Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/27/2015 03:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Mesons are produced first then muons are produced by meson decay. 
Holmlid states that mesons are generated by Rydberg hydrogen matter 
when stimulated by light, Rework your theory to cover these outlier facts.


Well then, in order for my "theory" (we're not even there yet) to be 
valid, or at least applicable here, (and leaving your "first" aside) 
mesons too would have to be produced as a result of synthesis, i.e. as a 
kind of reverse decay. And then we have a problem, because mouns are in 
the meson decay path... unless (and remember, we're in fantasy land) 
mesons are too the (secondary) end result of a synthesis of already 
synthesized mouns, and available background muon neutrinos. Some muons 
gets synthesized further into pions, again due to the interaction with 
the background neutrino flux.
These pions then decay into muons again via conventional meson decay, 
and there your "first" is applicable.
I'm now thinking that maybe(just maybe) a whole gamut of reverse beta 
decay reactions is available, under certain specific conditions (let's 
say, inside an ultra dense material, which is electromagnetically 
stimulated). And then you suddenly have transmutation, and fusion, the 
whole range of effects, just as the direct result of a new kind of 
reaction, which is the reverse of beta decay. It could be called reverse 
beta decay or, better, (neutrino based) hadron synthesis.


Mauro



On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar 
<mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar>> wrote:


On 09/27/2015 11:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


To summarizethepresent LENRsituation, ifLeifHolmlid’s workis
accurate:

The importantspecificdetail which is easy to overlook, since
manygroupshave pursuedmuon catalyzed fusion “MCF”for decades, is
thatnowin 2015,thereappears to betwo basic varietiesof MCF–the
old version requiringhighenergy input andthe new version which is
more robust- andis alow energyprocess

Let’s call them

1) MCF/h…which can be triggered by an accelerator beam which
produces muons, or by cosmic ray muons

2) MCF/c… which can be triggered by muons which are produced/in
situ/by the dynamics of the reaction itselfand thus involves
positive feedback and a limited chain reactionwith little gamma
or neutron radiation.



What if mouns are produced or synthesized /in situ/ from the
background neutrino flux? i.e. the reverse reaction to Moun decay
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon#Muon_decay> is occurring. In
moun decay, a muon decays into a muon neutrino, and(via a W⁻
boson) an electron and an electron antineutrino. Sadly, I don't
know enough particle physics to know if the reverse reaction is
possible(let's call it neutrino-based muon synthesis), but
energetically it certainly is, because of this muon decay mode.
What about the needed electron antineutrinos? What about other
possible paths for neutrino-based muon synthesis?

The ultra dense material is acting then as kind of "fishing net"
for the elusive neutrinos. In a form of neutrino capturing
process, in this particular case first an electron in the material
interacts with an electron antineutrino, producing a W⁻ boson, and
then that boson promptly encounters a muon neutrino, producing a
moun. Those mouns in turn go ahead and cause some muon catalysed
fusion.

And there you have it. The lack of gammas can be because muons
produced this way have just the right kinetic energy to cause MCF
without releasing gammas. Which begs the question, I know, but, in
fantasy land we all can be happy, and have what we need for our
dreams to come true. What I'm saying is that of course this may be
a totally impossible reaction, for very good (and already known)
reasons. But I thought that I'll mention it here, nevertheless. As
was once famously said, only those who wager can win.

Mauro


This mirrors nuclear fusion itself, where there is hot fusion and
cold fusion.

All of the companies in theMCFfield, and most of the R prior to
Holmlid, waspursuingMCF/h. The economics for MCF/h appear to be
hopelessly expensive, due to the need for a beam-line toproducemuons.

Notably,the secondversionMCF/crequires dense deuteriumthe first
does not.This appears to be an absolute requirement. No dense
deuterium, no MCF/c.

An accelerator is not needed ifa population ofdense deuterium is
present.Typically an alkali metal is require to produce dense
deuterium – like lithium or potassium, as well as a ferromagnetic
electrode, like nickel or iron.However, dense deuterium is not
enoughfor fusion, and theMCF/crequires a light source,which can
be in the visible or IR range-andpreferentiallythis isa coherent
light source.It can be a low-powered laserfor instance.

Final

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/27/2015 04:19 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
No matter where the experiment is performed, neutrinos are not a 
stimulant or a causation of of muon production: light is.


Neutrinos are everywhere, so, they are always available. They very well 
can be a needed ingredient, because they are ubiquitous. The problem is 
nobody knows how and even if neutrinos interact with matter.
Maybe(just maybe) the main reaction involves electrons and neutrinos in 
an ultra dense material, and photons act just as triggers or stimulants 
for it.


Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/27/2015 11:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

RE: [Vo]:Revelations

To summarizethepresent LENRsituation, ifLeifHolmlid’s workis accurate:

The importantspecificdetail which is easy to overlook, since 
manygroupshave pursuedmuon catalyzed fusion “MCF”for decades, is 
thatnowin 2015,thereappears to betwo basic varietiesof MCF–the old 
version requiringhighenergy input andthe new version which is more 
robust- andis alow energyprocess


Let’s call them

1) MCF/h…which can be triggered by an accelerator beam which produces 
muons, or by cosmic ray muons


2) MCF/c… which can be triggered by muons which are produced/in 
situ/by the dynamics of the reaction itselfand thus involves positive 
feedback and a limited chain reactionwith little gamma or neutron 
radiation.




What if mouns are produced or synthesized /in situ/ from the background 
neutrino flux? i.e. the reverse reaction to Moun decay 
 is occurring. In moun 
decay, a muon decays into a muon neutrino, and(via a W⁻ boson) an 
electron and an electron antineutrino. Sadly, I don't know enough 
particle physics to know if the reverse reaction is possible(let's call 
it neutrino-based muon synthesis), but energetically it certainly is, 
because of this muon decay mode. What about the needed electron 
antineutrinos? What about other possible paths for neutrino-based muon 
synthesis?


The ultra dense material is acting then as kind of "fishing net" for the 
elusive neutrinos. In a form of neutrino capturing process, in this 
particular case first an electron in the material interacts with an 
electron antineutrino, producing a W⁻ boson, and then that boson 
promptly encounters a muon neutrino, producing a moun. Those mouns in 
turn go ahead and cause some muon catalysed fusion.


And there you have it. The lack of gammas can be because muons produced 
this way have just the right kinetic energy to cause MCF without 
releasing gammas. Which begs the question, I know, but, in fantasy land 
we all can be happy, and have what we need for our dreams to come true. 
What I'm saying is that of course this may be a totally impossible 
reaction, for very good (and already known) reasons. But I thought that 
I'll mention it here, nevertheless. As was once famously said, only 
those who wager can win.


Mauro


This mirrors nuclear fusion itself, where there is hot fusion and cold 
fusion.


All of the companies in theMCFfield, and most of the R prior to 
Holmlid, waspursuingMCF/h. The economics for MCF/h appear to be 
hopelessly expensive, due to the need for a beam-line toproducemuons.


Notably,the secondversionMCF/crequires dense deuteriumthe first does 
not.This appears to be an absolute requirement. No dense deuterium, no 
MCF/c.


An accelerator is not needed ifa population ofdense deuterium is 
present.Typically an alkali metal is require to produce dense 
deuterium – like lithium or potassium, as well as a ferromagnetic 
electrode, like nickel or iron.However, dense deuterium is not 
enoughfor fusion, and theMCF/crequires a light source,which can be in 
the visible or IR range-andpreferentiallythis isa coherent light 
source.It can be a low-powered laserfor instance.


Finally, there could beone or moreversions of cold fusion which do not 
require dense deuterium, and do not involve muons.Since muon detection 
is highly specialized and was never implemented in the first 25 years 
of LENR, it is impossible to say if the earlyexperimentsinadvertently 
produced dense deuteriumor not.Since the early experiments did not 
produceverymuch gamma or neutron radiation,it is tempting to opine 
thatthis impliesthey were operating in the MCF/c range,and 
wereproducing dense deuteriumand undetected muons.Early cold fusion 
work wasdifficultto replicate. This could indicate that an unknown 
parameter waspresent andnot always being met. For MCF/c, that 
parameter could have been aproperlight source.


*From:*Eric Walker

Ø Can you elaborate on research showing that muon-catalyzed fusion 
lacks neutrons and gammas?  In my reading today I got the distinct 
impression that there were and were expected to be fast neutrons and 
gammas in MFC.


It is more complicated than that, Eric. Holmlid has been publishing 
his results for at least 6 years and AFAIK he reports few neutrons or 
gammas. But yes – there are others who have reported them. The answer 
for why there is a difference could be in the density of the deuterium 
(prior activation).


With the original MCF which is based on cosmic muons, which is to say 
NO densification of deuterium – we have typical hot fusion ash 
including neutrons and gammas. Fortunately, this is not economically 
feasible because no muons are produced to replace the cosmic muons.


However, with deuterium densification, Holmlid seems to suggest muons 
form as a replacement for gammas – and which then go on to catalyze 
the next round. This is massive synergy.


Do you interpret this differently?

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: andriod

[Mauro Lacy]

On 07/17/2015 12:29 PM, Frank Znidarsic wrote:

Here is the thing that's coming and that was holding me back.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/05/android-m-embraces-usb-type-c-midi-devices/


Interesting. Here's a detailed explanation of the underlying cause
http://superpowered.com/androidaudiopathlatency/#axzz3bRhwb8Z2

Android devices currently have ~100 ms latency on the whole the 
input-output audio chain.


Good luck,
Mauro



thank you Google.


-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
To: charles.reigh charles.re...@power.alstom.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 17, 2015 11:17 am
Subject: andriod



A few years ago I completed several books.  This was a goal and I am 
proud to
have completed it.  None are selling well but Energy, Cold Fusion, 
and Antigravity has sold
quite a few over the last couple of years.  I am hoping it sells more 
when it appears on the X files.


I also wanted to wrote software and market it on Google Play.  I saw 
those neat little androids riding
on the bus and thought, I can do this this!  Amazon invited me to be 
a app developer, encouraging.


It proved harder than expected.  I downloaded the free Andriod 
Studio compiler.  It compiles Java code.  I hate
Java; the code is not self explanatory to me.  I use it because it 
works but I know not why.  It works but the water is muddy.
Android programs have several associated files  XML, Manifest, Gradel, 
Image, and Java.  Each one would take
the team at Bleachley Park to figure out.  Anyway I did it, I got 
stuff working.  My goal was to write musical MIDI apps.  I could not 
get Android to read the MIDI input under any condition.  I tried to 
use and modify and existing 3d party drivers; no luck.


Android M is coming out this fall.  M is for musical.  It have a new 
port and MIDI drivers.  With this I believe I will be able to build 
MIDI apps.  I will proudly display them on Google Play and Amazon once 
completed.


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:This is where it all began?

[Mauro Lacy]

Hi Jones, thanks, I have in fact tuned again into Vortex a couple of 
months ago.


Cosmology is too young a science.
The Universe is not only expanding, but expanding at an accelerated 
rate. This poses a very serious problem for any Big Bang model where the 
expansion energy comes for the initial explosion.
See, by example: Cosmological constant predictions 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant#Predictions, and 
the so called Vacuum catastrophe 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_catastrophe. 120 orders of 
magnitude... those who rejoice in the accurate predictions of Quantum 
Mechanics, down to many significant digits, should never forget that 
enormous discrepancy between a Quantum theory of the microscopic, and 
the observed macroscopic behaviour of the Universe.


Regards,
Mauro


On 02/28/2015 03:11 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

This is where it all began?

Here is abigstory for Mauro Lacy,if he is still tuned into Vortex, or 
anyone else withcosmology credentials…


_http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/anu-afi022415.php_

This“impossible”object presentsus withthedistinctpossibility of a new 
version of the Big Bangwhich can explainUniversalexpansion in 
auniqueway.This could be called “bifurcatedexpansion”… which 
isbasicallyasingleexpansion,followed bythe earlycontractionofa 
fractionof theoriginalmass;andthen acontinuingexpansionor the 
remainder– all in the first billion years.


The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological modeland it 
proposesthat the Universe was in a very high density state and 
expandedwith asinglebangapproximately 13.8 billion years agoand that 
matterandantimatterwere not created in equal amounts.But [SDSS 
J0100+2802] as the ultra-luminous quasar is called, is too large for 
the Big Bangmodel to accommodate.Effectively all bets are now off, 
since the Big Bang theory will be shown to be incorrectby this discovery.


This objectis a singularity whichcould betellingus thatIT aloneis the 
actuallocus–theplace oforigin of the Universe,and that 
everythingsubsequentlyderived fromthis exact location (which isbetween 
Pisces and Andromedafrom ourperspective).Thus, what we have is an 
initialCreationevent which expanded formanymillions of years but which 
thencooled andunderwent abasicchange-so that part of the total mass 
(perhaps half) coalesced and contracted, while the other halfcontinued 
to expand, gaining velocity from the half which contracted. We could 
surmise that the halfwhichcoalesced was antimatter,or at least another 
form of matter (mirror matter) and the half that continued to expandis 
theregularmatter,which we know and love.The implication is that[SDSS 
J0100+2802]is composed exclusively of antimatter (or mirror matter).


You heard it first on vortex…J

RE: [Vo]:What Happened in CE 774?

[Mauro Lacy]

Hi Jones, Terry,

I just saw the subject's message 
(http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66408.html) 
yesterday, while searching the vortex-l archives. I unsubscribed from 
vortex-l months ago, because I was unable to keep up, mostly because of 
the amount of Rossi related stuff.


Regarding the unusual event at AD 774 and the references to the nature 
article,

A signature of cosmic-ray increase in AD 774–775 from tree rings in Japan

http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-radiation-burst-recorded-in-tree-rings-1.10768
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7402/full/nature11123.html

I did not read the paper, but just by looking at the abstract, there are 
a couple of strong hints that the cosmic-ray increase could be related 
to Eta Carinae:


1) the paper mentions that the event occurs suddenly and is of short 
duration, i.e. did not appear un previous nor subsequent years records, 
which matches with Eta Carinae's events.
2) the first recorded Eta Carinae spectroscopic event was in July 1870 
(1870.60) (http://etacar.umn.edu/).
Subtracting 1870.6 from 774.5 (assuming that the sudden cosmic-ray 
increase took place at the middle of 774), we obtain 1096.1, which is an 
almost integral multiple of Eta Carinae's spectroscopic events 
period(!), which is 5.539 years: 1096.1/5.539 = 197.89 (A period of 
5.536 years, by the way, gives us an almost integer value of 197.995)


Assuming that the event took place at the beginning of AD 774, we obtain 
(1870.6-774)/5.539 = 197.978, which is in excellent agreement. And 
assuming the end of 774, we get (1870.6-774.9)/5.539 = 197.815, which is 
still in good agreement.


So, if Eta Carinae's spectroscopic events were regular also in the past; 
which is relatively safe to assume if the events are related to the 
dynamics of a binary system (which is the main proposed cause), an 
unusually strong explosion or cosmic-ray emission took place there, 8000 
years before 774 AD, and affected Earth in AD 774. That is, the year 774 
would be one in which a particularly powerful EtaCar spectroscopic event 
arrived.


Regarging north/south variations, I was unable to detect direct 
correlations between north/south solar hemisphere sunspot activity and 
Eta Carinae events. In fact, it seems a certain inverse correlation is 
more probably observed. This may be related to a kind of amplification 
effect, or gavitational lens effect, as recently mentioned in other posts

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg86440.html
Maybe the Sun's own southern hemisphere acts as a lens for the north 
hemisphere, where the sunspots appear. In that case, when analyzing 
(Earth's) north and south hemisphere C14 levels in trees, something 
similar could be found.


Best regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Sun's 11-Year Cycle Caused by Dark Matter

[Mauro Lacy]

Mark Jurich wrote:
 FYI: arXiv of this paper: 
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1106/1106.0847.pdf


Interesting paper, thanks.

I found it odd that nobody mentions the *positions* of the planets 
(Jupiter, mainly), during solar max. Maybe to try to avoid the 
association with astrology, the constellations, and related 
pseudo-scientific stuff?


Well, here's something to be said about it: the association of these 
things with astrology: unavoidable. The good side of it?: a new 
astrology must be developed. A quantitative, scientific, serious, 
non-misleading astrology, if you want.


Now, I don't have a scientific reputation to risk, so here you have it: 
as we're now in the middle of (an unusually quiet, quieter in a century, 
by the way) solar max, it's very easy to see that Jupiter is now in 
Gemini. And Gemini is opposite Sagittarius, which marks the general 
direction to the center of the galaxy.


So, if the 'gravitational lens' theory is to be believed, Jupiter is now 
amplifying or focusing energies that come from outside the galaxy, from 
the general direction of Gemini.


And, of course, a potential different explanation comes to mind: it's 
not a 'gravitational lens' effect, but a 'cosmic circuit' kind of thing. 
Jupiter closes the circuit with the center of the galaxy, with the Sun 
in the middle. And sunspots appear on the surface of the Sun as a 
consequence.


There you have it: the positions of the planets, the constellations, 
and, of course, the center of the galaxy. Only thing missing? crossing 
of the galactic plane. :-)


Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:What Happened in CE 774?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/30/2013 08:53 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:

...
Assuming that the event took place at the beginning of AD 774, we obtain
(1870.6-774)/5.539 = 197.978, which is in excellent agreement. And
assuming the end of 774, we get (1870.6-774.9)/5.539 = 197.815, which is
still in good agreement.
   
Needless to say, unless more precise timing data is available, there's a 
18% chance (1/5.539) that this result is just the effect of chance, and 
chance alone. 18% is far from accepted scientific standards for 
correlation, by the way (p-value = 0.05, at the very least). A monthly 
resolution for the event would provide an acceptable p-value 
1/(12*5.539) = 0.015 to accept or reject the null hypothesis. In fact, a 
2 or 3 months window for the event will still be considered fine.


Finally, the event can be a combined effect: Eta Car spectroscopic event 
contributing to cause a major solar flare, which causes in turn the 
sudden increase in C14 in tree rings. That would allow for a certain 
delay in the C14 data, which would occur after (but not before), Eta 
Carinae's event.


Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Sun's 11-Year Cycle Caused by Dark Matter

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/30/2013 11:47 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar 
mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:


I found it odd that nobody mentions the *positions* of the planets
(Jupiter, mainly), during solar max. Maybe to try to avoid the
association with astrology, the constellations, and related
pseudo-scientific stuff?


Could there be some kind of effect from a tidal force on the sun 
arising from the pull of the planets when they converge on a certain 
pattern every eleven years?


That's the first reason one would think of. But, according to the one of 
the references in the paper 
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1106/1106.0847.pdf, a tidal effect 
is ruled out due to its small magnitude:
However, it was realized that the estimated planetary tidal impact was 
extremely small to cause any significant change of the dynamic Sun [2], 
or even less to justify the origin of the enigmatic 11 years cycle. For 
this reason the planetary - Sun connection has been ignored for long 
time, while such a claim was also seen not only within astronomy, but 
rather instead within the frame of astrology [3]!


Reference [2]: N. Scafetta / J. Atm.  Sol.-Terr. Phys. 81–82 (2012) 27, 
and ref’s therein;

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612001034
Reference [ 3]: P. Charbonneau, Nature 493 (2013) 613;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7434/pdf/493613a.pdf .
See also J.A. Abreu, J. Beer, A. Ferriz-Mas, K.G. McCracken, F. Steinhilber,
Astron. Astrophys. 548 (2012) A88;

Re: [Vo]:Sun's 11-Year Cycle Caused by Dark Matter

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/30/2013 12:20 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
Are these the same guys that missed the mass/energy of the universe by 
1900% (95/5)...:)


The point being, in any case, that the effect of the planets on the Sun 
can't be explained by a *conventional* tidal effect, that is, the ones 
depending on the visible, baryonic masses of the planets only, and their 
known, observable and measurable gravitational interactions.
There's clearly something more going on(the sunspot cycle, by example). 
But to call it in the same way than the known 5% can be not only 
misleading, but incorrect too.

Re: [Vo]:Why is MM considered a disproff of Ether?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/22/2012 02:57 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

There are two kinds of ethers.


Better said, those are two notions of the ether, that are of historical 
value and of customary use.
When I say ether I refer to the also customary notion of 'light carrying 
medium', but in general terms, that is, without any association (yet) 
with particular models or theories for it. Because that's what we're 
trying to arrive at. To a notion of an ether that does not contradict 
accepted and verified experimental results.




First: the classical ether is extremely stiff medium where light waves 
are propagating, similarly like sound waves are propagating in a 
water. It must be hugely stiff, because the speed of light is depended 
on the stiffness and the speed of light is quite remarkable.


That version clearly was disproved, as you said.

As you can see, it's a strongly mechanical version of the ether, related 
to the behaviour of longitudinal waves propagating in an stiff medium, 
and relating velocity of propagation with the stiffness of said medium.




There is slight problem that if ether as stiff that it allows the 
speed for light to be 300 Mm/s, then how on Earth there can be 
inertial movement around the sun! And if ether does not interact with 
regular matter, then how come we can see the light that is pressure 
waves propagating through ether?


Luckily this classical ether was refuted by Einstein and his (with 
little help from Planck) invention of quantum theory that pointed out 
that actually photons are quantum particles, not waves. And as they 
are particles, no ether as medium for light waves is required.


That is debatable. 'Particles' is a human construct, closely related to 
the notions of 'thing', and 'object', which are, in turn, a result of 
our everyday experience in the world, and also, to an extent of no minor 
importance, of our mental framework when relating and interacting with 
said world. In reality, there may very well be no particles at all. And 
I suspect that is the case, that is, that the Universe is not monadic, 
in the sense that its building blocks are not essentially irreducible, 
but, much to the contrary, are just manifestations or irregularities in 
a substrate that is essentially a continuum.


Or, at least, that that may very well be the case, that is, that that 
option is not excluded /per se/. It's equally mind boggling to think in 
terms of a continuum, than to think that there's a point of 
irreducibility. What's that irreducible particle's substance? What's 
made of? What's inside it? etc.





Second: The other kind of Ether is Newton's fixed background or 
preferred frame of reference. Einstein developed this idea even 
further when he showed with general relativity that actually ether is 
not fixed, but the gravity can modify the geometry of absolute frame 
of reference.


Einstein himself called correctly his general relativity as ether 
theory as it is based on a idea of an absolute frame of reference.



In some other instances I have promoted Lorentz's theory of 
relativity. That is similar ether based kinematic theory as general 
relativity is for accelerating frame of references. That is, the 
kinematic motion in Lorentz's theory of relativity is 
always measured in respect of ether and if we choose Earth's gravity 
field as preferred frame of reference, then this 
interpretation agrees with every empirical observations so far.


Although Lorentz's theory of relativity is ether theory, it has not 
been disproved and it happily agrees with MM experiment and all the 
time dilation observations. Therefore this latter kind of ether, where 
ether or preferred frame of reference is Earth's gravity field, is not 
refuted.


Right. Better, then.

Now you should carefully reflect on what *physical* (as opposed to 
mathematical, or geometrical) properties that non-refuted Lorentzian 
ether must have, in order to accommodate both, the propagation of light 
waves, and also, their particular modes of propagation, that is, those 
that are known to be such according to Michelson  Morley type 
experiments, and which are modeled mathematically and geometrically by 
the diverse branches or variants of a number of (valid) Relativity theories.


When doing that, (which is by no means easy), you'll be gaining a 
physical interpretation of Relativity, in the line of the venerable and 
old science of Physics. That interpretation will necessarily be 
non-mechanical, that is, the used and abused analogy of propagation of 
waves in a more or less stiff medium, will not be applicable to it. As 
you may know, something can very well be physical and non-mechanical at 
the same time. Or, conversely: the fact that something is 
non-mechanical, does not prove or implies then, that it does not exist.

Re: [Vo]:Why is MM considered a disproff of Ether?

[Mauro Lacy]

Because the idea of the ether they were after (i.e. were trying to 
confirm) was completely mechanicistic. They never expected light would 
sink or shorten into the direction of movement. That is, 
*longitudinally*.


Corolarium 1: The Universe is not mechanicistic. Light, at least, 
completely evades a mere mechanicistic representation. If the Universe 
were mechanicistic, it would be a dead, and dark, one.
Corolarium 2: That sink or shortening must imply something. 
Conservation of energy, remember?


Now, one hundred years after, give or take a couple of decades: Are we 
ready to really understand this? Or we'll continue to play shell games 
and dumb?


On 09/18/2012 12:40 AM, francis wrote:


I don't have an issue with the MM experiment disproving any etheric 
bias in a SPATIAL direction but think Lorentzian contraction and 
time dilation are evidence of an etheric river of virtual particles 
intersecting our 3d plane from a perpendicular dimension at a velocity 
we as chalkboard figures can only experience as C,  In our 3D plane we 
can only remotely observe the effect of dilation by comparing objects 
in vastly different inertial frames. My posit is that VP don't pop 
into and out of existence so much as they grow into the present from 
the future and then shrink into the past and are responsible for the 
normally unexploitable force that moves gas randomly in all 
directions. Casimir plates by their geometry aggregate and segregate 
these forces from below the plank scale up into the nano scale while 
restricting gas motion to 2d such that the perpendicular forces the VP 
exert on the gas are no longer divided equally between 3 spatial axii 
and therefore is no longer random motion... becoming exploitable to 
generate heat or if driven in reverse to exert force on the ether for 
propulsion.


Fran

Re: [Vo]:Why is MM considered a disproff of Ether?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/22/2012 09:04 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:

On 09/22/2012 08:39 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:

On 09/22/2012 08:29 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Because the idea of the ether they were after (i.e. were trying to 
confirm) was completely mechanicistic. They never expected light 
would sink or shorten into the direction of movement. That is, 
*longitudinally*.


Corolarium 1: The Universe is not mechanicistic. Light, at least, 
completely evades a mere mechanicistic representation. If the 
Universe were mechanicistic, it would be a dead, and dark, one.
Corolarium 2: That sink or shortening must imply something. 
Conservation of energy, remember?


Now, one hundred years after, give or take a couple of decades: Are 
we ready to really understand this? Or we'll continue to play shell 
games and dumb?


In other words: There's more to it than what's usually stated. Modern 
science evades the question by modeling only the visible part of the 
equation, i.e. the material aspect. *There's, without any doubt at 
all, an invisible or spiritual aspect to all of it.* Just don't try 
to imagine it, visualize it, or model it in material terms. But, for 
God's sake: *don't forget about it*. Because you, your very self, is 
at the stake.


'Are' is probably more appropriate above, not 'is'.

In the very same way as the material world has complex, detailed, and 
strict rules, the spiritual world has them, too. They are different. 
You can spend your whole life just trying to understand some of it. As 
a first, you should just stop pretending they don't exist, i.e. 
suspension of disbelief. And secondly, that they are similar to those 
of the material world.
Abstraction is another common cause of confusion: abstraction can't 
never be the spiritual, but just, at best, a distilled, or dissected, 
that is, still (i.e. dead) *image* of it.


Just to clarify, one more thing: the ether is material. It's just a 
subler, or finer, form of matter. The ether is dark matter. Although 
transparent matter would be a better term. And yes, it's related to the 
weather, seismic activity and earthquakes. Probably not to crop circles. 
At least, not directly :-)


Without the ether, life would not be possible. And without even subtler 
forms, which gradually lead more and more to the spirit, perception and 
conscience wouldn't exist either.


All these are things that will, for better and worse, become gradually 
clear in the centuries to follow. There's nothing that can be done to 
avoid that. What can and must be done, is to be aware and try to gain a 
clear understanding of these issues.

Re: [Vo]:Heresy warning: variable isotope decay. Also noted, the ether is(?) involved...

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/01/2012 04:24 PM, David L Babcock wrote:


An excerpt from Giza Dearth Star, link below:

[seen]..in two separate experiments in two different labs.

It isn't just solar flares that seem to induce changes in
radioactive decay rate. Changes in solar rotation and
activity,/and the Earth's position on its orbital path around the
Sun also appear to have an effect/, and it's the latter variable
which seems to have been decisive in the research. Between July
2005 and June 2011, continued monitoring has apparently shown
consistent annual variation in the decay rate of chlorine 36,
peaking in January and February, and ebbing in July and
August.(Emphasis added)

Read more:NEW DETECTION METHOD FOR SOLAR FLARES: VARIATIONS IN
RADIATION EMISSION

http://gizadeathstar.com/2012/08/new-detection-method-for-solar-flares-variations-in-radiation-emission/#ixzz25FHEeuxf
- Giza Death Star Community


This really rang my chimes, as I had read -a month or two ago?-  that 
the existence of the ether has some good evidence for it, and that 
measurements showed that the solar system is moving through this ether 
at IIRC 4,000 km/hr, towards (some point).



Towards the Solar apex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_apex, at 
roughly 16 km/s, or 57600 km/h. Not to be confused with the orbital 
movement of the Sun (and the Solar system) around the Galactic center, 
which is of roughly 220 km/s, and is called the movement of the Local 
Standard of Rest. Now, that's interesting in itself, the Local Standard 
of Rest, as they call it. Which that means? It means that everything in 
the local vicinity of the Sun is moving at that speed. And the question 
that is most interesting to ask yourself is, which does everything 
means, particularly in this context?, that is, in the context of the arm 
of the galaxy we're in.


Regarding changes in decay rates and the relation to cosmic factors, 
this has been discussed here in the past, see


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg34721.html

I even wrote to Sturrock and Fischbach, suggesting that a kind of 
friction against the ether background can explain the phase difference 
between the changes in decay rates and the Sun-Earth distance, i.e. that 
the changes seem to be aligned with the direction the Solar system has 
towards the Solar apex. See


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39971.html

Just to be completely ignored, of course.

Best regards,
Mauro



If these two hideous heresies should turn out to agree the whole 
edifice of modern physics may crumble.



I wish I could provide a link to the ether article, it was a peach, 
giving (?) ten anomalous stick-in-your-eye findings that physics won't 
look at.


Ol' Bab, who was an engineer

Re: [Vo]:Can Fields Induce Other Fields in Vacuum?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 08/16/2012 01:19 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:


FYI:  this forwarded to me by a colleague...

-Mark

Trouble with Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory:

Can Fields Induce Other Fields in Vacuum?

http://vixra.org/pdf/1206.0083v5.pdf

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to point out that Maxwell's 
electromagnetic theory,


believed by the majority of scientists a fundamental theory of 
physics, is in fact built


on an unsupported assumption and on a faulty method of theoretical 
investigation.


The result is that the whole theory cannot be considered reliable, nor 
its conclusions


accurate descriptions of reality. In this work it is called into 
question whether radio


waves (and light) travelling in vacuum, are indeed  composed of 
mutually inducing


electric and magnetic fields.



The idea of mutually inducing electric and magnetic fields is, without a 
doubt, one of the cleverest stupid things found in modern science. We 
don't want to abandon it so soon... it has the big advantage that it 
solves the problem of the light carrying medium.


It reminds me of the feats of the Münchhausen's baron, who raises 
himself up by pulling from the strings of his shoes.

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Mauro Lacy]

On 08/13/2012 03:56 PM, Bastiaan Bergman wrote:

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/90


specifically:
The finding revealed that the solar corona was a few million degrees
kelvin, more than three hundred times hotter than the surface of the
sun below, and flew in the face of what was expected from simple
thermodynamics

It is now universally accepted that the reservoir of energy stored in
the sun’s atmospheric magnetic field is what heats the localized
plasma in the corona. In simplified terms, the field is generated in
the solar interior as a result of large-scale rotational and
convective motions of the charged plasma, which serve to produce a
strong (100,000  gauss) magnetic field some 200,000km  below the solar
surface 

What is not known, and remains under considerable debate even now, is
how the energy stored in the magnetic fields is converted into heating
the corona 


It's even worse than that. Recent studies indicate that the convective 
plasma currents that supposedly generate the magnetic field
in the Sun's interior, are 100 times slower than what's needed for the 
theory of magnetic fields formation to be valid:

http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2012/07/09/researchers-create-mri-of-the-suns-interior-motions.html

Here's an alternative explanation:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/07/09/alpha-and-omega/

The magnetic field is the result of electric currents, but those 
currents are not confined to the Sun's interior. That also explains why 
the corona is hotter. It's in the transitional zone, where accelerations 
due to charge differences are happening.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/07/09/alpha-and-omega/
Regards,
Mauro


Lesson:
We have no freeking clue how fusion works

Re: [Vo]:Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

[Mauro Lacy]

 Scroll down on this page:
 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/22/1112509/-The-Gentleperson-s-Guide-to-Forum-Spies
I think the first article is kind of silly, but I like the Twenty-Five
Rules . . .

Indeed. They are a fine classic, author anonymous, from the Usenet times.
The original version is much more juicy, with real life examples for each
rule.

I've started the translation to Spanish years ago, but never finished.
Maybe it's a good time to restart it.

Best regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

[Mauro Lacy]

 Scroll down on this page:
 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/22/1112509/-The-Gentleperson-s-Guide-to-Forum-Spies
 I think the first article is kind of silly, but I like the Twenty-Five
 Rules . . .

 Indeed. They are a fine classic, author anonymous, from the Usenet times.
 The original version is much more juicy, with real life examples for each
 rule.

 I've started the translation to Spanish years ago, but never finished.
 Maybe it's a good time to restart it.

To resume it sounds better, and it's more precise.

 Best regards,
 Mauro

[Vo]:Key to Extraterrestrial Messages

[Mauro Lacy]

Any takes on this?

http://www.ufodigest.com/article/official-et-disclosure-nsa-document-admits-et-contact-kevin-w-smith

I did some basic checks, and it's real (plus, the original document is 
posted in the NSA website).


My takes, in descending order of likelihood, are:

- An internal NSA experiment/joke.
- An external to NSA (i.e. at governmental level) experiment/joke.
- A fine example of Russian sense of humor.
- An actual extraterrestrial communication.

Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Key to Extraterrestrial Messages

[Mauro Lacy]

 http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/communication_with_et.pdf is an
 article where the author explains he made up the messages to show how much
 information could be contained in a series of small encoded messages. See
 the 5th page of the document.

Yes, this document explicitly indicates an experiment similar to the one
discussed and solved in the Key to the Extraterrestrial Messages
document. I think this is certainly the most plausible explanation, and I
thought so even before knowing this information. The messages looked way
human, too human, to be of non-human origin.

Best regards,
Mauro


 On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:

 Any takes on this?

 http://www.ufodigest.com/**article/official-et-**disclosure-nsa-document-*
 *admits-et-contact-kevin-w-**smithhttp://www.ufodigest.com/article/official-et-disclosure-nsa-document-admits-et-contact-kevin-w-smith

 I did some basic checks, and it's real (plus, the original document is
 posted in the NSA website).

 My takes, in descending order of likelihood, are:

 - An internal NSA experiment/joke.
 - An external to NSA (i.e. at governmental level) experiment/joke.
 - A fine example of Russian sense of humor.
 - An actual extraterrestrial communication.

 Regards,
 Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Key to Extraterrestrial Messages

[Mauro Lacy]

 Advanced Civilizations are currently operating up in space in a whole
 complete highly sophisticated capacity. Not only can they read us like a
 book
 inside  out, but also all matter  energy that makes up our world.
 Eons
 Ago Eons To Go


No, no, Ordinary Space Aliens from the Equis Cuadricule are continuously
transmitting encoded alien poems, versing mainly about their slowly dying
star (and corresponding climate), in spread spectrum mode, for us to enjoy
decoding.
Problem is our outdated attachment to the concept of 'number', along with
our limited ET bandwidth capacity are, sadly, still preventing us from
establishing Contact. If we could only agree on a fixed frequency and
encoding (a simple one, you know, but with Reed Solomon or something
similar for error correction), that could certainly be called Progress in
the no minor feat of conforming a Galactic Federation, with a center,
branches, galactic postal codes, a flag, anthem, and all.

  Any takes on this?


 http://www.ufodigest.com/article/official-et-disclosure-nsa-document-admits-et-contact-kevin-w-smith

  I did some basic checks, and it's real (plus, the original document is
  posted in the NSA website).

  My takes, in descending order of likelihood, are:

  - An internal NSA experiment/joke.
  - An external to NSA (i.e. at governmental level) experiment/joke.
  - A fine example of Russian sense of humor.
  - An actual extraterrestrial communication.

  Regards,
  Mauro 
 /HTML

Re: [Vo]:Key to Extraterrestrial Messages

[Mauro Lacy]

 Advanced Civilizations are currently operating up in space in a whole
 complete highly sophisticated capacity. Not only can they read us like a
 book
 inside  out, but also all matter  energy that makes up our world.
 Eons
 Ago Eons To Go


 No, no, Ordinary Space Aliens from the Equis Cuadricule are continuously
 transmitting encoded alien poems, versing mainly about their slowly dying
 star (and corresponding climate), in spread spectrum mode, for us to enjoy
 decoding.
 Problem is our outdated attachment to the concept of 'number', along with
 our limited ET bandwidth capacity are, sadly, still preventing us from
 establishing Contact. If we could only agree on a fixed frequency and
 encoding (a simple one, you know, but with Reed Solomon or something
 similar for error correction), that could certainly be called Progress in
 the no minor feat of conforming a Galactic Federation, with a center,
 branches, galactic postal codes, a flag, anthem, and all.


I forgot! Ordinary Space Aliens are usually called OSA by those 'in the
known', and the Galactic Federation, GF, simple enough. Once we become
close, we can talk about zip codes instead of post codes, because it
sounds more intimate; plus, it's shorter!
You can alternatively say Number or number, and Feat or feat, they mean
the same in galactian language, where it curiously runs contrary to
German.

  Any takes on this?


 http://www.ufodigest.com/article/official-et-disclosure-nsa-document-admits-et-contact-kevin-w-smith

  I did some basic checks, and it's real (plus, the original document is
  posted in the NSA website).

  My takes, in descending order of likelihood, are:

  - An internal NSA experiment/joke.
  - An external to NSA (i.e. at governmental level) experiment/joke.
  - A fine example of Russian sense of humor.
  - An actual extraterrestrial communication.

  Regards,
  Mauro 
 /HTML

Re: [Vo]:Key to Extraterrestrial Messages

[Mauro Lacy]

 ”O freddled gruntbuggly thy micturations are to me
 As plured gabbleblochits on a lurgid bee.
  Groop, I implore thee my foonting turlingdromes.
 And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
  Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurlecruncheon, see
 if I don’t.”
 -Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz

Beautiful Alien Verses (yes, that; also known as BAW). Freddled is Vogon
for star, by the way. I've modestly attempted a translation, years ago,
but it got lost somehow.
I specially like when the Improbability Drive turns everything as made of
wool (which is Vogon for 'wool', by the way)

Re: [Vo]: the other side of philosophical stone

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/09/2012 04:22 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
Most of us in this list are trying to be the new alchemists beside 
infinite wealth and abundance.
Well, this one of the main goals of the ancient alchemists, it should 
be ours too :

Immortality:


That's a perfectly reasonable pursuit. Except when you confound it with 
mere lifespan extension.
There were (and are) other potential confusions in the Alchemist's way; 
a way full of deceptions.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtHgIJ6kalkfeature=related 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtHgIJ6kalkfeature=related


On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar 
mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:


 ”O freddled gruntbuggly thy micturations are to me
 As plured gabbleblochits on a lurgid bee.
  Groop, I implore thee my foonting turlingdromes.
 And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
  Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurlecruncheon, see
 if I don’t.”
 -Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz

Beautiful Alien Verses (yes, that; also known as BAW). Freddled is
Vogon
for star, by the way. I've modestly attempted a translation, years
ago,
but it got lost somehow.
I specially like when the Improbability Drive turns everything as
made of
wool (which is Vogon for 'wool', by the way)

Re: [Vo]:Key to Extraterrestrial Messages

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/09/2012 04:45 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

Beautiful Alien Verses (yes, that; also known as BAW). Freddled is
Vogon for star, by the way. I've modestly attempted a translation,
years ago, but it got lost somehow.
I specially like when the Improbability Drive turns everything as made of
wool (which is Vogon for 'wool', by the way)
 

Mauro,

As long as you don't quote Vogon poetry, I'm cool with that.
   


I would dare not.

Now, seriously, here are some excellent articles on the subject, for 
those with the

nerve and patience:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/aug/12/sciencefictionfantasyandhorror.douglasadams
http://webspace.webring.com/people/rd/drkerwood/vogons.htm

Regards,
Mauro

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


   

Re: [Vo]:The Keel, Nickel power, and Sunspots

[Mauro Lacy]

On 02/26/2012 06:58 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

Most readers on this list are more concerned with anomalous energy on earth
than astrophysics. We pay attention to solar energy as a clean alternative -
and to solar sunspots as a general areas of interest - but hardly ever do we
consider an interconnectivity of solar activity to LENR in hidden ways.
Could solar activity (sunspots) have a noticeable effect on experiments on
earth, unrelated to photon emission, especially where the probability of
success of the experiment is low. Neutrino periodicity is an example of an
unseen, non-photonic influence.

An LENR experiment that is positive 10% of the time may go relatively
unnoticed, but if positive 60% of the time we get excited. That kind of
thing could be relevant. We know that an approximate 11 year cycle of peak
activity exists in sunspots. Even if there is no other influence from a star
like eta Carina -it is worth noting that there is at least one cyclical
coincidence at work. Did you know that Solar emission of RF at 127 MHz has
being monitored at since 1958 and is found to follow the same 11 year cycle?
This means nothing specific, but is suggestive of cyclical emissions that
are completely unaccounted for.

The PF announcement in 1989 was never tied to solar activity nor was
Rossi's first public experiment 22 years later. But the fact that these two
were two solar cycles apart should not be completely overlooked

It would be interesting to know if there was a surge of successful reports
in 2000-2001. A quick scan of LENR-CANR shows 483 hits for year 2000 and
only 321 for 1999. This is meaningless really, since other factors are not
eliminated, but the point is that sun cycles could play a unappreciated role
in LENR.
   


Again, that's an interesting hypothesis, Jones.
I suggested a number of times in the past that cosmic phenomena may take 
a part in LENR. Jed even pointed to a workshop mentioning daily changes 
in LENR experiments:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39993.html

Maybe a quantitative analysis of the correlation between solar activity 
and successful LENR experiments can be carried on. To compile all the 
data looks like a difficult and tedious task, but the analysis of 
cross-correlation between the two datasets can be carried on 
quantitatively, by using mathematical techniques, and qualitatively, by 
visual inspection. The quantitative approach gives a numerical 
estimation of cross-correlation, which is something very valuable.


The dataset should ideally include a quantitative indicator, like number 
of watts produced, although it can be difficult to normalize it. Maybe 
by taking into account the dimensions of the experiment, or of the 
active components.
Maybe the set of unsuccessful experiments can also be taken into 
account. Although they will undoubtedly be noisier, and will lack a 
clear quantitative indicator, the should be relatively anti-correlated 
if the hypothesis is correct.




... or not ...
   


Of course, that's always a possibility.
Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:100 years 1912 beep beep beep and aliens

[Mauro Lacy]

On 02/20/2012 10:32 PM, zer tte wrote:
Well if they use some kind of quantum entanglement transmission, how 
could we eavesdrop on them ?


So far our RF cone extends 100 light years behind us  ( 0
Quite a catch for a random alien in our galaxy to be at the receiving 
end, anyway if by chance some random alien picked up our signal which 
would only last as long as he stays inside the cone, then he has to 
compute where to reply, he probably would send something like, Sorry 
we're busy right now, please call back later.

So besides SETI attempts, what would be our best chance to detect ET life?
At least, i think they should emit low amounts of infrared (You've got 
to stay warm in winter, right), some kind of heat signature, but to 
see something you must be inside their cone, what do you think ?




I tend to think along these lines:
http://xkcd.com/638/

Extraterrestrians can be all around us right now, and we just don't 
notice them. That's what I tend to think.

Re: [Vo]:100 years 1912 beep beep beep and aliens

[Mauro Lacy]

On 02/21/2012 07:01 PM, lorenhe...@aol.com wrote:

Uhh... they're currently up in space, as in numerous vehicle/craft, that
are utilizing an  altogether highly developed new form of sophisticated
energy-field, that is tapped into all mass-matter/energy, and/or the earth's
gravity  magnetosphere.
 What we're essentially
talking about is a capability that enables 'them'  to  interpret, anticipate,
and/or operate not only every 'thing' , but all living creatures as well
especially the neuro-activity or function of our brain.  Again,,, your
talking about an ability that not only operates matter w/ ungodly precision, 
from
a very  considerable distance in space, but as-well from 'within' our very
soul (if you will),,, and so, I'd say it's about as easy as when you flip-on
a switch on an appliance talk about a set-up! maybe kind'a like
Ohms  Resistance in electric current, only by speeding up or down all this
'stuff' on some super micro-subatomic level.

 Maybe this will help   if you were looking up into the
nightsky thru a telescope, in their direction, they would have already been
fully aware of you, and either moved-out of your view, and/or play around with
in such a way that you aren't quick enough to even actually realize it  Case
in point, some of these craft have a reflective surface on their outside
skin, and/or a bulb-like dome on the underside,,, and so, a 'Flash' of light
can be used in less-time it takes for you to wink, and distract or
rediverting your attention I kid you not?

   So anyway,  I suspect that  some highly developed
form of cold fusion is being used to power the system that is enabling
'them' to be up there, but I am not not an expert on this subject, but am
well-versed in the abilities of 'those' powerfully capable highly advanced
civilizations, that have to be at least 10 million years older, or somewhere
between that, to multi-billions of years further along than us and/or we're 
so
  'new' on the block, that we might (I fear) be referred to as still in our
diapers wah!!


Something like that, yes, but without all the crafts and stuff. And 
without the childish and exaggerated tone, too.


Paragraphs. The 'globs' are usually called paragraphs. Look it up.




  Extraterrestrians can be all around us right now, and we just
don't notice them. That's what I tend to think.
/HTML


   

Re: [Vo]:The Keel, Nickel power, and Sunspots

[Mauro Lacy]

On 02/12/2012 10:33 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:

I'll perform a power spectral density analysis of sunspot number/solar
activity data. If there's a 5.52 year cycle in solar activity,
it'll show up, along with the main 11 year cycle. I don't think
something that big can be easily overlooked,
but nevertheless... it bodes well with my modest attempts at statistical
signal processing :-)
More about this later, probably.
   


Well, here are the graphs:
http://maurol.com.ar/solar_cycle

The data was obtained from http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch. I 
used the daily sunspot area as an indicator of solar activity.
The method used is an estimate of power spectral density by the Welch 
(1967) periodogram/FFT method, which is readily available, by example in 
octave or Matlab. I had to do some manual preprocessing of the data, and 
after fiddling for a relatively long time with the scales, I finally 
began to obtain some meaningful values.


As can be seen in http://maurol.com.ar/solar_cycle/daily_area-PSD3.png, 
there are two peaks near Eta Carinae's period (5.539 years) of dimming 
X-ray activity , at 5.51 and 5.3 years. They are both much less 
significant than the main period of the solar cycle (which by the way, 
seems to be actually near 10.6 years, not 11.04 years as usually 
stated), and there's is not a period of exactly 5.539 years, but they 
are close nevertheless. That is, there are (secondary) periods of the 
solar system not in, but closer, to 5.539.
I obtained 5.539 years from the literature. This site in particular was 
very helpful: http://etacar.umn.edu/


Regarding these results, I suppose you take it or leave it. I mean, they 
really aren't *that* significant. But if you take it, there are some 
interesting things to try:
1) smooth/consolidate the periodograms, to try to obtain less noise, and 
higher peaks.
2) look for north hemisphere vs. south hemisphere cycles. As Eta Car is 
south, maybe the periods in the south hemisphere are closer to Eta Car's 
period. I'll do this next.
3) look for phase, not only frequency, correlations. I have yet to learn 
how to do statistical phase analysis.


I hope you enjoy the pictures! If there are some people interested, I 
can publish the scripts and techniques I used to obtain the graphs. It 
really wasn't that difficult.


Best regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:The Keel, Nickel power, and Sunspots

[Mauro Lacy]

On 02/20/2012 10:29 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


Impressive! You take this quite seriously Mauro.



Not so seriously, really. I took it as an opportunity to learn new 
things. And your hypothesis looked both interesting and appropriate.


This is actually a lot more complicated than it seems at first glance. 
Probably because the 11 year cycle is not really exact, but the 
statistical arguments are hard for me to follow.




Basically, there are mathematical methods to obtain the foundational 
frequencies for a given signal. Any given signal can be decomposed in a 
sum of components in frequency. That's called the spectrum of the 
signal. You can Google Fourier transform, and Spectrum analysis, if you 
like, as a good start.
I don't know much about the extensive and venerable mathematical 
treatment, but the pragmatic and intuitive approach is immediate: obtain 
the components in frequency of a given signal, no matter how complex, 
and sort them according to relevance, that is, according to how well 
defined and strong they appear in the original signal.


Another interesting thing is that you can later use those components to 
reconstruct the signal, and that can be (and is) used as a compression 
method. But that's another story, related to digital audio and video, 
and to their ubiquity on the internet.



You have to wonder how accurate older data is as well.



Yes. Systematic data for the solar cycle starts in 1874, which is good. 
Systematic data for Eta Carinae and Eta Carinae's cycle is only from 
around 1948. I'm assuming Eta Carinae's cycle spans all the way to 1874 
with the same frequency, which is a strong assumption. But if Eta 
Carinaea is part of a binary system, as presumed, it's also a good one.
An interesting thing to try, by the way, is to perform spectral analysis 
of the solar cycle, but only with data after 1948.


Is this your hobby only?



It's probably related to my work, but in unexpected ways. Basically, the 
more you know, the better. That applies to all fields of life, by the way.
And I always wanted to learn to perform spectrum analysis. I think that 
to be able to look for cycles and correlations is something very useful, 
and that its use is in its infancy, at least in the Astrophysical sciences.


As I recall, your profession (like so many who turn up on vortex for 
some reason) is software development, no?




Yes. Software development is an area where it's good to be constantly 
learning, because the field is relatively recent, and is also developing 
very fast. Things change, usually for the better, all the time, and it's 
valuable and rewarding to be informed and know about new methods, new 
languages, techniques, etc. That can be one of the reason many software 
developers are lurking around here; always trying to learn new aspects 
about things :-)


It's also a field where there are a lot of free and very powerful tools. 
All that makes for a very good, and fruitful, combination.


Best regards. Thanks for the opportunity to chitchat a little bit,
Mauro


*From:* Mauro Lacy

I'll perform a power spectral density analysis of sunspot number/solar
activity data. If there's a 5.52 year cycle in solar activity,
it'll show up, along with the main 11 year cycle. I don't think
something that big can be easily overlooked,
but nevertheless... it bodes well with my modest attempts at statistical
signal processing :-)
More about this later, probably.
   



Well, here are the graphs:
http://maurol.com.ar/solar_cycle

The data was obtained from http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch. 
I used the daily sunspot area as an indicator of solar activity.
The method used is an estimate of power spectral density by the Welch 
(1967) periodogram/FFT method, which is readily available, by example 
in octave or Matlab. I had to do some manual preprocessing of the 
data, and after fiddling for a relatively long time with the scales, I 
finally began to obtain some meaningful values.


As can be seen in 
http://maurol.com.ar/solar_cycle/daily_area-PSD3.png, there are two 
peaks near Eta Carinae's period (5.539 years) of dimming X-ray 
activity , at 5.51 and 5.3 years. They are both much less significant 
than the main period of the solar cycle (which by the way, seems to be 
actually near 10.6 years, not 11.04 years as usually stated), and 
there's is not a period of exactly 5.539 years, but they are close 
nevertheless. That is, there are (secondary) periods of the solar 
system not in, but closer, to 5.539.
I obtained 5.539 years from the literature. This site in particular 
was very helpful: http://etacar.umn.edu/


Regarding these results, I suppose you take it or leave it. I mean, 
they really aren't *that* significant. But if you take it, there are 
some interesting things to try:
1) smooth/consolidate the periodograms, to try to obtain less noise, 
and higher peaks.
2) look for north hemisphere vs. south hemisphere cycles. As Eta Car 
is south, maybe the periods in the south

Re: [Vo]:The Keel, Nickel power, and Sunspots

[Mauro Lacy]

On 02/12/2012 02:47 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

As recently as last summer, it looked like our sun had gone into a sleep
mode.
http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle
.html

If you are new to Vortex, you may not realize that we have a unwanted and
powerful neighbor in the galaxy named Eta Carinae. It is starting to act up
now, and it may be taking out sun along for the ride. Aside from the 2012
(Mayan) hoopla, this is looking like a big year for solar activity.
   


Jones, even when I consistently enjoy your speculative and imaginative 
posts, I want to make some comments:
2012 can be a big year for solar activity, but according to recent 
predictions, the cycle's peak will be late to the 2012 end-of-times 
party, in May 2013. And the biggest sunspots and related activity 
usually occur after the maximum, when the Sun is heading again for solar 
minimum.


And, according to Eta Carina 5.52 years cycle, its next spectroscopic 
event will be around January 2014, even later.


Finally, there's no need for entanglement, strangelets or other exotic 
(or strangely sounding) mechanisms to explain an interaction with 
something 8000 light years away. Simply, the effects reaching us now had 
their causes there, only 8000 years ago.


What I find interesting is the possibility that Eta Carina's 5.52 year 
cycle can influence or modulate the solar cycle, to a certain extent. If 
that 5.5 years cycle can be associated with this solar cycle's delay, 
with 2008's unusual activity, and with solar activity in general, that 
would be a very good finding.


Regards,
Mauro


http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/79/79.html

Figuratively, Eta Carinae is the closest thing to evil (wanton
destructiveness) that anyone can imagine, even considering black holes. It
is in the constellation Carinae - the keel which is visible from the
Southern Hemisphere - about 8000 light years away. It could be both
progenitor and destroyer, in a way.

Earth is about 27,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way but Eta
Carinae is less than a third of the way to the core, and it isn't associated
with a black hole - in fact EC is closer to us and often beams more energy
than the entire galaxy core, as seen by us. Here is what it looks like:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0208/Breathtaking-Carina-nebula-photo-
provides-window-into-star-nursery

It is not yet clear what supplies the radiated energy that can peak at 10^50
ergs, but this output has been cyclically tied to abnormal solar activity on
our sun. Curiously, one of the main power sources is likely to be nickel, in
the sense of decay to 56Ni from heavier mass (according to spectroscopy).

We see this massive energy peak coming from EC on a particular temporal
cycle, and when we talked about it here on Vortex the last time that it
peaked (~5+ years ago), it was in regard to abnormal sunspots at a time when
we were supposed to be in a solar minimum. Our sun's cycle could be tied
directly to the EC cycle for a number of reasons, but how can it skip and
feel only every other one of EC's cycles ? Or else, it is a spectacular
coincidence.

Eta Carinae seems to be powered by the see-saw death and rebirth of an
extremely massive star system. It is a 'repeat offender' regularly gaining
and loosing mass in hundred-sun quanta. And the main output vector seems
to be pointed at our sun like a rifle.

In fact, EC could be the final remnant of a captured galaxy itself. Even if
we limit the present speculation to a focused discharge from EC, traveling
fairly close to light-speed, what kind of accelerated mass-energy fits these
circumstances (disruptive enough to cause sunspots 8000 years removed) ? It
must be strange, as in strangelets.

Can this kind of directed influence happen at all over 8000 l.y.  or does it
demand some kind of quantum entanglement of two systems, which goes back in
time to a genesis event? IOW this may have been the predecessor star
system for us, and that explains why we are still 'entangled' to a degree.

Plus, the tie-in to nickel is also a coincidental detail that may not be
completely random, vis-à-vis other phenomena - if some kind of weird quantum
entanglement exist between us and our keel.

Anyway - let's hope it does not keel-over on us later this year... but...
yes, to answer a lingering question - methinks the Maya would surely have
been aware of Eta Carinae and its regular cycle.

On occasion, it can be the brightest star in the heavens.

Jones

   

Re: [Vo]:The Keel, Nickel power, and Sunspots

[Mauro Lacy]

I'll perform a power spectral density analysis of sunspot number/solar 
activity data. If there's a 5.52 year cycle in solar activity,
it'll show up, along with the main 11 year cycle. I don't think 
something that big can be easily overlooked,
but nevertheless... it bodes well with my modest attempts at statistical 
signal processing :-)

More about this later, probably.

Regards,
Mauro

On 02/12/2012 12:49 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

-Original Message-
Hi Mauro,

But the experts have been consistently wrong of late! No one predicted the
recent surge, nor the prior lull of the previous year. And no one that I can
find has tied the more massive spots to EC. Are you defending this sloppy
record? NASA is the worst of all in lack of accuracy, usually followed by a
cover-up!

The EC connection is a purpose of my suggestion, and since it is obvious
that I am not an astrophysicist - it could be wrong. But can these so-called
experts overlook something relevant? Yes! and in this field they often do.
Their track record is not good.

In short, NASA's own climatologists and solar experts are often no better
than glorified TV weather forecasters with advanced degrees. Despite this
most recent oversight (and two prior ones) - the experts seem to be sticking
with the notion that the 2013 or later will be the peak. Maybe it will be in
a technical sense - but that is in 'numbers only', since charts often do not
factor in the magnitude of individual events. And the magnitude of
individual events in recent months seems to be coordinated with EC's recent
activity. That is my main point.

Yes - of course, my references to the Maya and 2012 is in jest (partially).
But that is a non-issue relative to EC. One wants to liven up these
discussions up a bit, no? 2012 always carries extra interest.

Plus some of this confusion on solar activity (being manipulated) seems to
be politically motivated. The recent evidence that global warming has
moderated and not increased in the significant way once predicted - is an
embarrassment to many climatologists, as it should be. They operate in an
inexact science, but they want to be heard in the political arena. The two
don't mix. Many now attempt to cover their rear-ends and blame bad modeling
of human factors on reduced solar activity, when the best evidence for the
conclusion is that the bad models themselves!

In short, there is no real evidence of decreased solar activity, and the
evidence of recent massive sunspots is a continuing embarrassment to experts
- none of whom seem to be even remotely aware of the EC connection, and all
of whom seem to be trying to save face.

I hope this doesn't relate to Maya-2012, but there is little harm in
mentioning it.

Jones


   

If you are new to Vortex, you may not realize that we have a unwanted and
powerful neighbor in the galaxy named Eta Carinae. It is starting to act
 

up
   

now, and it may be taking out sun along for the ride. Aside from the 2012
(Mayan) hoopla, this is looking like a big year for solar activity.

 

Jones, even when I consistently enjoy your speculative and imaginative
posts, I want to make some comments:
2012 can be a big year for solar activity, but according to recent
predictions, the cycle's peak will be late to the 2012 end-of-times
party, in May 2013. And the biggest sunspots and related activity
usually occur after the maximum, when the Sun is heading again for solar
minimum.

And, according to Eta Carina 5.52 years cycle, its next spectroscopic
event will be around January 2014, even later.

Finally, there's no need for entanglement, strangelets or other exotic
(or strangely sounding) mechanisms to explain an interaction with
something 8000 light years away. Simply, the effects reaching us now had
their causes there, only 8000 years ago.

What I find interesting is the possibility that Eta Carina's 5.52 year
cycle can influence or modulate the solar cycle, to a certain extent. If
that 5.5 years cycle can be associated with this solar cycle's delay,
with 2008's unusual activity, and with solar activity in general, that
would be a very good finding.

Regards,
Mauro

   

http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/79/79.html

Figuratively, Eta Carinae is the closest thing to evil (wanton
destructiveness) that anyone can imagine, even considering black holes. It
is in the constellation Carinae - the keel which is visible from the
Southern Hemisphere - about 8000 light years away. It could be both
progenitor and destroyer, in a way.

Earth is about 27,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way but Eta
Carinae is less than a third of the way to the core, and it isn't
 

associated
   

with a black hole - in fact EC is closer to us and often beams more energy
than the entire galaxy core, as seen by us. Here is what it looks like:


 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0208/Breathtaking-Carina-nebula-photo-
   

provides-window-into-star-nursery

It is not yet clear what 

Re: [Vo]:A huge Rossi (bad) thing to be revealed soon. (Daniele Passerini)

[Mauro Lacy]

On 01/29/2012 07:55 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

On 2012-01-29 09:17, Wolf Fischer wrote:
   

On the LENR Facebook page, someone wrote that it perhaps is not a bad
thing but more of a joke:

http://www.facebook.com/EnergyCatalyzer
Giuliano Bettini
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=11824886432  ‎@Patrick. It's
not properly a bad news. In Italian it's something like a joke IMO
 

It looks like this is actually nothing as bad as what has been implied
by ecatnews.com, but more like an inside joke for Italian speakers only,
according to Passerini himself in a comment here:

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2012/01/il-lustro-di-22-passi-episodio-25366.html

Personally I don't have any idea of what was that joke about, however.
   


The joke is probably related to the primadonna. Primadonna is the name 
given to the lead female singer in an ensemble. The quotes mean the 
prima donna isn't such, that is, she is not prima, or she is not 
donna.


Not that I meant to defend Rossi, or to agree with him, and I certainly 
think that MY bashing has gone to absurd lengths (like implying or 
cautioning about potential sabotage), but this is funny. It's also a 
good example on the difficulty of protecting your identity on the 
internet. In the end, it's less troublesome to just make your identity 
public, and deal with it, than to deal with all the measures to be and 
remain anonymous.

Re: [Vo]:A huge Rossi (bad) thing to be revealed soon. (Daniele Passerini)

[Mauro Lacy]

On 01/28/2012 04:55 PM, Vorl Bek wrote:

I have been reading Mary's stuff since the early Steorn days and
if she is not a woman I will eat my hat.
   


I always suspected Mary was a man. I was almost sure, in fact. I 
expected he to be around 50, not 70, though. I suspect he must be in 
good shape, being a sportsman at golf, or something like that.
I also suspected Mary was two people instead of one, but that's probably 
due my native tongue; in Spanish, Mary Yugo sounds like Mary y Hugo, 
which translates to Mary and Hugo.


Regarding your new diet, you can watch the nice little short called 
Werner Herzog eats his shoe as an inspiration, where Herzog cooks and 
eats his shoe in public. Another recommendation, coming right from 
Werner: for the same reason that you don't usually eat the chicken's 
bones when eating chicken, you can avoid eating the hard or inorganic 
parts of your hat when eating it, without essentially betraying your own 
words.

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects

[Mauro Lacy]

On 01/11/2012 11:28 PM, James Bowery wrote:
The only way to get capitalism to work is to shift the tax base from 
economic activity to the liquidation value of assets, and set the tax 
rate to the interest rate used to calculate liquidation value.


But no one with wealth wants that to happen even though just about 
everyone who has high incomes would want it to happen.


So, due to political economic considerations, capitalism cannot be 
made to work.


This is not to say that socialism can be made to work, since in order 
to do so it would require that the liquidation asset interest 
collected by the government be dispersed equally to all citizens, no 
means testing. Socialists want to figure out how to spend your 
dividends for you because they're so smart and all.


In other words: All fall down.



Maybe the solution is what Fidel Castro proposed recently: replace the 
US president with a robot.
http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/?El-mejor-Presidente-para-Estadoslang=es 
http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/?El-mejor-Presidente-para-Estadoslang=es


In spanish. Translation here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/%3FEl-mejor-Presidente-para-Estados%26lang%3Dessl=estl=enhl=ie=UTF-8
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/%3FEl-mejor-Presidente-para-Estados%26lang%3Dessl=estl=enhl=ie=UTF-8
I (along with Castro) am being sarcastic here, of course. But 
nevertheless, the rationale behind Catro's idea is impeccable: given 
that the western world is so advanced at the technological level, 
perhaphs it should consider using that wonderful advancement to try to 
advance also at the social, political and economical levels, where it's 
clearly lagging behind the curve. In fact, technological advances are 
usually being used to even recede in those areas.


The troubles with political and economical systems do not lie 
necessarily in the systems per se, but in people. As long as people 
refuse to look into their inner dark areas, to consider their evil 
within, so to speak, nothing will change. We have come to a point when 
we're talking about the benefits of nanotechnology, artifical 
intelligence, robotics and free energy, and at the same time 
threathening to use that knowledge to attempt to destroy the world. It's 
insane, and it's because people usually don't look (and take a part of 
the responsibility) for the contradiction.


My 1992 white paper 
http://mysite.verizon.net/res10kjcq/ota/others-papers/NetAssetTax_Bowery.txt introduces 
an early version of the idea. The impetus for it came from my work to 
privatize government technology development programs in space 
http://www.oocities.com/jim_bowery/testimny.htm and energy 
http://www.oocities.com/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html.


Charles Murray of the CATO Institute later wrote a book on an idea 
related to the citizen's dividend 
http://www.aei.org/press/society-and-culture/poverty/in-our-hands-press/.


And, yes, this problem has been known well over a century.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com
mailto:thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote:

I am all for vertical agriculture, but I am totally opposed to
a global basic income. I do not support socialism or communism.


Socialism, communism and capitalism are all based on ordinary
people trading labor for money. In a few decades human labor will
be worth nothing. All economic systems will be obsolete.

See:

http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/

With cold fusion technology, the price of everything will go
down. Even a job at McDonalds will be capable of paying for a
nice house, nice cars, etc.


Even today we have automobiles capable of driving in California
traffic. That is a more difficult task than any job at McDonald's.
It is just a matter of time before all jobs such as this will be
done by robots. A robot the replaces a person (or the entire
staff) will cost McDonald's a few thousand dollars a year. you
cannot buy a nice house were nice cars with that kind of money.

The most difficult job at McDonald's is human language: cashiers
have to understand what the customers are ordering. Cashiers can
easily be replaced today by having most customers enter the order
by touchscreens, and pay with credit cards. This would be like the
self checkout lines at grocery stores. In the near future,
computers will understand speech well enough to take verbal orders.

McDonald's has not installed touchscreen ordering devices for the
same reason the US automobile industry did not install robots in
the 1960s. The government and labor organizations are putting
pressure on McDonald's not to automate. McDonald's is one of the
biggest employers in the US. Walmart is another huge employer that
could easily replace much of its staff with 

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects

[Mauro Lacy]

On 01/14/2012 09:21 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
I think the problem is not with Capitalism (you cannot find anything 
better  or more realistic, it is with Moneytheism- the most popular 
and destructive religion today.


I think the same. The problem is in the way money is taken as a value in 
itself, when it should be considered just a convenient form of 
replacement for other, real values.
The way money is valued, that's where the real problem lies. In fact, 
we're in a really stupid state of affairs, come to look at it and 
understand how it really works. But unless people are willing to look at 
these things in the face, so to speak, without any kind of self 
delusion, caused by dwelling in cloudy and vague ideas(where they 
personal interests and ambitions also play a role, of course), nothing 
will really change. People should start to feel ashamed for being part 
of this state of affairs. That's what must happen first, and only then, 
real change will be possible.


Best regards. I'm going out to the woods now(literally). Have a nice 
weekend,

Mauro

Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 01/09/2012 11:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

Thanks Mauro,

Would you say that the number of protons and electrons being ejected from
the sun remains relatively equal?
   


I was just thinking about that. I think that the total number of 
expelled protons must be greater than the number of electrons, to 
effectively establish an overall electric current with the surroundings, 
which tries to compensate for the charge disbalance. Electrons are 
coming in from the surrounding space, and an equilibrium point (at the 
charge level) should exist somewhere in between, probably located in the 
reaches of the solar system. That place must be very interesting to 
study, because there protons and electrons are rejoined. That place 
would be the (invisible) counterpart of our visible Sun, by the way. And 
that also gives a more approximate idea of the real Sun, which is 
comprised by the whole thing.
I was also thinking that electromagnetic emission (that is, the Sun's 
emitted light) can be producing (or contributing to) the charge 
disbalance in the first place, by gradually depleting the Sun of 
negative charges. But I'm not sure, because I don't know enough about 
electromagnetism yet.


Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?

[Mauro Lacy]

 From Mauro:

 I was just thinking about that. I think that the
 total number of expelled protons must be greater
 than the number of electrons, to effectively establish
 an overall electric current with the surroundings,
 which tries to compensate for the charge disbalance.

 ...

 If something like that is happening within the sun it seems to me that
 this results in a charge imbalance. Regardless of whether the charge
 imbalance is positive or negative it seems to me that the aggregate
 electrostatic force could counter the weaker gravity forces. It
 puzzles me that a speculated imbalance of electrostatic forces doesn't
 end up counteracting the weaker gravity forces and cause our sun to
 rip itself apart. Of course, for selfish reasons, I'm glad such an
 Armageddon doesn't happen! In any case, it suggests to me that any
 electrostatic charge imbalance that may exist within the sun must not
 be significant enough to counteract the weaker gravity forces.

 Perhaps sun spots and corona discharges ARE examples of electrostatic
 charge imbalances attempting to re-balance the surrounding area by
 exploding away. Maybe electrostatic imbalances DO happen, but
 fortunately for us, on a less disastrous scale as far as we earthlings
 are concerned.

 Of course, there is also the distinct possibility that something else
 is going on here... something that I haven't taken into account. I
 suspect that's most likely the case. I don't claim to be a fizzix
 exp'prt.

Me neither.

I think the problem is with the electrostatic idea... if there are
electric currents, then there isn't an electrostatic situation. There's
nothing static in a system like the Sun and the Solar System. The solar
wind is a subtle (only relatively slow) electrical conductor. Electrical
currents are circulating between the Sun's north and South poles, are
crossing through the planetary bodies, which offer relatively good
conductive paths, and are also being reconnected and fed up with the whole
of the surrounding space. Simply because that surrounding space is at
different potentials.

There's no  perfectly isolated electric charge. Moreover: when you have a
subtle sea of charged particles, a tenuous plasma, that is a conductive
path. And charged particles will unavoidably move from points of more
charge to points of less charge.

When you add to that that the bodies, including the Sun itself, are
translating and rotating, you have an incredibly rich and dynamic
situation. Something which is really the opposite, even in a profound
sense, of a static, or dead, model.

Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 01/09/2012 02:41 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

Thanks, Jones.

I read the paragraph. I'm not surprised read that the paper states
...The global stellar electrostatic field is 918 times stronger than
the corresponding stellar gravity... More on that later.

Meanwhile, yes, I am basically aware of Mills' explanation of the
corona, having something to do with the manufacture of hydrinos, as
atomic hydrogen transform into hydrinos due to chance encounters with
helium. Mills claims such chance encounters explains why the corona is
exceedingly hotter than the surface of the sun. I gather that at
present there is no satisfactory mainstream theoretical explanation as
to why the corona is as hot as it has been measured to be. Therefore,
Mills' audacious CQM explanation remains tantalizing to the eyes of
many. Regardless of whether CQM is correct or not, the theory
certainly deserves further study.

However, the conundrum I'm trying to acquire a better understanding
about is whether there exists a distinct electrical charge associated
withIN the sun. And if one exists, is it positive or negative? I
assume there probably exists an aggregate positive charge within the
interior of the sun.

Where I'm going with this line of questioning is trying to achieve a
better grasp of the balance act between the attractive forces of
gravity versus the much stronger repulsive force of like-charged
particles (particularly protons).

It would seem logical for me to assume that since we know that on a
particle-by-particle basis gravitational forces are magnitudes weaker
than electrically charged attractive/repulsive forces the aggregate
internal electrical charge within the sun must therefore be fairly
close to neutral - on average, that is. Otherwise, it would seem to me
that the accumulated repulsive forces attributed to all those unpaired
protons (with no associated electron charge to even the score) would
cause our sun to rip apart violently.

Did I miss something fundamentally wrong in my analysis?



Hi Steven,
I think that you didn't miss much (at the level of your analysis) except 
maybe that neutrons should be considered also, contributing to the 
gravitational force.


What follows is original research, plus some things I borrowed from a 
number of other sources:


At any moment, the mass of the Sun is in a state of unstable equilibrium 
between the collapse due to gravitational force, and the expansion due 
not only to heat/pressure, but also to electromagnetic repulsion from 
one side(from the massive Sun), and attraction from the other side(from 
to the whole of the surrounding space).


The excess of electric charge is being expulsed in the form of charged 
particles, in the solar wind. The corona is hotter because in that zone 
charged particles are accelerated, and their increase in velocity is 
seen as heat.
Those charged particles are accelerated because when in the corona, they 
are already out of the surface of equal charges, and are therefore 
repelled. At the same time, they are attracted by the general field of 
surrounding space, which is relatively negative, and therefore 
attractive for the majority of those particles. The surface of the Sun 
can be seen as the point of equilibrium between gravitational attraction 
on one side, vs. electric repulsion on the other side.


Of course, I'm not talking about electromagnetic emissions (i.e. emitted 
light and X-rays, which are concomitant phenomenons) but about 
electrical currents (i.e. protons and electrons) taking place in tenuous 
plasmas.


Sunspots indicate deficits of charge, whereas coronal mass ejections 
indicate excesses of charge.


Some additional references:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12/26/which-came-first/
and particularly
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12/08/voyager-1-updates-solar-electron-flux/

Now, all that description is of course only a very small part, or 
aspect, of what is really taking place there; and here too!


Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Nano - we hardly knew ya'

[Mauro Lacy]

On 01/08/2012 05:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

Speculation alert: Will development of the technology of hydrogen-loaded
nickel usher in a new paradigm for going small - the pico age?

The mention of Cooper pairing brings up potential correlations between high
temperature superconductivity, matrix spacing, extreme loading and LENR. In
regard to hydrogen loading, this pushes towards the sub-nanometer realm.
Cooper pairing of nucleons and extreme loading was first mentioned on Vortex
in 2004, if not further back. Needless to say, we are bit ahead of the
curve, even if pico was almost unheard of then, and nano was all the
rage.

High loading can happen without Casimir cavities, but the highest possible
loading may be contingent on proper interstitial spacing which is an order
of magnitude tighter than nano of the Casimir variety - in the range of a
few angstroms (hundreds of picometers). Further complicating the analysis -
this ~250 pm ideal matrix spacing may require adjacent cavities (or pits) in
the range of a few nm in order to feed in nucleons as they pair (or
shrink, if you subscribe to Mills).

Both Pd and palladium hydrides are superconductive at low temperature.
Nickel and nickel oxides are superconductive at low temps. I do not have any
information on nickel hydride superconductivity. This is probably due to a
curious fact - nickel does not load well unless it is the major alloy with
another metal which can open up the interstices by about 50-70 pm. As
little as 5% of another transition metal seems to work miracles of loading
with nickel.

Here is a little-known factoid, should CF ever make it to trivial pursuit
status - Laufer's Theory of superconductivity in palladium-noble-metal
hydrides preceded PF by three years. Another paper of interest: Lipson et
al. Evidence of Super-stoichiometric H/D LENR Active Sites and High
Temperature Superconductivity in a Hydrogen-Cycled Pd/PdO. Nice slides.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LipsonAGevidenceofa.pdf

Also, it should be noted that *high internal pressuriztion* may have the
same entropy reducing properties as very cold temperature. With Pd the
loading ratio must get near 1:1 before this becomes a factor. Nickel alloys
will load at ratios over 4:1 and this could be the single most important
reason that Ni-H works better than Pd, but it should be noted that pure
nickel does not load well at all ! Go figure.
   


Hi,
I was just thinking, after reading the previous thread about proton 
Cooper pairs and Pd-D / Ni-H differences:


What about Pd-D type electrolysis experiments, but with a Ni-Cu catode?
What about that but with ordinary water, that is, Ni+Cu-H_2 electrolysis 
experiments. And also Ni+Cu-D_2 , by the way.


Has that been tried? Any information on that?

Lastly, of course it's interesting to check too for the similarities 
between Pd-D and Ni-Cu systems. They can be different effects, as Jones 
said,
but can have an underlying common cause. I think Jones is right about 
Pd-D and Ni-H anomalous heat being caused by different effects. But 
maybe these effects are related, at an underlying or fundamental level, 
like both being caused by ZPE, or both being related to 
superconductivity, both occurring at nano-scales, etc.
Studying them as different effects, but looking for common factors, can 
help to identify the original cause, which can very well be one and the 
same.


Regards,
Mauro


Once again, this whole field seems to turn on minute spacing differentials
within a metal matrix, with FCC vacancies between 1-3 angstroms (100-300
picometers).

We have only been fully immersed in the nano-age for a decade or two - and
already it looks like Ni-H technology has the potential to usher in a
pico-age !

Nano - we hardly knew ya'.

Jones



   

Re: [Vo]:Agriculture is the real culprit for polluting and wasting natural resources

[Mauro Lacy]

The problem is not only actual agriculture and related problems 
(desertification, water and energy use, etc.)

but also the society of consumption in which we are immersed.

It's misleading to think in terms of efficiency in production, when a 
significant part of the world is being absurdly inefficient at consumption.


Why try to fix a problem with more or efficient production, when the 
real problem is in the way we consume and utilize goods?
Aliments are being produced in one extreme of the world, to be consumed, 
and sometimes not even that, but just to be trown to the dumpster, at 
the other end. That is a problem in itself, and one that better 
production techniques will not correct, but even make worse.


Mauro

On 01/08/2012 06:14 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

Peter,

Earth is not overpopulated, if you understand what is the the biggest
pollution source on earth and what industrial sector does contribute the
most for wasting scarce resources.

The culprit is horizontal agriculture that contributes more than 95 % of
human land use i.e. resource consumption. Rest of the human activity takes
only about 1.5% of Earth surface area.

Therefore if we ban horizontal agriculture and transform into sustainable
vertical agriculture, we would exploit almost negligible amounts of Earth's
resources. Vertical farming would require double the current energy
consumption, but also producing energy with non-fossil fuels (e.g.
windmills and biofuels) would also mean more than double the resource
consumption, because their ecological foot print is huge.

Vertical farming could free about 2 gigahectares of very fertile land area
for Nature. And when hardwood forest would crow back they would absorb
annually more than 10 gigatons of carbon, that is three times more than is
currently accumulating into atmosphere.

It is sad that in general, people does not have conseptual understanding
how much agriculture is consuming resources and how much it is polluting.
And especially how easy it would be to replace the entire agriculture. I
thing that if we ban the subsidies for agriculture and place price ticket
for natural carbon sinks instead of taxing CO2, that would be enough to
make vertical farming viable option. this would save them all: humans,
nature and climate (and economy!).

Forests has huge natural climate moderating effect, and most, if not all,
of the averse effects of climate change are actually due to deforestation,
because there are no forests left to protect the top soil from erosion,
flooding and droughts.

   —Jouni

On Jan 7, 2012 10:22 PM, Peter Gluckpeter.gl...@gmail.com  wrote:
   

It is a very unlucky situation that Bob Park
is not informed about or does not understand
Cold Fusion because about othr subjects he
says remarkable things, as today:
See:

Robert parkbobp...@umd.edu
7:23 PM (3 hours ago)https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif
to BOBPARKS-WHATS.
https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif
WHAT’S NEW   Robert L. Park   Saturday, 7 Jan 2012   Washington, DC

1. ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE:  IT’S PROPORTIONAL TO HUMAN POPULATION.
One by one, the great ocean fisheries are being destroyed by overfishing,
including the storied Grand Banks off Newfoundland.  Elsewhere, ocean
 

gyres
   

(circulations) have trapped gigantic floating garbage patches,
 

consisting
   

of barely-buoyant pieces of man-made plastics that threaten marine life.
 

On
   

land, the Green Revolution saved billions of lives from starvation in the
20th century, but at the cost of lower groundwater levels over much of the
globe and depleted reserves of phosphate rock. It would be impossible to
repeat the Green Revolution today.  Moreover, population growth pushes oil
production ever closer to the dreaded Hubbert Peak, even as atmospheric
carbon from burning fossil fuel contributes to global warming and lowers
the pH of the oceans, with serious environmental consequences. The lesson
is clear: excessive population is damaging our environment at a rate that
far exceeds the natural recovery rate.  What then determines the
 

population?
   

2. FERTILITY RATE:  IT’S PROPORTIONAL TO HUMAN IGNORANCE.
World population reached 7 billion in November 2011 and is on track to a
disastrous 9 billion by mid-century.  This is generally taken to be
evidence of a powerful reproductive instinct.  There is, to be sure, a
nurturing instinct, but who thinks about that during foreplay? The Pill
will one day be recognized as the most important invention of the 20th
century; it permits us to plan our most essential function: reproduction.
Unfortunately, industry wants more consumers, generals want bigger armies,
priests want their souls.  Fertility in developed nations, however,
including all of Europe, is at or below the replacement rate, usually
 

taken
   

to be 2.1.  This is not the result of some policy consensus; 

Re: [Vo]:Agriculture is the real culprit for polluting and wasting natural resources

[Mauro Lacy]

On 01/08/2012 07:28 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:

The problem is not only actual agriculture and related problems
(desertification, water and energy use, etc.)
but also the society of consumption in which we are immersed.

It's misleading to think in terms of efficiency in production, when a
significant part of the world is being absurdly inefficient at consumption.

Why try to fix a problem with more or efficient production, when the
real problem is in the way we consume and utilize goods?
Aliments are being produced in one extreme of the world, to be consumed,
and sometimes not even that, but just to be trown to the dumpster, at
the other end. That is a problem in itself, and one that better
production techniques will not correct, but even make worse.
   

Aggravate, is the right word I was looking for.

Moreover: we are experiencing a commodities bubble. In fact, it's the 
biggest commodities bubble in history. See by example this reference:

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/suplementos/cash/17-5628-2011-12-08.html

It's in Spanish, but you can read the translation here 
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/suplementos/cash/17-5628-2011-12-08.htmlsl=estl=enhl=ie=UTF-8. 
I'm sure other authorized sources or references about the issue can be 
easily found.


Talk now about global warming. Or about improving farming techniques. 
It's senseless.


We are living beyond-our-means times. That will not last much longer: 
it's unsustainable, completely irrational, and absurdly damaging.



Mauro

On 01/08/2012 06:14 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
   

Peter,

Earth is not overpopulated, if you understand what is the the biggest
pollution source on earth and what industrial sector does contribute the
most for wasting scarce resources.

The culprit is horizontal agriculture that contributes more than 95 % of
human land use i.e. resource consumption. Rest of the human activity takes
only about 1.5% of Earth surface area.

Therefore if we ban horizontal agriculture and transform into sustainable
vertical agriculture, we would exploit almost negligible amounts of Earth's
resources. Vertical farming would require double the current energy
consumption, but also producing energy with non-fossil fuels (e.g.
windmills and biofuels) would also mean more than double the resource
consumption, because their ecological foot print is huge.

Vertical farming could free about 2 gigahectares of very fertile land area
for Nature. And when hardwood forest would crow back they would absorb
annually more than 10 gigatons of carbon, that is three times more than is
currently accumulating into atmosphere.

It is sad that in general, people does not have conseptual understanding
how much agriculture is consuming resources and how much it is polluting.
And especially how easy it would be to replace the entire agriculture. I
thing that if we ban the subsidies for agriculture and place price ticket
for natural carbon sinks instead of taxing CO2, that would be enough to
make vertical farming viable option. this would save them all: humans,
nature and climate (and economy!).

Forests has huge natural climate moderating effect, and most, if not all,
of the averse effects of climate change are actually due to deforestation,
because there are no forests left to protect the top soil from erosion,
flooding and droughts.

---Jouni

On Jan 7, 2012 10:22 PM, Peter Gluckpeter.gl...@gmail.com   wrote:

 

It is a very unlucky situation that Bob Park
is not informed about or does not understand
Cold Fusion because about othr subjects he
says remarkable things, as today:
See:

robertparkbobp...@umd.edu
7:23 PM (3 hours ago)https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif
to BOBPARKS-WHATS.
https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif
WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Saturday, 7 Jan 2012   Washington, DC

1. ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE:  IT'S PROPORTIONAL TO HUMAN POPULATION.
One by one, the great ocean fisheries are being destroyed by overfishing,
including the storied Grand Banks off Newfoundland.  Elsewhere, ocean

   

gyres

 

(circulations) have trapped gigantic floating garbage patches,

   

consisting

 

of barely-buoyant pieces of man-made plastics that threaten marine life.

   

On

 

land, the Green Revolution saved billions of lives from starvation in the
20th century, but at the cost of lower groundwater levels over much of the
globe and depleted reserves of phosphate rock. It would be impossible to
repeat the Green Revolution today.  Moreover, population growth pushes oil
production ever closer to the dreaded Hubbert Peak, even as atmospheric
carbon from burning fossil fuel contributes to global warming and lowers
the pH of the oceans, with serious environmental consequences. The lesson
is clear: excessive population is damaging our environment at a rate that
far exceeds the natural

Re: [Vo]:Does Miracle Comet presage Miracle Technology?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 12/29/2011 12:14 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

Christmas comet, named Lovejoy no less:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398066,00.asp
http://www.space.com/14045-spectacular-christmas-comet-amazes-skywatchers-ch
ile.html

This kind of thing had staggering importance a few thousand years ago ...
   


Yes. Comets are harbingers of change. They were both feared and revered. 
They introduce novelty in the system, for worse and for better.


Happy new year,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:National Security and Population Structure

[Mauro Lacy]

On 12/27/2011 07:13 PM, James Bowery wrote:

A young Nebraska farmer's son went to war against Germany and came back
with code-breaking skills, as well as good DoD contacts.  His name was
William Norris.  He started Control Data Corporation with a young engineer
named Seymour Cray and, with 34 people out on Seymour's farm in Wisconsin
(only one of whom was a PhD and he was a Jr. programmer) built what is
widely regarded as the first supercomputer
http://drdobbs.com/184404102-- even as IBM's armies of PhD's and
unlimited resources foundered in the
effort much to the dismay of IBM's CEO, Thomas Watson, Jr.

Somewhere along the line, they hired me.

What I learned was that both Bill and Seymour had very strong feelings
about the national security implications of an increasingly urbanized
population.  That's one reason Seymour had his lab out in the north woods
of Wisconsin.  Bill, as CEO of CDC, had made this allowance for Seymour
while keeping CDC HQ in Minneapolis St. Paul (right across from the
airport).

The reason I signed on with them was the promise that I could fulfill part
of Bill's vision for America:

National security through dispersed population structure -- both its
preservation as an American heritage and its promotion as recovery from the
recent urbanization that threatened that heritage.  Basically, its
virtually impossible to take out a decentralized society -- whether you are
a nuclear superpower or an international terrorist organization.

My particular part in this effort was that I was to prototype a
mass-marketable version of the PLATO network, which I did circa 1980.  I
won't go into the details of that network except to say that the
contribution it would have made to national security would have been to
connect smart rural homesteads with information, education and business
resources that would contribute to their self-sufficiency.  Yes, I know,
this is starting to be realized today, but a lot of water has passed under
the bridge since 1980, no?

The rest of Bill's vision was that these smart homesteads would be energy
and food self-sufficient.

The reason you never heard of these things is that they were in direct
conflict with Wall Street's interests and Wall Street made no secret of its
hatred of Bill's vision.

I succeeded in prototyping the mass market PLATO system and it was quashed
by a mutinous middle management more identified with Wall Street than the
crazy old koot in the executive suite.  Unlike many of Bill's other
technology directions in support of decentralized population structure, the
PLATO system was poised to make immediate profits and roll out mass
produced Macintosh equivalent network computers for a service that would
have cost $40/month in 1980 dollars -- and that includes terminal rental.
  So it was particularly egregious that this technology was killed for the
noble purpose of making America vulnerable to 9/11 type attacks.

Bottom line, as technology advances, there is an increasing call for
oppression to maintain the centralized population structure, just as there
was to create it by moving the boomers out of their small midwestern towns,
through universities and into the sterilizing urban environments in which
they could not afford childrenhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A  --
but the attack on national security was conducted by Wall Street against
the traditional American way of life.  Any discussion, nowadays, about the
threat to national security represented by attacks against centralized
symbols like the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 is utter misdirection.



Yeah! Good to hear it, specially when it's coming straight from the 
horse's mouth, or close enough.


Best regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 12/27/2011 05:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Jones Beenejone...@pacbell.net  wrote:


   

A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against
LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD.

*   I assume you mean as long as there is a DoE. I agree.

No, I mean DoD - DoD has far more political clout. There is no
inter-connection between the two - except via top politicians and the
Cabinet - who hear from both.

 

I do not follow, but that's okay.



   

*   I doubt that. The only people I know of who suspected there may be
direct weapons applications Martin Fleischmann and Edward Teller. Granted,
they know a lot about cold fusion and weapons, respectively.

Yes, they do. Case closed.

 

The case does not seem closed to me. Many other people who know a lot about
cold fusion and weapons, such as Ed Storms, say there appears to be no
likelihood of a weapon. I do not think that the opinions of Fleischmann and
Teller automatically outweigh these other people's opinions.

Cold fusion does not appear to be a chain reaction, so I do not see how it
could be used in a weapon.
   


By not being the direct cause of a chain reaction?

I think LENR can be weaponized, and that's probably related, in part, to 
all the denial surrounding it. It makes sense. Moreover: I'm afraid it 
already has. I will not talk about it.


If I continue gaining insight, I suppose I'll write a book one day.
Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Short report on Kullander's cold fusion lecture

[Mauro Lacy]

On 11/24/2011 03:13 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

I wonder if Rossi will change his tune on testing if Defkalion starts
conducting public tests.



A little competition is worth a million MYs
   
And a new measurement unit is born. Let this be my modest attempt at a 
definition:
One MY is defined as the skepticism emitted by one trained anonymous 
scientist with a lot of spare time, during one day(24 hours) of active 
internet posting. In more informal terms, it can be defined as the cyber 
flow of skepticism, that is, online skepticism / time.
A million or mega MY (mMY) is therefore a relatively big amount of 
skepticism, equivalent to almost 2738 years of continuous, unabated 
emission by one determined source.


For practical reasons, it's convenient to also define another, related 
unit. We define therefore the JC, as the amount of online skepticism by 
unit hour.

1 JC equals then 1/24 MY. A much more manageable, and useful, unit.

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Mauro Lacy]

On 11/22/2011 11:14 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com  wrote:
   

It is not possible that Yugo has made calorimeters
yet she cannot follow this paper. I have no idea whether she actually knows
anything about calorimeters since she has not made any technical assertions
about calorimetry. I have no way of judging whether she has actually tried
to read this paper and failed to understand it, since she has made no
comments about it. But I am sure that no genuine expert in calorimetery will
have difficulty with this paper. I am equally sure that no expert in
calorimetry who reads the paper will find an error in it. There are no
errors in this, or in any other major cold fusion paper. If there were
errors, some opponent would have found them years ago.
McKubre's papers has been downloaded and by tens of thousands of people. It
isn't as if no one has checked them.
- Jed

 

Sometimes it's inconvenient not to be able to use one's own identity.
   


Then, use your own identity. If your arguments stand on their own, you 
can surely stand by them.

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Mauro Lacy]

 On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:

 Sometimes it's inconvenient not to be able to use one's own identity.


 Then, use your own identity. If your arguments stand on their own, you
 can
 surely stand by them.

 If the arguments stand on their own, why would you need an identity?

The real question is: why not?

 There are sometimes major inconveniences and downright nuisances, some
 potentially dangerous, when one uses one's own identity to expose
 fraud or abuse.   I don't need those.  There are more considerations
 to revealing your identity on the internet than whether or not the
 arguments make sense.

You're afraid of being harassed? Oh come on.


 I suppose most cold fusion advocates are mostly harmless (The
 Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy says so).   But there are all sorts of
 whackos out there, some of whom take umbrage when their favorite
 sacred ox is effectively and persistently gored.  The psychics who
 claim telekinesis, telepathy and who talk to the dead are a wealthy
 and powerful example.  Some of these people make dozens of millions,
 maybe hundreds, every year.If one really wanted to, he or she
 could hire someone to do violence on a detractor.  These people, who
 prey on the grieving have not the slightest morals or scruples and
 could be dangerous.  Why risk it?  It's not necessary.

 I notice that you argued against my call for proper blanks/calibration
 runs to eliminate all the ruckus about heat of evaporation of steam.
 Your arguments, IMO, do not stand up to scrutiny but if they did, it
 wouldn't matter who you are, would it?

I wasn't. You must be suffering from an identity confusion case. That's
maybe something that comes as a kind of compensatory malaise.


 I'm sure I don't need to remind you that relying on the identity of
 someone who supports a claim as evidence for the claim is the logical
 fallacy of appeal to authority.

But, talking about logical fallacies, to reveal your identity is not an
appeal to authority. When you claim that you must be right because you're
who you are, that is appeal to authority, Mark.

 That a Nobel Laureate, Josephson
 thinks there's merit to homeopathy doesn't make it so.  It's still one
 of the dumbest and lowest common denominators of junk science.


You must have said: I, insert real name here, think that it's still one
of the dumbest and lowest common denominators of junk science.

Re: [Vo]:You people misunderstand the definition of appeal to authority

[Mauro Lacy]

 I am sorry to be a pedant but you people are using the term appeal to
 authority to mean the opposite of what it should mean. I have mentioned
 this before. Here's the definition:

 http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority,
 Irrelevant Authority . . .

 . . . This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a
 legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not
 qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be
 fallacious.


You're right. Claiming that something must be right because some authority
said so, if not fallacious per se(that is, if not a false statement), is
an appeal to authority, plain and simple. You may dislike the use of it in
an argument, but it nevertheless is a valid argument to support a claim,
(specially when given to support other arguments), and I agree that it can
certainly bolster it. In fact, we use forms of appeal to authority all the
time.
I want to mention only one more thing: when an appeal to authority is made
for lack of, or to try to counteract other (probably stronger) arguments,
it tends to become suspicious, and that's probably the reason why it's
usually associated and confused with the logical fallacy of appeal to
authority.


 For example, we have Mary Yugo claiming that she is something of an expert
 in calorimetry. She has designed and tested calorimeters. If that is true,
 that makes her a legitimate authority on the subject. If she cites herself
 when making a technical claim that is *not* a fallacious appeal to
 authority. It is a valid appeal.

 The problem is that she has not revealed her identity, so we cannot judge
 whether she is actually an authority. We have to take her word for it.
 That
 is okay but not very satisfactory. In any case, that does not make this a
 fallacious appeal to authority; it makes it an incomplete or unverified
 appeal.

 She wrote:


 If the arguments stand on their own, why would you need an identity?


 The answer is you do not need an identity, but having a valid authority
 does bolster a claim.



 I'm sure I don't need to remind you that relying on the identity
 of someone who supports a claim as evidence for the claim is the
 logical fallacy of appeal to authority.


 No, it is *not*. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It would only be an appeal to
 authority fallacy if the person you cite is not actually an authority.

 A statement by an authority may be wrong but we should give it weight. It
 is more likely to be correct then a statement by a nonexpert or amateur.

 It can be difficult to know who is actually an authority. Many people who
 make pronouncements about cold fusion consider themselves authorities but
 it often turns out they know nothing about the subject. The book, The
 Experts Speak is a cynical compendium of quotes that turned out to be
 mistakes. This book is an attempt to discredit experts. However, most of
 these quotes are from people who were not experts; but only thought they
 were. The real experts in most cases were correct.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:A U.S.P.O. policy regarding cold fusion

[Mauro Lacy]

On 11/23/2011 04:34 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:



You must have said: I,insert real name here, think that it's still one
of the dumbest and lowest common denominators of junk science.

 

I have no idea what that means.
   

You should.

Re: [Vo]:You people misunderstand the definition of appeal to authority

[Mauro Lacy]

On 11/23/2011 06:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

An appeal to authority, regardless the credentials of the authority,
can only affect one's judgement of the probability of truth.  It is
thus non-Aristotelian.  It is a sales tool.  It is not a logical
   


That's an important distinction, and probably the key to resolve the issue:
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, even when the authority is 
valid, for the

simple reason that it's not a logically valid way to win an argument.

Aristotle identified a general form of logical fallacy which he called 
/Ignoratio elenchi/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi, 
which amounts
to ignorance of what is a refutation, that is, it amounts to not less 
than ignorance of the rules of logic.
Appeal to authority, ad hominem attacks, red herrings, etc. are all 
forms of ignoratio elenchi.
Instead of addressing the issue in discussion with logical arguments, 
the responder tries to avoid it by diverse means.


That is not to say that appeal to authority can be and in fact is a 
valid or useful argumentative technique or resource. It's only
that it isn't valid in the strict sense of the rules of logic, and it's 
therefore, a logical fallacy.



argument, and thus can not be either valid or invalid, as the
application of modus ponens or other logical inferences can be.   It
is not possible to take a set of true premises, apply only an appeal
to authority argument, and from that determine a new premise that is
known to be true or false.   There are plenty of examples of a single
scientist being considered wrong  when no other authority agreed,
only to have time pass until most authorities agreed .The
validity or invalidity of a logical argument is forever.  The
perception of truth can be fleeting.

The fallacies noted here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

merely demonstrate various kinds of mistaken assumptions that an
appeal to authority may embody.  However, none of these mistakes can
be made and yet an appeal to authority argument can result in a false
conclusion simply because all authorities on a subject can be wrong
on a given point at a given time.

That's my personal opinion anyway.  Maybe a reference to an expert
opinion on that can be found.  8^)))



On Nov 23, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

   

I am sorry to be a pedant but you people are using the term appeal
to authority to mean the opposite of what it should mean. I have
mentioned this before. Here's the definition:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of
Authority, Irrelevant Authority . . .

. . . This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not
a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A
is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the
argument will be fallacious.


For example, we have Mary Yugo claiming that she is something of an
expert in calorimetry. She has designed and tested calorimeters. If
that is true, that makes her a legitimate authority on the subject.
If she cites herself when making a technical claim that is not a
fallacious appeal to authority. It is a valid appeal.

The problem is that she has not revealed her identity, so we cannot
judge whether she is actually an authority. We have to take her
word for it. That is okay but not very satisfactory. In any case,
that does not make this a fallacious appeal to authority; it makes
it an incomplete or unverified appeal.

She wrote:

If the arguments stand on their own, why would you need an identity?

The answer is you do not need an identity, but having a valid
authority does bolster a claim.


I'm sure I don't need to remind you that relying on the identity of
someone who supports a claim as evidence for the claim is the
logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

No, it is not. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It would only be an appeal to
authority fallacy if the person you cite is not actually an authority.

A statement by an authority may be wrong but we should give it
weight. It is more likely to be correct then a statement by a
nonexpert or amateur.

It can be difficult to know who is actually an authority. Many
people who make pronouncements about cold fusion consider
themselves authorities but it often turns out they know nothing
about the subject. The book, The Experts Speak is a cynical
compendium of quotes that turned out to be mistakes. This book is
an attempt to discredit experts. However, most of these quotes are
from people who were not experts; but only thought they were. The
real experts in most cases were correct.

- Jed

 

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/





   

Re: [Vo]:Krivit's transcript of Rossi's Ah Ha moment, a cheap shot. (Part 2 of 2)

[Mauro Lacy]

On 11/06/2011 12:58 AM, Man on Bridges wrote:

Hi,

Don't know if this is of any help at all, but take a look at the
following page.

How to tell if someone is telling a lie or lying: Viewzone
See: http://viewzone2.com/liarx.html
   
I wouldn't mind she lied to me a couple of times :-D Although, 
admittedly, her eyes look strange.

Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY

[Mauro Lacy]

On 11/06/2011 09:31 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:

Am 06.11.2011 13:19, schrieb Peter Gluck:
   

OK, as far as you refer to science; can you tell a few absolute truths
re Cold Fusion or LENR except they exist?
If you have time please continue with lists of absolute truths
from technology, management, religion (there are~ 11500 religions all
claiming to be absolute truth), philosophy, ethics, sociology,
politics, ecology? And etc.?

As regarding mathematics, I ask you to make a search for  mathematics
was invented or discovered? and if you arrive to a conclusion, please
come back with a handful of absolute truths.
Perhaps Kurt Godel can help you a bit. (he is dead but this is not a
serious obstacle)- he says very interesting things,
Absolute truth seems to be both an oxymoron and a paradox.
 

It is  a common misunderstanding, that Godel and Alan Turing have shown
no truth exists.
The opposite is true. They have shown that not all mathemathical truths
can be discovered and proven.
They have proven, there is much more truth than we ever can capture.
   


That's exactly right. Gödel's theorem can be understood as stating once 
and for all that the concept of truth is of a higher hierarchy

than the concept of comprobability (or falsifiability).
This all comes from the beginnings of twentieth century's pretension to 
equate truth with comprobability. Namely, mostly Hilbert's and Russell's 
pretension at the time.
That pretension is equivalent, in the field of mathematics, to the 
nineteen century's mechanistic and deterministic pretension in the field 
of physics, which was overturned by quantum mechanics and the 
uncertainty principle.




Example: Hilbert has shown that euclidian geometry is without inner
contradictions and mathematically true.
He tried to expand this onto the whole mathematics and this is not
possible, according to Godel and Turing.
But this does not mean, no truth exists. It means we cannot prove all
truth that exists.

About LENR:
If we cannot prove it, we cannot use it and vice versa.

Coomonly these parts of truth that are impossible to prove are not very
important as long as we are physically alive, because we cannot make any
real use of this hidden truth and reality that exists.

Best,

Peter


   

a peterer, probably the peterest Peter on Vortex

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de
mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de  wrote:

 Am 06.11.2011 09:43, schrieb Peter Gluck:

 My Dear Friends,

 Please read my regular issue of INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY:

 
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/11/informavores-sunday-no-480.html

 It is a pleasure to discover, especially to discover new aspects,
 surprising features of old ideas and ancient concepts. Some 3
 years
 ago I wrote an essay-editorial about lies: Small Man, why are you
 lying all the time?
 The main 'discovery' was that lies are relative, they do not
 exist if
 there is no truth. Each and every lie is the opposite of a truth.
 Now I had a slow revelation (it lasted some 10 months, I am not
 a fast thinker): there exists a special category of lies, Big
 Lies.
 Their opposite is not a truth but also a lie.
 Due to a memory glitch, I am not able to give you examples
 but I am convinced you will be able to find at least one.
 The things are more weird than we can imagine- as more very
 wise thinkers have stated.
 Peter


 In natural science and technology lies are not relative.
 Nature is always true and cannot be in error and never lies.
 Humans can be in error and can lie.
 But there is absolute truth.

 Lets think about the most true science that exists: Mathematics.
 Where does this absolute truth come from?
 Does it come out of human mind? No, it doesnt.
 If I write a letter then the existence of this letter is
 absolutely evident, testable and true.
 This is where absolute truth in mathematics comes from.
 Mathematics without the absolute true existence of written letters
 is impossible.

 Absolute truth exists, it is nature itself. Natural reality is
 truth, it is the same thing.
 Therefore lies about natural observable facts are not relative lies.

 kind regards,

 Peter




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

 


   

Re: [Vo]:Could undetected nuclear isomers explain any LENR?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 11/06/2011 02:49 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

I am not sure which, if any, nickel isotopes admit isomeric states.

Perhaps, electrodes, container walls, or contaminants in nickel (or
palladium) could be the source of some yet unidentified isomers.

I am quite perplexed that isomeric-65Fe went undetected for so long.
Perhaps others have also escaped notice?

If they exist at all, getting long-lived nuclear isomers to relax to
ground state is probably difficult, if not impossible.  But, if it is
possible, maybe some LENR experiments have accidentally stumbled upon a
way?
   


I find this hypothesis plausible, for a number of reasons. Maybe we can 
even call it the white elephant in the room hypothesis for (so-called) 
cold fusion?


I'm not a nuclear expert, at all, but as mentioned before a number of 
times in the list, mostly by Jones Beene, there's a known mechanism, 
called (Nuclear) Internal Conversion, by which the energy of a nuclear 
isomer can be emitted (mostly) without gammas, in the form of an 
expulsed electron from the inner shell. Interestingly, too, there's a 
coefficient called Internal Conversion Coefficient, *which is 
empirically determined by the ratio of de-excitations that go by the 
emission of electrons to those that go by gamma emission*. (wikipedia dixit)


Maybe what Rossi found is a two-fold process, which:
1) Induce a given (naturally ocurring, hidden in the mass statistics?) 
Nickel nuclear isomer to decay. Through the use of nano-powders, the 
presence of Hydrogen, pressure, and some heat. Probable, at least.
2) Increase the IC coefficient, for the given nuclear isomer, so 
(almost) no gammas are produced. Through the selection of specific 
temperature and pressure ranges, by using electromagnetic fields, by 
using a secret catalyst, etc. etc.


That would explain why at turn-off, (with the Rossi mechanism for IC 
being deactivated) there's a peak of gammas.
That would explain too why the term catalyst is geing used. The energy 
is already there, in the form of naturally ocurring nuclear isomers.


Some questions for the list:
- How can the explused IC electrons convert to heat? Is this 
straightforward? As I said, I'm not a nuclear (nor physics, or 
chemistry) expert.
- According to theory, Auger electrons 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auger_electron) should sometimes be 
produced after IC occurs, when the electrons reaccomodate to fill in the 
blanks in the internal shell. Can these electrons be specifically 
detected? by example, through its specific energies? This would perhaps 
provide a signature of the effect for the Rossi device. Can this 
associated secondary phenomenon be the source of heat?


Now, assuming that the hypothesis is true, and proceeding in reverse 
order, we could(I want to clarify that I would NOT do it):
- search for the geatest Internal Conversion Coefficients for a given 
element.

- search for ways to increase said empirically determined coefficient.
- search for ways to induce nuclear isomer decay.
- search for nuclear isomers of Nickel or other elements.

And that's it, folks.
Regards,
Mauro



   

In reply to  pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Sat, 5 Nov 2011 23:35:00
-0400
(EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
 

Probably, Robin, but the relatively recent discovery of the 65Fe isomer
(which likely has been lurking in the universe for a long time) makes me
wonder if other long-lived isomers have escaped attention, and written
off
as statistical errors in mass measurements.
   

That was specifically mentioned by Jones Beene before. See


I suppose this even probable, but why choose Ni62 specifically?
(Note that Fe65 is on the heavy side of the Fe isotopes).
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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



 



   

Re: [Vo]:Could undetected nuclear isomers explain any LENR?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 11/06/2011 12:09 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:

On 11/06/2011 02:49 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
   

I am not sure which, if any, nickel isotopes admit isomeric states.

Perhaps, electrodes, container walls, or contaminants in nickel (or
palladium) could be the source of some yet unidentified isomers.

I am quite perplexed that isomeric-65Fe went undetected for so long.
Perhaps others have also escaped notice?

If they exist at all, getting long-lived nuclear isomers to relax to
ground state is probably difficult, if not impossible.  But, if it is
possible, maybe some LENR experiments have accidentally stumbled upon a
way?

 

I find this hypothesis plausible, for a number of reasons. Maybe we can
even call it the white elephant in the room hypothesis for (so-called)
cold fusion?

I'm not a nuclear expert, at all, but as mentioned before a number of
times in the list, mostly by Jones Beene, there's a known mechanism,
called (Nuclear) Internal Conversion, by which the energy of a nuclear
isomer can be emitted (mostly) without gammas, in the form of an
expulsed electron from the inner shell. Interestingly, too, there's a
coefficient called Internal Conversion Coefficient, *which is
empirically determined by the ratio of de-excitations that go by the
emission of electrons to those that go by gamma emission*. (wikipedia dixit)

Maybe what Rossi found is a two-fold process, which:
1) Induce a given (naturally ocurring, hidden in the mass statistics?)
Nickel nuclear isomer to decay. Through the use of nano-powders, the
presence of Hydrogen, pressure, and some heat. Probable, at least.
2) Increase the IC coefficient, for the given nuclear isomer, so
(almost) no gammas are produced. Through the selection of specific
temperature and pressure ranges, by using electromagnetic fields, by
using a secret catalyst, etc. etc.

That would explain why at turn-off, (with the Rossi mechanism for IC
being deactivated) there's a peak of gammas.
That would explain too why the term catalyst is geing used. The energy
is already there, in the form of naturally ocurring nuclear isomers.

Some questions for the list:
- How can the explused IC electrons convert to heat? Is this
straightforward? As I said, I'm not a nuclear (nor physics, or
chemistry) expert.
- According to theory, Auger electrons
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auger_electron) should sometimes be
produced after IC occurs, when the electrons reaccomodate to fill in the
blanks in the internal shell. Can these electrons be specifically
detected? by example, through its specific energies? This would perhaps
provide a signature of the effect for the Rossi device. Can this
associated secondary phenomenon be the source of heat?

Now, assuming that the hypothesis is true, and proceeding in reverse
order, we could(I want to clarify that I would NOT do it):
- search for the geatest Internal Conversion Coefficients for a given
element.
- search for ways to increase said empirically determined coefficient.
- search for ways to induce nuclear isomer decay.
- search for nuclear isomers of Nickel or other elements.

And that's it, folks.
Regards,
Mauro

   


 

In reply to  pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Sat, 5 Nov 2011 23:35:00
-0400
(EDT):
Hi,
[snip]

   

Probably, Robin, but the relatively recent discovery of the 65Fe isomer
(which likely has been lurking in the universe for a long time) makes me
wonder if other long-lived isomers have escaped attention, and written
off
as statistical errors in mass measurements.

 

That was specifically mentioned by Jones Beene before. See
   


I forgot to add the links to the archives (and to run the spell checker, 
btw). Here are the references:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg43780.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47741.html

Regards.

Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY

[Mauro Lacy]

On 11/06/2011 11:41 AM, John Harris wrote:

- Original Message -
From: John Harrisjohnharri...@dodo.com.au
To:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY


   

- Original Message -  - Original Message - From: Peter
Heckert
 

peter.heck...@arcor.de
   

In natural science and technology lies are not relative.
Nature is always true and cannot be in error and never lies. Humans
can be in error and can lie.
But there is absolute truth.
 

And yet paradoxically nature itself is full of lies
Moths that look like bees so they are not attacked
Insects that look like twigs
Birds that look like a part of the tree they are roosting in
caterpillars with eyes on the tail end fish with wide open mouths that
appear to be safe haven for smaller prey
and many many more.
 

What you mean is biological nature and human perception of it.
I think this is a projection.
There is no untruth in physical nature, it is our mind that lies.
   

  And yet in this instance the human mind does not lie
  We perceive the stick insect and watch while it lunches off the aphids that
  do not perceive.
  We recognize the Mopoke on the branch and watch while it makes dinner of
the
  skink that did not recognise it.
  We see the reverse caterpillar and watch while the butcher bird gets its
  eyes full of acetic acid because it attacked the wrong end.

  The biological world is full of deception
   


As Peter Heckert said, you're projecting human traits (moreover, 
stuffing them with emotionality) to nature and nature events.


Last night we watched Grizzly Man, a masterly done documentary by 
Werner Hertzog, about Timothy Treadwell, a guy who lived for a good 
number of summers with grizzly bears in Alaska. He pretended that the 
bears were his friends, or at least, that he could establish some kind 
of peaceful coexistence with them. That worked out for a good number of 
seasons (thirteen or so), until a bear ate him and his girlfriend, when 
running out of food at the end of the season.
Of course, there is no particular emotionality in bears when eating 
humans, except the usual ones related to filling their empty stomachs 
and satisfying their hunger. At the maximum, they can maybe become 
addicted to the taste of human flesh, but that's all.

Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY

[Mauro Lacy]

On 11/06/2011 12:49 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:

On 11/06/2011 11:41 AM, John Harris wrote:
   

- Original Message -
From: John Harrisjohnharri...@dodo.com.au
To:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY



 

- Original Message -   - Original Message - From: Peter
Heckert

   

peter.heck...@arcor.de

 

In natural science and technology lies are not relative.
Nature is always true and cannot be in error and never lies. Humans
can be in error and can lie.
But there is absolute truth.

   

And yet paradoxically nature itself is full of lies
Moths that look like bees so they are not attacked
Insects that look like twigs
Birds that look like a part of the tree they are roosting in
caterpillars with eyes on the tail end fish with wide open mouths that
appear to be safe haven for smaller prey
and many many more.

   

What you mean is biological nature and human perception of it.
I think this is a projection.
There is no untruth in physical nature, it is our mind that lies.

 

   And yet in this instance the human mind does not lie
   We perceive the stick insect and watch while it lunches off the aphids that
   do not perceive.
   We recognize the Mopoke on the branch and watch while it makes dinner of
the
   skink that did not recognise it.
   We see the reverse caterpillar and watch while the butcher bird gets its
   eyes full of acetic acid because it attacked the wrong end.

   The biological world is full of deception

 

As Peter Heckert said, you're projecting human traits (moreover,
stuffing them with emotionality) to nature and nature events.

Last night we watched Grizzly Man, a masterly done documentary by
Werner Hertzog, about Timothy Treadwell, a guy who lived for a good
   


Herzog(damn!). Sorry Werner, the hideous spell checker does not know you.

Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY

[Mauro Lacy]

On 11/06/2011 05:07 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:

Am 06.11.2011 18:36, schrieb Peter Gluck:
   

What I wrote is connected to  a subject more popular here these days.
The future is unknown, but perhaps it could be useful to )re) read the
play OXYGEN by Djerassi and Hoffman
http://www.djerassi.com/oxygen11/oxygen.htm
I have translated it in Romanian but the text was lost due to a
hard-disk crash.
It gives an answer to the question: who has discovered oxygen? Not an
absolute answer.

 

There cannot be an absolute answer. There are many answers, some
competing, some not.
This is a little bit like the question Were is the spring of the river
Nil?.
In reality rivers have many springs and one mouth end. (There are
exceptions)

A big problem is, when you discover something new then it has no name.
So, how talk about this?
Many did research phlogiston at this time, this was the prevalent
theorie and might have discovered oxygen and might have described its
behaviour correctly, but the term oxygen did not exist and the physics
and chemistry of gases was unknown.
So there where no possibility to put this discovery into a wider
context. The language needed for this did not exist.
They would have used the name phlogiston or other names and so their
description is not understandable nowadays.

So far I know, Lavoisier was the first who made documented quantitative
measurements for oxidation and burning. He might not be this person that
first discovered oxygen, but he developed these methods needed to prove
and measure and predict its existence.
   


Exactly. He took a quantitative approach, carefully weighting before and 
after the combustion, and found out that the end products were heavier 
than the combustible, and that lead in turn to the discovery of 
oxygen(in modern scientific terms), and to the abandonment of the 
phlogiston theory.
But take notice that it was the quantitative approach, and particularly, 
weighting, what leads to the modern discovery of oxygen. Moreover: when 
you consider all the results of a combustion (not only those that have 
weight) you can easily conclude that there's indeed something that is 
escaping during the combustion, namely, in the form of light and warmth. 
Not that I want to sustain or defend the phlogiston theory, (that's far 
from my intention), but please take notice that a combustion is in fact 
something involving more than just matter in the ordinary sense.
In a sense, the cherished modern notion of a combustion like just the 
encounter of a combustible and an oxidizer, is just a partial truth(the 
part that can be weighted), whereas the whole process is composed by 
much more than that, and certainly involves something similar to the 
old, discredited, phlogiston.


We tend to value the explanations that conform to the notions of our 
time, like, by example, materialism, and consider them to be true, but 
in fact they are no more than approximations and, in a certain sense, 
just conventions or discourses of our time. Reflections of our mental 
frameworks.


Future mankind will find very strange, and even funny, not only the 
partial and conventional notions of our time, but also the strength and 
insistence with which we tend to adhere to them, as if they were 
absolute truths, when they are in fact not more than conventions. Just 
in the same way, or even more, as we tend to laugh now about past knowledge.


Regards,
Mauro


Without this we would probably today still discuss about phlogiston
theories and could doubt the existence of oxygene.

Best, Peter


   

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis

[Mauro Lacy]

On 10/08/2011 03:47 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

On 2011-10-08 20:41, Horace Heffner wrote:

   

I don't see any charts. What am I doing wrong? Is there a link there I
am missing?
 

You are not doing anything wrong. It looks you need to subscribe to that
discussion board to see the charts. I've put up a new link for everybody
to see them: http://imgur.com/a/iwZQ8
   


If that link does not work for you, maybe you need to enable javascript 
for the domain.


In these graphs I noticed that the demo was finished when power output 
fall below the power of the heater resistor.
Maybe Rossi intended to run the test for longer, and suspended it to 
avoid output power going to zero. That is not an indication of anything, 
of course. Except maybe that he does not yet control the reaction 
enough, at least to estimate the duration and amount of output power for 
a given initial heating.


Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos

[Mauro Lacy]

On 10/04/2011 08:27 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here,
says the bartender.

A neutrino walks into a bar.
   

It made its way to the news
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gone-in-60-nanoseconds/2011/10/06/gIQAf1RERL_story.html

Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report

[Mauro Lacy]

On 10/07/2011 10:31 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote:

Stremmeson was a physics/chemistry professor from university of bologna.
He made several error inside this report. That’s not a typo, is a conceptual 
error, a big one.
   


No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h).
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=kWh/h

Although the expression may be confusing, the concepts are clear.

Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/24/2011 06:23 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

First, you hit a sore point here, and I'm going to address it first.
The sore point is people giving some special, unusual meaning to a
common word, and then pretending that they've done something more clever
than just introduce a monkey wrench into the discussion.

On 11-09-23 07:32 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
   

I'll probably tell you too that for me science, real science, is about
knowledge of the way things really are.
 

Wrong on the face of it.  Language is for communication, and
communication using language requires a previously agreed to set of
meanings for the words to be used.  Consequently, you are welcome to
define some word to mean knowledge of the way things /really/ are,
along with your own personal definition of the term really are, but
the word for that isn't science, which has rather more limited goals.
   


What I'm saying is that science has bias. See below.

You can pretend that /real/ science would have a more broad reaching
goal than what /ordinary/ science has, but science is just a word,
words are just for communication, and to have value in communication the
word must be vested with its commonly accepted meaning.  By definition,
a word means what it is commonly agreed to mean -- nothing more and
nothing less.

If you use a word to mean something other than that, then you are using
it for obfuscation, not communication.
   


Ok, here's the obfuscated meaning I'm using: Science is the pursuit of 
knowledge about reality.

Science, as the word is commonly used, refers to a particular
technique and the knowledge which has been gained by that technique.
The (extremely simple) technique of science consists of observing
reality, making guesses about what makes it all go, and then /testing/
the guesses.  The knowledge which has been gained by applying that
technique is the aggregate of the guesses which have been made, and the
results of the tests which have been applied, and really, that's all
there is to it.

Anything else is outside the realm of science, as the word is commonly
used.  In particular, determining the nature of some unknown and
ultimately untestable absolute reality is utterly beyond its scope.
   


I beg to disagree. Scientists limit themselves to a subset of possible 
ways of knowing, but
that's not science, but academics, establishment, power struggles, 
sectarianism, and the like.

And I insist: science (real science) is much more than that.


On 11-09-23 07:32 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
   

[ ... ]
Now, looking at the picture again, I can ask you: what is moving in
the galaxy? In general, you'll answer that stars, dust clouds, etc.
are moving, and that their movement has taken a spiral form, again,
due to gravity and due to a given initial rotation of the system,
which was in the past a giant dust cloud of some kind(which was
rotating who knows why), and gradually developed stars and planets out
of the initial irregularities.

And then I'll ask you: the empty space between stars, planets, etc.
which is in the galaxy, is also moving? You'll probably answer that,
given our current understanding of the matter, only matter can move,
not empty space. Moreover, you'll cite scientific premises like
Occam's razor and the like, to announce that we shouldn't multiply the
entities, that only observables and measurable things must be
considered, etc.
 

No, I won't invoke Occam's Razor at all.

I'll merely point out that we can easily cast your comments about the
motion of space itself in classical terms.  You are talking about an
aether, and a sort of reverse aether drag where the moving aether
drags the stars along.

To date, the aether theories which are consistent with experimental
results are also consistent with the predictions of SR, which is purely
geometric and does not require an aether.  Consequently, to date there's
no evidence for the existence of an aether.


That's wrong as a procedural rule. In fact, it's at the core of the problem:
The next scientific step with a purely geometric theory is to try to 
assign it physical meaning.


We can say, by example, that Kepler laws are purely geometric, and 
therefore, do not need something like a physical cause to operate.
But then Newton came and derived an inverse square law from Kepler laws. 
Newton erred in his theory, by the way, when assuming that
matter alone causes gravity, but nevertheless, a physical explanation, a 
reason for Kepler laws, was proposed and in fact adopted.


So, the next scientific step with relativity theories, is to try to 
understand them physically, or to try to find a physical cause for the 
behaviour predicted by them.
As I said, that step has been missing for centuries, and that omission 
has very specific reasons: A physical explanation for special relativity 
rules out materialism. If we understand matter as something having 
tridimensional (spatial) extent, relativity theories clearly point to 
something that is not material, i.e

Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/24/2011 09:57 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:

On 09/24/2011 11:04 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
   

The New Scientist article, Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to
cheat light speed, here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-
neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html

suggest dimension hops as the means for neutrinos traveling faster
than light, as measured in the CERN OPERA experiment, described by
Adam et al., Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA
detector in the CNGS beam here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

The arrival time of the neutrinos across a 730 km distance was 60.7
ns early, representing 2.48x10^-5 relative difference vs light travel
time.

This measurement conflicts with early arrival time data for neutrinos
from supernova. The New Scientist article quotes Marc Sher of the
College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, It's not
reasonable. ... If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they
would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is
crazy, says Sher. They didn't.

This implies a difference in travel speed in matter vs vacuum for the
neutrinos.

 

That's a possibility. Another is that this implies an extra difference
in travel speed in air vs. vacuum for light.
The electromagnetic signals sent by the gps systems are delayed a little
bit more than expected according to current theory. And that becomes
apparent only when compared with neutrino speeds, which are unaffected.
This is consistent with the Cahill and Kitto paper about the non-null
results of Michelson  Morley type experiments and the relation with the
refractive index of the medium:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065
Interestingly, the 7.5 km/s reported difference in neutrino speed is in
good agreement with the 8 km/s result estimated for Michelson  Morley
type experiments in air.

And a third possibility: the underground distance estimation between
laboratories is wrong according to current theory. This can be the case,
by example, if unaccounted for length contraction is happening due to
gravitational effects. I would search for the difference in height
between both laboratories, the way to estimate length contraction due to
gravitational effects, and the estimated intensity of the gravitational
field at the neutrino beam mean travel depth.
   


And a fourth (and obvious one), sugested in one of the comments of 
Nature's 
announcement(http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html):
Light speed in vacuum is not the maximum possible speed. That is, /c/ is 
not equal to the speed of light in vacuum, but slightly more. The vacuum 
has a refractive index slightly greater than one. Light interacts 
ligthly with the vacuum, then, whereas neutrinos don't interact (or 
interact less) with the vacuum or matter.


Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/25/2011 03:19 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

Maoro, i did propose that idea also here at Vortex, but it does not work and
it cannot explain 7 km/s difference. We have measured that speed of light in
vacuum is not depended on direction at least accuracy of ±0.1 m/s. I do not
remember how accurately it was measured, but it was much more accurate than
the absolute value for c that is measured with accuracy of ±1m/s.  Hence
there is absolutely no observable difference between real c and the speed of
light in vacuum and indeed we can measure very accurately the slowing down
of light in medium/aether versus the real c.
   


But it does not need to be an anisotropic effect. Simply, the maximum 
possible speed (let's call it /c/), is slightly more than the maximum 
speed of light(let's call it /cl/). Until the neutrino speed 
measurement, it was assumed that light speed in vacuum was the maximum 
possible speed (that is, that /cl = c/). Now we know (if the experiment 
is correct and hasn't another more mundane explanation) that neutrino 
speeds are closer to a putative /c/ than light speeds. That is 
equivalent to saying that the refractive index of vacuum is slightly 
more than 1 for light. How slightly more will depend on how the new /c/ 
is defined, and at least in principle, it makes sense to define it based 
on the neutrino speed measurements.
Now, I wonder if this is all there's to it, and I certainly doubt it. 
Probably the new /c /will also be slightly less than the maximum 
possible speed, that is, neutrinos will have a refractive index closer 
to but greater than one too.
And finally: there's still the possibility of systematic effects related 
to Earth's movement, gps signals traveling in air, neutrinos traveling 
underground, etc.


Regards,
Mauro

—Jouni
On Sep 25, 2011 8:56 PM, Mauro Lacyma...@lacy.com.ar  wrote:
   

On 09/24/2011 09:57 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
 

On 09/24/2011 11:04 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:

   

The New Scientist article, Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to
cheat light speed, here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-
neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html

suggest dimension hops as the means for neutrinos traveling faster
than light, as measured in the CERN OPERA experiment, described by
Adam et al., Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA
detector in the CNGS beam here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

The arrival time of the neutrinos across a 730 km distance was 60.7
ns early, representing 2.48x10^-5 relative difference vs light travel
time.

This measurement conflicts with early arrival time data for neutrinos
from supernova. The New Scientist article quotes Marc Sher of the
College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, It's not
reasonable. ... If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they
would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is
crazy, says Sher. They didn't.

This implies a difference in travel speed in matter vs vacuum for the
neutrinos.


 

That's a possibility. Another is that this implies an extra difference
in travel speed in air vs. vacuum for light.
The electromagnetic signals sent by the gps systems are delayed a little
bit more than expected according to current theory. And that becomes
apparent only when compared with neutrino speeds, which are unaffected.
This is consistent with the Cahill and Kitto paper about the non-null
results of Michelson  Morley type experiments and the relation with the
refractive index of the medium:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065
Interestingly, the 7.5 km/s reported difference in neutrino speed is in
good agreement with the 8 km/s result estimated for Michelson  Morley
type experiments in air.

And a third possibility: the underground distance estimation between
laboratories is wrong according to current theory. This can be the case,
by example, if unaccounted for length contraction is happening due to
gravitational effects. I would search for the difference in height
between both laboratories, the way to estimate length contraction due to
gravitational effects, and the estimated intensity of the gravitational
field at the neutrino beam mean travel depth.

   

And a fourth (and obvious one), sugested in one of the comments of
Nature's
announcement(
 

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html):
   

Light speed in vacuum is not the maximum possible speed. That is, /c/ is
not equal to the speed of light in vacuum, but slightly more. The vacuum
has a refractive index slightly greater than one. Light interacts
ligthly with the vacuum, then, whereas neutrinos don't interact (or
interact less) with the vacuum or matter.

Mauro
 
   

Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/24/2011 11:04 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:

The New Scientist article, Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to
cheat light speed, here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-
neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html

suggest dimension hops as the means for neutrinos traveling faster
than light, as measured in the CERN OPERA experiment, described by
Adam et al., Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA
detector in the CNGS beam here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

The arrival time of the neutrinos across a 730 km distance was 60.7
ns early, representing 2.48x10^-5 relative difference vs light travel
time.

This measurement conflicts with early arrival time data for neutrinos
from supernova. The New Scientist article quotes Marc Sher of the
College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, It's not
reasonable. ... If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they
would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is
crazy, says Sher. They didn't.

This implies a difference in travel speed in matter vs vacuum for the
neutrinos.
   


That's a possibility. Another is that this implies an extra difference 
in travel speed in air vs. vacuum for light.
The electromagnetic signals sent by the gps systems are delayed a little 
bit more than expected according to current theory. And that becomes 
apparent only when compared with neutrino speeds, which are unaffected. 
This is consistent with the Cahill and Kitto paper about the non-null 
results of Michelson  Morley type experiments and the relation with the 
refractive index of the medium:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065
Interestingly, the 7.5 km/s reported difference in neutrino speed is in 
good agreement with the 8 km/s result estimated for Michelson  Morley 
type experiments in air.


And a third possibility: the underground distance estimation between 
laboratories is wrong according to current theory. This can be the case, 
by example, if unaccounted for length contraction is happening due to 
gravitational effects. I would search for the difference in height 
between both laboratories, the way to estimate length contraction due to 
gravitational effects, and the estimated intensity of the gravitational 
field at the neutrino beam mean travel depth.


Regards,
Mauro

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

[Mauro Lacy]

 Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

 If nothing else, this shoots down the old canard (often claimed by
 those trying to argue that SR is just a big conspiracy) that any
 scientist who actually measured a particle going faster than light
 would suppress the result to avoid going against the establishment.

 This is never a problem. The scientific establishment does not care one
 way or the other about whether a result is in line with theory, or
 opposed to it, or so far-out it has no bearing on any theory. In the
 last category we have multi-universe theories and string theory.

 The scientific establishment cares about only two things: money, and
 power. You can predict that if a finding will bring money or power to a
 researcher, he will approve of it, but if he fears it will cost him
 money or power, he will oppose it. He will come up with theoretical
 justification for his position post-hoc. If you offer him a grant, he
 will instantly switch sides and believe the opposite of what he
 previously believed, as T. Passell discovered in 1989 and 1990 with
 regard to cold fusion.

 If you discover a potent new source of energy you will meet great
 resistance because other groups are already funded to search for energy
 sources. It makes no difference whether your new source is an
 incremental improvement or cold fusion. The only thing that matters is
 whether it is likely to take away other people's funding, or corporate
 profits. An incremental improvement to solar cells is no particular
 threat because there are dozens of them every year. A completely
 revolutionary solar cell with the potential to put the coal industry out
 of business would be opposed by all other solar and wind researchers and
 by the coal and fission industry. When I say oppose I mean they would
 try to destroy your life.

 When there is no existing competition, an innovation or breakthrough
 will either be ignored or welcomed. It will probably not be opposed.
 X-rays were welcomed in 1895 because there was no means to look inside
 solid objects. But, in the 1990s when people tried to develop improved
 methods such as cat scans and NMR, these projects ran into tremendous
 opposition because they threatened the market share of existing
 corporations, and the knowledge base of academic experts.

 S. Szpak pointed out the ruling factor in academic science: scientists
 believe whatever you pay them to believe. He was being cynical, but it
 is true.

Well said.
Science, and particularly, establishment science, i.e. science as an
established discipline, is neither neutral nor objective, but just another
human affair. Because it's usually done by scientists, which are human
beings, which have therefore a saucer full of human traits.

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

[Mauro Lacy]

 Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

 If nothing else, this shoots down the old canard (often claimed by
 those trying to argue that SR is just a big conspiracy) that any
 scientist who actually measured a particle going faster than light
 would suppress the result to avoid going against the establishment.

 This is never a problem. The scientific establishment does not care one
 way or the other about whether a result is in line with theory, or
 opposed to it, or so far-out it has no bearing on any theory. In the
 last category we have multi-universe theories and string theory.

 The scientific establishment cares about only two things: money, and
 power. You can predict that if a finding will bring money or power to a
 researcher, he will approve of it, but if he fears it will cost him
 money or power, he will oppose it. He will come up with theoretical
 justification for his position post-hoc. If you offer him a grant, he
 will instantly switch sides and believe the opposite of what he
 previously believed, as T. Passell discovered in 1989 and 1990 with
 regard to cold fusion.

 If you discover a potent new source of energy you will meet great
 resistance because other groups are already funded to search for energy
 sources. It makes no difference whether your new source is an
 incremental improvement or cold fusion. The only thing that matters is
 whether it is likely to take away other people's funding, or corporate
 profits. An incremental improvement to solar cells is no particular
 threat because there are dozens of them every year. A completely
 revolutionary solar cell with the potential to put the coal industry out
 of business would be opposed by all other solar and wind researchers and
 by the coal and fission industry. When I say oppose I mean they would
 try to destroy your life.

 When there is no existing competition, an innovation or breakthrough
 will either be ignored or welcomed. It will probably not be opposed.
 X-rays were welcomed in 1895 because there was no means to look inside
 solid objects. But, in the 1990s when people tried to develop improved
 methods such as cat scans and NMR, these projects ran into tremendous
 opposition because they threatened the market share of existing
 corporations, and the knowledge base of academic experts.

 S. Szpak pointed out the ruling factor in academic science: scientists
 believe whatever you pay them to believe. He was being cynical, but it
 is true.

 Well said.
 Science, and particularly, establishment science, i.e. science as an
 established discipline, is neither neutral nor objective, but just another
 human affair. Because it's usually done by scientists, which are human
 beings, which have therefore a saucer full of human traits.

Just playing with words... I should have said: ...usually done by
scientists, which are /usually/ human beings
I regret that. And objective is a horrible word. And horrible sounds,
you know, that way, at least in english.

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

[Mauro Lacy]

 Don't bury Einstein yet:

 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html

 Sher also mentions a third option: that the measurement is correct.
 Some theories posit that there are extra, hidden dimensions beyond the
 familiar four (three of space, one of time). It's possible that the
 speedy neutrinos tunnel through these extra dimensions, reducing the
 distance they have to travel to get to the target. This would explain
 the measurement without requiring the speed of light to be broken.

 Those neutrinos probably knew a short cut in the other 6 dimensions.  :-)

I wouldn't bury him, at all.
Einstein stands correct with respect to the three dimensions of space. SR
defines the behavior or expression of electromagnetic fields in three
dimensions, in particular, with regard to movement. On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies is clear enough as a title, and the
author of that cornerstone paper stands correct.

What is missing, and it's missing for centuries, is a clear physical (also
epistemological, philosophical, and ultimately, spiritual) understanding
of the implications of said behaviour of electromagnetic fields, and
therefore, also in the last instance, of subatomic particles and,
therefore, so called ordinary matter.

To talk extensively about that would take us very far. Maybe it suffices
to say that that understanding is missing for very specific reasons: it
challenges (and ultimately overturns) the century old tradition and
paradigm of science, and of Physics in particular, as a materialistic and
mechanistic endeavour.
Light(and also matter, ultimately) behaves non-mechanically, and has, (if
we understand matter as something having tri-dimensional, spatial,
extent), also a non-material aspect, or component.

Regards,
Mauro

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

[Mauro Lacy]

 At least he calls the finding enigmatic rather than delusional or an
 error.

In my opinion, the findings are probably the result of unknown neutrino
properties, or of new neutrino flavors, colors, whatevers. We'll
have to patiently wait to know more, I suppose.
In any case, the findings per se do not shed any light (erm, they are
neutrinos, you know) in relation to the missing understanding I'm talking
about. Except maybe that the role of extra dimensions will be clearly
established.
And I'm not talking about the dozen or so theoretical dimensions of the
string theorists, by the way.

Regards,
Mauro

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

[Mauro Lacy]

 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/22/scitech/main20110236.shtml

Taking the numbers on the article as a basis, and doing some quick
calculations, that's a difference in speed of roughly 7.4 km/s

If I'm not mistaken, that's equivalent to the null result obtained in
the Michelson-Morley experiment... are neutrinos (or better said, their
manifestations) being affected by Earth's movement? I bet they are
I bet too that if they repeat the experiment in a vacuum, the discrepancy
with the speed of light will disappear. This is related to the refractive
index of air, as Cahill and Kitto claim in a paper. I have mentioned it
before, you can search for it in the archives, if you like.

Mauro

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

[Mauro Lacy]

 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/22/scitech/main20110236.shtml

 Taking the numbers on the article as a basis, and doing some quick
 calculations, that's a difference in speed of roughly 7.4 km/s

 If I'm not mistaken, that's equivalent to the null result obtained in
 the Michelson-Morley experiment... are neutrinos (or better said, their
 manifestations) being affected by Earth's movement? I bet they are
 I bet too that if they repeat the experiment in a vacuum, the discrepancy
 with the speed of light will disappear. This is related to the refractive
 index of air, as Cahill and Kitto claim in a paper. I have mentioned it
 before, you can search for it in the archives, if you like.

By the way, the relation with Earth's speed and the refractive index of
air also explain why the previously measured supernova neutrinos were not
affected.

Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point

[Mauro Lacy]

 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

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/23/2011 03:12 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 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).
   


Fair enough. You are proposing some hypothetical experiments to detect 
absolute movement of a given frame.
But I was positing a slightly different question. Let me make myself 
clear with an example. I'll adopt a kind of dialog to facilitate the 
exposition. Please don't feel I'm addressing you directly.


Let's look at an image of the Milky Way, like this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/236084main_MilkyWay-full-annotated.jpg

We can now ask: What has caused the spiral arrangement of the stars?
Classical astrophysics will say that gravity has caused it. And because 
gravity only acts between material bodies, it will posit that, due that 
there is not enough visible matter to account for the missing momentum 
and velocity of some parts of the system, there must be some dark matter 
which is causing the additional gravitational pull.


Now, looking at the picture again, I can ask you: what is moving in the 
galaxy? In general, you'll answer that stars, dust clouds, etc. are 
moving, and that their movement has taken a spiral form, again, due to 
gravity and due to a given initial rotation of the system, which was in 
the past a giant dust cloud of some kind(which was rotating who knows 
why), and gradually developed stars and planets out of the initial 
irregularities.


And then I'll ask you: the empty space between stars, planets, etc. 
which is in the galaxy, is also moving? You'll probably answer that, 
given our current understanding of the matter, only matter can move, not 
empty space. Moreover, you'll cite scientific premises like Occam's 
razor and the like, to announce that we shouldn't multiply the entities, 
that only observables and measurable things must be considered, etc.


And then I'll answer that it strikes me as completely self evident that 
what has caused the beautiful spiral arrangement of the stars in the 
galaxy arms is the movement of space itself. It was and it is space 
which is moving and rotating, and which is carrying along the stars, 
dust clouds, etc. which are evolving and condensing in stars and star 
systems, and forming beautiful galactic arms and whirlpools. Matter is 
being carried along by the movement of space itself. There is no dark 
matter at all, but rotational space flow.


Again, you'll cite Occam razor's and the like, to say that we should not 
multiply entities, talk about unobservables, that science is about the 
measurable and the ponderable, etc. And I'll probably tell you that the 
movement of space is clearly observable by its effects, that you should 
reflect on the spiral arms of the galaxy, etc. I'll probably tell you 
too that for me science, real science, is about knowledge of the way 
things really are. And then you'll probably start to cite the 
nominalists (again) to question the nature of reality, to posit that 
real is only that which can be directly observed, that the brain 
attaches meaning to the world, and the like.


Is the slight difference clear enough now?

Best regards,
Mauro

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

Re: [Vo]:NASA Researchers Put New Spin on Einstein's Relativity Theory

[Mauro Lacy]

Yes, the idea was mentioned and discussed on this list. I wrote a paper 
on the subject. See


On absolute movementhttp://vixra.org/abs/1105.0032

Regards,
Mauro

On 08/10/2011 03:54 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:

The article mentions using entanglement to synchronise clocks.
This possiblity was mentioned by someone on this list.
Harry
  
NASA Researchers Put New Spin on Einstein's Relativity Theory

April 2, 2003

Albert Einstein might be astonished to learn that NASA physicists have applied
his relativity theory to a concept he introduced but later disliked namely that
two particles that interact could maintain a connection even if separated by
a vast distance. Researchers often refer to this connection as entanglement.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/47.cfm


   

Re: [Vo]:NASA Researchers Put New Spin on Einstein's Relativity Theory

[Mauro Lacy]

On 08/10/2011 08:05 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:

Yes, the idea was mentioned and discussed on this list. I wrote a paper
on the subject. See

On absolute movementhttp://vixra.org/abs/1105.0032
   


And here are the archived discussions:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45437.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45478.html


Regards,
Mauro

On 08/10/2011 03:54 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
   

The article mentions using entanglement to synchronise clocks.
This possiblity was mentioned by someone on this list.
Harry

NASA Researchers Put New Spin on Einstein's Relativity Theory
April 2, 2003

Albert Einstein might be astonished to learn that NASA physicists have applied
his relativity theory to a concept he introduced but later disliked namely that
two particles that interact could maintain a connection even if separated by
a vast distance. Researchers often refer to this connection as entanglement.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/47.cfm



 


   

Re: [Vo]:NASA Researchers Put New Spin on Einstein\'s Relativity Theory

[Mauro Lacy]

 On 08/10/2011 03:54 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
 [snip]Albert Einstein might be astonished to learn that NASA physicists
have applied
 his relativity theory to a concept he introduced but later disliked
namely
 that
 two particles that interact could maintain a connection even if
separated
 by
 a vast distance. Researchers often refer to this connection as
 entanglement.[snip]



 I would suggest that the separation over vast distances is only spatial
and that both particles are entangled by their temporal coordinates -
We
 know that the time axis can appear like a normal spatial axis to a local
observer as you approach C  and my guess is these entangled particles
would appear to grow together from the perspective of an observer
approaching C. Spatially the particles are pivoting from a common time
coordinate.

Yes. Better said, manifestation in tri-dimensional space, happening,
occurring, or becoming in time, surges or comes from a common ground
which is neither spatial (in the tri-dimensional spatial sense) nor
temporal.
Time (local time) is in fact not more than the consequence or result of
the speed of that spatial manifestation. That's why local time (and local
space) are affected in turn by the speed of the frame in which the
manifestation is happening. And that's also the reason why we cannot in
principle directly or absolutely detect those changes.

That's what I call a physically sound interpretation of special
relativity and equivalent theories.

Entanglement would be the manifestation of an unique subjacent reality, in
two or more spatial locations. And being unique, happening at the same
time. A particle entangled in a frame at a given frame velocity, would
therefore, at least in principle, have original time and spatial
distortions which are similar in all its manifestations. Although it will
also probably be subjected to local distortions if there are different
frame velocities.
It will carry a timing fingerprint of the velocity of the frame at which
it was originally entangled, so to speak.

So: As long as the velocities of all the frames at which the particle is
manifesting are equal (like in the proposed experiment in my paper), those
manifestations will therefore be simultaneous, in an absolute, not
relative, sense.

Regards,
Mauro

 Regards
 Fran

Re: [Vo]:A possible hypothesis for Rossi and Greece

[Mauro Lacy]

On 08/07/2011 05:53 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Ron Kitachiralex.k...@gmail.com  wrote:
   

Greetings Vortex-l

I am not sure IF my thoughts on Rossi and DKL  are even
logical

BUT what if a major world entity wants all of Rossi s   patent rights.

Would his actions then be logical...merely a hypothesis.

Thoughts are welcomed.
 

EXXON!
   


Selling it to the best bidder, of course. That makes complete sense, and 
I think is consistent with previous developments and information we have 
about the players.


Here's a probable scenario, then:
Rossi in fact discovered something which dramatically improves the 
efficiency of Ni-H exothermically reactions.
As is the case with other cold fusion techniques and experiments, it 
probably does not work always. It still needs further development, and 
that can even take a couple of years.
Instead of continuing with the research, he decided to announce it, 
making waves as big as possible, to sell his discovery to the best 
bidder. Who will probably bury it, by the way.


He advanced with the company, the building of plants, etc. to attract a 
buyer as big as possible. Now that the buyer has arrived, he's parting 
ways.
In the future, with the technology effectively buried, we'll be left 
with the impression that all was just a big, although somewhat 
incomprehensible, scam. Which it is, in a sense. But not in the 
strictest sense.


Now that makes sense to me. Of course, this is pure speculation on my 
part. And of course too, if the improvement Rossi discovered is real, 
there can be really unexpected developments, like some other agency 
rediscovering it on their own, etc.


Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:A possible hypothesis for Rossi and Greece

[Mauro Lacy]

On 08/07/2011 06:34 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Mauro Lacyma...@lacy.com.ar  wrote:

   

Instead of continuing with the research, he decided to announce it, making
waves as big as possible, to sell his discovery to the best bidder. Who will
probably bury it, by the way.
 

Unfortunately, they cannot bury it deep enough.  As Steven said, the
eCat is out of the bag.


Unfortunately for them, I suppose.


   Ahern has already shown this.

I think Rossi understood the issue here.  He has a working technology;
but, he does not understand why it works.  He was willing to pay the
UoB to study the process.  He understood that, once the process is
thoroughly understood, the optimum operating point (Swartz) may then
be determined.  If the patent does not state the OOP IP, it is open to
a new patent and Rossi is rendered to prior art.
   


Any references for Swartz?

I see. He's delaying the patenting, basically because he does not have 
anything really patentable. The secret catalyst is exactly that. Even 
for him.


Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:A possible hypothesis for Rossi and Greece

[Mauro Lacy]

On 08/07/2011 07:34 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Mauro Lacyma...@lacy.com.ar  wrote:

   

Any references for Swartz?
 

Sure.  That was a reference to discussions by Michael Swartz, who publishes:

http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html

He sponsors the MIT Colloquiums you see mentioned here sometimes. I
think he and Larry Forsley came up with the CF OOP term, or so they
claim.  :-)
   


:-) Nice reference. Thanks!

Re: [Vo]:Huge Solar Explosion

[Mauro Lacy]

On 07/20/2011 03:16 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

...
PS: This struck me as funny What we're suggesting is that something that
doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be
changed.
   


Hi, you might be interested in previous discussions of this subject. In 
particular:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg15081.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg34721.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg26927.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39946.html

Regards,
Mauro

[Vo]:Interesting paper

[Mauro Lacy]

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26943/
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1106.5301: Optimizing And Controlling Functions Of 
Complex Networks By Manipulating Rich-Club Connections


:-)

Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Proving Turtur requires submerged rotors to end controversey.

[Mauro Lacy]

On 07/02/2011 04:24 PM, Wm. Scott Smith wrote:

I have written to Turtur several times and he has generally replied.  I have 
been unable to persuade him to replicate his experiment with the metal rotors 
buried in oil, perhaps on a raft as is presently done, or simply connected to 
the underside of the little raft.
This is the only thing that will convince me that there is no ion-wind that can 
create spurious results. Doing it in a Vacuum does not prove anything since 
the remaining molecules move more energetically.
   


If you take the time to read the pdf
https://www.ostfalia.de/export/sites/default/de/pws/turtur/NeuesVerzeichnis/Film_englisch.pdf

you can see that he has gone to great lengths to prove that the energy 
is not coming from a classical source. Not only repeating his experiment 
in a vacuum chamber, but also calculating the energy balance and showing 
that the amount of mechanical energy obtained cannot be explained by 
classical electrical loss due to ion flow. He has done an experiment 
where 150 nano watts of mechanical energy are obtained, consuming only 3 
nano watts of electrical power.


Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:invitation to join Linkendan not

[Mauro Lacy]

 I got a message from a friend I know really well and is the president of
 the local ski club.

 It stated he wanted me to join Linkendan.  I hit yes yes, yes and it sent
 out invites from me to everyone on my email list.  Please ignore such
 invites.  I don't want anyone to join this.

You can easily remove unwanted connections from your list, by using the
Remove Connections link at the top right of linkedin's My Connections
tab.

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mauro Lacy]

 On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
 The
 fact
 that you have an explanation, and that it seems to coincide with my
 ideas
 about both, the electric and magnetic fields,
 and the aether, does not mean that that explanation is accepted and
 mainstream.

 You might consider studying Don Hotson and his idea of the epo field
 relating to PAM Dirac and the sea of negative energy to find some
 insight.

Thank you. I realized recently that a better idea is to start by studying
(and clearly understanding) the standard explanations first. I'm now
studying electromagnetic theory, via MIT OCW courses. Afterwards I'll take
the courses on General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.

Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mauro Lacy]

Sorry, I was away during the weekend.
I think the same as you about the electric and magnetic fields(they both 
are aspects of the same thing). And I have stated it clearly in other 
mails, by the way.
I just wanted to hear, and was trying to understand, the standard 
explanation. If you think that that is beating a dead horse, I disagree. 
The fact
that you have an explanation, and that it seems to coincide with my 
ideas about both, the electric and magnetic fields,
and the aether, does not mean that that explanation is accepted and 
mainstream.


Regards,
Mauro

On 05/29/2011 07:00 AM, John Berry wrote:

Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the
aether was proven false, nothing of the sort.  Only a static Aether was
found to have evidence against it.

Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are
perpendicular in an EM wave etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I
have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant and
only a convenient was to understand how relativistically distorted electric
fields manifest.

So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the
floor where I am standing by a light at night, how come we are always
perpendicular when I am standing on the floor.
If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do
you really need to keep on being curious when you now understand precisely
how it comes to be that way?

I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric
fields/forces that are distorted by movement that creates precisely the same
force we expect and get magnetically.
Quite a co-incidence.

If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is
likely you are really just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of
real mysteries to work out, no need to create them where none exists.

Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields
doing so and should create the forces that we experience with permanent
magnets.
Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced.



On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Mauro Lacyma...@lacy.com.ar  wrote:

   

On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote:

 

I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think
physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models
are so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper
pairs was one of them.


But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with
the idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding.
If we have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding
that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid model.


   

Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because it just
works. You almost never question it at the philosophical or epistemological
level. During most of the last century, there was a lot of confusion,
introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of time, by example.

The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some
experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and
relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to
reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a
consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the
mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a
replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which
agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of physical
meaning. Just the general idea of relativity, and of all is relative
popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened during most of
the last century, and is still happening.
That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from
outsiders like me, because real scientists are so busy trying to
understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, that
they don't have time to really reflect and think.

Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and
predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and the
quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert to be
able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And when you
finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything
else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and correlate
knowledge from different fields of knowledge.

That is an unfortunate state of affairs, and we can say that a great part
of the decadence of the western culture we experience today is related to
our urge for control only from the mechanistic perspective.

Regards,
Mauro


 
   

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote:

I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think 
physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models are 
so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper pairs 
was one of them.


But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with the 
idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding. If we 
have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding that! There 
is no understanding but the use of a valid model.
   


Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because it just 
works. You almost never question it at the philosophical or 
epistemological level. During most of the last century, there was a lot 
of confusion, introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of 
time, by example.


The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some 
experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and 
relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to 
reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a 
consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the 
mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a 
replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which 
agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of 
physical meaning. Just the general idea of relativity, and of all is 
relative popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened 
during most of the last century, and is still happening.
That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from 
outsiders like me, because real scientists are so busy trying to 
understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, 
that they don't have time to really reflect and think.


Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and 
predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and 
the quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert 
to be able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And 
when you finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk 
about anything else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and 
correlate knowledge from different fields of knowledge.


That is an unfortunate state of affairs, and we can say that a great 
part of the decadence of the western culture we experience today is 
related to our urge for control only from the mechanistic perspective.


Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Can Atmospheric Heating Predict Future Earthquakes?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/26/2011 06:33 PM, John Berry wrote:

Seems to give some support to the claims that HAARP is being used to create
earthquakes.
Certainly it is interesting that these atmospheric anomalies have only been
reported with the recent earthquake spate.

Of course maybe this is valid as an indication of an imminent natural
earthquake, but maybe it is an indication HAARP is about to be used.
   


Please notice that (if I'm not mistaken) atmospheric heating seems to be 
more related with energy release after the quake, and is then not an 
adequate precursor. Ionospheric disturbances, on the contrary, seem to 
be good precursors.


Probably in the future a particular signature will be identified, to 
discriminate natural ones from induced ones.
What will be more difficult to pinpoint will be the origin of the 
inducing energy.


I think the Tohoku earthquake was a naturally occurring event. But this 
is based mostly in a gut feeling, and anything else.


There are other kind of precursors, too. The energy build up was 
enormous. Two or three days before the quake, my wife woke up at the 
middle of the night, terrified and screaming, with a panic attack. She 
never had panic attacks before.
I could feel a strong buzz in the head, during two or three weeks before 
the quake. I could not identify a clear direction, of course, but it was 
clearly stronger coming from the north, north-west direction. At that 
time, I didn't knew it was probably a result of the build-up of stress 
energy. Only after the quake, when I realized the strong buzz stopped, I 
connected the dots.


Regards,
Mauro


On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Rock_njrockn...@gmail.com  wrote:

   

While many branches of scientific inquiry have made incredible strides over
the past century, earthquake prediction science has been woefully slow to
make advancements that could lead to accurate scientific forewarning of
pending earthquakes.  Reports of unusual pre-earthquake atmospheric
phenomena have led inquisitive scientists to initiate research into
atmospheric conditions in areas that are prone to experience earthquakes.
The initial results of these atmospheric investigations in earthquake zones
have provided enough positive data to warrant further research that could
eventually led to accurate earthquake prediction methods.

More at:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Can-Atmospheric-Heating-Predict-Future-Earthquakes?done

 
   

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/26/2011 05:09 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Mark Iversonzeropo...@charter.net  wrote:

   

Robin hits the nail on the head... Anything mathematical is the MODEL, and
 

is supposed to reflect physical reality.  My question was about the physical
world -- what I was asking got was a rational, qualitative, cause and effect
sort of explanation.


Nothing is more rational than a mathematical description of reality, and it
provides cause and effect. I'll grant that it is not a qualitative
explanation, and doesn't give the answer to the ultimate question of life,
the universe, and everything (42), but science starts from observation, and
uses that to predict consequences. For any explanation, you can always keep
asking, as a child does, but why?. Why gravity? Why Newton's law? Why
general relativity? The best we can do is find the most fundamental
observation, and until more fundamental ones come along, try to explain what
we see based on those. So, I took it back to Coulomb's law and special
relativity. All of the laws of electromagnetism can be derived from those
two concepts, including the reason for the perpendicular fields in an em
wave. But it is a mathematical development. The language of physics is
math.
   


Thanks for your detailed explanation. I suppose it's as good as it can 
be, based on classical existing theory, and without using math.
Can you provide some reference for the above derivation, namely, the 
derivation of Maxwell's laws from Coulomb's law and special relativity?


I was thinking last night about  the radiative component that appears 
when an electrostatic charge is accelerated. That radiative component 
is  proportional and perpendicular to the acceleration vector. Do you 
think that it can be related to the perpendicular nature of the magnetic 
field, or it has nothing to do at all?

...


Now, if you want to know why Coulomb's law, and why relativity, you're on
your own.
   


Maye we can attempt that later :-)

Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:An equal and perpendicular reaction! EM Oscillation

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/26/2011 01:33 PM, Wm. Scott Smith wrote:

I realize that this is routinely trivialized, rationalized away and ignored; 
nonetheless, those who do so are merely dancing around the real question here!
Why are em fields perpendicular (when one is inducing the other, purely 
speaking?)


Are they really doing that? Or that is just an abstract construct, 
introduced to try to give some foundation/explanation for the 
conservative nature of the field?



This is a fascinating question, especially because these two fields are perhaps the only 
things in nature wherein a force in one direction causes an An equal and 
perpendicular reaction!
   


Well, the idea I propose is that a perpendicular field manifests only when an 
interaction happens. That is, the magnetic field
does not exist inside the wave, it's just a manifestation of the wave. The 
same with the electric field.
Magnetic and electric fields are just modes of expression of the wave, so, the 
explanation for their direction must
be seek in their interactions with matter and other waves, not in the waves 
themselves.



The other mystery about all of this is that this question probably holds the secret to the 
underlying nature of a photon: why does this oscillating em field traverse space at the speed of 
light, and without the dispersion of individual photons.  Even if you hold that the waveform 
travels ahead of the particle aspect of the photon, this is just a superpositional 
state of possible outcomes, but all of those outcomes still result in a single particle 
aspect traversing one path, and arriving as one particle.
   


It seems there are a number of concepts going on:
- perpendicular magnetic vs. electrical waves
- perpendicular radiative component vs. acceleration vector of an
electrostatic charge
- potential energy vs. kinetic energy waves
- matter waves (?)
- wavefunctions

Shouldn't we try to pinpoint what's the relation between these concepts, if 
they are indeed related?

By the way, Frank Z., can you explain how can you talk about the potential 
energy of an
electromagnetic wave, and say that it's equal to mc², when an electromagnetic 
wave
is massless? Are you saying that its potential energy is zero?

Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mauro Lacy]

 Just wanted to throw out a question to the Vort Collective...

 In an EM wave, why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to
each other?

Because the electric and magnetic *effects* manifest perpendicularly?
The fields are an abstract(mental) construction.
In reality, there isn't an electric and a magnetic field. There is just
something )which in principle cannot be known directly), that manifests
electrically (inducing eddy currents) and magnetically (producing magnetic
fields).
In short: electricity and magnetism are both sides of the same coin, and
those sides are perpendicular to each other. Instead to opposite, like the
faces of a real coin :-)

Now, if you are asking for a more fundamental(topological?) reason those
effects act and manifest perpendicularly to each other, I would very much
like to hear it too.

Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:ZPE as 'quantum foam' and Dirac's sea

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/22/2011 12:33 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

Just noticed something ... and this may appeal to Mauro Lacy and others who
have mentioned or commented on Reginald Cahill's gravity addition or
Extra Quantum Gravity Term ... which as I understand it - is based on
one-half alpha, the fine structure constant. It is so small that it can
usually be ignored. Cahill is almost completely ignored, it seems. I never
noticed the ZPE connection before today.

Basically (if I am not posting this in haste) Cahill's term can be related
to ZPE via the epo field. If gravity operates inside a universal Dirac epo
field, then VOILA, there you have it ... not proof of anything but further
indication that zero point must be reckoned with on many levels, including
gravity (Einstein notwithstanding).

To wit: positronium consists of an electron and a positron bound together
sequentially (on a short time frame) as a seething virtual atom, the
quantum foam - presumably located in another dimension whether it be
the aether reciprocal space, the zero point field, the sea of negative
energy, or whatever -

... whereas hydrogen consists of an electron and a proton in 3-space, but
there is a great deal of mathematical similarity.  The binding energy level
of positronium is 6.8eV whereas for hydrogen it is 13.6eV. The 2:1 ratio is
not coincidental and we can derive alpha from either.

However, an interesting note is that the electron has the same charge in
both cases (presumably). But the mass of the positron is ~1836 times less
than a proton. Does this imply that mass itself has charge which is
proportional to 6.8/1836 (half of alpha)? ... IOW that Cahill was onto
something that goes beyond a correction to gravity? - despite being almost
completely ignored...
   


I don't know. It can be.
I think that Cahill is right about something: gravity as the in-flow of 
space into matter.
You can explain that in-flow as caused by quantum foam pressure, by 
increased aether flow into matter, by epo field connections, ZPE 
leaking, as a kind of generic hyper-dimensional transfer which causes 
space curvature, etc. etc. Even another way to see it, is in relation to 
cosmic expansion: gravity as the relative local slowing down of cosmic 
expansion, due to the presence of matter, as in Gregory Moxness work.


The important and common thing in all these ideas, in my opinion, is 
that they point out that to correctly understand something like gravity, 
and indeed something like electromagnetic charge and the electromagnetic 
field too, higher dimensions must be considered. We must seek models of 
physical reality that consider it just as a part of something bigger, 
which will be, by its very definition, non-physical in the ordinary 
sense, that is, not (yet) expanded or expressed in three spatial 
dimensions, and happening at a given velocity, that is, developing or 
becoming in time.
Physical reality then, will just be the unfolding or manifestation of 
this non-physical energy into the physical realm(spatial dimensions), 
according to very specific laws and modes of expression.


This is also related to the discussion about the aether, and in that 
sense, I think that it's an important step to restore and reevaluate the 
concept of the aether as partly physical. We must seek models of the 
aether that consider it partly physical, and partly non-physical. Those 
models will necessarily be non-mechanical, and non-classical. In fact, 
what was disproved by Michelson - Morley type experiments, was not the 
aether, but the idea that the people of that time had about the aether.


In this regard, you might be interested in reading the paper I recently 
wrote: On absolute movement http://lacy.com.ar/OAM.pdf. It was sent 
to vixra.org for preprint, and I'm now looking to publish it.
The paper is certainly just a draft, and indeed much remains to be done 
to improve it and expand it. Maybe it's a good idea to split it in two 
different papers, one dealing with the philosophical aspects, and other 
with the experimental and technical ones. But anyway, it's a beginning, 
and I'm happy to announce it.


Best regards,
Mauro

[Vo]:The future of energy

[Mauro Lacy]

Very interesting article on energy policies, the energy of the 
ether(ZPE), and more:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/05/14/nuclear-catastrophe-how-the-lack-of-fundamental-research-on-alternative-energy-led-to-a-wrong-energy-policy/ 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi eCat in Italian Nuclear Forum

[Mauro Lacy]

 -Original Message-
 From: Terry Blanton:

 Harry Veeder wrote:

 google translation: The principle on which are based generators and 'has
 been compared to cold fusion, but it is actually' a fission process much
 attenuated.

 TB: I find that incredibly untrue.


 Well, it would be a big shift in theory for sure, but we talked about the
 boron component before, mentioned in the patent. Splitting boron can be
 accurately called fission.

And splitting heavy elements is certainly called fission.
What if Rossi discovered a cheap way to control a *fission* reaction?
What if he using fission of a heavy element like Thorium or Plutonium to
trigger fusion, similar to an H-bomb, but in a controlled way?

That would explain a lot of things, by the way:
- the lead shielding and the boron.
- the gamma spikes.
- the impossible energy ratios.
- why the secret catalyst needs to be kept secret.
- why the reactors should be sent to the plant for reprocessing.
- the general secrecy.

In short: What if Rossi is triggering cold fusion via cold fission? Has
this been completely ruled out?
The other possibility is that he has invented a small fission reactor, and
the Ni plus H, plus the succesful experiments in that area by Piantelli,
Foccardi, etc. are just a way to mask his invention as cold fusion.

Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Rossi eCat in Italian Nuclear Forum

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/18/2011 11:53 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Mauro Lacyma...@lacy.com.ar  wrote:



In short: What if Rossi is triggering cold fusion via cold fission? Has
this been completely ruled out?


Now it's sounding like an H-Bomb.  All you need is a hohlraum.



But it's not a bomb, because it's cold, i.e. controlled.
And what about lead and boron as a kind of hohlraum?
And what about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_amplifier

Re: [Vo]:Rossi eCat in Italian Nuclear Forum

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/18/2011 07:25 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:

On 05/18/2011 11:53 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
   

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Mauro Lacyma...@lacy.com.ar   wrote:


 

In short: What if Rossi is triggering cold fusion via cold fission? Has
this been completely ruled out?

   

Now it's sounding like an H-Bomb.  All you need is a hohlraum.

 

But it's not a bomb, because it's cold, i.e. controlled.
And what about lead and boron as a kind of hohlraum?
And what about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_amplifier
   

Enery Amplifier == AmpEnerg-o?

Re: [Vo]:Comet Coincidence?

[Mauro Lacy]

 In reply to  Mauro Lacy's message of Sun, 15 May 2011 19:02:45 -0300:
 Hi,
 [snip]
On 05/15/2011 06:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
 In reply to  Mauro Lacy's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 15:49:13 -0300:
 Hi,
 [snip]

 Most probably, the reason is comets are charged bodies. The electric
 field of the comet interacts with the electric field of the Sun, and a
 CME occurs. The electric interaction is also the reason for cometary
 tails, by the way.
 The level of denial the academic community is in regard to this, is
 simply astounding.

 This feels intuitively wrong. If the charge were high enough to cause
 such
 havoc, and were repulsive (as the direction of the tail would imply),
 then the
 whole comet should never get anywhere near the Sun.


If gravitational attraction is greater than electrical repulsion, the
overall effect will still be attraction.
An attractive inverse square law plus another (smaller) repulsive
inverse square law, will still be an attractive inverse square law.

 ...but the tail blows away from the Sun, implying that it is carrying the
 charge. As it blows away it should leave the rest of the comet neutral
 (the
 comets charge should be on it's surface). Especially as it gets really
 close to
 the Sun where the surface is heated enough to evaporate easily.
 IOW the charge should all boil off, on the first pass, leaving none for
 subsequent passes.

Not if the comet charges itself again in its next excursion to the cold
and distant reaches of the solar system.


 I wonder if you get solar flares with every cometary impact, or only with
 some of them?

I wonder the same. And what about asteroids (so called sungrazers) impacts?

This is a very interesting subject. Look at this movie, by example:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/CME_May11_zoom.mpg

Taken from http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/
By the way, according to what is said there the academics seem to be
changing their discourse. They morphed it from no connection to unknown
connection.
This is logical: scientists only want to talk about what they know. They
also don't like to be seen saying silly, too speculative, or outright
erroneous things.

Take into account also that in the previous page it's said:
In fact, analysis of this CME using images from the Solar Dynamics
Observatory shows that the CME erupted before the comet came close enough
to the solar surface to interact with strong magnetic fields.

This seems to rule out Horace's kinetic energy explanation. And by the
way, also an electric/electromagnetic explanation?
Not so fast, William. Here's a possible mechanism for cometary caused CMEs:

- The solar surface is in a state of very unstable equilibrium.
- CMEs are the rupture of that equilibrium for some area of the surface.
Sunspots are the opposite to CMEs, by the way, a rupure of the equilibrium
but in the opposite direction.
- When the comet is close, its *gravitational* field attracts parts of the
solar surface, which separates from the rest. When these parts are
elevated in relation to the surface, they enter the zone of the solar
corona where the solar wind is formed, and they are quickly absorbed and
dispersed by the coronal process, and ejected then as part of the solar
wind.

The high temperatures of the solar corona are a mystery too, and they can
probably be explained taking into account phenomena of electrical nature.
The sun is at the same time a gravitational sink, and an electromagnetic
emitter embedded in an electric field. The solar surface represents the
zone of equilibrium between those two modes. Any small disturbance caused
a restoring of equilibrium, in the form of a CME if the equilibrium is
disturbed preponderantly outwards, or in the form of a sunspot, if it's
disturbed preponderantely inwards.

There you have it. The power of group mind?

 (BTW I don't think I should have entered into this discussion at all.)
 Regards,

Why not? fringe science gets you the chills?

Re: [Vo]:Comet Coincidence?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/14/2011 09:37 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

 From Mauro:

...

   

Most probably, the reason is comets are charged bodies.
The electric field of the comet interacts with the electric
field of the Sun, and a CME occurs. The electric interaction
is also the reason for cometary tails, by the way. The level
of denial the academic community is in regard to this, is
simply astounding.
 

Have you wondered if aspects of Miles Mathis' theories might have anything
to do to describing comet tails?
   


Hi,
the short answer is no, I haven't read anything related to comets 
by Mathis. The electric comet hypothesis comes from the Electric 
universe guys(Thornhill and Talbott), plus other sources.


In relation to Mathis, I've studied Mathis' ideas only on the surface. 
He thinks that a repulsive electromagnetic field is needed for stable 
elliptical orbits, and that's wrong. A repulsive electromagnetic field 
is not *excluded* for stable orbits, but it's certainly not needed. 
Unless he thinks that a repulsive field is somehow related to inertia. 
But inertia, related to electromagnetism or not, must be considered at a 
much more fundamental level, like that of an interaction with the 
vacuum, and can only be very lightly related to an emitted (and 
therefore radially diminishing) electromagnetic field.
I've ran some simulations, and a small repulsive component does not 
prevent stable orbits. I suppose that can be mathematically 
demonstrated, too.


Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Another view on superrotation

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/14/2011 06:12 PM, David Jonsson wrote:

Superrotation is shear flow on gas planets and stars and it requires an
explanation since there appears to be no force or stress to drive them.
Recently I came up with the following idea after having tried two others
with limited success.

Assume that gas or matter flowing along planets' or stars' rotation around
its axis is less affected by viscous drag compared to flow going against
the. This is because of differences in centrifugal acceleration between
these two cases. Matter being less affected by gravity due to centripetal
acceleration pushes less on the underlying matter and will have its viscous
shear stress reduced. In a gas or other fluid with thermal motion there will
be particles moving in any direction and they will be slowed down
differently depending on direction of motion relative the rotational
direction.
   

Hi David,
There should be (prograde?) super rotation in all planets with a dense 
atmosphere, then. Why that is not the case?



How could this be quantitatively determined?

If another more practical and smaller size example helps you to better
imagine the physical situation you can think of a gas centrifuge for uranium
enrichment. There should be high shear flow in that case as well and not as
we are erroneously informed on various places on Internet that there is
solid body rotation. Does anyone here think it is correct to lie about
physics in order to stop understanding of it and thus prevent proliferation
of technologies based on the effect? It is both impressive and disgusting
that someone has been capable of keeping this kind of physics undeveloped
for over a century. It would have been natural to see this combination of
fluid mechanics and thermal physics to appear soon after the appearance of
kinetic gas theory.
   


I don't think so. The field is probably not very developed because
a) nobody found a concrete application or specific need to study it. 
Until now?
b) the equations are hard. Significant progress in The Navier-Stokes is 
one of the millennium prizes. See

http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Navier-Stokes_Equations/

Re: [Vo]:Another view on superrotation

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/14/2011 06:12 PM, David Jonsson wrote:

Superrotation is shear flow on gas planets and stars and it requires an
explanation since there appears to be no force or stress to drive them.
Recently I came up with the following idea after having tried two others
with limited success.

Assume that gas or matter flowing along planets' or stars' rotation around
its axis is less affected by viscous drag compared to flow going against
the. This is because of differences in centrifugal acceleration between
these two cases. Matter being less affected by gravity due to centripetal
acceleration pushes less on the underlying matter and will have its viscous
shear stress reduced. In a gas or other fluid with thermal motion there will
be particles moving in any direction and they will be slowed down
differently depending on direction of motion relative the rotational
direction.
   


Viscosity will tend to dissipate energy, and the atmosphere will slow down.
Something must be injecting energy into the system, for those winds to 
be sustained. This is completely obvious to me, as it should be for 
ayone with any sense for energy balance.
See http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25205/ for a possible 
(very likely) explanation.


That injected energy does not only causes superrotation, but has 
eventually slowed down the planet and reversed its rotation, due to 
friction based momentum transfer. I have already said this in the past 
and, as far as I know, am the first to propose such explanation for 
Venus' retrograde rotation. The surface winds are almost zero, which 
strengthens the case for that explanation.


Regards,
Mauro


How could this be quantitatively determined?

If another more practical and smaller size example helps you to better
imagine the physical situation you can think of a gas centrifuge for uranium
enrichment. There should be high shear flow in that case as well and not as
we are erroneously informed on various places on Internet that there is
solid body rotation. Does anyone here think it is correct to lie about
physics in order to stop understanding of it and thus prevent proliferation
of technologies based on the effect? It is both impressive and disgusting
that someone has been capable of keeping this kind of physics undeveloped
for over a century. It would have been natural to see this combination of
fluid mechanics and thermal physics to appear soon after the appearance of
kinetic gas theory.

Now with bin Ladin killed maybe physics can flourish a bit further.

David


David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

   

Re: [Vo]:Comet Coincidence?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/15/2011 06:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Mauro Lacy's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 15:49:13 -0300:
Hi,
[snip]
   

Most probably, the reason is comets are charged bodies. The electric
field of the comet interacts with the electric field of the Sun, and a
CME occurs. The electric interaction is also the reason for cometary
tails, by the way.
The level of denial the academic community is in regard to this, is
simply astounding.
 

This feels intuitively wrong. If the charge were high enough to cause such
havoc, and were repulsive (as the direction of the tail would imply), then the
whole comet should never get anywhere near the Sun.
   


If gravitational attraction is greater than electrical repulsion, the 
overall effect will still be attraction.
An attractive inverse square law plus another (smaller) repulsive 
inverse square law, will still be an attractive inverse square law.