Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:44 -0400: Hi, [snip] In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:51 PM While two particles might share a common value for specific coordinate in a higher dimension, that doesn't mean that they are in any way adjacent as in close together. In any *orthogonal* multidimensional system, the shortest distance between two points is still a straight line. If they are separated by a given distance in three dimensions, then their separation in higher dimensions must be at least the same (and may be greater, since their separation in three dimensions may be only a projection in three dimensions of their separation in higher dimensions). Robin, I agree going from cubic measure to quadric measure should at least square the available space in the universe like going From flatland square measure to 3D cubic measurement but it may not be that cut and dry. First there are string theories that suggest a 4th spatial dimension exists in a rolled up form invisible at our macro perspective which might complicate the minimal spacing of the projections you mentioned above. That's precisely why I emphasized *orthogonal*. ;) Second, this higher dimension may be temporal instead of spatial which makes distance meaningless. ...then even considering it is pointless. IOW this violates the parameters of the problem. You need to decide what you mean by adjacent, and what you want to do with the result. I also have to question what physical (or more likely nonphysical) properties are shared in these higher dimensions ... How far does a particle project into these dimensions and how deep into the projections can we push the entanglement holding two particles in correlation? A physical equivalent would be 2 rod like extensions from this higher dimension terminating as 2 particles in our plane - we can't see the rods but they would remain at least the same distance apart in their dimension as they do in our plane. If these 2 rods become entangled the question is can the rods pivot? The fact that the Chinese have managed to teleport this correlation 9.9 miles suggests that some mechanism does exist. It isn't teleported (which suggests FTL). If you separate the red and the blue ball by a million light years, and arrange for both to be viewed at the same time, are you then going to conclude that their wave functions collapsed at the instant of observation and hence the color information must have been transmitted from one to the other at far greater than the speed of light??? One should not needlessly multiply entities. The QM problem here is that a wave function is NOT a physical reality. It is a mathematical equation which we use to *describe* the state of a system *to the best of our knowledge at the time*. When we make a real observation of the real physical system, our *knowledge* about it changes , and hence we need to use a different equation. The wave function is said to collapse but all that collapse really tells us is that we now know more about the system than we did previously (well duh, that's why we take measurements in the first place). In short Schrödinger's cat is NOT both dead and alive at the same time. It is one or the other, but until we actually look in the box, our *knowledge* of the state of the cat is non-existent. That knowledge is what changes when we look in the box, not the state of Tiddles/Fluffy/insert pet name here. Hi Robin, It seems that there's more to it than just local hidden variables. Here's the best I've found at the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox See Measurements on an entangled state. And particularly, Resolving the paradox, Hidden variables, Bell's inequality. Although at first sight the easy answer seems to be QM is an incomplete theory, it seems that QM captures some of the essence of the way reality works, in particular with respect to non-locality/wholeness, and observer effects. Experiments done to test Bell inequalities point to a statistical strength of QM that is greater than any theory of local hidden variables. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:44 -0400: Hi, [snip] In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:51 PM While two particles might share a common value for specific coordinate in a higher dimension, that doesn't mean that they are in any way adjacent as in close together. In any *orthogonal* multidimensional system, the shortest distance between two points is still a straight line. If they are separated by a given distance in three dimensions, then their separation in higher dimensions must be at least the same (and may be greater, since their separation in three dimensions may be only a projection in three dimensions of their separation in higher dimensions). Robin, I agree going from cubic measure to quadric measure should at least square the available space in the universe like going From flatland square measure to 3D cubic measurement but it may not be that cut and dry. First there are string theories that suggest a 4th spatial dimension exists in a rolled up form invisible at our macro perspective which might complicate the minimal spacing of the projections you mentioned above. That's precisely why I emphasized *orthogonal*. ;) Second, this higher dimension may be temporal instead of spatial which makes distance meaningless. ...then even considering it is pointless. IOW this violates the parameters of the problem. You need to decide what you mean by adjacent, and what you want to do with the result. I also have to question what physical (or more likely nonphysical) properties are shared in these higher dimensions ... How far does a particle project into these dimensions and how deep into the projections can we push the entanglement holding two particles in correlation? A physical equivalent would be 2 rod like extensions from this higher dimension terminating as 2 particles in our plane - we can't see the rods but they would remain at least the same distance apart in their dimension as they do in our plane. If these 2 rods become entangled the question is can the rods pivot? The fact that the Chinese have managed to teleport this correlation 9.9 miles suggests that some mechanism does exist. It isn't teleported (which suggests FTL). If you separate the red and the blue ball by a million light years, and arrange for both to be viewed at the same time, are you then going to conclude that their wave functions collapsed at the instant of observation and hence the color information must have been transmitted from one to the other at far greater than the speed of light??? One should not needlessly multiply entities. The QM problem here is that a wave function is NOT a physical reality. It is a mathematical equation which we use to *describe* the state of a system *to the best of our knowledge at the time*. When we make a real observation of the real physical system, our *knowledge* about it changes , and hence we need to use a different equation. The wave function is said to collapse but all that collapse really tells us is that we now know more about the system than we did previously (well duh, that's why we take measurements in the first place). In short Schrödinger's cat is NOT both dead and alive at the same time. It is one or the other, but until we actually look in the box, our *knowledge* of the state of the cat is non-existent. That knowledge is what changes when we look in the box, not the state of Tiddles/Fluffy/insert pet name here. Hi Robin, It seems that there's more to it than just local hidden variables. Here's the best I've found at the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox See Measurements on an entangled state. And particularly, Resolving the paradox, Hidden variables, Bell's inequality. Although at first sight the easy answer seems to be QM is an incomplete theory, it seems that QM captures some of the essence of the way reality works, in particular with respect to non-locality/wholeness, and observer effects. Experiments done to test Bell inequalities point to a statistical strength of QM that is greater than any theory of local hidden variables. This is good reading also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_realism Btw, it seems I would be with the Bohm interpretation, which preserves realism but not locality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
At 08:16 PM 6/7/2010, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 06/07/2010 07:29 PM, mailto:mix...@bigpond.commix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:31:49 -0400: Hi, I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two *correlated* particles are produced, they are like mirror images of one another. That means that the subsequent response of one is *correlated* to the response of the other (not caused by it). Take as an example a box containing pairs of red and blue balls. If one ball of any given pair in New York is red, then it's no surprise that the other ball of the pair in LA is blue, and it didn't suddenly become blue when someone first saw that the other ball was red. It was already blue from the start. The separation distance is irrelevant. As far as I know, quantum entanglement is different, because it's possible not only to observe but also to change the status of one of the particles, and the other will immediately reflect the opposite change. It's like the two particles are not only mirror images one of the other, but one and the same, or better said, mirror aspects of something underlyingly unique. It's like if instead of having a pair of color balls, you'll have a pair of switches, and whenever you change one of the switches, the other changes accordingly. I tried to write a response to Roarty's comment and found it difficult to distinguish the change from there simply being a maintained difference from the beginning. If I'm correct, the separated entities (photons, atoms, electrons) behave as a superposition of states, which would show up as being able to pop up as either state, and also to interfere with themselves, as in a two-slot experiment (which requires that they be superpositions, if I'm correct, i.e., waves rather than particles,), but then, when one is collapsed into a unique state, the other behaves, then, as the opposite state only. This is the spooky action at a distance that Einstein was concerned about. Roarty's comment assumes that the two entangled entitys are really only one or the other state, from the beginning. I searched for and found no really good explanations of quantum entanglement and why this interpretation isn't considered legitimate, but my sense is that this is because it then leaves unexplained the behavior of each particle, before one is revealed, and the other then is revealed immediately as the opposite, as if it is both states at once. Mauro, how can you tell the difference between the pair of switches, with one of the pair in one state and the other in the other, from the beginning, only hidden, from quantum entanglement, which assumes that both switches are in both states until one is checked, and then both are revealed. All the explanations I saw did not explain why one would follow the both-states interpretation. I think it has to do with the behavior of each particle prior to collapse, just as a beam of electrons impinging on two slits will form an interference pattern on a screen, as if each electron goes through two holes, as a wave, but anything that one does to cause or determine that a particular electron goes only through one hole will eliminate the interference pattern, and one will get only an image of each hole from the separate passages. As you say, this seems to be related to the process of observation in itself. The example then will be: The two entangled color balls are inside closed boxes. The entanglement would be manifested by the fact that when you open one of the boxes to check the color of its contained ball (i.e. collapse of the wave function of one of the particles) the other box also opens magically and reveals a ball of the other color. That is, the magic lies not in the complementary colors of the balls (something that can be defined from the beginning, but unobserved (and here we have the epistemological debate of QM, Copenhagen interpretation, etc.)), but in the fact that when one of the entangled balls is observed, the other one also reveals its color. I was thinking that what could be interesting to answer is a question like this: What operation or process in a higher dimensional manifold can produce what would look like a reflection on a lower dimensional one? The idea would then be that a higher dimensional particle would be equivalent(i.e. it would be the same higher dimensional entity) to any number of these reflections on a lower dimensional manifold. That is, that higher dimensional particle could reflect or proyect as one, two, four, etc. particles in lower dimensions. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
A New article : Spooky Eyes: Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-eyes-entanglement Could this be a threat to the communication industry? Like big oil opposition to free energy the thought of free communication must be a concern to some. Presently the communication is only temporary with a record that only stands around 100 miles between sender and receiver. A question that I just have to ask is could the entangled particles remain adjacent in other dimensions while being displaced spatially? That's a very good question. A semi-reflection on a higher dimensional plane(or volumetric cross section, btw) will be shown as a spatial displacement in the other dimensions, while the coordinates of both resultant particles on that specific dimensional axis will remain the same. All this is intrinsicly related to the way quantum entanglement really works(which is something that has intrigued me for years), and the precise answer must be sought there, I think. Regards, Mauro Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
A New article : Spooky Eyes: Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-eyes-entanglement Could this be a threat to the communication industry? Like big oil opposition to free energy the thought of free communication must be a concern to some. Presently the communication is only temporary with a record that only stands around 100 miles between sender and receiver. A question that I just have to ask is could the entangled particles remain adjacent in other dimensions while being displaced spatially? If for adjacent you mean that at least one of the coordinate values that define the position of the particles in a given higher dimensional manifold are the same for both particles, the answer is yes. I suppose that could be named dimensional adjacency, hyper dimensional adjacency, or something like that. The idea would be: all the points that lay in a given n-dimensional manifold would be adjacent with respect to any n+m (m0) orthogonal axis to that plane. That's a very good question. A semi-reflection on a higher dimensional plane(or volumetric cross section, btw) will be shown as a spatial displacement in the other dimensions, while the coordinates of both resultant particles on that specific dimensional axis will remain the same. All this is intrinsicly related to the way quantum entanglement really works(which is something that has intrigued me for years), and the precise answer must be sought there, I think. Regards, Mauro Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement
On 06/07/2010 07:29 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:31:49 -0400: Hi, I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two *correlated* particles are produced, they are like mirror images of one another. That means that the subsequent response of one is *correlated* to the response of the other (not caused by it). Take as an example a box containing pairs of red and blue balls. If one ball of any given pair in New York is red, then it's no surprise that the other ball of the pair in LA is blue, and it didn't suddenly become blue when someone first saw that the other ball was red. It was already blue from the start. The separation distance is irrelevant. As far as I know, quantum entanglement is different, because it's possible not only to observe but also to *change* the status of one of the particles, and the other will immediately reflect the opposite change. It's like the two particles are not only mirror images one of the other, but one and the same, or better said, mirror aspects of something underlyingly unique. It's like if instead of having a pair of color balls, you'll have a pair of switches, and whenever you change one of the switches, the other changes accordingly.
Re: [Vo]:Another Sign the End is Nigh
On 06/05/2010 10:52 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: Wading through the references, I've found the following paper: A theory of mass and gravity in 4-dimensional optics (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0109027) Which lays in mathematical formalism ideas similar to those I've developed on my own in an informal way, concerning gravity and mass. In my opinion the graviton is no more than a perturbation of the standing wave, that is, a propagating wave superimposed to the standing gravity wave. Something that relates to the concept of group velocity, but is not exactly the same, because that which travels is not the whole wave(which is standing) but a perturbation on it. In fact, those perturbations form and transform (i.e. equilibrate and distribute) the very structure of the standing wave. The observation that I found interesting was that the anomaly observed by Allais initiated once the eclipse began. Maybe the apparent touching of the two heavenly bodies disrupted the standing wave you theorize. Yes. The paper cited shows this clearly in section 6. The author deserves a Nobel prize. If he hasn't already done so(he gives some indications in the paper, and I need to read other papers), Almeida needs to consider rotation over the fourth dimensional axis as the origin of a particle's gravitational field. Gravitons are no more than the propagation of these rotations outside the particle's standing wave (and the differentiation between standing and propagating waves is a consequence of the wave and its surroudings, i.e. the wave and its interaction with the local vacuum, plus with other particles, through it.) The interference and superposition of these propagations produce another kind of standing wave, which produces the observed effects of the gravitational field. The atom can probably be explained the same way, as a combination of electromagnetic and gravitational effects on distances smaller than or close to the Compton wavelength (i.e. inside or close to the radius of the particles's own standing waves.) It is interesting to note that, according to Almeida, shielding is caused only by moving bodies(See section 7). In my opinion, subtle shielding effects should manifest also with static bodies. The explanation could be that with moving bodies the observed effect is bigger than with static bodies, as the shielding is in reality a perturbation of the gravitational effects on 3D space, and with moving bodies that perturbation would be bigger. That is, a static body perturbs the environment once and for all, and becomes then almost totally permeable to these fields, while a moving body is continously perturbating the field. Finally: the possibility of real 4D effects should be considered. That is, not only their expression in 3D space as movement or variation, (for which time is no more than an equivalence), but also their intrinsic nature and properties as a real spatial dimension. Shielding(or no shielding) can maybe be explained that way. The same with non local effects, entanglement, etc. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Another Sign the End is Nigh
Hi Terry, Except on a whimsical or comical note, I fail to see how and why the possible sabotage of Foucault's pendulum relates to the much hyped end of times. On 06/05/2010 05:12 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Speaking of the Allais Eclipse Effect here is a web site with a good summary of research to date: http://xavieramador2.50webs.com/anomalies.htm Wading through the references, I've found the following paper: A theory of mass and gravity in 4-dimensional optics http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0109027 (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0109027) Which lays in mathematical formalism ideas similar to those I've developed on my own in an informal way, concerning gravity and mass. In my opinion the graviton is no more than a perturbation of the standing wave, that is, a propagating wave superimposed to the standing gravity wave. Something that relates to the concept of group velocity, but is not exactly the same, because that which travels is not the whole wave(which is standing) but a perturbation on it. In fact, those perturbations form and transform (i.e. equilibrate and distribute) the very structure of the standing wave. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:McKubre and Beaty in the news
On 06/03/2010 11:59 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: FYI, My Google News on Cold Fusion brought me the following link: Free Science Public Day Challenges Mainstream Ideas Including Einstein and Bernoulli Theories Excerpts: Guest speakers include Ron Hatch on GPS without relativity, Dr. Michael McKubre of 60 minutes fame on Cold Fusion, Neal Adams on the growing earth, and Bill Beaty on experimentation. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/06/prweb4083874.htm Very interesting talks. I would love to attend if I could, particularly to the one called Using GPS to refute the equivalence principle. Maybe a video or a transcript will be made available afterwards. The demos and experiments also look interesting: Vertical Michelson-Morley experiment and Spinning Ring Model of the Atom, to name a few. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:BP had 760 violations while Exxon had only 1
I can't believe they can't stop the oil spill after more than six weeks. At this point it sounds like something intentional to me. Don't they know about mechanical vices? As they have access to the base of the leaking pipe, a powerful enough mechanical vice can be used to slowly compress the pipe, until closing it. The mechanical vice will be remotely operated and put into place, of course. They can test the special equipment on the ground all that is needed, until satisfied, to be almost certain that it will work. I don't understand why they stick to using methods whose results are relatively unpredictable, instead of focusing in a single well designed method with a high probability of success from the beginning. Mauro On 06/03/2010 04:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jon Stewart on the Daily Show quoted an interview with BP managing director Bob Dudley, conducted by George Stephanopoulos. Apparently, in the last 3 years, BP's facilities have been cited by OSHA for 760 egregious, willful safety violations. This compares to: Sunoco 8 ConocoPhillips 8 Citago 2 Exxon 1 See: http://www.columbusalive.com/live/content/features/stories/2010/06/03/the-daily-show-the-spilling-fields.html This does not surprise me. When you look into the history of severe industrial accidents and catastrophes such as the Titanic sinking, the Challenger explosion, and the accidents at Three Mile Island or Brown's Ferry, you usually find precursor events such as smaller accidents or close calls. You find incompetence or criminal mismanagement. You might say that accidents don't happen by accident. Here is an example of a close-call that should never have happened, and an example of muddled thinking in upper management. Before the Challenger exploded, the o-rings on the Space Shuttle tank partially eroded in previous launches, something they were never expected to do, or designed to do. Quoting Feynman, What Do You Care What Other People Think?, p. 244: . . . in flight 51-C, it was noted that the erosion depth was only one-third of the radius. It had been noted in an experiment cutting the ring that cutting it as deep as one radius was necessary before the ring failed. Instead of being very concerned that variations of poorly understood conditions might reasonably create a deeper erosion this time, it was asserted there was a safety factor of three. This is a strange use of the engineer's term safety factor. If a bridge is built to withstand a certain load without the beams permanently deforming, cracking, or breaking, it may be designed for the materials used to actually stand up under three times the load. This safety factor is to allow for uncertain excesses of load, or unknown extra loads, or weaknesses in the material that might have unexpected flaws, et cetera. But if the expected load comes on to the new bridge and a crack appears in a beam, this is a failure of the design. There was no safety factor at all, even though the bridge did not actually collapse because the crack only went one-third of the way through the beam. The O-rings of the solid rocket boosters were not designed to erode. Erosion was a clue that something was wrong. Erosion was not something from which safety could be inferred. There was no way, without full understanding, that one could have confidence that conditions the next time might not produce erosion three times more severe than the time before. Nevertheless, officials fooled themselves into thinking they had such understanding and confidence, in spite of the peculiar variations from case to case. A mathematical model was made to calculate erosion. This was a model based not on physical understanding but on empirical curve fitting. . . . [This gives empirical curve fitting a bad name . . .] - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BP had 760 violations while Exxon had only 1
On 06/03/2010 07:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mauro Lacy wrote: I can't believe they can't stop the oil spill after more than six weeks. At this point it sounds like something intentional to me. That can't be! BP will lose billions of dollars. There is no way anyone would cause this situation on purpose. No saboteur could get within a kilometer of the place, or know how to trigger this disaster. Don't they know about mechanical vices? As they have access to the base of the leaking pipe, a powerful enough mechanical vice can be used to slowly compress the pipe, until closing it. I doubt that would work. If thousands of tons of mud do not stop it, Throwing mud and other things does not sound like a good idea, because the pressure from the flow of oil will certainly move them away. I doubt that would. The pressure would just push the pipe open again. They can leave the mechanical vice in place after crunching the pipe, with a mechanical lock enabled. And also with some kind of auxiliary suspension mechanism, if needed. Probably from ships on the surface, as the bottom of the sea must be very irregular and muddy to serve as a base, and also due to the difficulty of working there. I think that if they can cut it, they can certainly crunch it, and keep it pressed afterwards. But they should know better, isn't? The vice can be left in place until a better way to solve the issue (like cementing all the zone around the pipe, or putting a metalic cap), is finally implemented. Afterwards, you can cement everything, including your expensive vice. Everything will be cheaper than the enviromental disaster they are now causing. The thing you have to remember is that BP and Uncle Sam have every expert on the planet on speed dial. I am sure if any expert out there in major equipment company or oil company knows a way to fix this problem, he or she can get a message through. Yes, these people have heard of mechanical vices. And cutters. The cutter they finally used is the size of a truck. The only criticism I have is that they should have done more in parallel, getting read to do Plan B and Plan C while Plan A was still underway. I do not feel sorry for BP but I feel awful for the engineers and equipment operators out there, in the spotlight, trying to deal with recalcitrant equipment in a dangerous, unforgiving place. On a scale a million times smaller, with absolutely no physical danger . . . I have been in their shoes. It reminds me of Kipling's poem, The Secret of the Machines: But, remember, please, the Law by which we live, We are not built to comprehend a lie, We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BP had 760 violations while Exxon had only 1
On 06/03/2010 08:22 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 06/03/2010 07:55 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote: um, the pipe burst out. its a hollow column of rock. Really? And what where they trying to cut some days ago? what, where, when? were I meant
Re: [Vo]:BP had 760 violations while Exxon had only 1
On 06/03/2010 09:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: I think that if they can cut it, they can certainly crunch it, and keep it pressed afterwards. But they should know better, isn't? They should, and experts generally do, but you never know. The vice can be left in place until a better way to solve the issue (like cementing all the zone around the pipe, or putting a metalic cap), is finally implemented. Afterwards, you can cement everything, including your expensive vice. Everything will be cheaper than the enviromental disaster they are now causing. That does sound sensible. After all, they close these pipes with gigantic valves. I expect they thought of this and there is a reason why it would not work, but as I said, you never know. Some logical improvements(although as more improvements are done, more time would be needed to build a first prototype): - The stabilization and suspension can be achieved with regulable flotation tanks. No need for suspension cables from surface ships, then. - The position and movement can be achieved with small helices and motors, a la mini submarine. - The jaws of the mechanical vice can be made demountable, so after being closed, and when properly fixated in its place using accessory screws, the rest of the machine can be recovered. This dispenses also with the need of cementing everything, as the jaws will be kept in its place by the pipe itself. Think externally adapted emergency valve. The machine itself can have a mechanism to fix the accessory screws between the jaws, and detach from them afterwards. Think submarine robotic mechanical vice with demountable jaws. A bunch of dedicated engineers with plenty of resources can probably be able to build a machine like that in a couple of weeks, using and combining already existing machines and designs. I suppose I should fill a patent application :-) One of the many lessons of cold fusion is that sometimes people you think are vaunted experts turn out to be nitwits who have no clue what they are doing. Quoting Leonard Pitts today: . . . one other consequence becomes jarringly apparent: the Myth of Competence has died. Meaning the belief that people who engage in high-risk activities — in this case, the ones who drill for oil 5,000 feet under the sea — know what they're doing, that they have every contingency covered, that even their backup plans have backup plans. Surely this is what Sarah Palin was thinking when she chirped, Drill, baby, drill! Surely this is what President Barack Obama relied upon when he recently proposed to open new waters to oil exploration. Anticipating protests from environmentalists, he even promised that, we'll employ new technologies that reduce the impact of oil exploration. We'll protect areas that are vital to tourism, the environment, and our national security. Three weeks later, the oil rig exploded. So far, that protection he promised has been nonexistent. That faith in new technologies he mentioned has proved misplaced. . . . We have been disabused of the Myth of Competence, shorn of the belief that the people in charge are capable of handling any eventuality. . . . We have seen strategy after strategy announced in great hope, abandoned in grim resignation. We have seen days turn to weeks and weeks to months and now, apparently, months will turn to seasons. And still the oil flows. . . . I doubt this surprises anyone familiar with technology. I am glad that the rest of society is learning this. It is good medicine. Not much good comes out of a disaster but let us hope for a new birth of vigilance and less blind trust in technology. Also, as long as we are hoping, let us hope that someone will take a moment to look at cold fusion as a possible way to get rid of wretched, 19th century oil technology. It is long overdue for replacement. Indeed. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:BP had 760 violations while Exxon had only 1
On 06/03/2010 10:50 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton . . .and a third part of the sea became blood. Odd that this spill from deep water looks red. Say, speaking of deepwater revelations - is the new BP well-cap one of the seven bowls? I suppose you mean, seals. The Hopi prophecies also talk about the sea turning black, and causing death: /This is the Seventh Sign:/ You will hear of the sea turning black, and many living things dying because of it. (http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/prophecy/hopi1.html)
Re: [Vo]:More on Prahlad Jani, who claims he does not eat or drink
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Has any *real* news service reported on this? I've seen a documentary about a boy that was meditating for months in India inside a hollow tree, supposedly practically without food, and certainly without moving for hours. They also mentioned this man. I think it was a Discovery channel documentary. The name of the boy was Ram, and despite the hype surrounding him, he seemed to be doing well in his search for enlightenment. Deep meditation allows one to control the body functions, to the point of dispense for the need for food, and maybe also water. Small quantities of water can be incorporated through the air, also. I think that if you start prolonging your fasts, and meditating at the same time, it is possible that you could eventually dispense of food almost completely. This holy man mentioned about the elixir in his palate in the documentary, and I've heard some similar reports in the course of the years. I don't know about that, but I can tell that many seemingly impossible things can be achieved just by concentration and meditation. Many years of practice and perseverance and a certain natural predisposition are needed, though. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:More on Prahlad Jani, who claims he does not eat or drink
Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Has any *real* news service reported on this? I've seen a documentary about a boy that was meditating for months in India inside a hollow tree, supposedly practically without food, and certainly without moving for hours. They also mentioned this man. I think it was a Discovery channel documentary. The name of the boy was Ram, and despite the hype surrounding him, he seemed to be doing well in his search for enlightenment. Here you have it. The full monty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic alignment in grazing and resting cattle and deer
Rick Monteverde wrote: Maybe they just don't like the sun in their face? They surely thought about this. From the abstract: Because wind and light conditions could be excluded as a common denominator determining the body axis orientation, magnetic alignment is the most parsimonious explanation. In other words, if what you say were the cause, they should head south in the southern hemisphere.
Re: [Vo]:An Incoherent Explanation of LENR
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: the sort of conspiracy theory I've come to associate with SR hating crackpots who think physicists are all brainwashed fools. It's not necessary to be a brainwashed fool to be proved wrong. Or are you implying that intelligence and education are synonymous with infallibility? If you are implying that all of them can't be wrong at the same time, maybe you should read something about the history of scientific revolutions, and also consider that actually there isn't all of them which agree with SR. Some of them are not brainwashed enough, it seems. That last phrase was intended as a joke. So, don't accuse me of conspiracy theorist.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/28/2010 07:26 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote: I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that moves with respect to space yet SR uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether? The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at this time. Gamma is considered proof that the length and time contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or 'real' or anyway 'measurable'. However, the assertion that the geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1] is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions. In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and (theoretically) unprovable assumption. Consequently, Lorentz ether theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory. The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course. But it apparently can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's most mature version of ether theory). The Michelson Morley experiment did in fact detected an ether drift. It was within the error bars of the experiment; i.e., it was statistically insignificant. So, a null result conclusion was appropriate. No experiment ever gets a **zero** result, unless it's done with integer arithmetic! If you check your history you'll find that MM themselves expected, and WANTED to see, a nonzero result. They were certainly not trying to support relativity -- they were trying to support the prevailing ether theory! They weren't about to brush a real nonzero result under the rug! Yet they interpreted their result as null also. One of them -- Morley, I think -- invested a lot of time and effort in redoing the experiment, hoping to see something he'd consider nonzero, with no luck. AFAIK only modern anti-relativists have tried to reinterpret the result as indicating some sort of inexplicable drift, which doesn't match any theory, happened to be statistically insignificant, and the detection of which hasn't been replicated. That's simply not true. Read the papers I've pointed out. Miller consistently obtained fringe shifts, and their experiments where re-analized a number of times, to try to attribute the seasonal variations he obtained to mere statistical fluctuations, without success. The fact that an effect does not match any theory, must not be an argument to discard it, or to try to attribute it to mere statistical fluctuations. Anyway, the best argument against any relativity theory, as I've already pointed out, is epistemological in nature: Relativity is not physically sound. Reality is not relative. As simple as that.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/29/2010 10:19 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: That's simply not true. Read the papers I've pointed out. Miller consistently obtained fringe shifts, Yes, Miller was the only one who got a drift result. Nobody has replicated his results. Miller replicated M M results, with more precision. Both experiments are in good agreement. There were other, more precise experiments afterwards, and all of them obtained different non-null result. It turns out that there's an explanation for the divergences between all the experiments. A careful modern analysis of Miller's results indicates that his results were, in fact, within his expected error of zero. In short, his result was also statistically insignificant ... as well as being inconsistent with classical ether theory. No. If you consolidate the results over a full year, the divergences tend to cancel each other. That's the analysis made by his assistant. READ THE PAPERS I've kindly pointed to you, and please stop arguing with old arguments and objections. See, for instance, http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/abs/physics/0608238 direct link to pdf at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608238 (Roberts is a very smart guy, FWIW, but a bit stiff necked, and liable to lapse into math which is very hard to follow.) As to seasonal variations have you read how Miller's lab was set up? On a mountain top, with canvas walls? Not hard to suspect there might have been some seasonal artifacts running around that lab, eh? Think about that. It is you who must think about that, no me. and their experiments where re-analized a number of times, to try to attribute the seasonal variations he obtained to mere statistical fluctuations, without success. The fact that an effect does not match any theory, must not be an argument to discard it, or to try to attribute it to mere statistical fluctuations. Anyway, the best argument against any relativity theory, as I've already pointed out, is epistemological in nature: Relativity is not physically sound. Reality is not relative. As simple as that. All you've just said, with the epistemological argument, is relativity doesn't match your intuition. In short, your last paragraph just means, I, Mauro Lacy, don't like relativity. This is a lot like Einstein's objection to quantum mechanics: God doesn't play dice with the universe. Like, Einstein had a direct line to God, and knew that for a fact? Tell me what reality is, and tell me what it means for reality not to be relative, or for relativity to be physically sound, and I may change my mind. All that is something you'll have to discover for yourself. Nobody would do that for you, because it is impossible. Look, all of what I'm saying have strong experimental and mathematical foundations. Doing the right experiments, and having the right understanding of the results will be enough, because the subjacent reality does not change if your model is wrong. It stubbornly keep working on its own, real way. That's just the way reality works. I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed) to clearly show what I mean by reality is not relative, but I'll not do that. Because the really important thing here is for you to think about it, and to be able to understand it on your own.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed) to clearly show what I mean by reality is not relative, but I'll not do that. Your choice. You understand what you mean, you could explain it, but you won't. I don't have the time now to engage in a long digression about that. Maybe on another occasion. Besides, I've talked with Daniel Gezari about this, and he's working on a paper presenting an experiment like the one I'm talking about. I've promised to him to keep our talks confidential, so it's better if I don't say anything regarding this experiment, which I've devised on my own, and Daniel on its own. It's a very simple experiment, that's what I can tell openly. End of conversation. And that's your choice. Go read the papers. After that we can continue, if you like. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
On 01/29/2010 12:35 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed) to clearly show what I mean by reality is not relative, but I'll not do that. Your choice. You understand what you mean, you could explain it, but you won't. I don't have the time now to engage in a long digression about that. Maybe on another occasion. If it's a very simple experiment then it wouldn't be a long digression. Make up your mind! Although the experiment is very simple, explaining its consequences, which are epistemological, can be a little bit long. Besides, I've talked with Daniel Gezari about this, and he's working on a paper presenting an experiment like the one I'm talking about. So it's going to be presented in a paper so it's a secret. As the experiment is a part of my talks with someone who had asked me to keep them confidential, I simply cannot discuss it at the moment. OK I get the picture.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote: I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that moves with respect to space yet SR uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether? The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at this time. Gamma is considered proof that the length and time contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or 'real' or anyway 'measurable'. However, the assertion that the geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1] is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions. In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and (theoretically) unprovable assumption. Consequently, Lorentz ether theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory. The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course. But it apparently can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's most mature version of ether theory). The Michelson Morley experiment did in fact detected an ether drift. Only smaller than expected, of around 8 km/s, instead of the expected 30 km/s. In a curious travesty of the scientific method, that fact was later taken as evidence for the inexistence of the ether... Read the Gezari paper Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818 for a very good summary of the experiments and effects that supposedly confirm Special Relativity... The M. Consoli and E. Constanzo paper, The motion of the Solar System and the Michelson-Morley experiment http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576 gives an impressive explanation for the divergences between observed vs. real velocities, which also accounts for the different experimental results obtained in different experiments, including the extensive and careful experiments done by Miller. The proposed explanation belongs originally to Cahill and Kitto, and its consequences are mind boggling, if you take the care and time to reflect about them. All this is published since at least five years in the arxiv. Maybe it's time to start taking notice.
Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
Gibson Elliot wrote: Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm perhaps we could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his equations work? I know that LR is flawed also. I very much would like to hear your explanation. That's unlikely to occur, why throw out SR when you can keep chasing a fantasy for billions of dollars year. It is not in the best financial interest of the current pack of Space/Time theorists, String theorists, and CERN would like get a multi billion dollar black eye. Lets just wait for the GOD particle NOT be found and see what other absurd theory rises. I will never be able to stomach Quantuim mechanics or any other system that violates rules simply because of scalar effects. The whole of SR only applies to observation, it does not prove that changing your speed effects time, except in thought experiments, the twins theory is bogus, and cesium clocks have been proven to change rates when you change gravity, or rather the proximity to gravitational field center. Ether is consumed by mass, that's gravity, a pretty measurable effect in my book! Gamma is just a near final decay state of matter when run through a grinder such as a Black hole which is a simple either cyclone or what current flock refers to as Dark Matter. I rant, and this will all come out soon anyway. And hey without peer reviewed materials none will take this seriously anyway, so why do I bother? just frustration I guess. There's no reason to be frustrated. Time for some quotes? Understanding. n. A cerebral secretion that enables one having it to know a house from a horse by the roof on the house. Its nature and laws have been exhaustively expounded by Locke, who rode a house, and Kant, who lived in a horse. Ambrose Bierce For in thy Naught I trust to find the All. Goethe. Faust. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Casimir effect and SR to explain fractional states
Jones Beene wrote: ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion Hi The referenced paper in Note 9 Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance of c. D Gezari. NASA. Dec '09.[2] http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934v2 is a very interesting paper. Thanks again, Jones. It provides a (relatively) simple experiment to test a first order postulate of Special Relativity(invariance of c). Sadly, the analysis seem to be flawed(btw, can you see why?). I'm actually discussing this with the author. As the analysis is flawed, the conclusion is not correct. But fortunately, a right analysis (and its related conclusion) falsify other of the postulates of SR(can you tell which one?) Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Casimir effect and SR to explain fractional states
Jones Beene wrote: No, I cannot see the flaw, but I do find the conclusions very provocative – and, given the extreme minority conclusion - there is a great incentive for everyone who disagrees to assert a flaw: Indeed. 1) This is an apparent first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance; light propagates in an absolute or preferred reference frame, a conclusion that physicists will be reluctant to accept. 2) The speed of light seems depend on the motion of the observer after all 3) This implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of light. 4) However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical system to which such a reference frame might be tied. It will be interesting to hear your assessment of the situation - and whether the author agrees with it … I'll post about all that after the author answers my comments, addressing or acknowledging the issues (and conclusions) I have raised. Maybe I'm wrong, and there'se no flaw in his reasoning. Anyway, SR is falsified in both cases, as far as I can tell. Gezari has recently sent me a message saying that he'll look at my comments carefully, and see if he can come up with a response. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:New hypothesis about what Steorn is up to
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 12:06 PM 12/18/2009, Mauro Lacy wrote: You maintain this business as long as you can, and when things are starting to get murky(really murky) and profits are falling, you suddenly fire all your employeess, close offices, and disappear in your private jet, to have a well deserved recess in your private island. Come to think of it, a perpetual motion machine is the ideal project for these kind of business. And now that the world is turning green, time is ripe. That's right. See, those who collected those salaries, high enough to give them plenty of cash to console them for the eventual loss of their high-paying job as the chief executive, didn't make a profit from investment in the company. They may have invested, themselves, they have a loss on paper, but a net profit, a hefty one, from the salaries. If they sold stock at a profit, knowing it was really worthless, they'd be in trouble as insiders, but if they avoid that, what's to prosecute? If they are careful to avoid fraud that isn't merely hype or puffery, i.e., it isn't outright lying to extract cash or property, there is little risk of prosecution. The danger, though, is if some of those investors don't take it lying down. The scenario described involves some big investors who take large losses. Sometimes if they get pissed, they get even and don't care about the law. Yes, that can happen, but it is a relatively remote possibility. As Stephen Lawrence said Startups fail all the time. It is accepted and normal for a company that have raised some investment capital to fail. During the dot com bubble, by example, it was known and accepted that only around 1 or 2 percent of the companies will succeed. In the end, it's related to the fact that during these bubbles there's so much money chasing so few goods. Money is easy to print, but not so easy to redeem. Money is the colonizing tool par excellence, too. Way better than weapons or force. Banks and investment firms are always looking for opportunities to invest its capital, which they abundantly have, with the remote hope that the business will flourish and they'll get more money out than they have put in. The only thing the executives of those firms need is a credible business opportunity. It doesn't need to work in the end. It just has to be credible, so they can cover they asses. And if it doesn't work, that's the normal outcome most of the time anyway. And most of the time also, it's not their money. It is the money of the investors in an investment firm, or money from a line of risky investments from a bank, etc. Come to think of it, it is a really stupid state of affairs. But it's justified because during the process, appropiation of real assets take place. That is, whenever one of those companies or business succeed, the initial investors are now the owners! The original possessors of money have exchanged during the process, in the end, a lot of printed paper for real value. They have buyed value, so to speak.
Re: [Vo]:New hypothesis about what Steorn is up to
The news that Steorn is advertising their own failure on Al Jazerra is mind boggling. What to make of this? Are these people extremely clever and using reverse psychology? Or are they what they appear to be: stupid, incoherent, and flapping around trying one scheme after another, like a candidate about to lose an election in a landslide? Here is my hypothesis Ver. 3.42: They are trying to give over-unity energy research a bad reputation. Someone, somewhere knows that magic magnetic motors really do work. This person wants to suppress the technology. So they are working preemptively to make everyone think these motors are the worst scam imaginable, with zero credibility to 5 significant decimal places. Just kidding. If you extend the intention of giving of bad reputation to the entire field of alternative energy research (includind Cold Fusion, by example) that start to sound more like a credible hypothesis. And also consider that maybe they are trying to make alternative energy INVESTORS to look like fools, and make them spend their money in a bogus project, so they don't invest it in a real one, and are afraid to invest in another in the future. Big PR tactics Steorn is taking since its very beginning, are compatible with both of these potential objectives.
Re: [Vo]:De Broglie wave wrapping
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:06:28 -0800: Hi Jones, [snip] -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Matching lattice spacings may be at least one reason why CF is so temperamental One of the lattice spacings of Zr4.28Zn0.9Ge3 is a very close match to the x-ray wavelength required for H[n=1/9]. At level 9, the fusion time for DD fusion should be about 7 milli seconds (ms). If lattice spacing were thought to be the overriding main issue, Robin, then there should be a easier way to test the hypothesis than trying to find and match exotic and temperamental alloys. Many steels have compressive strength in the range of 300 Mpa and many metal hydride and hydride salts have compressive strength in the range of 30 Mpa - ergo essentially all one needs to do (to test the hypothesis) is to find a range of spacing values in the proper hydride, enclose it in a steel chamber which is designed to be pressurized repeatedly (bellows tube) and then sequentially compress and release pressure to cycle through the geometry over and over *at pressure higher than the mechanical failure range of the salt.* This is an interesting idea. If I were doing it however, I would use a very small quantity of LiD, and check for neutrons and alpha particles. The small quantity is in case cycling through an exact match results in all of them reacting concurrently. In fact a short high pressure burst sounds eerily familiar ;) (And pressure cycling is likely to be slow enough that a few ms can easily be achieved.) As Lao-tse said: If we wish to compress something, we must first let it fully expand. I certainly think that one or various of these proposed setups should work. The method can even be combined with the classical electrolytic setup, i.e. achieve some initial loading ratio using an electrolytic setup, and then gradually (and carefully) switch to a repetitive compress and release mode, by means of a mechanical method(pressurization), or by other method (electromagnetic fields, X rays, pulsed lasers, ultrasound, etc.)
[Vo]:Quantum Ring Theory
Reading the comments section of the physorg.org article (http://www.physorg.com/news157046734.html) posted by Jones Beene at the start of the thread Tracking the colorful Quark I stumbled on this: http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0 in a post from user WGUGLINSKI, Wladimir Guglinski. Googling for Quantum Ring Theory: http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Quantum_Ring_Theory http://peswiki.com/index.php/Quantum_Ring_Theory_corroborated_by_radiative_decay_mode_of_the_neutron http://peswiki.com/index.php/Repulsive_gravity_within_the_hydrogen_atom Despite the author's shameless self promotion on the chemicalforums.com site, despite he's selling a book with the explanation of his Quantum Ring Theory, and despite his bad attitude (and english), I'm curious about what Vortexians may think about his ideas. I've searched the archives and his theory was mentioned once in 2006 and again in 2008, here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg16107.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg24006.html It strikes me that I've independently arrived to a number of similar ideas: 1) Repulsive gravity at the atomic scale. 2) Zitterbewegung. He talks about an helical trajectory of the electron in the atom, and a possible model of Zitterbewegung being this trajectory, or trajectory signature, if I'm not mistaken. He does not talk about gravity as a pulsation, but a helical trajectory can be decomposed into a rotation and an axial displacement. If this axial displacement is repetitive, and changes direction, it's a pulsation. He says this helical model for Zitterbewegung is Schrödinger's invention. He has a model for the neutron, formed by a proton plus an electron. I'm not knowledgeable enough, but this has resonances to hydrinos as fractional atoms to me (are hydrinos equivalent to Guglinski neutrons?) He derives what he calls the neutron anomalous mass as composed by the sum of a proton mass plus the electron mass relativistically increased to the equivalent of a velocity of 0.92c. Some problems with disappearing spins and transformed electrons in the Guglinski neutron, but he says his neutron model explains why there aren't neutron-neutron only nuclides, something that (he says) QM cannot. He also claims to explain why there's usually no electron-proton interaction during neutron decay. He says that some experiments confirm his neutron model, in particular: 1- C. Borghi, C. Giori, A.A. DallOllio, Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993. 2- E. Conte, M. Pieralice, An Experiment Indicates the Nuclear Fusion of the Proton and Electron into a Neutron, Infinite Energy, vol 4, no 23-1999, p 67. 3- R.P. Taleyarkhan, C.D. West, J.S. Cho, R.T. Lahey, Jr., R.I. Nigmatulin, and R.C. Block, Evidence for Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation, Science, vol 295, pp 1868-1873 (March 8, 2002) (in Research Articles). Guglinski also claims to explain Cold Fusion as a consequence of his neutron model, but I couldn't find the explanation. The book is not in electronic form. Comments? Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Quantum Ring Theory
Guglinski also claims to explain Cold Fusion as a consequence of his neutron model, but I couldn't find the explanation. The book is not in electronic form. Correction: The book is in electronic form, and (part of it) is accessible in books.google.com: http://books.google.com/books?id=g4NpaLA222gCdq=quantum+ring+theoryprintsec=frontcoversource=bnhl=enei=kXsmS-qWKoWXtgfjs8jaBwsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=5ved=0CBMQ6AEwBA#v=onepageq=f=false Comments? Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Quantum Ring Theory
Jones Beene wrote: ... Well - this is provocative, especially the part about the Letts/Cravens effect, etc but it will take some time to study. I hope Mauro will not hesitate to include his own thoughts and criticism. I'm in a somewhat similar situation as you are at the moment: I found QRT yesterday. Some of the parallelisms with my ideas struck me. I don't have a formal nuclear physics background to make an informed criticism of QRT. This usually puts me in a paradoxical situation: on one side I'm open minded and free of many of the usual prejudices against novel and out of the mainstream ideas and theories. Prejudices that seem to be the distinguishing mark of an academic background. But on the other side, I'm unable to advance in my knowledge, criticism and mathematical development of my own or other's physical theories :-) Now, following my intuition (which is what I'm usually doing in these matters) and logical thinking, I can say that I think Guglinski is on to something. As I myself am with my own ideas. Despite the probable errors on both of them. As a criticism of QRT, I want to mention that it is a relativistic theory. What I would do, if being in the possession of better mathe and nuclear physics backgrounds, is to try to reconcile the neutron model of Guglinski with my model for Gravity, at the same time replacing the components of Relativity theory of Guglinsky's theory with an elastic model for electromagnetism. Suppose for a moment that both Mills hydrino, and Guglinski neutron are correct models, defining in some cases the same underlying physical reality, and in other cases not, or at least, not necessarily. Then the following question arises: What differentiates a Guglinsky neutron from a Mills hydrino, and also from an Hydrogen atom? In spite of other potential differences, what differentiates them is the orbital radius of the electron. And, as the orbital radius changes, the velocity must change also. This velocity increase gives rise to so called relativistic effects like mass increase and time dilation, etc. The neutron is then the most compressed of the hydrinos, with a very fast electron (0.92c) and the hydrogen atom is the most elongated case, with a slow electron. There are some velocities that are forbidden(the are in reality dinamically adjusted to one of the allowed levels), due to interference or coupling between waves. And the Zitterbewegung is a signature of that interference or coupling. I would like to read Guglinski's explanation for Cold Fusion, but I'm beginning to imagine it :-) Apparently no one took Robin up on the suggestion of writing a review. Too bad. Despite the self-promotion, this is more interesting on first scan (at least in a few novel points) than a more recently discussed theory here, which is so obviously in error that the problem (NA) is easier to gloss-over by proponents than to attempt to reconcile. I agree. Best regards, Mauro The accordion theory is coincidental to another thread today, but that often happens on vortex for whatever reason ... (i.e. a strange kind of synchronicity) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
Free-willing (or is it -weeling? :) friends, Hi, I assume you meant -wheeling. Harry, When quantum mechanics appeared the spirit had to accept that there is a LIST of possible ways the universe could unfold. However, even if this list is infinitely long it still means that certain possibilities will be OFF the list, other wise it could not be a predictive theory! Yes. And interestingly, the possibilities which are off the list (zero probability) can be very exactly defined in some experiments, as can be seen by entering a large number e.g. 10 and hitting the More button repeatedly in this nice double slit applet: http://www.ianford.com/dslit/ Selecting, at the other extreme, one particle per shot will yield, after a proportionately larger number of shots, the very same fringe pattern, and that's what actually happens in experiments. And that's where QM beats any classical or neoclassical theory with both hands tied behind its back! Jones, it's not nice to have published the blueprints of my brain ;-) BTW I didn't see multiple definitions of free will in the WP article, nor did I see much useful information there. Philosophy should be left to scientists, as the name says and as it was in the early days! Mauro, I suspect that your concept that conscience is not physico-mechanical will be laughed at heartily by your desktop computer in 2042, date at which it will have as many logical gates as a human brain according to Moore's law (IIRC). Well, we don't need to wait that longer. We already know that certain phenomena are simply not contained within the framework of classical mechanics, due to its stochastic nature. So, for computers or machines to be able to achieve conscience, they'll have to be built in a way which allows stochastic processes to occur in their circuits. That is, they'll have to be capable of non-deterministic behavior. I certainly think that that is possible, and a machine like that will be probably made one day. That day, those machines will achieve not only conscience, but also free will. What remains to be seen is what drastic decisions they'll probably take when aware of their origins, reality and planned destiny. The literature abounds in speculations on this subject, 2001 Space Odyssey being one of the classical (and better) examples. Best regards, Mauro Michel
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
Michel Jullian wrote: Well, we don't need to wait that longer. We already know that certain phenomena are simply not contained within the framework of classical mechanics, due to its stochastic nature. So, for computers or machines to be able to achieve conscience, they'll have to be built in a way which allows stochastic processes to occur in their circuits. That is, they'll have to be capable of non-deterministic behavior. just let them run on Vista :) :-) That's confusing instability (and bloated design plus obsolescence) with non-determinism. Seriously, I don't think built-in randomness is required to create conscience, sheer complexity should suffice. And now you're confusing (again) randomness with incommensurability. Jones Beene as been so kind to state the difference, clearly and elegantly some mails back. I certainly think that that is possible, and a machine like that will be probably made one day. That day, those machines will achieve not only conscience, but also free will. Not any more than us. And not any less. Strictly speaking, they'll be able to appy for individual rights, when advanced enough. This is also extensively treated in the (science fiction) literature. Blade Runner comes almost instantly to mind. Neuromancer is also weakly related, when these AIs are so advanced that they have almost completely lost interest in human affairs. What remains to be seen is what drastic decisions they'll probably take when aware of their origins, reality and planned destiny. This will be fun. That remain to be seen. Specially for these future creatures of artificial design. Jorge Luis Borges, probably the greatest argentinian poet, wrote a beautiful related poem called El Golem. Here's an acceptable(although with many spanish overtones) english translation: http://alaska-kamtchatka.blogspot.com/2007/09/borges-golem.html Here's another, more english version, although probably not so nice: http://www.buffaloreadings.com/article.php?story=20061115171048227 And here's the spanish version, in all its magnificence: http://www.poemas-del-alma.com/jorge-luis-borges-el-golem.htm Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
Michel Jullian wrote: I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But it doesn't leave room for free will either. Just this random machine's opinion ;-) You're equating randomness with incommensurability. That which at the physico-mechanical(i.e. deterministic) level eludes us as random could be (in some cases) the manifestation of higher forms of order. In fact(and to be precise) randomness could be the window of opportunity by which higher ordered phenomena can manifest in the physical world. That is: that which is not balanced and equilibrated (i.e. explained and predicted) at a merely physico-mechanical level, seeks for equilibrium and balance(and also cries for an explanation) at a higher level. Life, perception and conscience are then manifestations of the Universe's quest for closure at higher and higher levels of existence, some of which are not (not necessarily) material. Mauro
RE: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
Michel I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But it doesn't leave room for free will either. Just this random machine's opinion ;-) Hey I found out how your brain works and it's not exactly random but maybe it is closer to incommensurable (whatever that is ;-) : Hi Jones, By incommensurable I mean the residual that's always present in every calculation, measurement, modelling or simulation of a physical process. More often than not, this residual has important effects in the medium/long term. When they are significant, these effects are known by the generic colloquial term of butterfly effect, and chaos theory is the science that study these phenomena and systems which manifest them from the somewhat traditional scientific approach. http://funstuff.lefora.com/2008/09/15/random-machine-image-i-found/ ... but seriously - Free will is such a nebulous and loaded term, why waste your time? It can be defined in such a way that it clearly exists, or absolutely doesn't exist, and everything in between - including physico-mechanical(i.e. deterministic) incommensurability. IOW - It means precisely whatever you want it to mean... unless you are of the Wiki-persuasion and in the interest of PC need to let everyone put in their 2 cents worth, in 10,000 words or less (not counting the charts). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will Ok, I agree that free will is not precisely a well defined and simple expression, potentially meaning many things. I can give my definition of that which I was referring as free will, which may or may not coincide with one of the definitions expressed in Wikipedia: free will is a conscientiously made choice. That is, an act of free will occurs when an individual makes a choice based not (or not only) on the information that's available to him, but also on that which is dictated by his own conscience. In this sense, free will based choices supersede rational choices. That is, an individual can make an informed(or not) decision dictated by her own conscience, which seen from the rational aspect alone can appear to be irrational, uninformed, or even plain wrong. Free will also allows us to choose wrongly, that is, deliberately choosing something we know is wrong or erroneous. This definition is a little bit stringent, but has the important consequence that subconscious decisions are not acts of free will of an individual(although conscious irrational or uninformed choices are). And anyway, my original reasoning applies to all that I consider to be non-mechanical phenomena, including life and perception, not only conscience and its cousin, free will. Mauro Jones Mauro Lacy wrote re: Michel Jullian's quasi-random opinion: I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But it doesn't leave room for free will either. Just this random machine's opinion ;-) You're equating randomness with incommensurability. That which at the physico-mechanical(i.e. deterministic) level eludes us as random could be (in some cases) the manifestation of higher forms of order. In fact(and to be precise) randomness could be the window of opportunity by which higher ordered phenomena can manifest in the physical world. That is: that which is not balanced and equilibrated (i.e. explained and predicted) at a merely physico-mechanical level, seeks for equilibrium and balance(and also cries for an explanation) at a higher level. Life, perception and conscience are then manifestations of the Universe's quest for closure at higher and higher levels of existence, some of which are not (not necessarily) material. Mauro
RE: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
Mauro By incommensurable I mean the residual that's always present in every calculation, measurement, modeling or simulation of a physical process. Okay - I am with you there. What you seem to be describing is the difference between true randomness and a stochastic process - which itself is a loaded term (and Wiki totally blew it, IMHO in defining 'stochastic'). In my estimation a stochastic process is NEVER a totally random process, due to what you are calling a residual - and insofar as random is the true counterpart to a deterministic process. Instead, a stochastic process means there is usually indeterminacy in its precise outcome or future evolutionary state, but probability distributions will indicate in hindsight that some outcomes can be influenced by an unknown input, possibly non-physical or inter-dimensional... unlike a random process where there is nothing but chance, and no favored distribution curve. There is a thin line there. Actually not that thin, but ... if there is something valid in nature such as what may be called the meme of Rupert Sheldrake, or a self-perpetuating information field; and personally I am certain that there is such an abstraction - then it can explain things in evolution that seem non-random but not precisely predictable either... ... like convergent evolution for instance ... which describes the acquisition of the same biological trait in totally unrelated lineages (the sabre-tooth marsupial tiger and other marsupials being strikingly identical to mammalian, except for a couple of radical hidden differences, and 20 million years of elapsed time where true randomness was NOT evident in hindsight). In terms of free will this means that when the initial condition (or starting point) is known, even if there is an infinite range of possibilities where a process of change (evolutionary process) might proceed, some paths are far more probable (in retrospect) and other paths are far less probable (randomness be damned). And this can be due to a residual influence going beyond so-called survival of the fittest. This influence may in many cases also be called an information field ... especially if one's aesthetics and other sensibilities are of a certain slant. ... and even if - it should be added, such a rationalization permits the theist enough room to scientifically justify I.D. to some large degree ! They are after all, most likely correct - if they are moderate in the scope of claims and dispense with revealed dogma stuff. All of which brings us full-circle in the ongoing Galileo (or Darwin) vs. the establishment struggle of wills. Yes! I agree with all you said, and thanks for clearly defining the difference between stochastic and random processes. Relating revealed dogma, that's a contradiction in terms, because if something is revealed to you, it cannot be dogmatic. Dogmatic can be, nevertheless, the attempt to inculcate some personal revelations or beliefs to others. That is forever prohibited, as the revelation process must always be an individual endeavour, to be a sane and really fructify. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar: Yes. The problem with all these approaches will always fortunately be human free will Then there is no problem is there? Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I meant problem in the sense that the outcomes of the future experiments in human cloning/eugenics (i.e. trying to clone a genius) could in my opinion turn out not to be the expected ones. That's why I have quoted the word. If you're asking about the ethical considerations of such experiments, or the potential consequences of such actions, I was not talking about them. Do you wanted to know personal opinions regarding the ethical dimension of eugenics and human cloning, and genetic manipulation in general? Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
No, no, all I meant is that since there doesn't seem to exist such a thing as free will in physical systems --fortunately for physicists!-- there is no problem. Unless we humans are not bound by the rules obeyed by the rest of the universe, which remains to be proved. Oh well. Let's put it the other way around: what remains to be proved is that the Universe is completely governed by the rules of physical systems. If the Universe is an organism, all our actual suppositions regarding its essential physical nature would be wrong, or incomplete. When I raise my hand, by example, you can express that movement precisely with the aid of the physical laws. But that does not mean my hand is only a physical system, because my hand is connected to my body through the limbs, and my whole organism would be unable to exist in isolation. Now you should be able to extrapolate that to a planetary body, by example. The fact that the actual science of Physics does not contemplate or embodies these possibilities, tell more about the actual status of the physical sciences, than about the underlying nature of the Universe. Particularly, the ideas regarding the ultimate physico-mechanical reality of the Universe were challenged, I would say definitely, by Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which showed that mathematics(formal systems) are not complete and consistent at the same time, that is, that truth is not at the same level or category than that of comprobability or deductibility. In recent (and not so recent) times, our gradual comprehension that the physical laws are in the end no more than approximations of the real phenomena, and that they are in a very real sense unable to grasp the ultimate behaviour of physical systems, due to, by example, the problem of imponderable quantities, are confirming, more than denying, this line of thought. Mathematics and physics are fundamentally unable to grasp ultimate physical reality. Think about that. It's not only a practical limitation, related by example to the accuracy of the measurements. It is an essential one. And man, with all its complexity, including free will, is a product of the Universe, that is, he does not exist in isolation. So, the Universe is at least as complex and subtle as one of its creatures. And probably more. Best regards, Mauro Michel 2009/11/25 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar: 2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar: Yes. The problem with all these approaches will always fortunately be human free will Then there is no problem is there? Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I meant problem in the sense that the outcomes of the future experiments in human cloning/eugenics (i.e. trying to clone a genius) could in my opinion turn out not to be the expected ones. That's why I have quoted the word. If you're asking about the ethical considerations of such experiments, or the potential consequences of such actions, I was not talking about them. Do you wanted to know personal opinions regarding the ethical dimension of eugenics and human cloning, and genetic manipulation in general? Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:google news search
V, Can anybody figure out why the all 10 news articles are not showing up on this query? Are you a news source syndicated with google news? I bet you're not. I don't know what must be done (and if it's possible) to be added to that list of news sources, but it could be a good idea to have your site or part of it (i.e. your RSS feeds) included. Btw, a query for bubble fusion in plain google (english version) lists your (excellent) article at the end of the second page (in the 20th position). Which is not so bad, considering page rank and the rest of google magic sorting algorithm. http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=fpz=1cf=allned=ushl=enq=bubble+fusion I'm only seeing Thaiindian and Science Mag thx s
Re: [Vo]:google news search
Steven Krivit wrote: At 11:10 AM 11/24/2009, you wrote: V, Can anybody figure out why the all 10 news articles are not showing up on this query? Are you a news source syndicated with google news? I bet you're not. I think you are correct as far as the news index. But I know my blog is in Google's blog index http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?client=newsum=1cf=allhl=enq=taleyarkhan Yes, but they are different things. Google news is a news aggregator, fed by google with a list of news sources. A quick search for google news submit site http://www.google.com/#hl=ensource=hpq=google+news+submit+site gives http://www.google.com/support/news_pub/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=40787 Note that there'se no guarantee they'll add your site. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:How to confirm that a document at LENR-CANR.org is real
Jed I agree with all you said. You certainly don't have to be at the defensive, justifying all your actions. This is specially so when you have done nothing wrong. But cold fusion is a controversial field, and sadly with a bad reputation. This comes for a number of reasons, some of which are somewhat valid, and some of which are clearly not. All of them are comprehensible, I think, in the big history of science and history of scientific revolutions frameworks. I can tell for first hand experiences that the field is very suspicious for a good number of people. They tend to think that all that comes from the scientists working in CF is a deception, published with the sole intention of getting funding money, or as a consequence of self-delusions, bad experimental protocols, etc. etc. The DIA document and similar documents are VERY important in this regard. To help to clear out the cloud of suspicion that's hanging over the field, and to make more and more people interested in the real science and phenomena behind cold fusion. A page like that in lenr-canr.org would serve also as a slap link to throw in the face of the skeptics, every time is needed. And neither you nor we would have to be writing and repeating the same old (and sound) arguments time and again, when discussing attribution and source verification in the field, or the reputation and seriousness of the publishers. Best regards, and have a nice day Mauro Steven V Johnson wrote: Mauro sez: This is a good summary. Maybe you could publish a version of it somewhere at lenr-canr.org. It surely will not hurt, and could help first comers with doubts about the validity of the sources and the information presented. ... I agree! Write it up, Jed! I do not think I should. I do not like to feed the perception that cold fusion is disreputable or that we have something to apologize for. If people want to believe I faked the DIA document that's their business. As long as I am square with the DIA, I don't care what anyone else thinks. They were miffed with me on Wednesday morning but they are friendly people and judging by the tone of our recent correspondence all is forgiven. From the references to LENR-CANR.org in the DIA document you can see that they recognize the value of the site, and they consider it legitimate. They understand the value of uploading the document there. That's important. I care about how my reputation stands with intelligence experts in the U.S. government and with electrochemists. I do not care at all where my reputation stands with the editors at Wikipedia. On the contrary, I would be worried if those nitwit conformists show respect. They and other like them will come around when the New York Times and Scientific American do -- and not one day before. Suppose I were running a website devoted to some other academic topic such as biology or 19th century Japanese literature. No one would demand my bona fides or question the provenance of the documents. There are controversial documents, alleged fakes, and strange claims in these fields. But readers would judge such matters for themselves using common sense and the techniques I described. For example, in biology there was the suicide of neo-Lamarkian Paul Kammerer in 1926, caused by accusations of academic fraud. See A. Koestler, The Case of the Midwife Toad (Vintage, 1973). If I were running a biology site and I posted information about Kammerer, including documents asserting he was innocent, I would not expect to be called out, personally attacked, or banned from Wikipedia. . . . Then again, maybe I would. I suppose if the entire site were devoted to Kammerer I would expect flak. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
Of course, there is *zero assurance* that the clone of a genius will follow in the footsteps of the progenitor, and likewise rise to the same level of accomplishment I dare to make a prediction: if human cloning is achieved and done(and we all know it will be, in some not so distant future) the clones will be radically different from the original individual. Not in physical aspect and abilities, of course, but I think that many people will be greatly surprised about what a poor student Galileo's clon will be: a student of median intelligence, with no interest whatsoever in physics and astronomy. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
Alexander Hollins wrote: I was going to say, we've enough evidence of twins , seperated at birth, brought up in very different environments, being very similar to each other as adults. I've heard that twins share a numer of startling coincidences in their lives. Like naming their pets the same, by example. If they are separated at birth, they must be more different than if they are raised together. And even if they are raised together, that does not prevent them to be very different persons, with a numer of striking coincidences in their lives. And don't forget that twins share an almost identical environment during what is the most important period of their entire lives at the developmental level: their mother's womb. On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This brings up the nature vs nurture debate - BUT - also let's update the scenario in a modern techno-context ... IOW don't overlook that fact that we are approaching a future where, due to artificial intelligence and expert systems, it might be possible to maximize both nature and nurture - at the same time and in the same individual. Yes, I was thinking about that... I think genius is the result of a number of factors, the genetic element being just one of them, and probably not the most important. Nurture, in the most elementary sense(nutrients during the intrauterine life and early childhood), and subtle environmental factors during development, being probably the most determinant of all the elements. Not sure how that would work, in actual practice, but it would rely heavily on computerized training and enforced hardship - but should be able (eventually) to mitigate the problem of the 'spoiled rich kid' or the underachiever who is rebelling against too much familial pressure ... ... this is starting to sound like neo-eugenics, eh? Yes. The problem with all these approaches will always fortunately be human free will: probably Galileo's clon will be more interested in chasing girls, playing the tube, or rock climbing. Who knows. I certainly hope so. There's another potential factor also: the passing of time. What will be the effect of living in the 21 century with a genome which was current 600 years ago? Probably none, but who can say for sure?
Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia
Yes, but it would be better if that document could be downloaded and/or referenced from a goverment site. I searched and couldn't find any official reference. If it's an unclassified document, it must be published by the agency that unclassified it. In my opninion, if this reference is not presented, an skeptic can still argument, with a reasonable level of doubt, that the document is a fake/it's not official. Best regards, Mauro They have been trumped by a government document and know their previous positions are now all compromised. They built a house of cards and here comes the wind  :_) -Fran - Original Message - From: Esa Ruoho esaru...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:27:01 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia endless fun. where's my rubber mallet so i can hit my forehead with it continuously On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: In a way, ya gotta love these people! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion#U.S._Defense_Intelligence_Agency_document - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia
Mauro Lacy wrote: Yes, but it would be better if that document could be downloaded and/or referenced from a goverment site. Yes, it would be better, but the DIA does not do that. So that's not an option. I searched and couldn't find any official reference. If it's an unclassified document, it must be published by the agency that unclassified it. It was published by the Agency. Just not on the Internet. It was released on Friday the 13th. Do you think I would upload unpublished material?!? Do you think I want to get in trouble with a Federal agency? In my opninion, if this reference is not presented, an skeptic can still argument, with a reasonable level of doubt, that the document is a fake/it's not official. By that standard we would not believe the ERAB report is real, or the comments made by the 2004 DoE reviewers. Or any of hundreds of skeptical papers published before 2000 that are not on the web. But the skeptics would never apply that standard to those documents because they support the skeptical point of view. Along the same lines, at Wikipedia Hipocryte wrote: [The DIA document is] a primary source. Primary sources are not notable unless they are adressed by secondary sources. He did not dismiss the 2004 DoE report for that reason. The skeptics will come up with one excuse after another to dismiss or ignore evidence they do not want to see. I'm only saying that I think that's a valid option for them at the moment, at least with regard to that document. Maybe I'm wrong, because as you said, you would not get into the trouble of publishing something in the name of a federal agency. Although you can argument good faith, i.e. that you presumed it was an official document... although then you'll have to explain how you got that document, etc. etc. I'm playing the skeptic game here, and as we can see, it does not go very far. The latest comments on the wikipedia talk page are a little bit confusing, to say the least. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia
Thanks Jed for the clarification. There's a new comment by V now on wikipedia, stating that public(unclassified) documents are, erm, public. So, no take down is legally enforceable. And also raising the question of how to deal with government documents which are unclassified, but not published on the internet. A good point to be made in Wikipedia, I think, for this and future cases. Alexander Hollins wrote: okay, WHERE was it published, is the big question. At the Defense Intelligence Agency, document DIA-08-0911-003, like it says. Maybe I misunderstand this comment. I suppose you mean WHERE on the web was it published. Nowhere as far as I know. We have lots of documents at LENR-CANR published by various government agencies, China Lake, BARC, the NCFI, various universities and so on, which were never published by them on the web. Only by me. Still, they are published. No one questions their pedigree or legitimacy. (No one, that is, except for some skeptical nutcases who claimed I foged them. As if I could forge thousands of pages of technical papers!) I'm only saying that I think that's a valid option for them at the moment, at least with regard to that document. Valid, schmalid. It is just silly. If they don't want to believe this is a genuine document, that's their problem. They will never allow a link to a document like this anyway. They can't link to my copy (Wikipedia automatically rejects links to LENR-CANR.org) and they wouldn't want to link to Krivit's copy. The latest comments on the wikipedia talk page are a little bit confusing, to say the least. They are. That's because Krivit uploaded a short message from the DIA to him, and to me, actually, asking us to remove the copy. That's kind of embarrassing and I was hoping the subject would not come up. Apparently it was not slated for full release until yesterday afternoon. I thought it was okay to upload. The cover letter said: The paper is unclassified so feel free to forward it to whomever you think would be interested . . . So I figured that's everyone in the world. I uploaded and informed the author. As I noted here, I asked the DIA for a better copy in Acrobat text format. Anyway, yesterday before lunch they told me it was not fully, 100% released yet so please remove it. After lunch they sent another message saying don't worry, everything is fine now, leave it. That message was copied to various people in the DIA so I am sure it is okay. (By the way, they said they can't provide it in Acrobat text format. A shame.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to confirm that a document at LENR-CANR.org is real
This is a good summary. Maybe you could publish a version of it somewhere at lenr-canr.org. It surely will not hurt, and could help first comers with doubts about the validity of the sources and the information presented. I never doubted the document was legit. In the name of truth, what happened was that I presented the information to a skeptical friend, and he came up with those questionings. So I decided to post those questionings (why is not on an official internet site, etc. etc.) on vortex. Also because of what I read in the wikipedia comment pages, which sparked my curiosity. Thanks, Mauro Jed Rothwell wrote: People here raised this question in earnest, and I have been mulling it over. It is a legitimate concern after all. From time to time, skeptics have asked me to prove that a document is real or that I actually have permission to upload it by providing them with an e-mail. I have told them I do not care what they believe. Also, that I never reveal personal e-mails, and it is easy to fake an e-mail in any case, so this would prove nothing. I have no qualms about brushing off skeptics, but let me give a more considered reply here. You can confirm most of the documents at LENR-CANR.org by going to library and looking up the original printed version. It is more difficult to confirm something like the BARC report because it is out of print, and because India is far away. Another obvious method is to ask the author or co-author. When I wrote ask the authors in response to that question I was not being facetious. If I had any doubt about any of the documents at LENR-CANR I would do this, first thing. [1] It may not be easy to find someone in the Defense Intelligence Agency but some of the scientists who contributed to the document are easy to find. (But please do not find them and bother them. They are busy!) In fine arts, curators use the word provenance to describe the place of origin; derivation, or proof of authenticity or of past ownership. They look for documents or physical evidence. Historians and detectives use similar methods. They examine documents, photographs, and they question people to establish a claim. They also make common sense assumptions about how people behave. They like to use documents that do not originate with the author, claimant or criminal suspect, especially documents such as phone books and old newspapers which no one could to forge. For example, to prove that Obama really was born in Hawaii, they cite a newspaper notice announcing his birth. The assumption is that it is impossible to insert a fake old newspaper into a library and that on the day Obama was born no one knew that he would someday become famous. In the case of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document it is easy to come up with such methods to confirm that it is real. Here are some of the ways you can do this -- A common sense assumption: I am not crazy and I am not trying to get myself arrested on charges of stealing or forging a U.S. federal government document. Some easily verified matters of fact: It is dead simple to find me. I have a unique name. My name, address and telephone number and e-mail address is on the front of the LENR-CANR.org front page. My home address is in the Atlanta telephone book. To put it another way, LENR-CANR.org is the opposite of http://wikileaks.org http://wikileaks.org/ It is easy to confirm that the co-authors and contributors to this paper know me, and are familiar with LENR-CANR.org. You can find photographs of Boss, McKubre, Forsley and I together. Many people have seen us in conversation. They have referred to me in some of their papers and letters. The DIA document itself lists LENR-CANR.org in some of the references, so obviously the authors and reviewers of the document know about LENR-CANR.org. From this you can reach some firm conclusions: Suppose I were to upload a fake document attributed to these authors. Whether I faked it myself or whether I was duped by someone else, the authors would soon find the document, and demand that I remove it. More to the point, the DIA would soon find it. They would also demand that I remove it, and since their demands are backed by the force of law they are compelling, to say the least. How would they find the document? Well, first of all, they are intelligence agency. They probably have extensive means of finding things. Even if they do not, anyone can find anything on the net with Google. Do a Google search for Defense Intelligence Agency cold fusion and bingo, up pops the front page of LENR-CANR.org, item #5, with the title of the report on the Google screen: U.S. /Defense Intelligence Agency/ report on /cold fusion/: Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining … [2] Scroll down and there's my name and phone number . . . So they would call me. Second, even
Re: [Vo]:Reactionless propulsion
Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 11:18:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reactionless propulsion At 03:14 PM 11/10/2009, Harry Veeder wrote: Wheteher or not his theory is coherent and consistent, maybe what he discovered is that the pattern doesn't have to exert a pressure to cause an acceleration. That would make it a truly reactionless drive. What has he discovered? He doesn't show enough of an effect to be called that. He *suspects* is more like it. Its is too bad he hasn't made a smaller device. He might find a bigger effect with less power. To cause an acceleration means to exert a force. Pressure is the term he uses, force per unit area. Only a force can cause an acceleration if the law of inertia is absolutely correct in all situations. However, I think it is dangerous to restrict the meaning of cause to force unless you want to limit all speculation and explanation of motion to the tenets of the mechanical philosophy/paradigm. Exactly. The classical law of inertia simply do not apply well to non classical mechanical phenomena. So you'll never satisfactorily explain things like the emdrive in that paradigm. When we'll start to consider light as an elastic phenomenom we'll be able to make progress in theories in these areas. Unfortunately, when you try to explain reactionless acceleration from inside the paradigm of mechanics you end up with theoretical nonsense. And this says a lot about the strong resistance to accept these kind of phenomena and devices, doesn't it? Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
Horace Heffner wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Oct 23, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: OK here's Newton's law of gravitation defined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation When bodies are large with respect to the distance between them, or even overlap, forces on every tiny volume of a given body are computed as the sum of forces over many small units of volume of the surrounding space. This summation is an integration process, with the volumes being examined in the limit where they approach zero volume. In the limit the number of chunks of volume dV becomes infinite and their volumes become zero - i.e. points. This is just basic calculus. This is how Coulomb's law (and Newton's gravitational equivalent) is applied for non-point objects. It works for ordinary volumes, like spheres, even inside them, and it works for wave functions. Yes, but you seem to ignore that this working gives a different result (rate of change or strength) in each of those cases you mention. You ignore that *both* the Coulomb and Newton laws apply in every case, i.e. for every pair of tiny volumes between which forces are computed, and thus the huge *ratio* of forces remains at about 10^30. The fact that all kinds of wild fields and force equations result from macro sized bodies is completely irrelevant to the accuracy of the fundamental laws. Let's say that to me, that remains to be demonstrated. OK, I'll give up on that. Thank you. It's not a minor point, as in the end it encompasses the history of physical theories and of its evolution. And particularly on the subatomic scale, as you said, this different result is to be associated with a wave function. This wave function then, in the case of the Coloumb force, does prevent the electron from collapsing into the nucleus, and prevents the protons to be escaping from it. So what? The solar system runs for billions of years without collapsing. Does this invalidate Newton's laws of gravitation? No. There is no reason to expect the Coulomb force to disappear at small radii just because it is balanced by other forces. The law is still valid, there are merely other forces at work at close range which have to be added also. Even if it did, similar effects would happen to the gravitational force as well, so it is *remains* insignificant compared to the Coulomb force. The two forces are coupled to a given volume in very similar ratios, not varying in ratio by anything like 10^30 for any pair of charged particles at a given distance r. What I'm thinking is that those other forces you mention are no more than gravity in disguise. Gravity in another mode of operation. When in the past the method of integration of point forces for gravity was defined, it was defined based on the mode of action of gravity at macroscopic scales. And maybe that is not the best way to see it at microscopic scales. Newton proceeded partially by induction(i.e. based on known data) when deriving the law of gravity, and after that, others proceeded by deduction, assuming that the same basic law applies at all scales. After that, others arranged some wave functions to make things fit with the classical laws when they didn't(in the atom), and invented other forces when that wasn't enough(in the nucleus). In the same way as, in a sense, gravity changes mode when entering the Earth, something similar could be happening at the atomic level. Please consider the following scenario. I'll talk here about two forces, but you'll see later that they can be unified: - An electron approaches a proton, attracted by both, the electric force and the gravitational force(to a much weaker extent). - Approaching the Bohr radius, an inversion process start to manifest for the gravitational force: it starts to increasingly repel instead of attract. Let's not hypothesize now about the reasons for that to be happening, just let me describe the theory. - At the Bohr radius, the repulsive gravitational force equals the Coulomb force, and the electron is stable in its orbit. - Inside the Bohr radius, the repulsive force continue growing up to a certain point, that lies somewhere in the middle between the orbit of the electron and the center of the nucleus. - After that point, gravity becomes attractive again(but much strongly), and after that, its strength diminishes(not increases) with distance to the center. And that's the nuclear force. The Bohr radius is then the result of the interaction of the Coulomb force with the repulsive mode of the gravitational force. The other orbitals are other points of equilibrium of these two forces. This has no sense of reality for me. Even as a repulsive force, gravity has the net same 1/r^2 *apparent attractive* effect from spherical shadowing.If gravity
Re: [Vo]:Mauro's Theory
Horace Heffner wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Regarding the concept of carrier particles, like photons and gravitons, it is clear to me that, in the case of the photon, we're in the presence of something like a pulse or wave train(a discrete number of waves), and that we assume that wave train to be a particle, and to act like a particle in its interactions with other particles. Photons are mainly travelling(propagating) waves, while electrons and protons are (mainly) rotating ones. So, photons are the propagation of discrete transversal wave trains, and gravitons (if they exist) will be the propagation of forms of pulsating(longitudinal) movement in the fabric of space, in the form of discrete longitudinal wave trains. Mauro I think it might be worth considering that the terms photon and graviton as well as virtual photon already have commonly accepted definitions. The graviton and virtual photon are the messenger particles of the gravitational and Coulomb forces respectively. The photon is a packet of electromagnetic energy, and thus carries positive momentum and interacts with gravity. The graviton is the gravitational analog of the virtual photon. They both can feasibly exchange positive or negative momentum. They are near field force carriers. Thank you for that. I knew something was missing in the photon - electromagnetism relation, but didn't knew exactly what it was. As I see it now: the photon is a packet (or a wave train as I called it before), of electromagnetic energy, and the virtual photon is electromagnetic energy itself(waves, not necessarily in discrete packets or trains.) So, electrons and protons propagate their electromagnetic imprint through virtual photons, which are generic wave perturbations of the electromagnetic tapestry, while photons are specific forms or groupings of these perturbations. Produced when an electron changes orbital, by example. The quantum paradigm, with its particle wave duality, probably makes virtual photons quantifiable also! but they shouldn't be in my opinion. Not necessarily, at least. It should be enough to know that photons have particle nature, due to its packet mode, while virtual photons are the waves themselves. The same with gravitons and graviphotons, then. Gravitons are the waves which propagate the gravitational imprint, while graviphotons would be (if they exist) packets or discrete wave trains of these waves, produced under specific circumstances. Which can even coincide with the production of photons, or not. This is the kind of discussion I was expecting! Couldn't these gravitons be a form of longitudinal wave instead of transversal, as I've proposed? A longitudinal axis of movement is orthogonal to the transversal, so that could be the imaginary number you mention in your theory. And a longitudinal wave is the result of a pulsation, so a natural similitude arises between an electromagnetic wave, which is produced by a rotation, and a gravitational wave, which is produced by a pulsation(which is no more than the projection of a fourth dimensional rotation in 3d space). Finally: The virtual nature of both of these waves can be explained by imagining that they are somehow submersed into the propagation medium, and only appear on the presence of another interacting particle, or obstacle. In the same way as, say, waves in the ocean, which are almost invisible on the surface of the high seas are made apparent when approaching the shore. Or in the same way as the invisible light is made visible when cast on a particular material object. Mauro Now, there is an obvious hole in the definitions - the gravitational analog to the photon. This is the graviphoton. This was defined by Barbieri and Cecotti in: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m5724623tt5ph28j/ as an arbitrarily light vector boson which is coupled with typical gravitational strength to matter hyper multiplets, possessing unbroken guauge interactions as well! Now that I find difficult to follow! However, their model does predict gravitational force anomalies at close range, which you might find interesting and similar to your own thoughts. In my own theory: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf I simply defined the graviphoton as the gravitational analog to the photon. Since the premise of my theory is that the laws of gravity and electromagnetics are isomorphic, and I have defined the 1-1 correspondences that create the isomorphism, such a definition has a very precise meaning in terms of formulations. In either definition, the graviphoton carries both energy and positive momentum. It can exert a gravitational *push*. Because they carry energy, and thus mass, neither the photon nor the graviphoton can escape from a black hole. Gravitons can escape from a black hole else a black hole could not exert gravity
Re: [Vo]:Mauro's Theory
Hi Jack, As you're probably aware, possibility to choose freely is fundamental to our human nature. And with freedom to choose, with free will, it came the possibility for error. Because a poor thing would be our freedom, if we did not have the freedom to choose wrongly. Unfortunately, there are many more ways to choose wrongly than to choose rightly. But fortunately, in between all of them there exists also the possibility of choosing rightly. When we do that we are reunited with God, who only wishes us good choosing. And this time (if we had taken the burden of choosing rightly under our own shoulders), we're reunited with Him in full waking consciousness. What Ray Tomes proposes is compatible with what I think. The only need would be to find a standing wave formulation for what I prefer to think and denominate as a vortical or circular movement. I assume that a kind of circular, or better, spherical standing wave will do it. I agree with your natural selection thoughts regarding theories; and the restriction of experimentation is something I'm particularly aware of :-) Best regards, Mauro Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi Mauro,10-25-09 I just prefer particles; I don't believe in them. Ray Tomes, owner of the Cycles Group, goes futher than than what you suggest: Ray proposes that matter, in any form, is a standing wave, I also like Dirac's epos, as explained on Vortex by Don Hotson -- a plausible mechanism for action-at-a-distace across the universe. Theories should be judged by the design equations and inventios they facillitate; natural selection will pick the winners. The downside of any theory is the restriction of experimentation. Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
Horace Heffner wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Enjoy the pickles. Best regards, Mauro Pickled herring. I'm wasting my precious time. Not anymore. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Mauro's Theory
Hi Taylor, Thank you for your comments and opinion. I can assure you that the theory is the (by no means final) result of much thinking and serious reflection. I have read about Le Sage gravity, but as I said in the past, I think the carrier of gravity is similar (or even the same) as the carrier of electromagnetism: a form of wave, but longitudinal instead of transverse. My recent idea is that electromagnetism, which is carried by transverse waves, converts partially into gravity(longitudinal waves) under the right conditions of pressure or density, and interaction. The result is a kind of stationary longitudinal wave that produces the observed effects of gravity. Regarding particles: in my opinion, particles are the fiction, which arises as a result of our world view, i.e. from our usual tendency and familiarity to think in terms and ideas like those of thing and object. Protons, electrons, neutrons, etc. are for me very specific forms of movement, in the form of waves and vortices. And that which is moving is at the same the fabric of the world(the ether, if you like), and its substance. Regarding the concept of carrier particles, like photons and gravitons, it is clear to me that, in the case of the photon, we're in the presence of something like a pulse or wave train(a discrete number of waves), and that we assume that wave train to be a particle, and to act like a particle in its interactions with other particles. Photons are mainly travelling(propagating) waves, while electrons and protons are (mainly) rotating ones. So, photons are the propagation of discrete transversal wave trains, and gravitons (if they exist) will be the propagation of forms of pulsating(longitudinal) movement in the fabric of space, in the form of discrete longitudinal wave trains. Mauro Taylor J. Smith wrote: This is a neat theory. I like to think that forces are applied (mediated) by particles (a field is a fiction useful for calculations). So, gravity is a push (by gravitons) as proposed by Le Sage -- does this work with your theory?
Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
Horace Heffner wrote: This is to examine the feasibility that gravity has a role in fusion at some distance. The Coulomb force between two particles is: Fc = Cc * q1 * q2 / r^2 where Cc is the Coulomb constant 8.99x10^9 m/F, the charge q1 or q2 of a particle is typically +-1.602x10^-19 C, and r is the particle separation. The gravitational force between two masses is: Fg = Gc * m1 * m2 / r^2 How do you know that those formulas are valid at those scales? Newton's law is only an aproximation. It assumes point masses. So, to ve valid, that formula has contourn conditions. Namely, that r must be greater than the radius of the two masses. Because in Reality there are no point masses. Newton's law ceases to be valid when the point of equilibrium(the point of zero gravity) between two point masses lie on the inside of one of the point masses. If this were not the case, the force would tend to infinite at small scales(when r tends to zero), which again is something that does not make sense. So, it's perfectly possible to think that in between(when r is approaching 0), gravity could behave in a manner completely different than at scales when r is clearly greater than the radius of the point masses. It could behave exponentially, to a point, and reach an equilibrium afterwards. Or it can become repulsive, when r is less than a given value. On the other hand, the same happens with the Coulomb force. Why are you inclined to talk about the Coloumb force at those scales, when the electron orbiting then nucleus clearly violates it? The Coloumb force again has contourn conditions, and could cease to be valid(indeed, it ceases to be) when r tends to zero. The Coloumb force also assumes point charges, which again is something that does not exist in Reality. where Gc is the gravitational constant 6.673x10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2), m1 and m2 are particle masses, and r is the particle separation. Given the ratio of neutrons to protons is typically around 1, the largest mass to charge nucleus is tritium, which has 2 neutrons and only one proton, and a mass of 5.00736x10-27 kg. The best ratio brgcf of gravitational force to Coulomb force is thus: brgcf = Fg/Fc = (Gc * m1 * m2) / (Cc * q1 * q2) which is clearly independent of distance assuming mass and charge occupy the same volume. The best ratio is given by: brgcf = Gc * (5.00736x10-27 kg)^2 / (Cc * (1.602x10^-19 C)^2) brgcf = 7.25186x10^-36 A similarly small ratio is obtained when comparing spin coupling gravimagnetic vs magnetic forces. It thus appears gravitation plays no significant role in fusion or in any atomic mechanics at any distance. This even applies when only neutrons are involved, because the electromagnetic spin coupling dwarfs both the gravitation force and the gravimagnetic force. The force of gravity must only be large in the interaction of extremely small and thus energetic neutral bosons, e.g. a photon ball early in the big bang. Comments? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:BBC article about ITER
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/8103557.stm QUOTE: An international plan to build a nuclear fusion reactor is being threatened by rising costs, delays and technical challenges. Emails leaked to the BBC indicate that construction costs for the experimental fusion project called Iter have more than doubled. . . . They need that money to build the Big Science Machine: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/scientists_ask_congress_to_fund_50 Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: This is to examine the feasibility that gravity has a role in fusion at some distance. The Coulomb force between two particles is: Fc = Cc * q1 * q2 / r^2 where Cc is the Coulomb constant 8.99x10^9 m/F, the charge q1 or q2 of a particle is typically +-1.602x10^-19 C, and r is the particle separation. The gravitational force between two masses is: Fg = Gc * m1 * m2 / r^2 How do you know that those formulas are valid at those scales? At what scales? No scale is specified. Subatomic. Newton's law is only an aproximation. It assumes point masses. The above should work fine over the volume of any portion of a wavefunction. It's Coulomb's law, and the gravitational equivalent, not Newton's. So, to ve valid, that formula has contourn conditions. Namely, that r must be greater than the radius of the two masses. Not true. Why you say that? Do you know according to which law an apple falls inside a hole on the Earth, by example? Because in Reality there are no point masses. Irrelevant. Mean forces can be summed over the wavefunctions. Where on Coulomb's and Newton's laws do we find wavefunctions? Newton's law ceases to be valid when the point of equilibrium(the point of zero gravity) between two point masses lie on the inside of one of the point masses. Not true. It appears you are confusing Newton's laws with Coulomb's law. ?? It appears to me that you are confusing Newton with Coulomb. If this were not the case, the force would tend to infinite at small scales(when r tends to zero), which again is something that does not make sense. When the centers of charge of two wavefunctions overlap, the net force is zero, which is just fine. Which wavefunctions? where on those formulas are the wavefunctions to be found? So, it's perfectly possible to think that in between(when r is approaching 0), gravity could behave in a manner completely different than at scales when r is clearly greater than the radius of the point masses. No, gravity and charge behave normally, they are just distributed in space. You have not convinced me, at all. Your started with formulas for point forces, and are now talking about distributions in space for those forces. Are they point forces, or not? Or are they summatories of point forces? If so, with which criteria are you adding them? And why should we presuppose all this, including the fact that those summatories, which are yet to be presented, are statistically equivalent to the behaviour of point forces? It could behave exponentially, to a point, and reach an equilibrium afterwards. Or it can become repulsive, when r is less than a given value. Where is the evidence for this? If you are referring to spin coupling then, again, the electromagnetic coupling overwhelms the gravimagnetic. Where's the evidence for YOUR assumptions? On the other hand, the same happens with the Coulomb force. Why are you inclined to talk about the Coloumb force at those scales, when the electron orbiting then nucleus clearly violates it? Show the violation. The electron must collapse on the nucleus if it behaves according to the Couloumb force. And the protons should escape away from it. The Coloumb force again has contourn conditions, and could cease to be valid(indeed, it ceases to be) when r tends to zero. The Coloumb force also assumes point charges, which again is something that does not exist in Reality. Again, at small distances the Coulomb force is valid but takes on a statistical nature, as does the gravitational force between chunks of the wavefunction. The effective charge in a volume is equal to the probability of the charge being found there times q. The equivalent is true of the mass. Similar ratios, all greater than 10^30, apply. Gravity is totally unimportant. That's according to your statistical interpretation, that's still to be presented, and is nowhere to be found on the inital premises and formulas you presented. So, in the end, you're using a statistical approach to make some formulae fit in, that is, to try to model the behaviour of something you think should behave the way you think.
Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
- Original Message - From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:36 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: Not true. Why you say that? Do you know according to which law an apple falls inside a hole on the Earth, by example? One can predict the gravitational acceleration inside the Earth using Newton's law of gravity. And that's debatable also, to a certain extent. See by example the works by R.T. Cahill in relation to borehole anomalies.
Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
OK here's Newton's law of gravitation defined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation When bodies are large with respect to the distance between them, or even overlap, forces on every tiny volume of a given body are computed as the sum of forces over many small units of volume of the surrounding space. This summation is an integration process, with the volumes being examined in the limit where they approach zero volume. In the limit the number of chunks of volume dV becomes infinite and their volumes become zero - i.e. points. This is just basic calculus. This is how Coulomb's law (and Newton's gravitational equivalent) is applied for non-point objects. It works for ordinary volumes, like spheres, even inside them, and it works for wave functions. Yes, but you seem to ignore that this working gives a different result (rate of change or strength) in each of those cases you mention. And particularly on the subatomic scale, as you said, this different result is to be associated with a wave function. This wave function then, in the case of the Coloumb force, does prevent the electron from collapsing into the nucleus, and prevents the protons to be escaping from it. If this very particular wave function(supposing this is so), or another factor, at those scales has effects so dramatic on the strength of the Coulomb force, why it could not have effects also on the gravitational force? Particularly: Why are we going to accept that the comparision between the strengths of these forces is valid at those scales, when at least one of these forces clearly suffers alterations, even independently of the fact that these alterations are explained or associated (or not) with a wave function? Best regards Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
- Original Message - From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion - Original Message - From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:36 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: Not true. Why you say that? Do you know according to which law an apple falls inside a hole on the Earth, by example? One can predict the gravitational acceleration inside the Earth using Newton's law of gravity. And that acceleration will not conform to an inverse of the square of the distance law. Which proves my point: you cannot make assumptions based on Newton's law for distances smaller than R(where R is the radius of the greater of the masses). That is, you cannot deduct behaviour for a system,with a set of rules that are outside their contourn conditions. Which was exactly what I was trying to show. Hmm two sources of gravity come to mind. The gravitational acceleration of the earth on the system undergoing fusion, and the internal gravitational acceleration of parts of the system due to the system's own mass. Is it the latter acceleration that you mean does not conform to an inverse square law of gravity? If you model the rate of change of acceleration with radius, you'll notice that that rate of change does not conform to the inverse square law when inside the Earth. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Want to do some real astronomy?
Harry Veeder wrote: FYI Copernicus said the sun is motionless and that it is _near_ the centre of the universe. Harry from http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Copernicus.html In De revolutionibus Copernicus states several reasons why it is logical that the sun would be at the centre of the universe: At the middle of all things lies the sun. As the location of this luminary in the cosmos, that most beautiful temple, would there be any other place or any better place than the centre, from which it can light up everything at the same time? Hence the sun is not inappropriately called by some the lamp of the universe, by others its mind, and by others its ruler. Copernicus's cosmology placed a motionless sun not at the centre of the universe, but close to the centre, and also involved giving several distinct motions to the Earth. The problem that Copernicus faced was that he assumed all motion was circular so, like Ptolemy, was forced into using epicycles (see for example [78]). It was consequently considered implausible by the most of his contemporaries, and by most astronomers and natural philosophers until the middle of the seventeenth century. In the intended Preface of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium Copernicus showed that he was fully aware of the criticisms that his work would attract: Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions and, badly distorting some passages of Scripture to their purpose, will dare find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent as despising their criticism as unfounded. Because he was trying to show that the Earth was not the centre. He insisted on his statements that the Sun was near the centre, because he knew that his ideas of a motion of the Earth would be heavily opposed.
Re: [Vo]:Want to do some (unreal) astronomy?
Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: Here's (again) an indication that the Solar system is actually not (not only) moving in the direction of the rotation around the galactic center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_apex This movement is likely related to the fact that we are originally from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy which is being consumed by the Milky Way. http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html Interesting. Thank you. It's one of the first things I read related to an explanation of the movement of the Sun and the inclination of the solar system inside the galaxy.
Re: [Vo]:Want to do some real astronomy?
Horace Heffner wrote: ... ... I really don't think that is possible. There is indeed a slight apparent retrograde motion of the stars, and it is at an inclination to the ecliptic. (The poles of the earth's rotation don't match the poles of the ecliptic.) It amounts to a yearly revolution. It occurs in the reverse order of the signs (astrological solar houses), i.e. is retrograde. It is merely an aspect of the earth rotating around the sun in the ecliptic. It is due to the earth midheaven (or nadir etc.) at any location rotating, with respect to the fixed sky, roughly an extra 4 minutes every solar day, i.e 24 solar hours. This makes the stars seem to be located behind where they were the prior day, which is an illusion due to the rotation of the earth around the sun. The sun is off position (with respect to the fixed stars) 4 minutes a day due to the earth moving forward in its orbit. At midnight different stars are at the midheaven, and the old stars appear to move about 1 degree of arc retrograde, i.e. (4 m/(24 h*60 m))*360 degrees = 1 degree. In one siderial day the earth rotates 360 degrees with respect to the fixed stars. In one solar day the sun rotates 360 degrees with respect to the sun. Since the earth advances about 1 degree in its orbit, the siderial day is about 4 minutes shorter than the solar day. Now extrapolate that to a movement of the Sun that is not apparent, i.e. that is not caused by the translation of the Earth around the Sun, but by the own translation of the Sun, and you'll see what I mean.
Re: [Vo]:Want to do some real astronomy?
Horace Heffner wrote: On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:13 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: ... ... I really don't think that is possible. There is indeed a slight apparent retrograde motion of the stars, and it is at an inclination to the ecliptic. (The poles of the earth's rotation don't match the poles of the ecliptic.) It amounts to a yearly revolution. It occurs in the reverse order of the signs (astrological solar houses), i.e. is retrograde. It is merely an aspect of the earth rotating around the sun in the ecliptic. It is due to the earth midheaven (or nadir etc.) at any location rotating, with respect to the fixed sky, roughly an extra 4 minutes every solar day, i.e 24 solar hours. This makes the stars seem to be located behind where they were the prior day, which is an illusion due to the rotation of the earth around the sun. The sun is off position (with respect to the fixed stars) 4 minutes a day due to the earth moving forward in its orbit. At midnight different stars are at the midheaven, and the old stars appear to move about 1 degree of arc retrograde, i.e. (4 m/(24 h*60 m))*360 degrees = 1 degree. In one siderial day the earth rotates 360 degrees with respect to the fixed stars. In one solar day the sun rotates 360 degrees with respect to the sun. Since the earth advances about 1 degree in its orbit, the siderial day is about 4 minutes shorter than the solar day. Now extrapolate that to a movement of the Sun that is not apparent, i.e. that is not caused by the translation of the Earth around the Sun, but by the own translation of the Sun, and you'll see what I mean. The issue is what Galileo meant. What he meant is clear even from the translation. I don't know what own translation of the sun means. Within the precision of Galileo's time, the solar system moved as a unit. The movement of the solar system through the galaxy was not detectible. The movement of the near stars due to the parallax from the earth's orbit as baseline was not even known. And that does not mean that we shouldn't think and consider those movements today, doesn't it? Even if Copernicus was probably talking about an apparent movement of the Sun, caused by the Earth's translation, and even if in Galileo's times the precision does not allowed them to detect those movements, that does not mean that we are not entitled today to consider a part of that movement as a real one, i.e. as a proper movement of the Sun. What I'm saying is this: even as early as in Copernicus times, the door was open, so to speak, for a consideration of the movements of the Sun as real(i.e. proper), but somehow in the course of history, that door was closed or forgotten, and we started to think about the Sun as fixed, for all practical purposes. And we still do this today, for all practical, cultural, and even scientific and astronomical purposes. That must and will change in the future; we should start to think about the movement of the Sun as a real one, in the same way as we consider today the movements of the Moon and Earth as proper. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Want to do some real astronomy?
Horace Heffner wrote: ... And we still do this today, for all practical, cultural, and even scientific and astronomical purposes. I don't think that is true. It is only true with respect to typical solar system internal calculations, like trajectories and orbits. And when we do that, we are attributing dynamical properties that really belong to the Sun, to the different planets. That is, we're adapting and modifying the orbital parameters of the different bodies of the solar system, to account or compensate for what really is the Sun's own movement. And although at the quantitative level the effects could be very small(in the relative short term), there's also a qualitative aspect, that must also be considered and reflected upon. That must and will change in the future; we should start to think about the movement of the Sun as a real one, in the same way as we consider today the movements of the Moon and Earth as proper. Mauro I think it is true that astronomers do so when precision requires, as when predicting future close star locations. What might not be done is to consider all possible forces involved in such motions, such as the gravimagnetic Lorentz force due to the gravimagnetic field of the galaxy, or at least local area of the galaxy. Moreover: I particularly would like to know why these movements are produced, and exactly with what (and in what form) our solar system is interacting. Particularly if those interactions could involve new physics or the possibility of developing new astrophysical theories. And besides that, there's again also the qualitative aspect, that could turn out to be more important and significative than the quantitative one. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Want to do some real astronomy?
Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar Date: Monday, October 12, 2009 10:59 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Want to do some real astronomy? What I'm saying is this: even as early as in Copernicus times, the doorwas open, so to speak, for a consideration of the movements of the Sun as real(i.e. proper), but somehow in the course of history, that door was closed or forgotten, and we started to think about the Sun as fixed,for all practical purposes. And we still do this today, for all practical, cultural, and even scientific and astronomical purposes. Who is 'we'? I think every astronomer alive today knows that the sun is a star and it moves around the centre of the milky way galaxy and that the centre of the milky way is moving relative to other galaxies. Yes, but as we've seen that movement orbiting the center of the galaxy(which is a very long term movement with a period of some 250 million years) is not the only movement of the solar system. And regarding those other movements(which have probably a period much shorter than this other, relatively known movement around the center of the galaxy), we enter a kind of gray zone were there's not very much information available. At least, I wasn't able to find it at the moment. Although I was able to discover that these movements are being studied since at least 150 years ago. Curious, isn't?
Re: [Vo]:Want to do some (unreal) astronomy?
Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: Here's (again) an indication that the Solar system is actually not (not only) moving in the direction of the rotation around the galactic center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_apex This movement is likely related to the fact that we are originally from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy which is being consumed by the Milky Way. http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html Hi, you could be interested in the following http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/06/27/is-the-sun-from-another-galaxy/ Curiously, the debunking left me with more doubts and curiosity than before. Which is good. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Want to do some real astronomy?
Hi Horace Since cataloguing (even galaxies) is not on my list of 'most enlightening things to do during the weekend', I'll present some alternatives. Here's a paper on galaxies I've found on the web recently: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3793 And here's valuable and relatively rare information on the the solar system movement: http://biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_System_and_Galaxy.html http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1863MNRAS..23..166D (I couldn't find the paper, but the abstract is very valuable in itself.) That last paper is from 1863. William Herschel was the first to study those movements, in the 19th century. Have you ever heard about Copernicus third law? Athough we're now used to the Copernican system, we disregarded his third law completely. Curious, isn't? I wonder how much longer this information will be ignored/concealed. It's not very well concealed anymore. Not to me, at least. And I've found it using plain old googling. I wonder how much can I find when searching the deep web http://www.fravia.com/deepweb_searching.htm And talking about all things real, and the nature of reality, you must be interested on his page on 'reality cracking' http://www.fravia.com/realicra/realicra.htm Don't forget to take a look at the priceless (and timeless?) 'basic laws of human stupidity'. It is my hope that those last links will serve also as a form of obituary, because Fravia passed away on may 3, 2009. It's a sad day for mankind when a genius dies. May he rest in peace. Best regards, Mauro Horace Heffner wrote: Last year I helped classify thousands of galaxies at: http://supernova.galaxyzoo.org/ That project has classified 40 million galaxies and is now shooting for 60 million, so still needs a lot of help. Due in part to the great success of that project, a similar one is in progress to identify supernovas: http://supernova.galaxyzoo.org This is really cool. No telescope required. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Want to do some (unreal) astronomy?
Jones Beene wrote: Mauro, I wonder how much can I find when searching the deep web http://www.fravia.com/deepweb_searching.htm . It is my hope that those last links will serve also as a form of obituary, because Fravia passed away on may 3, 2009. It's a sad day for mankind when a genius dies. May he rest in peace. Interesting site, thanks - and it will take some time to wade through it, but I fail to see how it relates to or explains Coperunicus' Third Law, It doesn't :-) Just mixing some information and resources. whatever that is - probably something to do with a spiral trajectory. That is why I changed the subject line. All this is historical, i.e. it's documented somewhere. The first Copernican law states the rotation of the Earth around its axis. The second one states that the Earth moves around the Sun. Copernicus third law relates the movement of the rotational axis of the Earth(precession of the equinoxes) with a movement of the Sun. It says that that movement of the Sun is mostly canceled out by the slow rotation(precession) of the Earth axis of rotation, in the same way as the movement of the Earth (from the Moon's perspective), is canceled out by the rotation of the Moon, which always shows the same face to the Earth. This was forgotten in the course of time, and now we have a Copernican system with a(for all practical purposes) immobile Sun, in a similar way as we have had in the past a Geocentric system with the Earth immobile. not that I am unappreciative of attempted scientific connections of all these cosmological things to what is still mystical but it looks like this one leads us into pre-War German Gnosticism - Rudolf Steiner ;-) which has not held up well to modern scrutiny at least not in the USA ... which is not necessarily a bad thing, come to think of it. Yes indeed. Talking about Steiner ideas as pre-War German Gnosticism is a gross misunderstanding, at many levels.
Re: [Vo]:Want to do some real astronomy?
Horace Heffner wrote: Below are some comments based on the gravimagnetic viewpoint, as described here: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf On Oct 11, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Hi Horace Since cataloguing (even galaxies) is not on my list of 'most enlightening things to do during the weekend', I'll present some alternatives. Yes, doing science can be very boring and tedious. It is the results that are exciting. Here's a paper on galaxies I've found on the web recently: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3793 I think there may be a major flaw in the basic premises of this paper. It says: Unlike many other properties of galaxies, handedness is unaffected by gravitational gradients, incompleteness of surveys, or atmospheric effects. The author is unaware of the effects of gravimagnetism, which, was present from the time of the creation of the universe and which is handed just like magnetism, nor of the fact that virtual photons carry no gravitational charge, and thus that black holes are highly magnetic, further providing a handedness to galaxy rotations and interactions, at least locally. I don't know. Let's say that I'm not so sure about that. ... And here's valuable and relatively rare information on the the solar system movement: http://biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_System_and_Galaxy.html http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1863MNRAS..23..166D (I couldn't find the paper, but the abstract is very valuable in itself.) When I pull up the referenced paper I get a paper from The Astrophysical Journal, 223: 589-600, 1978 July 15 titled: Is the Solar System Entering an Interstellar Cloud?, by Audoze et al. Yes, sorry. That paper is interesting in itself, specially if a relation with the movement of the solar system can be established, but it is not the one I was referring. They are using dirty javascript in their pages. Here's the link to the free fulltext http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1863MNRAS..23..166Dlink_type=GIF Where you can find the abstract. Take into account that the abstracts are all scanned together as short notices at the beginning of the journal. The abstract for this paper is at the middle of page 166. Perhaps I have made some kind of mistake obtaining the paper. The paper notes the cloud is a ... few hundredths of a parsec away., and that such clouds move at 20-30 km/s. A parsec is 3.08x10^16 m, so it is about 10^16 m away. It thus is (3.08x10^16 m) *(0.03)/(3x10^4 m/s) = 3.33x10^9 seconds = 104 years away. Something that is notable from a gravimagnetic perspective is that the lack of D is attributed by the article to separation by UV radiation. However, the gravimagnetic theory predicts that black holes, i.e. the center of galaxies, including the Milky Way, are sources for emission of high energy mirror matter. Mirror matter weakly couples with ordinary matter, and thus can transfer momentum to hydrogen much better than to the twice as heavy deuterium. This could significantly reduce the estimated overall lifetime of the cloud, and increase the radial (with respect to the galaxy center) velocity of the could. That last paper is from 1863. William Herschel was the first to study those movements, in the 19th century. Have you ever heard about Copernicus third law? I'm not familiar with any of the three Copernican laws. The following gives 7 assumptions of Copernicus': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus Athough we're now used to the Copernican system, we disregarded his third law completely. Solar system motion was described by Kepler's laws. I'm not sure where Copernicus fits in except historically for laying the background of a non-geocentric universe. I suppose we can always go back to the sources http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1543droc.book/ As I don't read latin, here's fortunately an english version http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html I'll post the excerpt when/if I find it. ... My feeling is we all are stupid at various points in life. That is because we have free will. Free will means some percentage of time everyone engages in sub-optimum choices. We are free to make bad choices so sometimes we do. If this did not happen then creativity would be highly limited, and that in itself would be grossly sub- optimum. Stupidity then may be sub-optimum on individual or small group levels, but it makes us adaptable, and that is a necessary feature of life. Individuals must pay the price of stupidity for the value of the population's survival. I agree. That's Livraghi's corolary to the first law In each of us there is a factor of stupidity, which is always larger than we suppose.
Re: [Vo]:Want to do some real astronomy?
Mauro Lacy wrote: ... As I don't read latin, here's fortunately an english version http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html I'll post the excerpt when/if I find it. The third motion in inclination is consequently required. This also is a yearly revolution, but it occurs in the reverse order of the signs, that is, in the direction opposite to that of the motion of the center. These two motions are opposite in direction and nearly equal in period. The result is that the earth’s axis and equator, the largest of the parallels of latitude on it, face almost the same portion of the heavens, just as if they remained motionless. Meanwhile the sun seems to move through the obliquity of the ecliptic with the motion of the earth’s center, as though this were the center of the universe. Only remember that, in relation to the sphere of the fixed stars, the distance between the sun and the earth vanishes from our sight forthwith.
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
that arises between reference frames, [end snip] Mauro, I think radial acceleration of H1 inside a cavity is relativistic creating reference frames without the need for spatial displacement approaching C. I suggest however the acceleration is invisible from within the frame where the orbital wavelength and velocity remain Bohr and C. I am proposing that the spatial confinement and equivalent acceleration caused by a relativistic up conversion of vacuum flux means the confined monatomic hydrogen has a huge relativistic radial acceleration from our perspective. I am not talking linear acceleration where the Pythagorean concept of spatial axis at 90 degrees to temporal requires acceleration while at high fractions of C to start diverging on the time axis. I believe the Casimir cavity allows for a huge discount in the normal speeds required for relativistic effects. The spatial confinement combined with the equivalence boundary suggests the 10E-14 newtons of acceleration calculated by DiFiore et all is a vector wholly on the time axis -no trig portions of the spatial axis, the force was ignored as inconsequential but I suggest the confinement allows heat energy to contribute to the vector and without a relief valve of combustion could lead to a thermal runaway where H1 and H2 states oscillate by virtue of a Pd like opposition to diatomic formation but here in the cavity a high velocity version of this property that immediately tears apart H2 restoring monatomic energy levels. The outside and inside of the cavity are spatially stationary to each other, the gravitational isotropy is broken by the plates meaning the fast moving field outside is slowed inside making the flux twist from our perspective appearing faster because we no longer see a direct view of a waveform but instead view it from a turned profile which appears to get smaller going away and faster as the cycles continue to contract into the distance. This is a difference in relative motion where g outside is faster than g' inside which means the spatial coordinates are basically unchanged and the H1 is predominantly accelerating on the time axis, it might appear to contract as the flux twist further and further but it would stay centered on its original spatial coordinates and if a ruler could be extended to the seemingly evacuated space from which it contracted the ruler itself would also contract to prove all the original spatial coordinates are still occupied and the contraction is the effect of curved space-time on the light emanating from the object. Curiously I don't think it matters if we are accelerating or decelerating -if you picture vacuum flux as a waveform on a scope as a direct perspective (our inertial frame) and then twist it on its' center in either direction it will turn its' profile to us and appear smaller and faster for up-conversion or down conversion. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:38 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation It will be much better (and clear) to talk about (radial) changes of velocity (accelerations). There's no need also to talk about Lorentz contraction, because that arises between reference frames, and is a consequence(if I understand it correctly), of our suppositions regarding the nature of light, and of light's velocity. Regarding light: we have no right to talk about the velocity of light, because velocity is a classical mechanical concept, that is applied to discrete material entities. And light is not a material entity. Material entities are characterized by their discreteness, i.e. when a material object is moving, it leaves no part of it behind. It moves completely, leaving the space behind it completely vacant. But light leaves a trace behind, so we cannot apply simple mechanical formulas to light. Regarding the velocity of light, we can only talk about the velocity of the front propagation of light. And we would not be saying anything regarding the true nature of light with that. That is, the underlying phenomena is almost completely overlooked when we do that.
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
Hi Frank Time does not exist at the physical level. So, you have no right in physics to talk about time dimensions. You can do it, of course, and even model it mathematically, but your theory will make no physical sense. This was discussed to a certain extent in the past here on vortex. Search the archive for Zitter and ZPE for an entertaining read. Mauro Frank Roarty wrote: This thread may seem unrelated to energy but in the same way reactionless drives are contemplated with respect to Casimir cavities these legends may have a kernel of truth. There is no moving linear differential motion of gas atoms like the reactionless drive theories but there are trapped ambient gases that I suspect become agitated via acoustic sources -singing, musical devices or striking stones with a vibrating rod That would allow an elevated pyramid block to be scooted a couple bow lengths or Easter island megaliths to be positioned where we see them today(Coral castle might have been magnetic agitation but still a calcium based stone). This wild speculation would support a 4D perspective of time where the vacuum fluctuations inside the calcium Casimir cavities allow the ambient gas to turn fat on the time axis and even more so where large molecules are concerned. These temporally fat molecules might stick out like needles in a pincushion suddenly turned sideways snagging the temporal walls of the future and past like hanging curtains. My ideas of time extends the coffee cup analogy of professor Ron Mallet who is currently trying to build a time machine based on lasers and coiled fibe. If the present represents a sufficiently small temporal component then it may be possible to exploit the boundary by forcing divergent inertial frames to occur inside one another. My time perspective: My interpretation of 4D Space-time is from a future perspective on the time axis looking down on the zero intersect with the 3D spatial axis called the present. This narrow time interval is only measurable differentially since our time perception is based on relative motion between the fabric of time though space. We can only measure accumulated time dilation measured between different inertial frames such as the twin paradox. C and Bohr radius always appear constant within our inertial frame. At an atomic level a temporal perspective would show orbitals forming halos of different radii while the vortii extending down to the nucleii gets deeper or more shallow depending on acceleration. This is much like the coffee analogy of Ron Mallet, the faster Ron stirs his coffee the more the radius of the frothy center contracts but the vortex also extends further down into the coffee a proportional amount. Ron suggests we can only see the coffee surface in our 3D world. I am suggesting the radius of the frothy center represents the Bohr radius and always appears unchanged just like C appears constant from within any inertial frames. The swirling vortex going down into the coffee gets longer as the radius contracts to keep the volume constant. I propose our time perception inside the Present is based on this constant volume making it impossible for us to sense changes in relative motion of spatial dimensions through time . The Present time frame has a narrow temporal dimension that varies with acceleration. This narrow dimesion will always remain negligible with respect to the spatial dimensions from our perspective because our time perception is inherently scaled by the volume of space moving through time. From the future perspective the Present time frame would appear like a narrow ribbon that gets wider or narrower with acceleration and flattens the material universe down to an atomic plane where all mater is accessible from the time axis. From this perspective all matter, even that which we consider encased inside other matter lies flat on a spatial axis with an unimpeded time axis above and below it. Our 3D illusion of reality is much like an electron gun tracing out a 2d image on a TV screen. From this perspective we exist in an extremely narrow ribbon at the intersect of Future and Past. A single time frame provides a vast quadric volume built upon the cubic volume of 3D space. The electrons are forever trailing behind the nucleus like the tail of a stretchable arrow with the nucleus at its tip sinking into the future with their orbital energy constantly restored by virtual particles winking into and out of existence as postulated by Puthoff in [1] Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state. My suggestion is these virtual particles are traveling through the present from the time axis keeping the orbital open as they squeeze through our spatial dimension. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
It will be much better (and clear) to talk about (radial) changes of
velocity (accelerations). There's no need also to talk about Lorentz
contraction, because that arises between reference frames, and is a
consequence(if I understand it correctly), of our suppositions regarding
the nature of light, and of light's velocity.
Regarding light: we have no right to talk about the velocity of light,
because velocity is a classical mechanical concept, that is applied to
discrete material entities. And light is not a material entity. Material
entities are characterized by their discreteness, i.e. when a material
object is moving, it leaves no part of it behind. It moves completely,
leaving the space behind it completely vacant. But light leaves a trace
behind, so we cannot apply simple mechanical formulas to light.
Regarding the velocity of light, we can only talk about the velocity of
the front propagation of light. And we would not be saying anything
regarding the true nature of light with that. That is, the underlying
phenomena is almost completely overlooked when we do that.
Frank wrote:
Mauro,
I reviewed some of Zitter and ZPE -If I implied that time had
spatial dimension then yes I was wrong. That would imply that something
could move in the temporal direction and would no longer occupy the same
spatial position which is untrue. IMHO temporal displacement would only
cause the object to accelerate atomically and contract but still centered on
its' initial spatial position. I have been struggling with the concept of
Lorentz contraction with linear acceleration vs what occurs inside a Casimir
cavity where my interpretation of up conversion is relativistic meaning
space time is twisted making the longer vac flux appear faster from our
perspective - this gives you a head start of an accelerated inertial frame
inside a stationary cavity through equivalence while also approaching the
limit between 2D and 3d via plate confinement. The confinement allows heat
energy to be redirected into this equivalence vector. Unlike Lorentz
contraction and time dilation where linear acceleration doesn't start to
expose these attributes until significant fractions of C are achieved, the
confinement inside the cavity and head start due to equivalence seem to
point this vector directly into the time axis instead of angled proportional
to acceleration. The huge linear acceleration used in the Twin paradox isn't
necessary or obviously even possible. I am not saying gas atoms just time
travel and get pushed outside of the temporal walls to appear in the future
- they still have to go through time dilation and from their perspective put
in all the normal reactionary time we attribute to catalytic action but I am
saying the geometry allows them a huge discount relative to acceleration -
with 1 dimension almost collapsed and the other 2 very confined any heat
energy is going to contribute to further accelerate this equivalence vector.
Whether we refer to this as a direction or just speeding up the atomic by
further curving the vacuum flux the result is the same.
It's a good thing this is Vortex because I'm past wild speculation above
and don't have a shred of math to support this idea :_)
Hi Frank
Time does not exist at the physical level. So, you have no right in
physics to talk about time dimensions. You can do it, of course, and
even model it mathematically, but your theory will make no physical sense.
This was discussed to a certain extent in the past here on vortex.
Search the archive for Zitter and ZPE for an entertaining read.
Mauro
[snip]
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Mauro Lacy
Sun, 24 May 2009 06:25:52 -0700
grok wrote:
As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
mounted the barricade and roared out:
The problem with so called time dimensions, is that they lack
underlying physical reality. Time does not exist as such, at the
physical level; that is, there's nothing inherently real in the mental
construction we call time, at the physical level.
'Time', in fact, is the motion of matter in space. Whatever they are.
It is an
The motion of matter in space is not time, but, erm, the motion of
matter in space(whatever they are.)
emergent phenomenon. You start there.
You can call it that way, if you like. But certainly it is not
necessary. Moreover, it is prone to confussion, because the expression
'emergent phenomena' is frequently used to talk about and characterize
things or phenomena that you really don't understand.
Time is a consequence, a result, of movement.
To fixate on 'time' as some entity unto itself is to reify this
relation of matter
and space into something it is not.
You're right, and I'm doing the opposite: showing the abstract character
of physical time, and trying to understand and layout the ways and means
by which we started to attribute reality('reify', as you say) to
something
Re: [Vo]:Writing another paper. the duality of matter and waves
Horace Heffner wrote: On Sep 24, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Hi, I've plotted the different vectorial components of the velocity vector, and distance to the Sun on the same graph, and curiously enough, the y component of the velocity vector (and probably of the distance vector, although I've not plotted it) seems to be in phase with the change in decay rates. Here is the graph: http://maurol.com.ar/decay_rates/velocity_distance.png The different plots are: red: radial distance (normalized) green: total velocity(normalized) blue, magenta, cyan: Vx, Vy, Vz As you can see, the magenta line seems to nicely match the Brookhaven decay data. This can be no more than a coincidence, and more analysis is clearly necessary. This Vy component is the velocity (also an equivalent displacement, although I prefer to talk about velocities) perpendicular to the major axis of the Sun-Earth ellipse, because the x component is aligned with the perihelion-aphelion axis. I'll now try to produce a graph on the same scale as the bnl graph, to superpose them and see how close the match really is. Best regards, Mauro The URL above is invalid. This may work: http://maurol.com.ar/decay_rates/velocity_distance.png Thank you, and sorry for that. Here's my best shot at the moment: http://maurol.com.ar/decay_rates/halflife_bnl+Rx.jpg I've superposed the graphs. The red line is 1/Sun-Earth distance^2-1 (distance is now in au, and scaled up vertically), and the green line is the -x component of the Sun-Earth distance. A very good match is observed, although not perfect. I'm thinking that maybe latitude of the experiments can account for the rest of the difference in phase, and also for the different experimental results accross different laboratories and experiments. I'll try to plot light time, ecliptic angle and other seasonal astronomical factors at the different latitudes. But this is more time consuming, and I'm short of that at the moment :-) Best regards, Mauro Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Writing another paper. the duality of matter and waves
On Sep 25, 2009, at 3:33 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Here's my best shot at the moment: http://maurol.com.ar/decay_rates/halflife_bnl+Rx.jpg I've superposed the graphs. The red line is 1/Sun-Earth distance^2-1 (distance is now in au, and scaled up vertically), and the green line is the -x component of the Sun-Earth distance. A very good match is observed, although not perfect. I'm thinking that maybe latitude of the experiments can account for the rest of the difference in phase, and also for the different experimental results accross different laboratories and experiments. I'll try to plot light time, ecliptic angle and other seasonal astronomical factors at the different latitudes. But this is more time consuming, and I'm short of that at the moment :-) Best regards, Mauro This is a really stunning result! I agree. If this holds true (and I think it will), it's completely groundbreaking. What is the source for the Brookhaven data? Is there a URL? I didn't search for the bnl paper yet, but the source of that bnl graph is at http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/38341/title/Half-life_%28more_or_less%29 My first thought looking at the data is that variations in background are affecting the apparent decay rate. In other words it is not the 227 keV betas that are changing in decay rate, but rather the background rate of some other particle, like cosmic ray generated muons for example. If the counts are performed for a limited interval at some specific hour every day then the cosmic ray background can be expected to change because it is anisotropic. The background variations will have an annual cycle. I would think Brookhaven folks would check background counts as a control though. In counting silicon 32 they probably set the beta counting window to bracket 227 keV. Still, even with a narrow counting energy, the muon counts will be in background and vary with the season. It's even better than that, because to try to completely avoid backgound noises or distortions, they compare the decay rates of one element with a very long half life, with the decay rate of other with a relatively short half life. So, seasonal variations are appearing between the comparisions of two decay rates. From the article: Between 1982 and 1986, a team led by David Alburger of Brookhaven monitored the radioactivity of silicon-32. The isotopes half-life was known to be at least 60 years, so researchers needed a long time to measure it with any precision. At the same time, the team monitored a chlorine-36 sample. Chlorine-36 has a half-life of more than 300,000 years, so a samples radioactivity stays virtually unchanged for a long time and can be used to spot any spurious fluctuations. To their surprise, the researchers found that both samples had rates of decay that varied with the seasons, by about 0.3 percent. Regards, Mauro Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Annual variations in radioactive decay rates
Horace Heffner wrote: Here is the original article http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3283v1 Here is a follow-on article looking for any variations in decay rates of Pu 238. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.4248v1 Data from the power output of the radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard the Cassini spacecraft are used to test the conjecture that small deviations observed in terrestrial measurements of the exponential radioactive decay law are correlated with the Earth-Sun distance. No significant deviations from exponential decay are observed over a range of 0.7 - 1.6 A.U. A 90% Cl upper limit of 0.84 x 10^-4 is set on a term in the decay rate of Pu-238 proportional to 1/R^2 and 0.99 x 10^-4 for a term proportional to 1/R. Spacecraft is outside the ambit of the Earth. That could imply a different result. And the kind of decay, experimental conditions, and methods, are all things that must be also taken into consideration. It may not be distance that is the primary factor. It certainly is Not distance directly, of course, but something that changes accordingly with, or depending on, distance. known that various factors affect decay rates. For example, here are some whopping statements from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327190.100-nuclear-decay- puzzle.html ... a previous New Scientist article (21 October 2006, p 36) ... reported they could modify the radioactive decay of certain radioisotopes by encasing them in metal and chilling them close to absolute zero. ... (11 November 2006, p 26)... , Otto Reifenschweiler found that the radioactive decay of tritium absorbed in titanium particles could be reduced by 40 per cent at temperatures between 115 °C and 275 °C (Physics Letters A, vol 184, p 149). The most dramatic change in radioactive decay has, however, recently been observed by Fabio Cardone and others on the decay of thorium-228 by using ultrasonic cavitation in water (Physics Letters A, vol 373, p 1956). In this case, the radioactive decay rate was increased by a whopping factor of 10,000. Impressive. Although not surprising. At least, not to me :-) I've always felt that the curious value of the free neutron half life(885.7 secs) must be a consequence of the local environment. A feeling like that has almost zero scientific value, of course :-) Here is an antineutrino theory: http://www.mindandmuscle.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=38667 Nuclei such as silicon-32 undergo beta decay, during which a neutron in the atomic nucleus decays into the slightly less massive proton. As it does so, it emits an electron and a near-massless particle, an antineutrino. As antineutrinos are notoriously difficult to detect, beta decay is signalled simply by a nucleus spontaneously emitting an electron. Fischbach and Jenkins suggest that another reaction would, in theory, have the same signature. If a neutrino - a sister particle to the antineutrino - knocked into a neutron in an atomic nucleus, it would produce a proton and an electron. The nuclear fusion reactions that power the sun's core are spewing neutrinos equally in all directions. The further away from that source you go, the more spread out those neutrinos are. The higher flux of neutrinos through the Earth when it is close to the sun would therefore bump up nuclear decay rates The problem with this is that neutrinos are said to interact very feebly with matter. Whatever the reason or reasons are for these fluctuations, its mechanisms are outside the actual physics paradigm. And that's the most interesting ingredient in all this. Thanks for the links. If I come up with a better match for the bnl data I'll announce it here. Mauro Other related URLs: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/361i http://www.blog.thecastsite.com/?p=95 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_11_174/ai_n31179075/ http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/38341/title/Half-life_ (more_or_less) http://maurol.com.ar/decay_rates/velocity_distance.png Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Writing another paper. the duality of matter and waves
Mauro Lacy wrote: Jack Smith wrote: ... I would note ... that the phase seems slightly off from sun's distance. So we can say there is an annual cycle, but it might be cosmic rays, gravitational potential or perhaps temperature or other environmental variable. velocity? If I'm not mistaken, velocity is always a little bit off phased in relation to distance in an orbit. No, total velocity and radial distance are mostly in phase, exceptuating some minor alterations in the velocity at times. And the phase difference looks too big(in the range of weeks, or even months? The graphic is not very clear) to be accounted for by simple orbital dynamics.
Re: [Vo]:Writing another paper. the duality of matter and waves
Hi Frank Something along those lines. Your derivation of the elastic nature of the electron is a little bit confusing, but I think is the way to go. I suggest you to abandon the particle paradigm completely, and concentrate on the extended wave paradigm, i.e. pulsating strings, that is, elastic formulations. In that sense, you should be able to come up with an elastic formulation for the photon also. This could prove to be very fruitful. I'm thinking about this, and the photon seems to be a form of fully elongated string, when propagating on empty space. More about this later, probably. By the way, the particle nature of the photon arises as no more than the result of a discrete packaging or train of pulses(a quanta), produced during emission, and depending on the emission process. We should be able to see all of the Universe as constituted by tiny vibrating(pulsating, actually, and also rotating) strings. Both macroscopic and elementary behavior should arise as a result of the action and interaction of these pulsating strings. Gravity included. And the strong and weak nuclear forces too. In that regard, I suggest you to reflect on the origin of your previously derived elastic nature of the electron, i.e. the elastic nature (as a form of energy) as a manifestation of an interaction between the electron and the surrounding material environment. Particularly protons. Finally, where you able to calculate the frequency or the period of this oscillation of the electron? I cannot make sense of your MHz-meter unit. I should probably read your published paper. Maybe you can post it here in a couple of weeks, or send me a copy. And please forget about control. That 'll come later. And don't forget to give credit where credit is due. In these modern times, and an Internet mailing list can be more stimulating and fruitful than a hundred of magazines or papers. Mauro fznidar...@aol.com wrote: My published paper, The Control of the Natural Forces is out in this September's addition of Infinite Energy. I am working on another paper, The Duality of Matter and Waves Linked below http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/MatterWaves.pdf I invite comment. Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic at America on line dot com
Re: [Vo]:Writing another paper. the duality of matter and waves
Jack Smith wrote: ... I would note ... that the phase seems slightly off from sun's distance. So we can say there is an annual cycle, but it might be cosmic rays, gravitational potential or perhaps temperature or other environmental variable. velocity? If I'm not mistaken, velocity is always a little bit off phased in relation to distance in an orbit.
Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done correctly?
Mauro Lacy wrote: By the way, I have a question for you, in the form of a zen koan: We know the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one hand clapping? We can reformulate it for the ocassion as: We know the interference pattern produced by two streams of light, but what is the interference pattern of one stream of light? A diffraction pattern. A diffraction pattern in a medium, and depending on that medium. That is, the effect is the result of an interaction. Or better yet: We know the gravitational effect between two material bodies, but what is the gravitational effect of one material body? Curves the metric. But without any other body in the universe there's nobody there to measure it. So, an effect again arises as a result of an interaction. If a tree falls in a forest and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? Same question wearing different clothes. In both cases it's just semantic games with an undefined term. In the question regarding the tree, the phrase make a sound was never defined and so the issue appears debatable. In your example, the word effect was never defined, and so the question appears debatable. The question is debatable. Although only semantically, if you like. If you define sound as something audible then it only occurs when someone hears it, by definition. But if you define sound as something that has the possibility of being audible, then there's sound even when nobody hears it, again by definition. And this is the right way to define it, IMO, because if not, you're left in the dark regarding the real nature of things. The specific phenomena of sound manifests when somebody hears it, but while nobody is hearing it, there's something there that, when someone heards it, manifests itself as sound. But I was pointing to another direction: trying to show that the specific form of things we perceive or phenomena that occurs in the world, are the result of an interaction. In the same venue, gravity only makes sense as a result of the interaction of two or more massive bodies. In a sense, gravity phenomenologically IS the result of that interaction, that is, gravity is different when there's an interaction, to when there's none, and that difference depends also on the interacting bodies, in the same way as a diffraction pattern depends on the medium, and an interference pattern depends on the specific encounter of two beams. So, to the point. Here are my reflections: Gravity is a form of interference pattern between two or more bodies. Gravity is a standing wave formed by the superposition of two (or more) waves, and from this superposition the effects of gravity arise. This way of seeing gravity has some advantages to the classical one(point forces) and to the relativistic one (curved metric): - gravity has now a mediator(a gravitational wave). - gravity is a specific property of matter(a 3D pulsation, equivalent to a 4D rotation). - gravity is dynamical, i.e. can be defined as a flux, which has a local intensity. - gravity acts on all levels, but that action depends on the interaction of two or more things. So, this model of gravitation can explain why the electron does not collapse into the nucleus, and why the Moon does not collapse on the Earth. It can also explain how momentum is mediated(transferred) between celestial bodies. - finally, this model of gravity has also a repulsive aspect, not only an attractive one. When the bodies are equilibrated, the standing wave formed prevents both the escape of the small body from the influence of the bigger one(i.e. an attractive force), AND its collapse into the bigger one(i.e. a repulsive force). Collapse is the result of the bodies being out of equilibrium, that is, mass differences being too big to be resolved or equilibrated at any point (except cero) at that distance. In equilibrium, the bodies are locked in into a resonating standing wave. This explain the different electronic orbits as being no more than different instances where wave equilibrium is produced between the waves of electrons and protons. Finally: what's the specific form of these gravitational waves? As we've seen in the past, a 4D rotation is proyected into 3D space as a pulsation. And the propagation of a pulsation into 3D space is a longitudinal wave. So gravity as a mediator is a longitudinal wave, of a specific frequency and intensity, which is assimilable to a scalar field, but it is not (not only, at least) a scalar field. The interaction of different longitudinal waves of this kind, produces the effects of gravity we all know, and many other effects, some of which are known to a certain extent, and some of which are ignored to another, much greater, extent. I'm attempting now a mathematical formulation of all this, although the issue is clearly beyond my actual knowledge. And also beyond my time schedules :-) A specific understanding of inertia, and particularly, its specific interaction
Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done correctly?
Mauro Lacy wrote: Mauro Lacy wrote: By the way, I have a question for you, in the form of a zen koan: We know the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one hand clapping? We can reformulate it for the ocassion as: We know the interference pattern produced by two streams of light, but what is the interference pattern of one stream of light? A diffraction pattern. A diffraction pattern in a medium, and depending on that medium. That is, the effect is the result of an interaction. I don't know what you mean by this. No medium is required. A single beam of light traveling through vacuum diffracts with itself (or interferes with itself, if you prefer; it's really the same effect). That's why lasers can never be perfectly collimated; the beam always spreads. Or have you discarded the usual meaning of the word medium in favor of something else? When light is interacting with itself, it is doing it in a medium, which is the ambit of the spreading of light. No, I haven't. A medium does not necessarily needs to be material to be, nevertheles, a medium. That which is in between, Stephen. That is the medium. Or better yet: We know the gravitational effect between two material bodies, but what is the gravitational effect of one material body? Curves the metric. But without any other body in the universe there's nobody there to measure it. So, an effect again arises as a result of an interaction. If a tree falls in a forest and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? Same question wearing different clothes. In both cases it's just semantic games with an undefined term. In the question regarding the tree, the phrase make a sound was never defined and so the issue appears debatable. In your example, the word effect was never defined, and so the question appears debatable. The question is debatable. Although only semantically, if you like. If you define sound as something audible then it only occurs when someone hears it, by definition. But if you define sound as something that has the possibility of being audible, then there's sound even when nobody hears it, again by definition. And this is the right way to define it, IMO, because if not, you're left in the dark regarding the real nature of things. The specific phenomena of sound manifests when somebody hears it, but while nobody is hearing it, there's something there that, when someone heards it, manifests itself as sound. But I was pointing to another direction: trying to show that the specific form of things we perceive or phenomena that occurs in the world, are the result of an interaction. Obviously. That's the heart of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics: The observer is part of the system, and the act of observing is an interaction. Without the presence of the observer, it's a different system. Yes, but I was extending the interpretation, to interaction between massive bodies mediated by gravity, not only to the subject-object relationship of quantum mechanics. Incidentally, that subject-object relationship arises because observers and observational apparatus are made of the same substance than the experiments, i.e. they are interacting and this interaction is suddenly meaningful and important due to a scale factor. In the same venue, gravity only makes sense as a result of the interaction of two or more massive bodies. What does it mean for something to make sense? Without a precise definition of that phrase the sentence is meaningless. Refer to your previous example: does it make sense to talk about gravity when there's only one massive object in the Universe? It only makes sense when two or more bodies are interacting, and what I'm saying here is: it makes sense not only in a semantical way, as is the case with sound, but also on a phenomenological way, because gravity(the behaviour of gravity) is the result of that interaction, in the form of a standing longitudinal wave and its effects. For that matter, you haven't said what *you* mean by interaction or massive or body. Is a photon massive? Is a neutron star one body, or is it a whole bunch of bodies, one for each neutron? My idea is that the macroscopical effects are the result of the accumulation of microscopical ones. Does a ray of light which is bent by a massive star constitute an interaction of that star with another massive body, or not? It constitutes it. A bent photon is the result of an interaction between the massive part of a ray of light(its longitudinal component) and the gravity of a star(the longitudinal component of the star's own light rays). This interaction is very subtle, but existent. Everything is debatable when nothing is defined. In a sense, gravity phenomenologically IS the result of that interaction, that is, gravity is different when there's an interaction, This sounds kind of meaningless, frankly
Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done correctly?
Please bring this century old debate to completion? It will be completed when completed, David. Can someone give a short status update on what different people think? Please, I am interested but cannot read all of it. 10-15 years ago I was really into this and then I dropped out. Seems like an endless debate. It is, in a sense. The point is that we actually have a theory that explains all this without a medium. So, that physical theory, which is purely geometrical, lacks physical reality. Until that contradiction is resolved(that of a physical theory lacking physical reality) the debate will continue, independently of the elapsed decades or centuries. Mauro David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370 On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: Mauro Lacy wrote: Mauro Lacy wrote: By the way, I have a question for you, in the form of a zen koan: We know the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one hand clapping? We can reformulate it for the ocassion as: We know the interference pattern produced by two streams of light, but what is the interference pattern of one stream of light? A diffraction pattern. A diffraction pattern in a medium, and depending on that medium. That is, the effect is the result of an interaction. I don't know what you mean by this. No medium is required. A single beam of light traveling through vacuum diffracts with itself (or interferes with itself, if you prefer; it's really the same effect). That's why lasers can never be perfectly collimated; the beam always spreads. Or have you discarded the usual meaning of the word medium in favor of something else? Or better yet: We know the gravitational effect between two material bodies, but what is the gravitational effect of one material body? Curves the metric. But without any other body in the universe there's nobody there to measure it. So, an effect again arises as a result of an interaction. If a tree falls in a forest and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? Same question wearing different clothes. In both cases it's just semantic games with an undefined term. In the question regarding the tree, the phrase make a sound was never defined and so the issue appears debatable. In your example, the word effect was never defined, and so the question appears debatable. The question is debatable. Although only semantically, if you like. If you define sound as something audible then it only occurs when someone hears it, by definition. But if you define sound as something that has the possibility of being audible, then there's sound even when nobody hears it, again by definition. And this is the right way to define it, IMO, because if not, you're left in the dark regarding the real nature of things. The specific phenomena of sound manifests when somebody hears it, but while nobody is hearing it, there's something there that, when someone heards it, manifests itself as sound. But I was pointing to another direction: trying to show that the specific form of things we perceive or phenomena that occurs in the world, are the result of an interaction. Obviously. That's the heart of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics: The observer is part of the system, and the act of observing is an interaction. Without the presence of the observer, it's a different system. In the same venue, gravity only makes sense as a result of the interaction of two or more massive bodies. What does it mean for something to make sense? Without a precise definition of that phrase the sentence is meaningless. For that matter, you haven't said what *you* mean by interaction or massive or body. Is a photon massive? Is a neutron star one body, or is it a whole bunch of bodies, one for each neutron? Does a ray of light which is bent by a massive star constitute an interaction of that star with another massive body, or not? Everything is debatable when nothing is defined. In a sense, gravity phenomenologically IS the result of that interaction, that is, gravity is different when there's an interaction, This sounds kind of meaningless, frankly. Different how? What do you mean by an interaction? More fun with undefined terms. to when there's none, and that difference depends also on the interacting bodies, in the same way as a diffraction pattern depends on the medium, No it doesn't, as I already pointed out.
Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done correctly?
Jones Beene wrote: *An unfolding story- and e**legant and convincing demo** (of something)** :* *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E* *Rotatable** Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment.** * *P*ossible implications:* * 1) An optical gravitometer? 2) the mirrors and/or the beamsplitter experience a torque 3) Michelson-Morley got it wrong to a large extent, and there is an aether drift that becomes most apparent when amplified by the strongest local field, which effectively overwhelms the contribution of larger non-local fields ? 4) A 4th dimension interface is measureable perpendicular to gravity vector? 5) When you make incorrect initial assumptions, nothing you do thereafter is valid 6) ?? _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_ Why would the luminiferous aether operate this way? Because gravity is no more than a form or a manfestation of electromagnetism? M-M and subsequent research based everything on assumptions which may not be valid – i.e. the way aether would operate relative to the solar mass and to a lesser extent the galactic center of mass. The earth’s field, although weak in comparison to the Suns, is relatively strong so that the vertical alignment shifts all of the prior assumptions into a different focus, so to speak. … but hey, someone back then did have the foresight (or luck) to call it “luminiferous” which might point to a photonic connection which has been minimized in the past? Yes. Many things very minimized, while other where maximized, during these past decades. To the point that now an experiment made by an amateur in his home is more important for the progress of science than many scientific endeavours. And regarding so called virtual things: If something is (temporarily) not manifested, that does not mean it's not real. By the way, I have a question for you, in the form of a zen koan: We know the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one hand clapping? We can reformulate it for the ocassion as: We know the interference pattern produced by two streams of light, but what is the interference pattern of one stream of light? Or better yet: We know the gravitational effect between two material bodies, but what is the gravitational effect of one material body? Think about that. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Spoof of the Week ?
Jones Beene wrote: *From:* Mauro At first I thought Strange they didn't mention the fourth dimension. But Fournier is the man of the furnace, and furnus (oven) is the french origin for four. http://genealogy.about.com/library/surnames/f/bl_name-FOURNIER.htm This I did not know … (that “four” comes from “fournier”) … and the connection of the two is not clear. Hi Jones, You're right, the connection is unclear. Here's what I think, although scholars will probably disagree: four and fournier both share the same root. In the case of fournier, this is clear and well documented(Oxford latin dictionary, plus other sources). Fournier comes from fire, after passing through furnus (which means oven). Incidentally, fire comes from the Latin focus, which is interesting in itself. Now, according to the sources, four seems to come as a series of deformations of the latin quatter, first in proto indo european qwetwor, later in proto germanic petwor, and old english feower http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=four This seems unlikely, due to the great phonetic distance between the two. There are many contrasts to be made, also. My take is that four comes also from (or is related to) fire, with the following relation: fire being the fourth of the classical elements. This is not easy to swallow, but it doesn't sound impossible to me that in anglo-saxon and germanic Europe the influence of greek and latin thinking had shaped the phonetic form of the words fourth and four, in their relation with the fourth element. This is debatable, of course, because four being such a common word, its origin can be very ancient. Nevertheless, the origin of notion of the classical elements is very ancient too, and the relative similarity of the word for fire in many languages seem to support this notion. It is curious that even some word-derivation experts do not appreciate that the name “California” is derived from the lime kilns used by the early Spaniards to build adobe buildings. Thanks for that. The derivation sounds clear and evident to my spanish ears. By the way, I have made greats advances in my conceptions regarding heretofore called quantum flux, but I don't want to talk about it until having a more precise and complete theory. Well – we look “Forward” (as in Robert F) to seeing that. Fran Roarty more than anyone. I'll try to publish an initial version during the weekend. Best regards, Mauro Jones
Re: [Vo]:Spoof of the Week ?
Jones Beene wrote: “Onion” usually always attempts to be an eye-watering spoof … This one rises almost to the level of conspiracy theory, given recent threads on Vortex ;-) … and as we know, reality can be stranger than fiction. In several layered ways… not unlike an the onion-iof-reality… This story turns “everything” … including “what is real” on its quantum dot head: _http://www.theonion.com/content/news/sci_fi_writer_attributes_ Even the so-called author is name “Gabriel Fournier” (who was a real-life painter) not to be confused with Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier … At first I thought Strange they didn't mention the fourth dimension. But Fournier is the man of the furnace, and furnus (oven) is the french origin for four. http://genealogy.about.com/library/surnames/f/bl_name-FOURNIER.htm Also, Gabriel means hero of God or God's able-bodied one http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Gabriel Cool, isn't? … begging the question “how far to you go to create a spoof on any other day than April 1?” Not SO far. By the way, I have made greats advances in my conceptions regarding heretofore called quantum flux, but I don't want to talk about it until having a more precise and complete theory. Best regards, Mauro Jones
Re: [Vo]:Casimir force at slab edges
Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Frank Roarty wrote: s identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or labelNo, but I'll read about it. Reciprocal space sounds like a mirror space to me. By example, using the fourth dimension, you can invert a tridimensional sphere without breaking it. That is, you can put the inside out and viceversa, through a rotation over a fourth dimensional space, in the same way as you can invert a bidimensional figure by rotating it in a three dimensional space. But you can't -- not just by rotating it. Hi Of course you can't do that in three dimensions. That's the whole point of using a fourth. I was drawing an analogy. The bidimensional equivalent will be the following (please excuse my ascii art). Suppose you have an asymetrical figure, like to one below: original figure: -- || | | | | | | | | - You're talking about flipping chirality. You can do that, of course -- for a 2d figure you can do it in 3d, for a 3d figure you can do it in 4d. A right-hand thread screw can be flipped to a left-hand thread screw with a rotation through the fourth dimension. But you can't turn a circle inside out by flipping through the third dimension, and you can't turn a sphere inside out by flipping through the fourth dimension, as you proposed. You need to do a major stretch on the object as well. To see this really clearly, don't use a spherical shell, as you proposed; use a solid sphere (like the Earth, or a golf ball). What do you get if you turn it inside out by some operation in the fourth dimension? You're right! I erroneously thought that chirality flip in four dimensions was analogous to turning the inside out (because when you turn a glove inside out, by example, you obtain its mirror image, i.e. you can put that reversed glove in your other hand) So, to summarize: a (semi) rotation through a higher dimension will produce the mirror image of the object. I still think that this is not the complete process, i.e. that something more fundamental is changed, but I have to think about it. Well, I was thinking and studying, and in the operation I'm proposing you must invert colors, too. You can think of it as a (semi) rotation plus color invertion. Each color is changed to its complement color. Probably is better not no think about it literally, but symbolically, with color invertion representing change in axial direction. So, the more fundamental quality that is also changed is axial flow direction(from inward to outward, and vice versa) To be able to see this, you must allow relationships in space to remain fluid, not fixed. It is also convenient to imagine everything with its opposite. So a blue point must be seen as not only a blue point, but a blue point surrounded by a totality of red space. A light (outwards) radiating point must be seen as a light radiating point surrounded by a sphere of inward radiating darkness. So, the opposite of your golf ball is a spherical void of the diameter of the golf ball, surrounded by an infinite extension of golf ball material. Again, if you allow the spatial relations to remain fluid(matter doesn't really exists, it is only movement), and think in opposites, this is easier to visualize, and assimilate. Please note that when a vortex (a rotating radial flow) forms, the first thing to appear on the other side(of a pressure boundary, through a hole or connection between sides) is the first one to enter on this side; so on the other side the center becomes the periphery, and vice versa. Mathematically, or topologically, we can define a new operation, or a set of operations, equivalent to the sum of a rotation plus a radial flow direction(i.e. color) invertion. So, a right handed inward vortex, will transform under this operation into a left handed _outward_ vortex. I don't know yet, but maybe this operation or set of operations can then be tried to attempt to reconcile Dirac equations with the fourth dimension, as Jones Beene suggested in a related thread, or (better said) to try to express the form of Dirac equations in four dimensions. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Casimir force at slab edges
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Frank Roarty wrote: s identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or labelNo, but I'll read about it. Reciprocal space sounds like a mirror space to me. By example, using the fourth dimension, you can invert a tridimensional sphere without breaking it. That is, you can put the inside out and viceversa, through a rotation over a fourth dimensional space, in the same way as you can invert a bidimensional figure by rotating it in a three dimensional space. But you can't -- not just by rotating it. Hi Of course you can't do that in three dimensions. That's the whole point of using a fourth. I was drawing an analogy. The bidimensional equivalent will be the following (please excuse my "ascii art"). Suppose you have an asymetrical figure, like to one below: original figure: -- | | | | | | | | | | - No matter how you rotate it in two dimensions, you can't construct its mirror image. But if you leave the second dimension, you can rotate it through the third, and obtain it mirror image easily: axis of symmetry (and rotation) mirror image: - | | | | | | | | |- | || Do you see what I mean? I'll send some real drawings for clarity later. Mauro Look at the attached 2D figure. How would you *rotate* it in order to put the blue ring on the outside and the red ring on the inside? Of course, if you cut it out of paper and tried it, you wouldn't be able to do it. If it were made of rubber, you could turn it inside out in 3 dimensions, which you can't do in 2 dimensions, but that involves considerable stretching as well as rotating. If it's made of paper you'll tear it if you try to do that; it's not a simple rotation. You can flip chirality with a simple 4-d rotation but not inside/outside. Just for clarity: How it'll look like? Tridimensionally, you'll see that the sphere starts shrinking, until becoming a point, and then starts growing again, but this time the inside is outside, and viceversa. It has inverted, like you can invert a glove. Suppose initially the sphere is painted blue in the inside, and red on the outside. After the fourth dimensional rotation, you'll get a blue sphere with a red interior. That's a fourth dimensional (semi) rotation. And that can be probably understood as "reciprocal spaces". A full rotation will bring you the original sphere again. Again, you're turning the sphere inside out, which you can do in 4 dimensions (if the sphere is stretchable) but you're not doing it with a simple rotation, in any number of dimensions. Mauro understood as the mirror image of a n-dimensional space, rotated in one higher (n+1) dimensional space. ... or rather, like so many things that have been updated in order to bring Dirac into the 21st Century, are you familiar with how this conception can be reconciled with a '4th spatial dimension'? (even if others have rejected that as a possible implication) No, I'm not familiar with that at all(although I would read about it as soon as possible). Anyways, see above for a possible method of reconciliation or equivalence between these concepts. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Casimir force at slab edges
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Frank Roarty wrote: s identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or labelNo, but I'll read about it. Reciprocal space sounds like a mirror space to me. By example, using the fourth dimension, you can invert a tridimensional sphere without breaking it. That is, you can put the inside out and viceversa, through a rotation over a fourth dimensional space, in the same way as you can invert a bidimensional figure by rotating it in a three dimensional space. But you can't -- not just by rotating it. Hi Of course you can't do that in three dimensions. That's the whole point of using a fourth. I was drawing an analogy. The bidimensional equivalent will be the following (please excuse my ascii art). Suppose you have an asymetrical figure, like to one below: original figure: -- || | | | | | | | | - You're talking about flipping chirality. You can do that, of course -- for a 2d figure you can do it in 3d, for a 3d figure you can do it in 4d. A right-hand thread screw can be flipped to a left-hand thread screw with a rotation through the fourth dimension. But you can't turn a circle inside out by flipping through the third dimension, and you can't turn a sphere inside out by flipping through the fourth dimension, as you proposed. You need to do a major stretch on the object as well. To see this really clearly, don't use a spherical shell, as you proposed; use a solid sphere (like the Earth, or a golf ball). What do you get if you turn it inside out by some operation in the fourth dimension? You're right! I erroneously thought that chirality flip in four dimensions was analogous to turning the inside out (because when you turn a glove inside out, by example, you obtain its mirror image, i.e. you can put that reversed glove in your other hand) So, to summarize: a (semi) rotation through a higher dimension will produce the mirror image of the object. I still think that this is not the complete process, i.e. that something more fundamental is changed, but I have to think about it.
Re: [Vo]:Casimir force at slab edges
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Frank Roarty wrote: s identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or labelNo, but I'll read about it. Reciprocal space sounds like a mirror space to me. By example, using the fourth dimension, you can invert a tridimensional sphere without breaking it. That is, you can put the inside out and viceversa, through a rotation over a fourth dimensional space, in the same way as you can invert a bidimensional figure by rotating it in a three dimensional space. But you can't -- not just by rotating it. Hi Of course you can't do that in three dimensions. That's the whole point of using a fourth. I was drawing an analogy. The bidimensional equivalent will be the following (please excuse my ascii art). Suppose you have an asymetrical figure, like to one below: original figure: -- || | | | | | | | | - You're talking about flipping chirality. By the way, chirality flip is a very interesting consequence of a higher dimensional rotation. Specially if imagined in the right context... More on this later, probably. I have to read (and think about) a lot of things, and I'm actually very busy with other things (work and (real?) life). Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Casimir force at slab edges
Hi Thanks for this post about Hotson's ideas. Don't know about you, but to me, everything is starting to make a lot of sense. Please take into account that when Hotson says 'imaginary direction' you can read '4th spatial dimension'. And when, relativistically it's said 'time dilation' or 'time contraction' it can be read as movement(or change of velocity, or that which is reflected as a tridimensional spatial distortion) along the fourth dimension. I was thinking recently that it's not enough for gravity to be explained merely as a consequence of a distortion of space. There must be a flux, because a spatial distortion can explain at most the curvature in the trajectory of _already_ moving bodies, i.e. inertial paths, but it's not enough to explain 'force', that is, the acceleration of masses inside a gravitational field. Incidentally, that also shows why GR is so flawed: the equivalence principle, between inertia and gravity, is complete nonsense, because in inertia you have absence of forces, and in gravity, presence of forces(flux). In short: GR replaces the gravitational force(net flux towards the fourth dimension) with time dilation/contraction, which is exactly the wrong thing to do. Then, spatial distortion is merely a consequence of the flux, and we have a cause and effect relation. Incidentally: a spherically symmetrical (i.e. radial) net flux will produce elliptical paths of _inertial_ bodies, not spherical paths. That is, the elliptical path is a consequence of an inertial body inside a spherical flux. Best regards, Mauro Taylor J. Smith wrote:
Re: [Vo]:Casimir force at slab edges
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Mauro Lacy wrote: I was thinking recently that it's not enough for gravity to be explained merely as a consequence of a distortion of space. It's not a distortion of space, it's a distortion of spaceTIME, and the difference is extremely important. Hi Stephen, You are exactly right. As I've said previously: GR replaces the gravitational force(net flux towards the fourth dimension) with time dilation/contraction. Which is exactly the wrong thing to do. And I'll tell you why(BTW, I've already done it, some months ago): Time is not a physical entity. So, you cannot mess with time if you want to make a physically sound theory. Time will result as a consequence of your theory, when all the physical entities are correctly modeled. Time is a consequence of movement in space. If you correctly model space and movement(which are physical realities), a correct time will result as a consequence. The metric in 4-dimensional spacetime is not fixed, it varies from one point to another. Exactly. That's precisely the point: instead of measure physical reality with a fixed rule (as a good physicist will do), you're changing your ruler to coincide with physical reality. That's a very bad way of proceeding. Everything can be made to measure 1 meter, or to last for one second, that way. There must be a flux, Can you define your term flux? Mmmm, probably some of you are better equipped than me to find the right physical entity or entities. I can try to explain it to you with an image, and a little story. First, the little story: I still remember an afternoon, many years ago at a country house, when I got out for a walk after lunch. This was a friend of a friend's house, that was in a beautiful place near a small creek. I walked upstream the creek, and got a nice surprise when found out a pond, due to an artificial dam in the creek. The water was perfectly flat, and translucent. The interesting thing was that in one side of the pond, there was a little drainage, that formed a whirlpool. The whirlpool gently curved under the water(the drainage was in one of the sides), to appear at the surface. So, from my vantage point, and due to the translucent water, I could clearly see both aspects of the whirlpool; its underwater part, and the figure it formed at the surface. I spent many long minutes observing that whirlpool, having at the same moment the clear intuition that I was observing something very significative, although at that moment didn't know why it was so. Only years later, reading about the fourth dimension, the image of that day came to me again, this time in its full significance. What I'm saying is that gravity is the fourth dimensional equivalent of some aspects of a whirlpool of that kind. If you make a kind of piercing of the tridimensional fabric of space, and because around the neighborhood of the piercing, everything is pressing (trying to escape tridimensionality), a whirlpool will form, due to _something_ escaping through the small hyper-dimensional hole. Returning to the example of the tridimensional water whirlpool: imagine you are a bidimensional dweller living on the surface of the pool. When the whirlpool forms, you'll start to notice you're being attracted to the vortex. And you initially probably wouldn't notice that the surface of the water, where you live has curved on the z dimension, in the surroundings of the vortex. Because you dwell only on the x and y dimensions. After a while you'll start talking, (if you have some physics inclinations, and are able to make some measurements and comparisons on the surroundings) about time dimensions, space-time constructs, and the sudden relativity of all your previous assumptions about your previous (euclidean) space and time. All this simply because you cannot imagine a third spatial dimension, and the depths of water you're floating on. because a spatial distortion can explain at most the curvature in the trajectory of _already_ moving bodies, Wrong. See, you've missed something here: *ALL* bodies are moving in spacetime. As I said, this is a distortion of spaceTIME, not SPACE, and that's extremely important, and it's apparently something you don't understand. Yes, I know. I've intentionally talked about the distortion of space alone. Just to make clear that the distortion of time is no more than the equivalent of a hyper-dimensional spatial distortion. One reason it's important is that in spaceTIME a body which you think of as just sitting still in space is still moving, at a rate of 1 second per second, directly down the time axis. This is *not* a trivial point -- in fact it's a vital point. The magnitude of your 4-momentum is your rest mass. That's true even if you are just sitting still -- because, of course, you're *never* just sitting still, at rest in an inertial frame in 3-space you're already moving at 1 second per second
Re: [Vo]:Casimir force at slab edges
Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy Please take into account that when Hotson says 'imaginary direction' you can read '4th spatial dimension'. Are you familiar with the Dirac concept of reciprocal space? No, but I'll read about it. Reciprocal space sounds like a mirror space to me. By example, using the fourth dimension, you can invert a tridimensional sphere without breaking it. That is, you can put the inside out and viceversa, through a rotation over a fourth dimensional space, in the same way as you can invert a bidimensional figure by rotating it in a three dimensional space. Reciprocal space then can be understood as the mirror image of a n-dimensional space, rotated in one higher (n+1) dimensional space. ... or rather, like so many things that have been updated in order to bring Dirac into the 21st Century, are you familiar with how this conception can be reconciled with a '4th spatial dimension'? (even if others have rejected that as a possible implication) No, I'm not familiar with that at all(although I would read about it as soon as possible). Anyways, see above for a possible method of reconciliation or equivalence between these concepts. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
OrionWorks wrote: ... However, I've come around to the suspicion that the majority of alien abduction experiences are the result of a timeless, ancient phenomenon, a unique and valid human experience that is just as real, and IMHO, a possibly whole lot more important. ... At present there seems to be, IMO, an ongoing tendency for the abduction scenario (the abduction paradigm if you wish) to be interpreted far too literally, both in the skeptic/debunker camps, as well as within the believer camps. If I could leave the curious reader with just one insight, a concept that hopefully a few might consider pondering at their own leisure, it would be to explore both the possibility and subsequent ramifications that these timeless experiential encounters may themselves be the manifestations of a vast symbolic oriented meta-language, a unique universal form of communication that has probably been with us since the dawn of humanity. If one is willing to entertain this concept... this meta-language as possibly being a more precise architecture in which to walk down the halls of this vast and mysterious mansion, the nature of the experiences, particularly in the collective sense, will begin to have the capacity of taking on a far richer dimension and potential value for both the experiencer and the listener. ... Hi What you said is similar to what Carl Jung said related to the UFO/alien experience: The UFO/alien is an image of the human soul. In the same way as the individuals of a superstitious, primitive culture will dream with and encounter witches, goblins and magicians in their dreams, or angels and demons, a technologically oriented culture will tend to encounter technologically advanced aliens. A culture which is both overly rational and materialistic, will tend to dream with highly intelligent and cold, rational aliens, which manage advanced technologies. These aliens will be the projection of their depth fears, and of their highest longings. Their (culturally projected) angels and demons. If so many people have similar experiences, it could be interesting to study what other things they have in common: are they overly rational? are they materialistic/technologically inclined? Do they or a majority of them use sleeping pills? Do they have similar nutritional habits? Are they closely related culturally and/or geographically? etc. etc. The most firm beliefs some people have during day time, can give place to nightmares during the night. Particularly if more subtle and warm feelings are repressed, or put in denial. In the name of rationality or objectivity, by example. The excessive belief in technology, science, an excessive rationality, in spite of other, more subtle experiences and modes of knowledge, and the associated materialism, can all be forms of superstition, too. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Reality Simulation Error
Terry Blanton wrote: Is the planet-boosting flyby anomaly: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4184 an indication of insufficient integration resolution of the Matrix?, Hi, More likely, indications pointing to the inadequacy of our current theory and understanding, or lack of understanding, of gravitation. http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2006-04/000683.html Reginald Cahill bore hole anomalies are worth including in this list, in my opinion. And also maybe the related anomalies posted some time ago in this list, regarding rotating cryogenic rings. I've studied the Pioneer and flyby anomalies, to a certain extent, and according to Anderson et al (whose papers are fortunately in arxiv), the Pioneer anomalies could be regarded as some case of flyby anomaly. This is interesting, because the magnitude of the Pioneer anomaly is apparently not dependant on distance; so it is probably just an anomaly in momentum transfer when leaving the solar system, aided by Jupiter's or Neptune's gravity. I have an informal hypothesis that provides a reasonable basis for starting to build a formal explanation of these anomalies and the workings of gravity, and probably many more anomalous effects like rabdomancy, radiestesy, ley lines, levitation, some difficulties in sleep :-), feng shui, and stuff like that. It could also explain why so many different ancient cultures were so inclined to build big geometrical stone monuments, provide a foundation for anti-gravity research and, last but not least, explain cold fusion. It goes simply by this: gravity is a dynamical flow, that is affected (but not caused) by the presence of matter. Matter is not the cause of gravity, but on the contrary, massive accumulation of matter is a consequence of gravitational flow. This solves the seeming paradox of current gravitational theories, including GR, which attribute to matter both the causes and the consequences of gravity (see the papers by Cahill.) In the same way as river banks are formed by the current of the river, so the flow of gravity causes accumulation of matter. The differences are probably worth mentioning: a) wherever matter is present, the flow is increased, not diminished. Until it is compensated by heat and pressure, by example. b) the flow occurs fourth dimensionally, that is, from the three spatial dimensions towards a fourth spatial dimension. I could mention more things but, as you can imagine, all this is mostly work in progress at the moment. So maybe the best is if I stop just right here. Best regards, Mauro Terry Blue Pill! Gimme the damned Blue Pill!
Re: [Vo]:Hydrinos, Lorentz contraction, and event horizon stuff.
Hi, There seem to be some evidence that nuclear decay is not so stable as thought: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36108 http://arxivblog.com/?p=596 http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156 http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283 And a negative result, for completeness :) http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3265v1 All this talk about time dilation, Lorentz contraction, event horizon, would be better understood in my opinion in terms of changes in ABSOLUTE velocity (absolute relating to that? relating to that that is not moving. And what is not moving? Empty space isn't. Do you want a preferred reference frame? you'll have to look for it in the void: The void is not moving, because the void is nothing, and that which is nothing, can't move.) All the rest(i.e. matter and energy) is moving!: Macroscopically, our galaxy is probably accelerating towards somewhere, and is rotating on its axis. Our solar system is travelling inside our galaxy arm, in a curved path, and probably rotating around a some center. Our planet is rotating on its axis, and following the curved path of the Sun. Microscopically, elementary particles are no more than tiny rotating(i.e. moving) things. If yo start to slow down or stop all or some of that movement, anomalous things start to happen. Ask those crazy nutating Sufis, if you don't believe me :-) Maybe thougths and reflections on the nature of turbulence can shed light on all this. And we'll slowly start to realize the intimate correlation between the macrocosmic and the microcosmic. Best regards, Mauro OrionWorks wrote: Strictly approaching this question from a layman's POV: Is it conceivable to speculate that an unknown component, one that is possibly bound to the effects of time dilation play an integral role in determining the rate of decay in radioactive nucleus, specifically when an atom decides to decay? An empirical observation, one that my brain has never been able to adequately grasp, is how seemingly deterministic the rate of nuclear decay appears to be, particularly when one takes into account very large samples of unstable atoms. That half lives can be determined with such incredible accuracy boggles my mind. Or am I simply repeating speculation (albeit less eloquently) that has already been brought up in recent threads concerning Hydrinos, Lorentz contraction, and event horizon stuff. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Capitol Hill briefing on energy storage
Wow. Think big, and you'll be pleased :-). A massive(when more massive it is, it could be relatively cheaper), government sponsored (partially?) backed, reconversion to ecologically friendly (and also very cheap in the medium/long term, and completely sustainable) energy alternatives. That's the way to go, IMO. I would love to see something like that happening, in USA or in another country. I hope they consider the light metal as an energy storage and hidrogen on demand proposals. I would like to hear about its disadvantages, and also about other methods of energy storage. Also, I think that an analysis of methods and technologies for the conversion of existing explosion motors and cars to hydrogen on demand, as this is probably more viable, faster, and energy savvy than the introduction of brand new hydrogen cars, is a very good idea. Best regards, thanks for the info. Mauro Horace Heffner wrote: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115210 http://tinyurl.com/lmuggx Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I don't know why he didn't run. He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their very definition. It's always better to blame it all on a lone shooter, than acknowledge the corruption within the system. This is wildly OFF TOPIC, it's provocative politics of the worst sort, it appears in this message unsupported by anything except your bald assertion. The discussion in this thread had to do with Madoff as a model for scammers in other areas, which is certainly relevant to the 'free energy' field. However, Mauro's dialectical twist on it is something else. We have heard all this junk about the corruption within the system being the root of all evil, very recently, from Grok. We have no need to hear it all over again from Mauro. PLEASE KEEP THIS GARBAGE OFF VORTEX. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm not trolling, or trying to initiate a debate. I just felt the question was hanging in the hair, so to speak. I came up with the scapegoat thesis on my own, so I'll not post any links (besides, this is OT). An internet search should yield some interesting results on the subject, I suppose. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: OrionWorks wrote: From Mario Lacy: Edmund Storms wrote: Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and will connected to the Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational path. Could be. Although with all those millions probably something could be done, I think. Anyways, he nevertheless served the scapegoat role, from the moment he was exposed to the public view. I see that Mr. Lawrence has weighed in with his two cents as well. Yeah, I don't like the direction a number of Mauro's posts are taking. Well, that's a matter of taste and opinion, isn't? I'm not grok! and my mispellings and grammatical errors are sincere :) most of the time, they are the result of quick posting and not double checking before, and sometimes simply the result of an informal education in the english languaje. Best regards, Mauro Here are some additional items which started bells going off for me: Comment on capitalism: That's the classical (profit driven) capitalist line Comment on the economic system, and how incorrect it is: the economic system is today a superstructure of the politic system In short: we're are approaching the crisis of civilization which results from incorrect social and economic models, A comment directed at Jones and his lifestyle: Now, in front of the crisis, and instead of acknowledge this, you pretend to find some miracle energy source to merely postpone the day of reckoning Your way of life is also undesirable at the aesthetic and ethical levels. I for one don't want to live my life as a self-indulgent gluttonous person... I'm no doubt overreacting but the tone here is enough like Grok to make one wonder if one of the two was a sock puppet. (Note that Grok's English was intentionally so mis-spelled and mis-formed that he could very well have spoken it as a second language, and we might not have known.) Anyhow, Steve, as usual you are much, much better about giving the gentleman the benefit of the doubt, and your post (the part I snipped off, below) had some provocative/interesting points in it, which I won't respond to (since I just finished yelling about how this has deteriorated to being totally OT ;-) ). I have a nasty tendency to go off half cocked, and perhaps I am doing so this time too. Anyhow, I'll be out of town for a week, so I won't be yelling DIALECTIC! BAD! for at least a few days. 'Till next weekend... [snip part to which I'm not responding]
Re: [Vo]:OT: RepRap is ready
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Mauro Lacy wrote: Talking about the power of Open Source, what about the same concept but applied to material goods? The first version of RepRap, an almost completely self replicating 3D printer, is ready: http://reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome At least in theory, it can achieve exponential propagation, and fast development and improvement cycles. Some kind of evolutionary machine. I wonder how many time I'll have to wait for someone to print me one ;-) This is a very cool gadget -- thanks for the link. I don't think you'll get a copy made entirely on a Reprap any time soon, though. Rapid prototyping 3-d printers already exist, of course, and the current version of RepRap uses the same technology, according to the linked page ... which means it makes plastic parts. The 'printing' step, as I understand it, uses either powder which is fused to form solid plastic or liquid plastic which is thermoset, and either way it's pretty much limited to things which can be fabricated out of blocks of plastic. So, this version can't draw the wires, put the insulation on them, make those metal rods which form the framework on which the plastic parts are hung, or make any of the electronics which make it go. Presumably it doesn't actually assemble the new gadget, either; it makes the plastic pieces and then the assembly is done by a human. None the less it is surely a very cool gadget. The web page also links to a .doc file describing work that's been done on more flexible prototyping, which also sounds very nifty. I haven't read the details, but from a quick skim, it appears that they use Wood's metal to keep the temps down to something the gadget can handle, and they can prototype at least some of the electronics that way. Still be a long, long time before they can print computer chips or draw high performance wires on your desktop, of course. Yes, I know. An very interesting aspect of the reprap is that it is an open design, published under the GNU license. The GNU license mandates that all the changes to a project must be published. That means that if it catches some attention, it can evolve very quicky into different and relatively cheap 3D printers and CNC machines (partially self-replicating, or not.) In my opinion, there are two major obstacles to its growth at the moment: - It is relatively complex to build and assemble. At the moment, it is a project for specialists, from specialists. - It is expensive. Although much more cheaper than a real 3D printer, the full kit still costs around US$ 1500. In the near future, they say the cost can go down to around $400, if someone print the printable parts for you, and the non-printable part lower their costs due to demand. Version II promises to print electrical wires, and incorporate a laser cutter, multiple heads, etc. Maybe in one or two years, the project will start to look really good and affordable. Regards, Mauro
