and autocad

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 Robin wrote:

 It's obvious to me that the more complex crop circles that just appear in a
 single evening can't possibly have been created with common technology.
 There
 may be advanced black ops technology that is capable of it . . .

 Jed Wrote:



 I do not know much about this, but I would be cautious about making that
 assertion. Has anyone made a video of a crop circle forming.







 Yup. There was a PBS special, and quite a number of YouTube videos that
 demonstrate how the locals and/or the ETs do it, like:



 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M6vP8-SbU0



 For 99 out of 100 of them, you can find a dozen or so engineering
 undergrads, who design an elaborate and “deeply meaningful” symbol using
 AutoCAD and astronomy charts, then construct it in only a few hours using
 satellite navigation signals and iPhones (and a few six packs), and the
 pièce de résistance is to spread around radioactive ore – so that it will
 set off Geiger counters.



 The most telling detail for most of this activity (~99 out of 100) is
 probably that - year after year, crop circle “season” coincides precisely
 with the end of the school year and the beginning of summer vacation.



 But … lest we get too pedantically logical, there is that lingering (~1 out
 of 100) which we’re not all that sure about – and don’t forget that summer
 vacation this is also the best time for ETs to ‘visit’ since every bit of
 mischief that they might chose to get into can easily be blamed on those
 same students who made the other 99 J



 Plus they like our produce on K-PAX so why come early?



 Jones

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Unexpected utterances at the White House

2010-06-29 Thread Alexander Hollins

AWESOME!  My sister is taking French at the moment, have to see if she
can figure it out.

Thanks Jed.

Alex

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 Alexander Hollins wrote:

 Yup, my hovercraft is full of eels.

 See:

 http://www.omniglot.com/language/phrases/hovercraft.htm

 - Jed

[Vo]:electron slit diffraction

2010-06-23 Thread Alexander Hollins

Hey all, a friend on a more bio based list is asking about electron
slit diffraction experiments.  Anyone have links or sources on some
good ones to pass on, in particular where the experimenter did their
math completely?

Re: [Vo]:Equivalence breaks down.

2010-06-16 Thread Alexander Hollins

i copied and pasted a piece from the article i linked.  thought it
would be interesting.

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Roarty, Francis X
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:
 Alexander,
        You only mention gravity but overlooked time. we are all accelerating 
 equivalently at 9.8m/s^2 in earth's gravity well and time runs slower than an 
 observer outside a gravity well...not as slow as approaching an event horizon 
 but still measurably slower as proved by the need to correct GPS satellites. 
 Time also slows equivalently for objects with spatial velocity approaching 
 luminal values. IMHO the ability of mass to slow time is multiplied by 
 wavelength suppression when conductive cavity walls take on Casimir geometry. 
 The suppression of longer wavelengths inside the cavity walls forms a 
 reservoir of higher energy density outside the cavity walls equivalent to a 
 much larger mass but unlike the slow gradient of a gravity well this method 
 is abrupt which creates
 The opportunity for a unique phenomena not available at the macro level. The 
 abrupt change bordered by the cavity walls allows any small holes or defects 
 to create a venturi where the reservoir maintains a constant stream that is 
 faster than the isotropic value outside the cavity - effectively utilizing 
 the typical slowing effect of mass on time to accelerate it in a very small 
 confined space between the walls of a Casimir cavity. This interpretation 
 would mean longer wavelengths are not displaced from the space inside the 
 cavity but instead look like higher frequency wavelengths because they are 
 being accelerated in time. No need for near luminal velocity on the spatial 
 axis because we are instead directly manipulating the time axis.
 Regards
 Fran
 http://froarty.scienceblog.com/16/relativistic-interpretation-of-casimir-effect/

 -Original Message-
 From: itsat...@gmail.com [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alexander 
 Hollins
 Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 3:57 PM
 To: vortex-l
 Subject: [Vo]:Equivalence breaks down.

 http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25331/
 The equivalence principle is one of the more fascinating ideas in
 modern science. It asserts that gravitational mass and inertial mass
 are identical. Einstein put it like this: the gravitational force we
 experience on Earth is identical to the force we would experience were
 we sitting in a spaceship accelerating at 1g. Newton might have said
 that the m in F=ma is the same as the ms in F=Gm1m2/r^2.

[Vo]:Equivalence breaks down.

2010-06-14 Thread Alexander Hollins

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25331/
The equivalence principle is one of the more fascinating ideas in
modern science. It asserts that gravitational mass and inertial mass
are identical. Einstein put it like this: the gravitational force we
experience on Earth is identical to the force we would experience were
we sitting in a spaceship accelerating at 1g. Newton might have said
that the m in F=ma is the same as the ms in F=Gm1m2/r^2.

Re: [Vo]:BP had 760 violations while Exxon had only 1

2010-06-03 Thread Alexander Hollins

um, the pipe burst out. its a hollow column of rock.

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
I can't believe they can't stop the oil spill after more than six weeks.
At this point it sounds like something intentional to me.

Don't they know about mechanical vices?

As they have access to the base of the leaking pipe, a powerful enough
mechanical vice can be used to slowly compress the pipe, until closing it.
The mechanical vice will be remotely operated and put into place, of
course. They can test the special equipment on the ground all that is
needed, until satisfied, to be almost certain that it will work.
I don't understand why they stick to using methods whose results are
relatively unpredictable, instead of focusing in a single well designed
method with a high probability of success from the beginning.

Mauro

On 06/03/2010 04:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jon Stewart on the Daily Show quoted an interview
with BP managing director Bob Dudley, conducted
by George Stephanopoulos. Apparently, in the last
3 years, BP's facilities have been cited by OSHA
for 760 egregious, willful safety violations. This compares to:

Sunoco 8
ConocoPhillips 8
Citago 2
Exxon 1

See:

http://www.columbusalive.com/live/content/features/stories/2010/06/03/the-daily-show-the-spilling-fields.html

This does not surprise me. When you look into the
history of severe industrial accidents and
catastrophes such as the Titanic sinking, the
Challenger explosion, and the accidents at Three
Mile Island or Brown's Ferry, you usually find
precursor events such as smaller accidents or
close calls. You find incompetence or criminal
mismanagement. You might say that accidents don't happen by accident.

Here is an example of a close-call that should
never have happened, and an example of muddled
thinking in upper management. Before the
Challenger exploded, the o-rings on the Space
Shuttle tank partially eroded in previous
launches, something they were never expected to
do, or designed to do. Quoting Feynman, What Do
You Care What Other People Think?, p. 244:

. . . in flight 51-C, it was noted that the
erosion depth was only one-third of the radius.
It had been noted in an experiment cutting the
ring that cutting it as deep as one radius was
necessary before the ring failed. Instead of
being very concerned that varia負ions of poorly
understood conditions might reasonably create a
deeper erosion this time, it was asserted there was a safety factor of
three.

This is a strange use of the engineer's term
safety factor. If a bridge is built to
withstand a certain load with觔ut the beams
permanently deforming, cracking, or break虹ng, it
may be designed for the materials used to
actually stand up under three times the load.
This safety factor is to allow for uncertain
excesses of load, or unknown extra loads, or
weaknesses in the material that might have
unex計ected flaws, et cetera. But if the expected
load comes on to the new bridge and a crack
appears in a beam, this is a failure of the
design. There was no safety factor at all, even
though the bridge did not actually collapse
because the crack only went one-third of the way
through the beam. The O-rings of the solid rocket
boosters were not designed to erode. Erosion was
a clue that something was wrong. Erosion was not
something from which safety could be inferred.

There was no way, without full understanding,
that one could have confidence that conditions
the next time might not produce erosion three
times more severe than the time before.
Nevertheless, officials fooled themselves into
thinking they had such understanding and
confidence, in spite of the peculiar variations
from case to case. A mathematical model was made
to calculate erosion. This was a model based not
on physical understanding but on empirical curve fitting. . . .

[This gives empirical curve fitting a bad name . . .]

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Gigantic sinkhole in Guatemala

2010-06-01 Thread Alexander Hollins

We have similar, though not as large, ones here in AZ, that are
largely caused by water table erosion.  The water table drops, and
soil compacts under its own weight.  You have larger and larger gaps
down below as sections of soil drop, making several gaps that slowly
move upwards.  At a critical point, the surface drops, and some of the
gas escapes.  at that point, pankcake scenario, as well as dirt
filling into gaps down below, natural caverns, ect.

When you add that they are having volcanic activity right now, gas
pockets and moving underground soil and bedrock creating gaps seems
extra plausible.

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 See:

 http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/06/01/central.america.storm.deaths/

 This is mind-blowing. I do not see how such a giant hole could form with
 this shape: a giant, deep, round shaft, big enough to swallow up a 3-story
 building.

 Sinkholes are common in Georgia and Florida but I have never heard of one
 like this. As far as I know they are caused by an underground flow of water.
 The water hollows out a volume of earth which then collapses from above. I
 do not see how it could hollow out such a huge volume without the collapse
 occurring earlier than it did.

 In Atlanta, antiquated sewer and broken water lines cause sinkholes and
 sudden collapses. Several years ago one opened up suddenly in a parking lot
 downtown, where dirt and asphalt had been piled on top of the pipeline for
 years, finally breaking it. The hole opened suddenly and a pedestrian fell
 in and was swept away. I do not think the body was ever found. It sounds
 like something from a horror movie but it really happened.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Peer review and resistance to progress in 1666

2010-05-31 Thread Alexander Hollins

the button guild.  The RIAA of their time.

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 Quote from R. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers, (Simon and Shuster,
 1953), p. 21:


 We are back in France; the year, 1666.

 The capitalists of the day face a disturbing challenge which the widening
 market mechanism has inevitably brought in its wake: change.

 The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving industry
 should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The verdict: If a
 cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to his own invention, he
 must not set it on the loom, but should obtain permission from the judges of
 the town to employ the number and length of threads that he desires, after
 the question has been considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of
 the oldest weavers of the guild. One can imagine how many suggestions for
 change were tolerated.

 Shortly after the matter of cloth weaving has been disposed of, the
 button-makers guild raises a cry of outrage; the tailors are beginning to
 make buttons out of cloth, an unheard-of thing. The government, indignant
 that an innovation should threaten a settled industry, imposes a fine on the
 cloth button makers and even on those who wear cloth buttons. But the
 wardens of the button guild are not yet satisfied. They demand the right to
 search people's homes and wardrobes and even to arrest them on the streets
 if they are seen wearing these subversive goods.

 And this dread of change and innovation is not just the comic resistance of
 a few frightened merchants. Capital is fighting in terror against change,
 and no holds are barred. In England a revolutionary patent for a stocking
 frame is not only denied in 1623, but the Privy Council orders the dangerous
 contraption abolished. In France the importation of printed calicoes is
 threatening to undermine the clothing industry. It is met with measures
 which cost the lives of sixteen thousand people! In Valence alone on one
 occasion 77 persons are sentenced to be hanged, 58 broken on the wheel, 631
 sent to the galleys, and one lone and lucky individual set free for the
 crime of dealing in forbidden calico wares. . . .


 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Just for fun...

2010-05-21 Thread Alexander Hollins

I've been working on this, educating people about science, in
particular space travel, and rekindling that national interest in
going to the moon.  A few friends of mine and I are working on
creating a non profit for that purpose.  Sigh, the problem it seems
with non profits is no one will contribute until you are a registered
non profit, but you can't really get the paperwork and filing done to
BECOME a non profit until some people contribute...  Oh the things I
would do if I were wealthy.

Alexander

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Kyle Mcallister
kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.com wrote:
 --- On Wed, 5/19/10, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
 orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

 All good points, Kyle. The only individual I can think of
 that is trying to
 reverse this trend is Dean Kamen, inventor of Segway.
 Segway is also not
 practical but it's still an impressive product that has
 found a niche
 market. And who knows...

 Kamen's got a hell of a lot more money than I do... United Neko is after all, 
 a multi-dollar corporation. So far, our best funding source has been the Sofa 
 Cushion Federal Credit Union (member FDIC, an equal housing lender).

 But more seriously. I went around town telling people about this thing, 
 and some other stuff I've done/seen. I've seen the polls out there that say 
 American laypersons are scientifically inept, or don't care about anything to 
 do with science, etc. I don't know /who/ is being polled, but they were not 
 like that in Biloxi, Mississippi, and they aren't in Wheatfield, New York. 
 They eat the stuff up when told about it. A black kid at work today was 
 milling about the shop as I worked on his car. He struck up a conversation 
 with me. Most people would expect, from his race and style of dress, that 
 he'd be more interested in rap than anything else.

 Wrong.

 I told him about the flame radio. He was there for a long time past what was 
 required to work on his vehicle, simply because he wanted to know /how 
 something so simple can pick up radio waves./ We discussed all sorts of 
 things, including the cancellation of the plans to return to the Moon. Turns 
 out he wanted to see men walk there again. The discussion he and I had made 
 my day.

 There are people, young people included, out there who are willing to grab on 
 to this stuff. But how are we to get them motivated?

 --Kyle

[Vo]:Plants naturally use quantum entanglement

2010-05-20 Thread Alexander Hollins

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2010/05/10/untangling-quantum-entanglement/

The upshot?  photosynthesis works because the dyes that absorb
sunlight are entagled with electrons in the energy production section
of the chloroplast, and instantly transfer absorbed energy.

Re: [Vo]:Plants naturally use quantum entanglement

2010-05-20 Thread Alexander Hollins

no, its between the chlorophyl and processing station within the same
chloroplast within each cell.

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Roarty, Francis X
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:
 So if we take 2 sibling plants and transplant leaf clippings such that their 
 entanglements remain while
 Their biological needs are met by their host we could separate the plants and 
 develop an instant form of communication
 Between the adopted leaves?
 Fran

Re: [Vo]:Hit again

probably being blocked if you are using a modern browser. .co domains
are usually redirects to catch typos.  I think .co is colombia, i
could be wrong.

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:09 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
 From Frank

 We were hit again. I searched for my name and the alien scientist.
 I come up with something from watercolor.co. I took a look.
 My advice is don't look.

 Of course I looked!

 It took awhile to the virus off of my computer.

 They are now using our stuff to attract readers to there virus pages.
 We can't have that many readers to make it worthwile to do this.

 Watercolor.co is a no-hit. Maybe it's already been removed. (hope so)

 OTOH, Watercolor.com brings up a web site peddling paintings and art work
 supplies, a far cry from hard core porn. It's actually appears to be
 redirection web site, pointing to numerous other web sites where art and
 supplies are sold.


 Regards,
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Vertical farms

Thank you Jed.  My morning bus ride and mile walk was filled with
planning out how to build such a building. A lot of the designs on the
webpage seem to have a LOT to do with how to shape the building to
make best use of sunlight.  My thought?  LCD monitors.  I don't know
if you've ever taken one apart, but the light source is a single high
power bulb at the top, and it shines down to a sandwich of two plastic
sheets. I'm not sure how it works, but that sandwich lights up evenly
all the way through, no spot near the top brighter than near the
bottom. and there is VERY little leakage from the bottom, it pretty
much uses 90-95 % of the light, and still is as bright at the bottom.
 I'm curious how long you can make those, you could have mirrors
funneling sunlight into a sheet like that , have an even amount of
light down a wide room.  with a little jiggery-pokery you can even
lower lighting conditions for certain rooms, and funnel the extra
light to other rooms with plants that can use it.

My other thought was for an herb garden, most herbs grow in bushes to
about a foot and a half before you harvest. I've got a mental image of
a tiered setup. each row is about 6-7 inches higher than the row in
front of it, each tier 18 inches deep, so that you have a gentle slope
up. There will still be wasted sunlight if you have a direct sunlight
through the window setup, so mirror the base of each tier so that
light filtering THROUGH the plants get reflected back, doing double
duty.  Plus, if the mirrors are set up with an upwards angle, another
set of mirrors on the ceiling could then reflect extra light back onto
the topmost/rearmost tiers of plants.  Most herbs will soak up as much
sunlight as you can give them if they have enough water and C02.

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 See:

 http://www.verticalfarm.com/

 This is similar to what I described in chapter 16 of my book, and what the
 defunct Cosmoplant Corp. did in Japan. However, these plans call for much
 less energy than the Cosmoplant approach.

 QUOTE FROM WEBSITE:

 By the year 2050, nearly 80% of the earth's population will reside in urban
 centers. Applying the most conservative estimates to current demographic
 trends, the human population will increase by about 3 billion people during
 the interim. An estimated 10E9 hectares of new land (about 20% more land
 than is represented by the country of Brazil) will be needed to grow enough
 food to feed them, if traditional farming practices continue as they are
 practiced today. At present, throughout the world, over 80% of the land that
 is suitable for raising crops is in use (sources: FAO and NASA).
 Historically, some 15% of that has been laid waste by poor management
 practices. What can be done to avoid this impending disaster? . . .

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hit again

http://www1.weguardyourpc-31p.net/ is the actual website, and with
all the other stuff on it, its as I stated, its simply an automated
grabber of search terms. searching for your video yourself is whats
caused that to get linked.

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:37 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
Here is the link that appears as my home page that attempts to load up your
computer with virus.
It appears as watercolor dot com as GOOGLE It says Zero Pont Technologies
by Frank Znidasic. I am still concerned that the attack is personnal.

Once the Alien Scientist reached over 50,000 hits weard things started to
happen. I only want to work on
new energy. I have searched for my name in the past to see who was posting
my papers. I have now
found out that this is dangerous.
http://www1.weguardyourpc-31p.net/?p=p52dcWtmcF%2FCj8bYbn2AeVik12qTYGeMnNah2qduWJjOxaCbkX1%2BbF6orKWeZpWeZZVkl2aanI6Io6THodjXoFeob1zZytell3FfmqGgnXaHo83LqG1TnaJ1m12QYWaUZZuSlWJsWKjKx6Bfpqd2ZWprbGuYYpyXZFahp2R1lV%2BZZGKdYpuVllealXO6tImwm5h2bG9n

-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 6:09 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hit again

From Frank

We were hit again. I searched for my name and the alien scientist.
I come up with something from watercolor.co. I took a look.
My advice is don't look.

Of course I looked!

It took awhile to the virus off of my computer.

They are now using our stuff to attract readers to there virus pages.
We can't have that many readers to make it worthwile to do this.

Watercolor.co is a no-hit. Maybe it's already been removed. (hope so)

OTOH, Watercolor.com brings up a web site peddling paintings and art work
supplies, a far cry from hard core porn. It's actually appears to be
redirection web site, pointing to numerous other web sites where art and
supplies are sold.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Vertical farms