Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 11/06/2011 05:07 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 06.11.2011 18:36, schrieb Peter Gluck: What I wrote is connected to a subject more popular here these days. The future is unknown, but perhaps it could be useful to )re) read the play OXYGEN by Djerassi and Hoffman http://www.djerassi.com/**oxygen11/oxygen.htmhttp://www.djerassi.com/oxygen11/oxygen.htm I have translated it in Romanian but the text was lost due to a hard-disk crash. It gives an answer to the question: who has discovered oxygen? Not an absolute answer. There cannot be an absolute answer. There are many answers, some competing, some not. This is a little bit like the question Were is the spring of the river Nil?. In reality rivers have many springs and one mouth end. (There are exceptions) A big problem is, when you discover something new then it has no name. So, how talk about this? Many did research phlogiston at this time, this was the prevalent theorie and might have discovered oxygen and might have described its behaviour correctly, but the term oxygen did not exist and the physics and chemistry of gases was unknown. So there where no possibility to put this discovery into a wider context. The language needed for this did not exist. They would have used the name phlogiston or other names and so their description is not understandable nowadays. So far I know, Lavoisier was the first who made documented quantitative measurements for oxidation and burning. He might not be this person that first discovered oxygen, but he developed these methods needed to prove and measure and predict its existence. Exactly. He took a quantitative approach, carefully weighting before and after the combustion, and found out that the end products were heavier than the combustible, and that lead in turn to the discovery of oxygen(in modern scientific terms), and to the abandonment of the phlogiston theory. But take notice that it was the quantitative approach, and particularly, weighting, what leads to the modern discovery of oxygen. Moreover: when you consider all the results of a combustion (not only those that have weight) you can easily conclude that there's indeed something that is escaping during the combustion, namely, in the form of light and warmth. Not that I want to sustain or defend the phlogiston theory, (that's far from my intention), but please take notice that a combustion is in fact something involving more than just matter in the ordinary sense. In a sense, the cherished modern notion of a combustion like just the encounter of a combustible and an oxidizer, is just a partial truth(the part that can be weighted), whereas the whole process is composed by much more than that, and certainly involves something similar to the old, discredited, phlogiston. We tend to value the explanations that conform to the notions of our time, like, by example, materialism, and consider them to be true, but in fact they are no more than approximations and, in a certain sense, just conventions or discourses of our time. Reflections of our mental frameworks. Future mankind will find very strange, and even funny, not only the partial and conventional notions of our time, but also the strength and insistence with which we tend to adhere to them, as if they were absolute truths, when they are in fact not more than conventions. Just in the same way, or even more, as we tend to laugh now about past knowledge. Regards, Mauro Without this we would probably today still discuss about phlogiston theories and could doubt the existence of oxygene. Best, Peter What's really interesting, we now try to see how Mankind geta rid of Combustion as the main source of energy. Hydrogen can be the new Oxygen. Again a very complex story. But it surely started with F P (03.23.1989) and with Piantelli's discovery (08.16.1989)- anomalous heat effect with Ni (as support for a ganglioside) in H atmosphere. The first scientific document of the field is; F. Piantelli: Anomalous Energy Production in Experiments with H absorbed in particular metallic lattice. Atti Accad Fisiocritici, Seri XV, Tomo xxII pp 89-98 (1993) In 1993-4 Piantelli started to work with Focardi and Habel, possible not a very good decision (in retrospective) What I consider essential- the effect is not specific for Nickel, actually it is Transition Metals LENR. I am very curious which will be the *Best Ten LENR Energy Sources in 2025. *I have Internet connection (and minibar) installed for my grave, so I'll know it.. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
I wrote on my blog two papers about Piantelli's methods. Have you read them?He is a very serious scientist. Actually all heat measurments were made at Siena U by Piantelli, Bologna U's contribution was to analyses. The system to put the authors in alphabetical order is anti-meritocratic. I have never used it, who has taken the decisions and has established the direction in a research was the First Author and ...Punktum. What I find strange for Focardi...two things (I repeat myself): - he accepts tacitly and not, the role of Father of Cold Fusion; - he says that he does not know the secret additive in the core of the E-cats i.e. Rossi is the boss, and does not trust me completely - very submissive. It is clear that by the nature of facts some people know the recipe- what kind of Nickel powder and what additives (if any?) and what procedure is used to fill the cores. It was a rather strange (euphemism!) story about a 96 years old guy who does this operation. More suprarealistic than real. On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:46 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 07.11.2011 10:31 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY What's really interesting, we now try to see how Mankind geta rid of Combustion as the main source of energy. Hydrogen can be the new Oxygen. Again a very complex story. But it surely started with F P (03.23.1989) and with Piantelli's discovery (08.16.1989)- anomalous heat effect with Ni (as support for a ganglioside) in H atmosphere. The first scientific document of the field is; F. Piantelli: Anomalous Energy Production in Experiments with H absorbed in particular metallic lattice. Atti Accad Fisiocritici, Seri XV, Tomo xxII pp 89-98 (1993) In 1993-4 Piantelli started to work with Focardi and Habel, possible not a very good decision (in retrospective) What I consider essential- the effect is not specific for Nickel, actually it is Transition Metals LENR. I am very curious which will be the *Best Ten LENR Energy Sources in 2025. *I have Internet connection (and minibar) installed for my grave, so I'll know it.. What I find essential is, that in most experiments Focardi was participated. Their calorimetric measurements where much mor delicate than these measurements that Rossi makes, so far I see it. Gas convection and infrared absorption depending from surface properties like color, and heat pump effects caused by hydrogen must be prevented or taken into consideration in their experiments. If Focardi nowadays accepts Rossi's measurement methods this doesnt make his earlier research more believable. Possibly Focardi is it who started to make careless crap measurements and Rossi recognized it and does now take advantage from it. He makes crap measurements and his first scientific supporter was Focardi. This possibly says all about Focardi-Piantelli. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
Am 06.11.2011 09:43, schrieb Peter Gluck: My Dear Friends, Please read my regular issue of INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/11/informavores-sunday-no-480.html It is a pleasure to discover, especially to discover new aspects, surprising features of old ideas and ancient concepts. Some 3 years ago I wrote an essay-editorial about lies: Small Man, why are you lying all the time? The main 'discovery' was that lies are relative, they do not exist if there is no truth. Each and every lie is the opposite of a truth. Now I had a slow revelation (it lasted some 10 months, I am not a fast thinker): there exists a special category of lies, Big Lies. Their opposite is not a truth but also a lie. Due to a memory glitch, I am not able to give you examples but I am convinced you will be able to find at least one. The things are more weird than we can imagine- as more very wise thinkers have stated. Peter In natural science and technology lies are not relative. Nature is always true and cannot be in error and never lies. Humans can be in error and can lie. But there is absolute truth. Lets think about the most true science that exists: Mathematics. Where does this absolute truth come from? Does it come out of human mind? No, it doesnt. If I write a letter then the existence of this letter is absolutely evident, testable and true. This is where absolute truth in mathematics comes from. Mathematics without the absolute true existence of written letters is impossible. Absolute truth exists, it is nature itself. Natural reality is truth, it is the same thing. Therefore lies about natural observable facts are not relative lies. kind regards, Peter
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
OK, as far as you refer to science; can you tell a few absolute truths re Cold Fusion or LENR except they exist? If you have time please continue with lists of absolute truths from technology, management, religion (there are~ 11500 religions all claiming to be absolute truth), philosophy, ethics, sociology, politics, ecology? And etc.? As regarding mathematics, I ask you to make a search for mathematics was invented or discovered? and if you arrive to a conclusion, please come back with a handful of absolute truths. Perhaps Kurt Godel can help you a bit. (he is dead but this is not a serious obstacle)- he says very interesting things, Absolute truth seems to be both an oxymoron and a paradox. a peterer, probably the peterest Peter on Vortex On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 06.11.2011 09:43, schrieb Peter Gluck: My Dear Friends, Please read my regular issue of INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**com/2011/11/informavores-** sunday-no-480.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/11/informavores-sunday-no-480.html It is a pleasure to discover, especially to discover new aspects, surprising features of old ideas and ancient concepts. Some 3 years ago I wrote an essay-editorial about lies: Small Man, why are you lying all the time? The main 'discovery' was that lies are relative, they do not exist if there is no truth. Each and every lie is the opposite of a truth. Now I had a slow revelation (it lasted some 10 months, I am not a fast thinker): there exists a special category of lies, Big Lies. Their opposite is not a truth but also a lie. Due to a memory glitch, I am not able to give you examples but I am convinced you will be able to find at least one. The things are more weird than we can imagine- as more very wise thinkers have stated. Peter In natural science and technology lies are not relative. Nature is always true and cannot be in error and never lies. Humans can be in error and can lie. But there is absolute truth. Lets think about the most true science that exists: Mathematics. Where does this absolute truth come from? Does it come out of human mind? No, it doesnt. If I write a letter then the existence of this letter is absolutely evident, testable and true. This is where absolute truth in mathematics comes from. Mathematics without the absolute true existence of written letters is impossible. Absolute truth exists, it is nature itself. Natural reality is truth, it is the same thing. Therefore lies about natural observable facts are not relative lies. kind regards, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
Am 06.11.2011 13:19, schrieb Peter Gluck: OK, as far as you refer to science; can you tell a few absolute truths re Cold Fusion or LENR except they exist? If you have time please continue with lists of absolute truths from technology, management, religion (there are~ 11500 religions all claiming to be absolute truth), philosophy, ethics, sociology, politics, ecology? And etc.? As regarding mathematics, I ask you to make a search for mathematics was invented or discovered? and if you arrive to a conclusion, please come back with a handful of absolute truths. Perhaps Kurt Godel can help you a bit. (he is dead but this is not a serious obstacle)- he says very interesting things, Absolute truth seems to be both an oxymoron and a paradox. It is a common misunderstanding, that Godel and Alan Turing have shown no truth exists. The opposite is true. They have shown that not all mathemathical truths can be discovered and proven. They have proven, there is much more truth than we ever can capture. Example: Hilbert has shown that euclidian geometry is without inner contradictions and mathematically true. He tried to expand this onto the whole mathematics and this is not possible, according to Godel and Turing. But this does not mean, no truth exists. It means we cannot prove all truth that exists. About LENR: If we cannot prove it, we cannot use it and vice versa. Coomonly these parts of truth that are impossible to prove are not very important as long as we are physically alive, because we cannot make any real use of this hidden truth and reality that exists. Best, Peter a peterer, probably the peterest Peter on Vortex On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 06.11.2011 09:43, schrieb Peter Gluck: My Dear Friends, Please read my regular issue of INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/11/informavores-sunday-no-480.html It is a pleasure to discover, especially to discover new aspects, surprising features of old ideas and ancient concepts. Some 3 years ago I wrote an essay-editorial about lies: Small Man, why are you lying all the time? The main 'discovery' was that lies are relative, they do not exist if there is no truth. Each and every lie is the opposite of a truth. Now I had a slow revelation (it lasted some 10 months, I am not a fast thinker): there exists a special category of lies, Big Lies. Their opposite is not a truth but also a lie. Due to a memory glitch, I am not able to give you examples but I am convinced you will be able to find at least one. The things are more weird than we can imagine- as more very wise thinkers have stated. Peter In natural science and technology lies are not relative. Nature is always true and cannot be in error and never lies. Humans can be in error and can lie. But there is absolute truth. Lets think about the most true science that exists: Mathematics. Where does this absolute truth come from? Does it come out of human mind? No, it doesnt. If I write a letter then the existence of this letter is absolutely evident, testable and true. This is where absolute truth in mathematics comes from. Mathematics without the absolute true existence of written letters is impossible. Absolute truth exists, it is nature itself. Natural reality is truth, it is the same thing. Therefore lies about natural observable facts are not relative lies. kind regards, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
Let me give an example of a truth that cannot been proven and cannot been disproven: Commonly known is the Goldberg conjecture: Any even number can be represented by the *sum* of two primes. This conjecture is unproven but a counter example was not discovered despite intense search and research. It might be possible to prove or disprove. Now let me make the Peter conjecture: Any even number can be represented by the *difference* of two primes. This is impossible to disprove because you cannot find an unique counter example, you must know all primes to do this. ;-) Peter Am 06.11.2011 13:31, schrieb Peter Heckert: Am 06.11.2011 13:19, schrieb Peter Gluck: OK, as far as you refer to science; can you tell a few absolute truths re Cold Fusion or LENR except they exist? If you have time please continue with lists of absolute truths from technology, management, religion (there are~ 11500 religions all claiming to be absolute truth), philosophy, ethics, sociology, politics, ecology? And etc.? As regarding mathematics, I ask you to make a search for mathematics was invented or discovered? and if you arrive to a conclusion, please come back with a handful of absolute truths. Perhaps Kurt Godel can help you a bit. (he is dead but this is not a serious obstacle)- he says very interesting things, Absolute truth seems to be both an oxymoron and a paradox. It is a common misunderstanding, that Godel and Alan Turing have shown no truth exists. The opposite is true. They have shown that not all mathemathical truths can be discovered and proven. They have proven, there is much more truth than we ever can capture. Example: Hilbert has shown that euclidian geometry is without inner contradictions and mathematically true. He tried to expand this onto the whole mathematics and this is not possible, according to Godel and Turing. But this does not mean, no truth exists. It means we cannot prove all truth that exists. About LENR: If we cannot prove it, we cannot use it and vice versa. Coomonly these parts of truth that are impossible to prove are not very important as long as we are physically alive, because we cannot make any real use of this hidden truth and reality that exists. Best, Peter a peterer, probably the peterest Peter on Vortex On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 06.11.2011 09:43, schrieb Peter Gluck: My Dear Friends, Please read my regular issue of INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/11/informavores-sunday-no-480.html It is a pleasure to discover, especially to discover new aspects, surprising features of old ideas and ancient concepts. Some 3 years ago I wrote an essay-editorial about lies: Small Man, why are you lying all the time? The main 'discovery' was that lies are relative, they do not exist if there is no truth. Each and every lie is the opposite of a truth. Now I had a slow revelation (it lasted some 10 months, I am not a fast thinker): there exists a special category of lies, Big Lies. Their opposite is not a truth but also a lie. Due to a memory glitch, I am not able to give you examples but I am convinced you will be able to find at least one. The things are more weird than we can imagine- as more very wise thinkers have stated. Peter In natural science and technology lies are not relative. Nature is always true and cannot be in error and never lies. Humans can be in error and can lie. But there is absolute truth. Lets think about the most true science that exists: Mathematics. Where does this absolute truth come from? Does it come out of human mind? No, it doesnt. If I write a letter then the existence of this letter is absolutely evident, testable and true. This is where absolute truth in mathematics comes from. Mathematics without the absolute true existence of written letters is impossible. Absolute truth exists, it is nature itself. Natural reality is truth, it is the same thing. Therefore lies about natural observable facts are not relative lies. kind regards, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
In such kind of friendly discussions, it is polite tio answer all questions, not only some selected ones. However perhaps it will be better to speak about usable truths, those that can be put to work to us. If it is about truth re Cold Fusion, I will ask you to take a look to the 2005 Survey made by Steve Krivit and me. And to judge what's the situation today. great scarcity in matter of certainties. Peter On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 06.11.2011 13:19, schrieb Peter Gluck: OK, as far as you refer to science; can you tell a few absolute truths re Cold Fusion or LENR except they exist? If you have time please continue with lists of absolute truths from technology, management, religion (there are~ 11500 religions all claiming to be absolute truth), philosophy, ethics, sociology, politics, ecology? And etc.? As regarding mathematics, I ask you to make a search for mathematics was invented or discovered? and if you arrive to a conclusion, please come back with a handful of absolute truths. Perhaps Kurt Godel can help you a bit. (he is dead but this is not a serious obstacle)- he says very interesting things, Absolute truth seems to be both an oxymoron and a paradox. It is a common misunderstanding, that Godel and Alan Turing have shown no truth exists. The opposite is true. They have shown that not all mathemathical truths can be discovered and proven. They have proven, there is much more truth than we ever can capture. Example: Hilbert has shown that euclidian geometry is without inner contradictions and mathematically true. He tried to expand this onto the whole mathematics and this is not possible, according to Godel and Turing. But this does not mean, no truth exists. It means we cannot prove all truth that exists. About LENR: If we cannot prove it, we cannot use it and vice versa. Coomonly these parts of truth that are impossible to prove are not very important as long as we are physically alive, because we cannot make any real use of this hidden truth and reality that exists. Best, Peter a peterer, probably the peterest Peter on Vortex On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 06.11.2011 09:43, schrieb Peter Gluck: My Dear Friends, Please read my regular issue of INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/11/informavores-sunday-no-480.html It is a pleasure to discover, especially to discover new aspects, surprising features of old ideas and ancient concepts. Some 3 years ago I wrote an essay-editorial about lies: Small Man, why are you lying all the time? The main 'discovery' was that lies are relative, they do not exist if there is no truth. Each and every lie is the opposite of a truth. Now I had a slow revelation (it lasted some 10 months, I am not a fast thinker): there exists a special category of lies, Big Lies. Their opposite is not a truth but also a lie. Due to a memory glitch, I am not able to give you examples but I am convinced you will be able to find at least one. The things are more weird than we can imagine- as more very wise thinkers have stated. Peter In natural science and technology lies are not relative. Nature is always true and cannot be in error and never lies. Humans can be in error and can lie. But there is absolute truth. Lets think about the most true science that exists: Mathematics. Where does this absolute truth come from? Does it come out of human mind? No, it doesnt. If I write a letter then the existence of this letter is absolutely evident, testable and true. This is where absolute truth in mathematics comes from. Mathematics without the absolute true existence of written letters is impossible. Absolute truth exists, it is nature itself. Natural reality is truth, it is the same thing. Therefore lies about natural observable facts are not relative lies. kind regards, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
On 11/06/2011 09:31 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 06.11.2011 13:19, schrieb Peter Gluck: OK, as far as you refer to science; can you tell a few absolute truths re Cold Fusion or LENR except they exist? If you have time please continue with lists of absolute truths from technology, management, religion (there are~ 11500 religions all claiming to be absolute truth), philosophy, ethics, sociology, politics, ecology? And etc.? As regarding mathematics, I ask you to make a search for mathematics was invented or discovered? and if you arrive to a conclusion, please come back with a handful of absolute truths. Perhaps Kurt Godel can help you a bit. (he is dead but this is not a serious obstacle)- he says very interesting things, Absolute truth seems to be both an oxymoron and a paradox. It is a common misunderstanding, that Godel and Alan Turing have shown no truth exists. The opposite is true. They have shown that not all mathemathical truths can be discovered and proven. They have proven, there is much more truth than we ever can capture. That's exactly right. Gödel's theorem can be understood as stating once and for all that the concept of truth is of a higher hierarchy than the concept of comprobability (or falsifiability). This all comes from the beginnings of twentieth century's pretension to equate truth with comprobability. Namely, mostly Hilbert's and Russell's pretension at the time. That pretension is equivalent, in the field of mathematics, to the nineteen century's mechanistic and deterministic pretension in the field of physics, which was overturned by quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle. Example: Hilbert has shown that euclidian geometry is without inner contradictions and mathematically true. He tried to expand this onto the whole mathematics and this is not possible, according to Godel and Turing. But this does not mean, no truth exists. It means we cannot prove all truth that exists. About LENR: If we cannot prove it, we cannot use it and vice versa. Coomonly these parts of truth that are impossible to prove are not very important as long as we are physically alive, because we cannot make any real use of this hidden truth and reality that exists. Best, Peter a peterer, probably the peterest Peter on Vortex On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 06.11.2011 09:43, schrieb Peter Gluck: My Dear Friends, Please read my regular issue of INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/11/informavores-sunday-no-480.html It is a pleasure to discover, especially to discover new aspects, surprising features of old ideas and ancient concepts. Some 3 years ago I wrote an essay-editorial about lies: Small Man, why are you lying all the time? The main 'discovery' was that lies are relative, they do not exist if there is no truth. Each and every lie is the opposite of a truth. Now I had a slow revelation (it lasted some 10 months, I am not a fast thinker): there exists a special category of lies, Big Lies. Their opposite is not a truth but also a lie. Due to a memory glitch, I am not able to give you examples but I am convinced you will be able to find at least one. The things are more weird than we can imagine- as more very wise thinkers have stated. Peter In natural science and technology lies are not relative. Nature is always true and cannot be in error and never lies. Humans can be in error and can lie. But there is absolute truth. Lets think about the most true science that exists: Mathematics. Where does this absolute truth come from? Does it come out of human mind? No, it doesnt. If I write a letter then the existence of this letter is absolutely evident, testable and true. This is where absolute truth in mathematics comes from. Mathematics without the absolute true existence of written letters is impossible. Absolute truth exists, it is nature itself. Natural reality is truth, it is the same thing. Therefore lies about natural observable facts are not relative lies. kind regards, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
Am 06.11.2011 14:25, schrieb Peter Gluck: In such kind of friendly discussions, it is polite tio answer all questions, not only some selected ones. However perhaps it will be better to speak about usable truths, those that can be put to work to us. I would like to do so, unfortunately I cannot answer all questions. If it is about truth re Cold Fusion, I will ask you to take a look to the 2005 Survey made by Steve Krivit and me. And to judge what's the situation today. great scarcity in matter of certainties. For cold fusion, I cannot say anything conclusive. I think it might be possible. The number of Persons and groups that give positive reports is overwhelming but the evidence presented by the individuals is not so overwhelming and each group or person has different claims and theories. For real discoveries it is just the other way. Only single persons or few groups give positive reports, but the evidence presented is overwhelming. Nevertheless all real new discoveries are doubted by most when they are still new. Feynmans QED was laughed at when he presented it for the first time. It was defeated by all his high level scientist collegues. It was finally proven by nature itself. Lets take the alchemist phlogiston theory as an example: It had many supporters, but the evidence was low. It is not the number of witnesses that counts. What counts is only one witness: Nature itself. If this witness misses, then it is not absolutely proven. Lavoisier had this witness on his side and won. On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 06.11.2011 13:19, schrieb Peter Gluck: OK, as far as you refer to science; can you tell a few absolute truths re Cold Fusion or LENR except they exist? If you have time please continue with lists of absolute truths from technology, management, religion (there are~ 11500 religions all claiming to be absolute truth), philosophy, ethics, sociology, politics, ecology? And etc.? Absolute truth is only in nature, not in derived sciences. Nothing made by man is absolutely true. Absolutely true are the existence of x-rays, electricity all physical facts that we use every day. Absolutely true is that we can see stars that are so far away, that we couldnt see them if quantum physics where absolutely true. ;-) As regarding mathematics, I ask you to make a search for mathematics was invented or discovered? and if you arrive to a conclusion, please come back with a handful of absolute truths. Perhaps Kurt Godel can help you a bit. (he is dead but this is not a serious obstacle)- he says very interesting things, Absolute truth seems to be both an oxymoron and a paradox. It is a common misunderstanding, that Godel and Alan Turing have shown no truth exists. The opposite is true. They have shown that not all mathemathical truths can be discovered and proven. They have proven, there is much more truth than we ever can capture. Example: Hilbert has shown that euclidian geometry is without inner contradictions and mathematically true. He tried to expand this onto the whole mathematics and this is not possible, according to Godel and Turing. But this does not mean, no truth exists. It means we cannot prove all truth that exists. About LENR: If we cannot prove it, we cannot use it and vice versa. Coomonly these parts of truth that are impossible to prove are not very important as long as we are physically alive, because we cannot make any real use of this hidden truth and reality that exists. Best, Peter a peterer, probably the peterest Peter on Vortex On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 06.11.2011 09:43, schrieb Peter Gluck: My Dear Friends, Please read my regular issue of INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/11/informavores-sunday-no-480.html It is a pleasure to discover, especially to discover new aspects, surprising features of old ideas and ancient concepts. Some 3 years ago I wrote an essay-editorial about lies: Small Man, why are you lying all the time? The main 'discovery' was that lies are relative, they do not exist if there is no truth. Each and every lie is the opposite of a truth. Now I had a slow revelation (it lasted some 10 months, I am not a fast thinker): there exists a special category of lies, Big Lies. Their opposite is not a truth but also a lie. Due to a memory glitch, I am not able to give you examples but I am convinced you will be able to find at least one. The
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
- Original Message - From: John Harris johnharri...@dodo.com.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:38 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY - Original Message - - Original Message - From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de In natural science and technology lies are not relative. Nature is always true and cannot be in error and never lies. Humans can be in error and can lie. But there is absolute truth. And yet paradoxically nature itself is full of lies Moths that look like bees so they are not attacked Insects that look like twigs Birds that look like a part of the tree they are roosting in caterpillars with eyes on the tail end fish with wide open mouths that appear to be safe haven for smaller prey and many many more. What you mean is biological nature and human perception of it. I think this is a projection. There is no untruth in physical nature, it is our mind that lies. And yet in this instance the human mind does not lie We perceive the stick insect and watch while it lunches off the aphids that do not perceive. We recognize the Mopoke on the branch and watch while it makes dinner of the skink that did not recognise it. We see the reverse caterpillar and watch while the butcher bird gets its eyes full of acetic acid because it attacked the wrong end. The biological world is full of deception John
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
On 11/06/2011 11:41 AM, John Harris wrote: - Original Message - From: John Harrisjohnharri...@dodo.com.au To:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:38 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY - Original Message - - Original Message - From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de In natural science and technology lies are not relative. Nature is always true and cannot be in error and never lies. Humans can be in error and can lie. But there is absolute truth. And yet paradoxically nature itself is full of lies Moths that look like bees so they are not attacked Insects that look like twigs Birds that look like a part of the tree they are roosting in caterpillars with eyes on the tail end fish with wide open mouths that appear to be safe haven for smaller prey and many many more. What you mean is biological nature and human perception of it. I think this is a projection. There is no untruth in physical nature, it is our mind that lies. And yet in this instance the human mind does not lie We perceive the stick insect and watch while it lunches off the aphids that do not perceive. We recognize the Mopoke on the branch and watch while it makes dinner of the skink that did not recognise it. We see the reverse caterpillar and watch while the butcher bird gets its eyes full of acetic acid because it attacked the wrong end. The biological world is full of deception As Peter Heckert said, you're projecting human traits (moreover, stuffing them with emotionality) to nature and nature events. Last night we watched Grizzly Man, a masterly done documentary by Werner Hertzog, about Timothy Treadwell, a guy who lived for a good number of summers with grizzly bears in Alaska. He pretended that the bears were his friends, or at least, that he could establish some kind of peaceful coexistence with them. That worked out for a good number of seasons (thirteen or so), until a bear ate him and his girlfriend, when running out of food at the end of the season. Of course, there is no particular emotionality in bears when eating humans, except the usual ones related to filling their empty stomachs and satisfying their hunger. At the maximum, they can maybe become addicted to the taste of human flesh, but that's all.
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
On 11/06/2011 12:49 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 11/06/2011 11:41 AM, John Harris wrote: - Original Message - From: John Harrisjohnharri...@dodo.com.au To:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:38 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY - Original Message - - Original Message - From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de In natural science and technology lies are not relative. Nature is always true and cannot be in error and never lies. Humans can be in error and can lie. But there is absolute truth. And yet paradoxically nature itself is full of lies Moths that look like bees so they are not attacked Insects that look like twigs Birds that look like a part of the tree they are roosting in caterpillars with eyes on the tail end fish with wide open mouths that appear to be safe haven for smaller prey and many many more. What you mean is biological nature and human perception of it. I think this is a projection. There is no untruth in physical nature, it is our mind that lies. And yet in this instance the human mind does not lie We perceive the stick insect and watch while it lunches off the aphids that do not perceive. We recognize the Mopoke on the branch and watch while it makes dinner of the skink that did not recognise it. We see the reverse caterpillar and watch while the butcher bird gets its eyes full of acetic acid because it attacked the wrong end. The biological world is full of deception As Peter Heckert said, you're projecting human traits (moreover, stuffing them with emotionality) to nature and nature events. Last night we watched Grizzly Man, a masterly done documentary by Werner Hertzog, about Timothy Treadwell, a guy who lived for a good Herzog(damn!). Sorry Werner, the hideous spell checker does not know you.
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
Am 06.11.2011 18:36, schrieb Peter Gluck: The subject absolute truth is too great for me especially during weekends. Indeed. Im still looking for an adaequate expression. What I mean is the absolutest that we can recognize. This is physical reality itself. Without it there are no letters, no written history and even mathematics would be impossible and so this is the most fundamental testable truth that we can (and must) agree about. If we dont agree about the existence of letters then we can close all books and the internet. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
Am 06.11.2011 18:36, schrieb Peter Gluck: What I wrote is connected to a subject more popular here these days. The future is unknown, but perhaps it could be useful to )re) read the play OXYGEN by Djerassi and Hoffman http://www.djerassi.com/oxygen11/oxygen.htm I have translated it in Romanian but the text was lost due to a hard-disk crash. It gives an answer to the question: who has discovered oxygen? Not an absolute answer. There cannot be an absolute answer. There are many answers, some competing, some not. This is a little bit like the question Were is the spring of the river Nil?. In reality rivers have many springs and one mouth end. (There are exceptions) A big problem is, when you discover something new then it has no name. So, how talk about this? Many did research phlogiston at this time, this was the prevalent theorie and might have discovered oxygen and might have described its behaviour correctly, but the term oxygen did not exist and the physics and chemistry of gases was unknown. So there where no possibility to put this discovery into a wider context. The language needed for this did not exist. They would have used the name phlogiston or other names and so their description is not understandable nowadays. So far I know, Lavoisier was the first who made documented quantitative measurements for oxidation and burning. He might not be this person that first discovered oxygen, but he developed these methods needed to prove and measure and predict its existence. Without this we would probably today still discuss about phlogiston theories and could doubt the existence of oxygene. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
Am 06.11.2011 21:07, schrieb Peter Heckert: Am 06.11.2011 18:36, schrieb Peter Gluck: What I wrote is connected to a subject more popular here these days. The future is unknown, but perhaps it could be useful to )re) read the play OXYGEN by Djerassi and Hoffman http://www.djerassi.com/oxygen11/oxygen.htm I have translated it in Romanian but the text was lost due to a hard-disk crash. It gives an answer to the question: who has discovered oxygen? Not an absolute answer. There cannot be an absolute answer. There are many answers, some competing, some not. This is a little bit like the question Were is the spring of the river Nil?. In reality rivers have many springs and one mouth end. (There are exceptions) A big problem is, when you discover something new then it has no name. So, how talk about this? Many did research phlogiston at this time, this was the prevalent theorie and might have discovered oxygen and might have described its behaviour correctly, but the term oxygen did not exist and the physics and chemistry of gases was unknown. So there where no possibility to put this discovery into a wider context. The language needed for this did not exist. They would have used the name phlogiston or other names and so their description is not understandable nowadays. So far I know, Lavoisier was the first who made documented quantitative measurements for oxidation and burning. He might not be this person that first discovered oxygen, but he developed these methods needed to prove and measure and predict its existence. Without this we would probably today still discuss about phlogiston theories and could doubt the existence of oxygene. A little bit clearer is the question who discovered nuclear fission? Otto Hahn made the experiments and Lise Meitner made the theory and discovered it is fission and there is a lot of energy produced. At this time this idea was not accepted and Otto Hahn was searching for transuran elements. He was not able to make the theory. So Lise Meitner discovered fission? Yes and no. Otto Hahn was nominated for the Nobel price two times before he got it. He did not work with Lise Meitner at this time. What he discovered is almost forgotten. He discoverd elements and it was believed this are new elements. They created names for these new elements. At this time the existence of isotopes was unknown, and the term Isotop did not exist. Later it was understood that Otto Hahn did not discover new elements, but isotopes and the substances he discovered where renamed. Anyway without Hahns experimental research Lise Meitner would never have been able to make the theory. So ist is absolutely justified when Otto Hahn got the Nobel Price and is named as discoverer of Fission. But they forgot Lise Meitner. She should have got a price too. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
On 11/06/2011 05:07 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 06.11.2011 18:36, schrieb Peter Gluck: What I wrote is connected to a subject more popular here these days. The future is unknown, but perhaps it could be useful to )re) read the play OXYGEN by Djerassi and Hoffman http://www.djerassi.com/oxygen11/oxygen.htm I have translated it in Romanian but the text was lost due to a hard-disk crash. It gives an answer to the question: who has discovered oxygen? Not an absolute answer. There cannot be an absolute answer. There are many answers, some competing, some not. This is a little bit like the question Were is the spring of the river Nil?. In reality rivers have many springs and one mouth end. (There are exceptions) A big problem is, when you discover something new then it has no name. So, how talk about this? Many did research phlogiston at this time, this was the prevalent theorie and might have discovered oxygen and might have described its behaviour correctly, but the term oxygen did not exist and the physics and chemistry of gases was unknown. So there where no possibility to put this discovery into a wider context. The language needed for this did not exist. They would have used the name phlogiston or other names and so their description is not understandable nowadays. So far I know, Lavoisier was the first who made documented quantitative measurements for oxidation and burning. He might not be this person that first discovered oxygen, but he developed these methods needed to prove and measure and predict its existence. Exactly. He took a quantitative approach, carefully weighting before and after the combustion, and found out that the end products were heavier than the combustible, and that lead in turn to the discovery of oxygen(in modern scientific terms), and to the abandonment of the phlogiston theory. But take notice that it was the quantitative approach, and particularly, weighting, what leads to the modern discovery of oxygen. Moreover: when you consider all the results of a combustion (not only those that have weight) you can easily conclude that there's indeed something that is escaping during the combustion, namely, in the form of light and warmth. Not that I want to sustain or defend the phlogiston theory, (that's far from my intention), but please take notice that a combustion is in fact something involving more than just matter in the ordinary sense. In a sense, the cherished modern notion of a combustion like just the encounter of a combustible and an oxidizer, is just a partial truth(the part that can be weighted), whereas the whole process is composed by much more than that, and certainly involves something similar to the old, discredited, phlogiston. We tend to value the explanations that conform to the notions of our time, like, by example, materialism, and consider them to be true, but in fact they are no more than approximations and, in a certain sense, just conventions or discourses of our time. Reflections of our mental frameworks. Future mankind will find very strange, and even funny, not only the partial and conventional notions of our time, but also the strength and insistence with which we tend to adhere to them, as if they were absolute truths, when they are in fact not more than conventions. Just in the same way, or even more, as we tend to laugh now about past knowledge. Regards, Mauro Without this we would probably today still discuss about phlogiston theories and could doubt the existence of oxygene. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No 468
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sun, 14 Aug 2011 10:37:37 +0300: Hi, [snip] Now he has shown how you can make and not make contracts and agreements in the same time.. ...sounds like quantum contract! :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No 468
exactly and is in the same time a virtue and a vice... high art of mixing opposites.. But the E-at has to work in a simple way, no subtetlies allowed. peter On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sun, 14 Aug 2011 10:37:37 +0300: Hi, [snip] Now he has shown how you can make and not make contracts and agreements in the same time.. ...sounds like quantum contract! :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No 468
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: My dear Friends, A new proof that interesting and important things still happen in the World. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/informavores-sunday-no-468.html And this could be one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110804170034.htm Now all we need is the ability to design a catalyst for a particular reaction. Interesting, thanks! T
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No 468
Thank you! I guess that you are thinking about a certain catalyst that is as real as an unicorn. I hope to be able to publish more on this subject soon.on my Blog. I am grateful for any proof that my work- writing the newsletter is not only for my own pleasure and ambition to be well informed. Peter On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: My dear Friends, A new proof that interesting and important things still happen in the World. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/informavores-sunday-no-468.html And this could be one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110804170034.htm Now all we need is the ability to design a catalyst for a particular reaction. Interesting, thanks! T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No 468
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you! I guess that you are thinking about a certain catalyst that is as real as an unicorn. Yes! Pink and invisible! :-) T attachment: unicorn.jpg
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No 468
But a good Unicornometer will show that this one is at least 10 times more invisible than pink. We need a good specialist in such measurements.Calibration best done with steam. Peter On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you! I guess that you are thinking about a certain catalyst that is as real as an unicorn. Yes! Pink and invisible! :-) T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No 465
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: My dear Friends, My offer to you, this morning: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/07/informavores-sunday-no-465.html There is always something fascinating. This my choice for this week: http://www.breathingearth.net/ Thanks, Peter! T
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No 465
Thank you Terry- I have a long experience in selection, 9+ years in a logical structure similar to this one (blogs and social search e.g. have appeared, selection of links is a fast almost routine process- but very interesting due to discoveries and surprises. The newsletter, due to my absolute contempt to celebrity cult and astrology- is rather unpopular. But I am its first and most contented reader- it organizes my life and keeps me informed and able to convey serious information to my friends/readers. Peter On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: My dear Friends, My offer to you, this morning: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/07/informavores-sunday-no-465.html There is always something fascinating. This my choice for this week: http://www.breathingearth.net/ Thanks, Peter! T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No. 462
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: My dear friends, I have just posted INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No. 462 at Ego Out- http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/07/informavores-sunday-no-462.html An excellent issue- a proof the the World is interesting and active and the Web is a great place but dangerous - hic leones... Ni-H LENR increasingly interesting, first of all due to the good engineers from Defkalion (as Jed Rothwell has said today too) Interesting developments... I found this report particularly interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648 Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM. Source Children's Hospital, Oakland Research Institute Oakland, CA, USA. Abstract BACKGROUND: A reduction in dietary saturated fat has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the association of dietary saturated fat with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) in prospective epidemiologic studies. DESIGN: Twenty-one studies identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and secondary referencing qualified for inclusion in this study. A random-effects model was used to derive composite relative risk estimates for CHD, stroke, and CVD. RESULTS: During 5-23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat. more So, chow down guilt free for the Fourth, Americans. And let's hope for oil independence day for the world. T
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No. 462
Thanks Terry, I was convinced about what this study says- with some timidity Peter On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: My dear friends, I have just posted INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No. 462 at Ego Out- http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/07/informavores-sunday-no-462.html An excellent issue- a proof the the World is interesting and active and the Web is a great place but dangerous - hic leones... Ni-H LENR increasingly interesting, first of all due to the good engineers from Defkalion (as Jed Rothwell has said today too) Interesting developments... I found this report particularly interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648 Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM. Source Children's Hospital, Oakland Research Institute Oakland, CA, USA. Abstract BACKGROUND: A reduction in dietary saturated fat has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the association of dietary saturated fat with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) in prospective epidemiologic studies. DESIGN: Twenty-one studies identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and secondary referencing qualified for inclusion in this study. A random-effects model was used to derive composite relative risk estimates for CHD, stroke, and CVD. RESULTS: During 5-23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat. more So, chow down guilt free for the Fourth, Americans. And let's hope for oil independence day for the world. T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
