http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-publishing
I think Jed has experience with this.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:00 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
1.094 million meters per second is the velocity of sound with the nucleons.
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterb.html#Pg10
I would like to
At 06:00 PM 1/27/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I guess I would have to say that despite its many faults, the
Wikipedia article is better.
[than the Britannica article]. Yes. The Britannica is depending on
old information that was never really accurate, but it's not
surprising that this is what
Robin, have you watched the Youtube video Terry linked to? Here is the
link again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE
It's the 1970 Monty Python sketch, Spam, which is the actual origin
of the use of the word for unsolicited email, due to the high number
of times the word is repeated in
At 06:41 PM 1/27/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
It's really an aspect of the problem of scale. Those who could do
something about it are overwhelmed and must make snap judgments, so
when an issue is complex, really bad decisions are made.
This is true, and it is
On 01/28/2010 11:57 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
PS Strange how Gmail's algorithms consider some messages are spam for
some people and not for others. Personalized spam blocking!
This goes to the heart of the Spam problem. The worst difficulty isn't
the ladies from China who supposedly want
I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that moves with
respect to space yet SR
uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be
perpindicular to C . Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether? My point is
that the ether may be moving at C
eSpam etymology:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/spamterm.html
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2635
On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that
moves with respect to space yet SR
uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be
perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether?
http://i.gizmodo.com/5458497/lets-get-the-ipad-jokes-out-of-our-systems-cause-steve-doesnt-care
John Berry wrote:
The article on cold fusion is (without checking I feel confident in
saying) decent.
I'm sure many well established physicists would agree with it.
Naa. It is indecent.
Seriously, I will grant it is thorough, but it is so filled with
unfounded, torturously argued skeptical
But that's my point, it's decent as an article and for a biased piece of
crap it's a shining example.
My point is only that it would get the tick of approval of say Parksie (I
assume) or any other pathological skeptic.
It's not of poor quality and you agreed that Britanica is worse.
If Nature
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that
moves with respect to space yet SR
uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be
perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma
John Berry wrote:
I think the only issue is that people would assume that Wikipedia may be
free of the influences of corruption, power and academic dishonestly to a
greater extent than the above and oddly it is not, that's the issue not the
quality but the bias and only because Wikipedia
Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm perhaps we
could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his equations work?
That's unlikely to occur, why throw out SR when you can keep chasing a fantasy
for billions of dollars year. It is not in the best financial
Stephen,
Thank you for the explanation, I wasn't aware of anything called Lorentz
ether theory existed but will be investigating it shortly. At least
I am not crazy - someone with chops came to similar conclusion and now I can
just reference LET instead of trying to reinvent the
Perhaps y'all could enlighten me. I never understood the blanket rejection of
'ether' when radiation resistance is an engineering fact.
In the design of RF antennas, there is a radiation resistance of about 328
ohms. Clearly, something out there is 'resisting' the emission of RF. In
Interestingly if you pitched the idea of Wikipedia to anyone before it
existed and assured them there would be enough interest, the main objection
would be that there would be too much freedom and that it would be full of
far too much crazy out there and just plain moronic info.
Instead of
Gibson Elliot wrote:
Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm
perhaps we could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his
equations work?
I know that LR is flawed also. I very much would like to hear your
explanation.
That's unlikely to occur, why throw out
If we want to go all ad hominem (on Papp,) we could throw in Feynman's sleazy
advice on how to pick up sluts in bars, among other stuff. He was a great man
but far from flawless.
Infinite Energy ran a story that claimed that Feynman's account about the Papp
explosion was itself false, as per
Please read this blog from Seeking Alpha:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/185030-jobs-of-the-future?source=article_lb_articles
If you're not frightened and depressed, you should be. We need an energy
miracle to save us and the clock is ticking. It will soon be obvious even to
the
Message to Chris Zell:
Pay very close attention to BlackLightpower.com and ***do your homework***
There comes Power from Water
Mike Carrell
- Original Message -
From: Chris Zell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 9:54 PM
Subject: [Vo]:We Need An Energy
If you want an understanding of the Papp engine, **study** the work of Randell
Mills and the evolution of Balcklight Power. The idea of anengine running off
nolble gases seems absurd, but argon, helium and water vapor can for a
catalutic system which releases *very significant * amounts of
I'm aware of Mills work and have hope for his success. I hope he can expand
beyond utilities towards portability as lithium batteries may be too expensive
for a long time.
23 matches
Mail list logo
