date:20111106

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




-- 
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 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 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 > 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 > 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

Fw: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY

2011-11-06 Thread John Harris



- Original Message - 
From: "John Harris" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY




- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Heckert" 

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.
John

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 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.
>
> 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 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
>
>
>


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

Re: Fw: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY

Am 06.11.2011 13:56, schrieb John Harris:

- Original Message - From: "John Harris" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY

- Original Message - From: "Peter Heckert" 

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.

Think about the colors you see. There are not 3 colors and teir mixtures 
in nature.  There is an infinite spectrum of colors in nature and we see 
only a part of it.
Those colors that we see are not in nature, they are in our physiology. 
There are much more colors than we see.

We lie to ourselves when we think, that what we know and see and 
understand is absolutely true and this is the only truth.
There is truth but we cannot capture most of it. We are not aware about 
our blind spots.

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


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

Hi,

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

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

Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY


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 Heckertmailto: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 > 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
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-

Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY

2011-11-06 Thread John Harris

- Original Message - 
From: "John Harris" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY

- Original Message - >>> - Original Message - From: "Peter 
Heckert"

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

[Vo]:How do we know Fioravanti is not a fake?

Mary Yugo asked me, how do we know for sure that any of this information
provided by Rossi on Oct. 28 is real? "None of the invited scientists and
press people had any access to any sort of meters or measuring devices" She
has a valid point. As I said here, we do not know for sure. The Oct. 6 test
produced objective, first-principle scientific proof that cannot be faked,
but this test did not. Here is my response to Yugo:

The measurements were not made by Rossi. They were made by a team of five
HVAC engineers led by Domenico Fioravanti. I do not know who Fioravanti is,
but reporters researchers at the test say he is in his 60s and he and the
others are highly experienced professionals. There reporters and
researchers are themselves knowledgeable and could not be fooled by an
amateur pretending to be an engineer.

It is possible that Rossi hired these people and had them use false names
to conduct an elaborate hoax. But I do not think that is likely because:

1. I do not believe in conspiracy theories. This is real life, not a James
Bond movie.

2. It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to set up this equipment,
even if it is fake, and I do not think Rossi has that kind of money.

3. I do not see how it could pay off. The deception is bound to be revealed
soon.

4. There is no doubt that Fioravanti and the others are engineers. I think
it is extremely unlikely that Rossi could persuade such people to go along
with a hoax. The deception will certainly be revealed; they will be found
out; their professional licenses will be revoked, their careers destroyed,
and they will face criminal charges. I do not think the Rossi can afford to
pay five people to destroy their own lives in order to prolong a fraud for
a few extra weeks.

To summarize, we do not know *for sure* that Fioravanti is who he says he
is, but it seems unlikely to me that he is not. That would call for an
elaborate, expensive and utterly pointless hoax. It calls for many
middle-aged people willing to destroy their lives for no reason. Even if
they are not actually HVAC engineers they will face criminal charges for
fraud. Maybe Rossi could get unknown college-age kids to engage in a prank
of this nature, but not professionals who will lose their jobs, spend years
defending themselves in court at ruinous expense, and end up working a
minimum wage job in their retirement years.

There is no chance Fioravanti is an actor who fooled the professors, the AP
guy, Lewan and others. It is conceivable that all of these people together,
Levi, Lewan and the AP guy, are engaged in a gigantic fraud to fool the
outside world, but that is even more improbable.

- Jed

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

And that's it, folks.
Regards,
Mauro



   

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

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

That was specifically mentioned by Jones Beene before. See


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

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's it, folks.
Regards,
Mauro

   


 

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

   

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

 

That was specifically mentioned by Jones Beene before. See
   


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

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

Regards.

Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY

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

- Original Message -
From: "John Harris"
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY

- Original Message ->>>  - Original Message - From: "Peter
Heckert"

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 Harris"
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY

- Original Message ->>>   - Original Message - From: "Peter
Heckert"

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]:Could undetected nuclear isomers explain any LENR?

2011-11-06 Thread pagnucco

Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions, Mauro.
- I will check into Beene's posts on the topic.

One last question I wonder about is whether any certain symmetry in an
isomeric nucleus insures that a decay to ground state will cause emission
of multiple less energetic quanta in order to respect that (perhaps,
radial or spherical) symmetry.

Regards,
Lou Pagnucco


> On 11/06/2011 02:49 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
>> I am not sure which, if any, nickel isotopes admit isomeric states.
>>
>> Perhaps, electrodes, container walls, or contaminants in nickel (or
>> palladium) could be the source of some yet unidentified isomers.
>>
>> I am quite perplexed that isomeric-65Fe went undetected for so long.
>> Perhaps others have also escaped notice?
>>
>> If they exist at all, getting long-lived nuclear isomers to relax to
>> ground state is probably difficult, if not impossible.  But, if it is
>> possible, maybe some LENR experiments have accidentally stumbled upon a
>> way?
>>
>
> I find this hypothesis plausible, for a number of reasons. Maybe we can
> even call it "the white elephant in the room" hypothesis for (so-called)
> cold fusion?
>
> I'm not a nuclear expert, at all, but as mentioned before a number of
> times in the list, mostly by Jones Beene, there's a known mechanism,
> called (Nuclear) Internal Conversion, by which the energy of a nuclear
> isomer can be emitted (mostly) without gammas, in the form of an
> expulsed electron from the inner shell. Interestingly, too, there's a
> coefficient called Internal Conversion Coefficient, *which is
> empirically determined by the ratio of de-excitations that go by the
> emission of electrons to those that go by gamma emission*. (wikipedia
> dixit)
>
> Maybe what Rossi found is a two-fold process, which:
> 1) Induce a given (naturally ocurring, hidden in the mass statistics?)
> Nickel nuclear isomer to decay. Through the use of nano-powders, the
> presence of Hydrogen, pressure, and some heat. Probable, at least.
> 2) Increase the IC coefficient, for the given nuclear isomer, so
> (almost) no gammas are produced. Through the selection of specific
> temperature and pressure ranges, by using electromagnetic fields, by
> using a "secret catalyst", etc. etc.
>
> That would explain why at turn-off, (with the "Rossi mechanism" for IC
> being deactivated) there's a peak of gammas.
> That would explain too why the term "catalyst" is geing used. The energy
> is already there, in the form of naturally ocurring nuclear isomers.
>
> Some questions for the list:
> - How can the explused IC electrons convert to heat? Is this
> straightforward? As I said, I'm not a nuclear (nor physics, or
> chemistry) expert.
> - According to theory, Auger electrons
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auger_electron) should sometimes be
> produced after IC occurs, when the electrons reaccomodate to fill in the
> blanks in the internal shell. Can these electrons be specifically
> detected? by example, through its specific energies? This would perhaps
> provide a signature of the effect for the Rossi device. Can this
> associated secondary phenomenon be the source of heat?
>
> Now, assuming that the hypothesis is true, and proceeding in reverse
> order, we could(I want to clarify that I would NOT do it):
> - search for the geatest Internal Conversion Coefficients for a given
> element.
> - search for ways to increase said empirically determined coefficient.
> - search for ways to induce nuclear isomer decay.
> - search for nuclear isomers of Nickel or other elements.
>
> And that's it, folks.
> Regards,
> Mauro
>
>>
>>
>>> In reply to  pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Sat, 5 Nov 2011
>>> 23:35:00
>>> -0400
>>> (EDT):
>>> Hi,
>>> [snip]
>>>
 Probably, Robin, but the relatively recent discovery of the 65Fe
 isomer
 (which likely has been lurking in the universe for a long time) makes
 me
 wonder if other long-lived isomers have escaped attention, and written
 off
 as statistical errors in mass measurements.

> That was specifically mentioned by Jones Beene before. See
>
>>> I suppose this even probable, but why choose Ni62 specifically?
>>> (Note that Fe65 is on the heavy side of the Fe isotopes).
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>>
>>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Krivit's transcript of Rossi's "Ah Ha" moment, a cheap shot. (Part 1 of 2)

OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:

> For Krivit to have produced a technically accurate word-for-word
> translation of Rossi's broken English, a typical Rossi-reply which was
> filled with Italian inflections, and pauses, and "umms", and "as" and
> "eh"s, was in my opinion deliberately manipulative.
>
It is worse than that. It is a transparent ploy. It is beneath contempt.

I have been involved in teaching and learning second languages, and
translation, since I was 16 years old. I have taught dozens of people
English as a second language, and I have edited over a hundred papers in
English by people who speak English as a second language. I spend 20
minutes a day reading 19th and 20th century literature in Japanese to keep
my edge up, and it is sometimes still a struggle (depending on the book --
I do not recommend "Wagahai wa neko de aru" the best-seller of 1906).

In my opinion, Rossi's spoken English is good. Not excellent. It is
perfectly understandable, and better than many other Italian researchers I
know. The point is, he is an engineer, not a writer, translator or
television personality. His English skills are good enough for his
purposes. He has clearly devoted a lot of effort and time to mastering
English. The U.S. is a mono-lingual society, unlike Europe. Very few
native-born Americans speak a second language as well as Rossi does. I
doubt that Krivit does. I doubt he has any idea how difficult it is, or how
well Rossi is doing it.

In essence Krivit is making fun of a foreign accent. He is saying that a
foreign accent is evidence of deception or low intelligence. Many people
believed that in the 19th century. It is shocking that anyone still thinks
this way in the 21st century. People use to say that about minority group
dialects in the U.S., such as Appalachian ones -- commonly known as
"hillbilly" accents. Needless to say, people also denigrated black
dialects, Irish and others. Up the 1930s some native American children were
forced into schools where English was the only language allowed, and they
were beaten if they spoke their native language. Even today, some Americans
take speech therapy to rid themselves of regional accents. From my point of
view this is like tearing down ancient cathedrals to erect fast-food
joints. It is a crime against linguistic diversity.

I wish our society was beyond that, but there are still throwbacks such as
Krivit, who appeal to our worst instincts and base prejudice.

- Jed

[Vo]:Terrible flooding in Italy

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASiLOIGAjKs&feature=related

Re: [Vo]:Krivit's transcript of Rossi's "Ah Ha" moment, a cheap shot. (Part 1 of 2)

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:
>
>
>> For Krivit to have produced a technically accurate word-for-word
>> translation of Rossi's broken English, a typical Rossi-reply which was
>> filled with Italian inflections, and pauses, and "umms", and "as" and
>> "eh"s, was in my opinion deliberately manipulative.
>>
> It is worse than that. It is a transparent ploy. It is beneath contempt.
>
> I have been involved in teaching and learning second languages, and
> translation, since I was 16 years old. I have taught dozens of people
> English as a second language, and I have edited over a hundred papers in
> English by people who speak English as a second language. I spend 20
> minutes a day reading 19th and 20th century literature in Japanese to keep
> my edge up, and it is sometimes still a struggle (depending on the book --
> I do not recommend "Wagahai wa neko de aru" the best-seller of 1906).
>
> In my opinion, Rossi's spoken English is good. Not excellent. It is
> perfectly understandable, and better than many other Italian researchers I
> know. The point is, he is an engineer, not a writer, translator or
> television personality. His English skills are good enough for his
> purposes. He has clearly devoted a lot of effort and time to mastering
> English. The U.S. is a mono-lingual society, unlike Europe. Very few
> native-born Americans speak a second language as well as Rossi does. I
> doubt that Krivit does. I doubt he has any idea how difficult it is, or how
> well Rossi is doing it.
>
> In essence Krivit is making fun of a foreign accent. He is saying that a
> foreign accent is evidence of deception or low intelligence. Many people
> believed that in the 19th century. It is shocking that anyone still thinks
> this way in the 21st century. People use to say that about minority group
> dialects in the U.S., such as Appalachian ones -- commonly known as
> "hillbilly" accents. Needless to say, people also denigrated black
> dialects, Irish and others. Up the 1930s some native American children were
> forced into schools where English was the only language allowed, and they
> were beaten if they spoke their native language. Even today, some Americans
> take speech therapy to rid themselves of regional accents. From my point of
> view this is like tearing down ancient cathedrals to erect fast-food
> joints. It is a crime against linguistic diversity.
>
> I wish our society was beyond that, but there are still throwbacks such as
> Krivit, who appeal to our worst instincts and base prejudice.
>
> - Jed
>
> I am really far from being a Rossi-fan but this is a kitschy trick,
irrelevant and inefficient, and the natural reaction is contrary to that
expected by the reporter.


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

[Vo]:Elementary, dear Copernicus!

2011-11-06 Thread Harry Veeder

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2058054/Elementary-dear-Copernicus-Three-new-members-join-periodic-table.html?mid=52070

Elementary, dear Copernicus!
Three new members join the Periodic Table

By Anthony Bond

Last updated at 9:08 PM on 5th November 2011

Schoolchildren now have a bigger task on their hands when studying
science after three new elements were added to the Periodic Table.
The General Assembly of the International Union of Pure and Applied
Physics (IUPAP) has approved the names of the new elements - including
one which will honour the astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus.

The elements are numbered 110, 111 and 112 and are called darmstadtium
(Ds), roentgenium (Rg) and copernicium (Cn).

The General Assembly, which consists of 60 members from different
countries, approved the new names at its meeting at the Institute of
Physics (IOP) in London yesterday.

Dr Robert Kirby-Harris, chief executive at IOP and Secretary-General
of IUPAP, said: 'The naming of these elements has been agreed in
consultation with physicists around the world and we’re delighted to
see them now being introduced to the Periodic Table.'
Although they have only just been approved to the table, the elements
were discovered a long time ago.

But names need to be officially given to them by scientific organisations.

Generally, new elements are named after the person who discovered them.

According to Universe Today, Copernicium was created on February 9,
1996, but its original name – ununbium – didn’t get changed until
almost two years ago when German scientists proved its existence.
IUPAP accepted the proposed name and symbol for it on February 19,
2010, the 537th anniversary of Copernicus’ birth.

The Prussian astronomer, who died in 1543, was the first person to
suggest that the Earth revolves around the sun.

The General Assembly includes delegates from national academies and
physical societies around the world.

The five-day meeting, which had been running since last Monday and
finished yesterday, has included presentations from leading UK
physicists,
and the inauguration of IUPAP’s first female president, Professor
Cecilia Jarlskog from the Division of Mathematical Physics at Lund
University in Sweden.

Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Mauro Lacy  wrote:

> On 11/06/2011 12:49 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/2011 11:41 AM, John Harris wrote:
>>
>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "John Harris"
>>> >
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:38 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Fw: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 - Original Message ->>>   - Original Message - From:
 "Peter
 Heckert"



> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
 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.
>
> The subject "absolute truth" is too great for me especially during
weekends.
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.

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

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]:Krivit's transcript of Rossi's "Ah Ha" moment, a cheap shot. (Part 1 of 2)

Peter Gluck  wrote:

> I am really far from being a Rossi-fan but this is a kitschy trick,
> irrelevant and inefficient, and the natural reaction is contrary to that
> expected by the reporter.
>

"The reporter" meaning Krivit? I expect exactly this kind of thing from
him, but calling him a reporter is a stretch. Like saying Fox News is fair
and balanced, to coin a phrase.

This has nothing to do with cold fusion or Krivit's statements about it.
This is about language and speaking with a foreign accent. It irks me! It
hits close to home.

It mortifies me to listen an audio recording of myself speaking Japanese. I
don't sound that way in my inner voice. It pains me to listen to Donald
Keene speak Japanese, because he manages to speak it with a strong Brooklyn
accent. He is one of the most distinguished scholars and translators in
history but Oy veh, that accent!

Keene has been in the news a lot lately because has decided to spend his
last years in Japan, and to become a Japanese citizen. This is in
solidarity with the Japanese people in response to the tsunami disaster. It
seems quixotic to me. The Japanese public is wild about the idea. The
government, not so much. They do not welcome immigrants. They want him
to fill in a blizzard of paperwork, and to prove that his parents were
married and that he really does have a PhD. See:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2011/10/donald_keene_the_scholar_of_japanese_literature_has_little_time_.html

- Jed

[Vo]:Bloomberg = Rossi mention

2011-11-06 Thread Jay Caplan

Just saw a 30 sec video report of Rossi and his recent Ecat test on
Bloomberg TV in the US, but can't seem to find a link on their website.

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

[Vo]:Inverted Rydberg Matter

2011-11-06 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Regarding ultra dense deuterium, George Miley and Leif Holmlid:

 In Rydberg matter:
-  the electrons and protons are inverted in terms of a metal (though
not clear what this means)
- the distance between nuclei in the planar Rydberg matter made from
deuterium is on the order of 150 picometers.  This is the non-inverted
Rydberg matter termed D(1) by Holmlid.
- there is a planar nature to the outer electron orbits

But I can't figure out how they calculate the 2.3 picometer  spacing
distance in the D(-1) inverted Rydberg matter.

Apparently they irradiate the surface with just enough energy to
create deuterium atoms that have a kinetic energy of 630 eV.  Then
they conclude that the deuterium  spacing of the inverted Rydberg
matter D(-1) being irradiated is 2.3 picometers.

They also create either protons or neutrons with kinetic energies of
1.8 MeV which has to be nuclear in origin - though I suppose it's
possible there is some sort of Mills hydrino process that can lead to
some nuclear process.

I have a website that describes Mills's theory.  It can be seen here
www.zhydrogen.com

===

>From Holmlid's website:

My main research interest is Rydberg Matter, which is a state of
matter of the same status as liquid or solid, since it can be formed
by a large number of atoms and small molecules. For a more complete
description, see Wikipedia.

The lowest state of Rydberg Matter in excitation state n = 1 can only
be formed from hydrogen (protium and deuterium) atoms and is
designated H(1) or D(1). This is dense or metallic hydrogen, which we
have studied for a few years. The bond distance is 153 pm, or 2.9
times the Bohr radius. It is a quantum fluid, with a density of
approximately 0.6 kg / dm3. See for example Ref. 167 below!

A much denser state exists for deuterium, named D(-1). We call it
ultra-dense deuterium. This is the inverse of D(1), and the bond
distance is very small, equal to 2.3 pm. Its density is extremely
large, >130 kg / cm3, if it can exist as a dense phase. Due to the
short bond distance, D-D fusion is expected to take place easily in
this material. See Refs. 179 and 183 below and Wikipedia! See also a
press release and listen to a radio interview in Swedish (10.50 min
into the program).

==
here is one paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/244/3/032036/pdf/1742-6596_244_3_032036

also:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=7807228&jid=LPB&volumeId=28&issueId=02&aid=7807226

Holmlid writes:
Further studies of the dense hydrogen materials have shown that an
even denser material exists, called ultra-dense
deuterium or D(-1) (Badiei et al., 2009a, 2009b). The bond distance is
2.3 pm, which is found directly from the experiments,
corresponding to a density of 8 x 10^28 cm^3. The possible use of this
material as a target material in ICF was
recently discussed further (Holmlid et al., 2009; Andersson & Holmlid,
2009). This material is proposed to be an
inverted metal relative to D(1) (thus the -1), where the electrons and
ions have exchanged their roles relative to an ordinary
metal (Ashcroft, 2005; Militzer & Graham, 2006).

=

 Also:

 http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS&PROFESSORS/pdf/MileyClusterRydbLPBsing.pdf

While these clusters were measured in metals at the interface against
covering oxides (Lipson et al 2005), the generation of these
 states within the whole volume of a metal (palladium, lithium
etc.) at crystal defects, Fig. 1, (Miley et al 2007, 2008) is
important. For surface states on metal oxides, the measurement of the
ultra
 high ion densities of 10^29 cm^3 was directly evident from the ion
and neutral emission by laser probing. These surface states were
produced involving catalytic
techniques (Badiei et al 2009). The distance d between the deuterons
was measured to be d = 2.3 ±.1 pm (1)
compared with the theoretical value of 2.5 pm derived from the
properties of inverted Rydberg
matter. The energy release of the deuterons from the surface layer was
measured as 630±30 eV.
The difference between protons and deuterons was directly observed and
the deuteron state
called D(-1) is well indicating the bosonic property against the
fermionic protons.
The material used in the experiments (Badiei et al 2009) as a catalyst
for producing the ultradense
deuterium is a highly porous iron oxide material similar to Fe2O3
doped with K, Ca and
other atoms. Thus, the number of defects or adsorption sites is very
high relative to a metal and
the open pore volume in the material is large, of course varying with
the method used to measure
it. Initially the D(1) phase is formed in the pores, and it is then
inverted to the
ultra-dense deuterium D(-1). When probing the porous surface with the
grazing incidence laser
beam, fragments of the D(1) and D(-1) materials are removed from the
sample surface.
Rydberg Matter is a long-lived

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

[Vo]: October 28 Established ECAT System Facts

2011-11-06 Thread David Roberson



I would like to have access to the known facts associated with the latest test 
of the 1 MW ECAT system.  Is it possible for us as a group to keep a list of 
what we know must be true about the test and other facts that influence the 
measured performance?  I am including a beginning list that should be reviewed 
for accuracy and appended to by vortex members.  Thank you.
1). The ECATs were preloaded with water prior to beginning the test.
a). A reasonable estimate of the water held within the 107 ECATs is 107 units x 
30 liters/unit = 3210 liters.
b). The water within the 107 ECATs is replaced in approximately 3210 liters / 
675.6 liters/hour = 4.75 hours.
2). There is no pump within the output path between the ECAT’s and the large 
water storage tank.
a). This configuration absolutely demands that the output vapor must be greater 
than atmospheric pressure. This is necessary to push the water out of the 
dissipaters.
b). This pressure can be estimated by someone who is skilled in the calculation 
of liquid and vapor flow through pipes and dissipaters.
3). The average input water flow rate for the ECAT’s was 675.6 liters/hour.
a). The output flow rate is 675.6 liters/hour / 3600 seconds/hour * 1000 
grams/liter = 187.667 grams/second.  Using this value and information from NIST 
leads to the following conclusion.
b).  105 C is the average temperature output of the system, and 18 
C average input.
c). If only liquid water is ejected by the ECATs, the minimum system power 
output is 187.667 grams/second * (440.27 joules/gram liquid at 105 C – 75.544 
joules/gram liquid at 18 C) = 68.45 Kilowatts.
d). If vapor is the only output then the maximum system power output is 187.667 
grams/second * (2683.4 joules/gram vapor at 105 C – 75.544 joules/gram liquid 
at 18 C) = 489.4 Kilowatts.
e). The true power output of the system must lie between these two values.
4). The customer had an engineer named Domenico Fioravanti and helpers to 
verify operation of the system. 
Dave

[Vo]:Book: "Rossi's eCat"