Neutrinos
xkcd.com
Sent with Reeder
--
Dr Joe Karthauser
Hi Joe,
Thanks for the questions… and be gentle!! J Remember, this is a qualitative
model, not quantitative… but at least its built on physical things and forces
and cause and effect. Not esoteric mathematics, and infinities, and
renormalization, etc…
“You're idea is that the electron
Wow, that was fast!
Thanks for finding that reference, but I REALLY need to go to bed!
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: itsat...@gmail.com [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alexander
Hollins
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CERN
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
If nothing else, this shoots down the old canard (often claimed by
those trying to argue that SR is just a big conspiracy) that any
scientist who actually measured a particle going faster than light
would suppress the result to avoid going against the
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
If nothing else, this shoots down the old canard (often claimed by
those trying to argue that SR is just a big conspiracy) that any
scientist who actually measured a particle going faster than light
would suppress the result to avoid going against the
There is no need for for a water separator for the 1 MW E-cat since
the plan is to run the output into a heat exchanger and convert it
all to water. A water separator would merely make the calorimetry
more complex.
Water separators themselves are complex. For example see:
Don't bury Einstein yet:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html
Sher also mentions a third option: that the measurement is correct.
Some theories posit that there are extra, hidden dimensions beyond the
familiar four (three of
You can see the experiment explained right now...
http://webcast.web.cern.ch/webcast/
mic
2011/9/23 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com:
Don't bury Einstein yet:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html
Sher also mentions a third
An electromagnetic shield:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/13/9/093034/fulltext
In summary, we have presented a method to design hybrid
superconductor–metamaterial devices that prevent any magnetic
interaction with its interior while keeping the external magnetic
field unaffected. Two
Don't bury Einstein yet:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html
Sher also mentions a third option: that the measurement is correct.
Some theories posit that there are extra, hidden dimensions beyond the
familiar four (three of
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/09/22/libya.war/index.html
attachment: winmail.dat
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/neutrinos-may-have-traveled-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/2011/09/23/gIQAo04HqK_blog.html
Post science writer Joel Achenbach says that he’s sticking with Einstein, at
least for now, because:
Einstein’s theory... isn’t based primarily on
Indeed, Relativity is extemely ugly theory because it is at the fundamental
level inconsistent with quantum mechanics (e.g. entanglement and it is
classical theory). This means that it is certainly false theory.
And also general relativity is filled with anomaly, because in the scope of
general
At least he calls the finding enigmatic rather than delusional or an
error.
In my opinion, the findings are probably the result of unknown neutrino
properties, or of new neutrino flavors, colors, whatevers. We'll
have to patiently wait to know more, I suppose.
In any case, the findings per se
Vorts,
So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed
it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with
the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm
about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already.
Imagine my
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/22/scitech/main20110236.shtml
Taking the numbers on the article as a basis, and doing some quick
calculations, that's a difference in speed of roughly 7.4 km/s
If I'm not mistaken, that's equivalent to the null result obtained in
the Michelson-Morley
Statistical blunder ?
http://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdf
From the above, the OPERA result becomes 61 ns with a statistical
uncertainty of 24 ns and a
systematic uncertainty of 7 ns. Even if we were to take the
systematic uncertainty to be accurate, this
result is now within two
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/22/scitech/main20110236.shtml
Taking the numbers on the article as a basis, and doing some quick
calculations, that's a difference in speed of roughly 7.4 km/s
If I'm not mistaken, that's equivalent to the null result obtained in
the Michelson-Morley
There is a graph in the paper with the same 24ns statistical deviation and
that it clearly showed a 2 sigma effect. But the point it is that there are
several 2 sigma, without much deviation. So, in the end, there are 6 sigma.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Alan J Fletcher
Vorts,
So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed
it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with
the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm
about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already.
Imagine
I believe that Rydberg blockade is what makes the Rossi reaction go and I
think that heavy Rydberg matter dipole shielding of the nickel nuclei allow
protons to penetrate the nuclear coulomb barrier of nickel atoms.
In Rydberg matter, this dipole shielding goes as the 7th power of the number
of
In fact, the questions aren't nonsense; they just need to be carefully
posed to get sensible answers out of them in a universe where SR applies.
There is a distinguished frame for the universe: The rest frame of
the three degree background radiation. There just is one inertial frame
of
Well, my own mental gymnastics says that at such a velocity, mass
decreases to approach zero, and time slows towards zero as well, no?
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
Vorts,
So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed
it was
Wouldn't the light pulses only return at the same time if you also
were at the center of the sphere?
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
In fact, the questions aren't nonsense; they just need to be carefully posed
to get sensible answers out of them in a
On 23 Sep 2011, at 00:55, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
My understanding of that postulate of relativity was “nothing with mass”
could attain or exceed C. Because, as the speed of the object approaches C,
inertial mass approaches infinity, attaining infinity when v=C, and infinite
mass is
On 23 Sep 2011, at 15:30, Terry Blanton wrote:
Don't bury Einstein yet:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html
Sher also mentions a third option: that the measurement is correct.
Some theories posit that there are extra,
On 11-09-23 03:30 PM, Dr Josef Karthauser wrote:
On 23 Sep 2011, at 00:55, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
My understanding of that postulate of relativity was nothing with
mass could attain or exceed C. Because, as the speed of the object
approaches C, inertial mass approaches infinity,
2011/9/23 Dr Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk:
There's no other evidence for anything other than a 3+1 dimensional universe.
If this observation about neutrinos is true, then we do not have
anymore even 3+1 dimensions, but only three dimensions. FTL falsifies
the concept of space-time,
On Sep 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
Some questions for you and other self-appointed experts here:
This remark seems to have some emotional content.
Darn right it does. I am annoyed.
DO you know of any requirement for anyone here on vortex-l to be
Hi Jed,
On Sep 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
However, experts skilled in the art have said that Galantini's
methods are correct.
Did Galantini know whats inside the tower?
Did these experts know whats inside?
Did the experts get true and complete detail informations? Did they
See:
Levi, G., et al., *Teste experimental de um dispositivo mini-Rossi na
corporacao Leonardo, Bologna 29 de marco de 2011*. 2011, Bologna University.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGtesteexper.pdf
- Jed
In this section:
http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions
. . . I have a list of papers submitted to the DOE panel by Hagelstein et
al. For reasons beyond the scope of the discussion I have brought this list
up-to-date, adding several papers. This is at the bottom of this page.
Horace,
Regarding the input power measurements you may want to re-read the Nyteknik
article at
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
It states: A phenomenon that Kullander and Essén noted was that the curve for
the water temperature at the output showed a
On 11-09-23 02:42 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
Wouldn't the light pulses only return at the same time if you also
were at the center of the sphere?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The compact manifold in that case is the
*/surface/* of the sphere. And in that case, you can't be at the
center of
Ahh, I gotcha. interesting.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
On 11-09-23 02:42 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
Wouldn't the light pulses only return at the same time if you also
were at the center of the sphere?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The compact
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
However, experts skilled in the art have said that Galantini's methods are
correct.
Did Galantini know whats inside the tower?
Did these experts know whats inside?
They say they looked inside it. They saw nothing unexpected or unusual.
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
People who tell it like it is look sophomoric, in my opinion. People who
are dismissive run the risk of being themselves dismissed. It is better to
leave some room to retreat in case it turns out you are wrong.
What is so bad about being wrong.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Dr Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk wrote:
That's looking less and less lightly. There's no other evidence for anything
other than a 3+1 dimensional universe.
One of the main reasons for development of string theories is how weak
the gravitational force is
There was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was much faster than light.
She went out one day
In a relative way
And came back on the previous night.
In reply to Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:33:50
-0700:
Hi,
[snip]
I now want to see the following experiment:
- Hold a single H atom in a fixture so that it is not physically
touching anything else. This can be done in a vacuum chamber and using
electric and/or
In reply to Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:07:14
-0700:
Hi,
[snip]
The higher frequency e- oscillations of the inner e- shells means they are
traversing the nucleus more frequently, thus, creating a stronger coupling
to the proton oscillations in the nucleus, and
In reply to Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:07:14
-0700:
Hi,
[snip]
What are the ends of the dipole? Getting back to the above paragraph of just
whats oscillating
and the aether being under tremendous stress/tension,
perhaps one end of the dipole is a region of higher
In reply to Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:07:14
-0700:
Hi,
[snip]
In a free H atom, in a vacuum chamber, not influenced by outside objects or
fields, but due to subtle interactions with the proton oscillations, the e-
oscillation will randomly rotate about that center
Am 23.09.2011 23:29, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de
wrote:
However, experts skilled in the art have said that
Galantini's methods are correct.
Did Galantini know whats inside the tower?
Did these
Jed sez:
Here is an interesting treatise on being wrong:
http://www.amazon.com/Being-Wrong-Adventures-Margin-Error/dp/0061176044
It seems to be human nature to want to be right about what it is that
we chose to pontificate on. Unfortunately, arriving at certain
opinions seems to be one of
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:12:09 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
In fact, the questions aren't nonsense; they just need to be carefully
posed to get sensible answers out of them in a universe where SR applies.
There is a distinguished frame for the universe: The rest
In reply to Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:13:44
-0700:
Hi,
[snip]
CLOUD has already made several important discoveries. First, the experiment
has shown that the most likely nucleating vapours, sulphuric acid and
ammonia, cannot account for the nucleation that is observed
All relative measurements between different inertial frames share a
Pythagorean relationship with the time axis. The gamma formula relies on the
ratio of V^2/C^2. Relative measure suggests that the vacuum [ether] does move
and at different rates proportional to gravitational fields - It
There once was a plumber from Leigh,
Who was plumbing his maid by the sea...
Oh, wait... that's the wrong limerick.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 3:05 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks
On 09/23/2011 03:12 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
In fact, the questions aren't nonsense; they just need to be carefully
posed to get sensible answers out of them in a universe where SR applies.
There is a distinguished frame for the universe: The rest frame of
the three degree background
2011/9/24 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
When tunneling occurs the wavefunction collapses, because
the center of mass of the particle is suddenly changed. Its momentum and
velocity remain in tact though, and its quantum wavefunction rebuilds with
the new center of mass. The neutrino
I emailed a response to Henk Houkes over 4 hours ago, but I think the
bad subject line prevented acceptance by the server.
On Sep 23, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Henk Houkes wrote:
Horace,
Regarding the input power measurements you may want to re-read the
Nyteknik article
--- On Fri, 9/23/11, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
This measurement conflicts with early arrival time data for
neutrinos from supernova. The New Scientist article quotes
Marc Sher of the College of William and Mary in
Williamsburg, Virginia, It's not reasonable. ... If
53 matches
Mail list logo
