On 05/14/2011 01:14 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
A safer nuclear reactor should be meltdown proof, proliferation safe,
passively air cooled, deployed underground with waste (stable in 1000 years)
shipped off site for centralized underground storage.Such a reactor is
possible to build.
Of
On 05/13/2011 11:46 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 13 May 2011 21:55:42 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
I don't believe in them. I have seen this happen more than once in
SOHO videos. A coronal mass ejection corresponds with a comet
collision:
On 04/26/2011 01:02 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 10:50 PM 4/25/2011, Mark Iverson wrote:
FYI:
Here's an article for all you theorists...
Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html
-Mark
No problem ...
About a month ago Mauro said that what had happened was thus far a proof
of
safety.
You're right, but thus far was just after the first explosion, and based
on publicly available information.
I changed my mind just one or two days later, after the explosion in
number 3, and particularly, the
On 05/13/2011 06:45 PM, John Berry wrote:
other forms of energy
Hmmm, funny you don't just say oil.
Or perhaps there is something I don't know and I should take the term Light
Brigade more literally? Was the war over all that Silicon in the sand to
make Solar Cells?
Of course oil can't be
On 05/13/2011 08:20 PM, John Berry wrote:
I just don't believe that, first off we know that there is more than
enough recoverable solar energy to take care of all energy demands many
times over.
And that's just solar, yes there would need to be a big project of
installation and you would need
On 05/10/2011 06:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
If it comes down to it, I think Fair comment on a matter of public
interest is Jones best defence.
I'm not a lawyer, but in general it's very difficult to actually condemn
someone on defamation charges.
Accusing someone of defamation, and
On 05/10/2011 06:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Axil Axil wrote:
I am no expert on this, but doesn’t the first amendment protect Jones
Beene from any possible legal harm?
Not if it is libel. That is not protected speech.
So far I doubt anyone would say it is libel, but I think it
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/04/spacetime-has-no-time-dimension-new-theory-claims-that-time-is-not-the-4th-dimension.html
Spacetime has No Time Dimension -- New Theory Claims that Time is Not
the 4th Dimension
Einstein never interpreted time t as a fourth dimension of space.
On 04/25/2011 01:21 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message
From: Mauro Lacyma...@lacy.com.ar
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, April 24, 2011 4:24:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Clock synchronisation is a red herring
On 04/24/2011 04:58 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
It occured
On 04/25/2011 01:21 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Maybe I missed your reasoning, but do you expect this experiment
will produce non-null result unlike the MM experiment?
Just for clarity:
The quantum version of the experiment should consistently produce non-null
results.
The classical version should
On 04/23/2011 10:12 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:
On 4/24/2011 6:13 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 04/23/2011 06:57 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Perhaps you have overlooked a key point. How do you propose to
synchronize clocks which are spatially separated? That's not a trivial
On 04/24/2011 11:06 AM, Michele Comitini wrote:
Can quantum entanglement be used for syncronizing?
That was what I was thinking. It sounds feasible. A non-local clock can
be devised, based on the properties
of quantum entanglement: A remote entangled particle will
instantaneously inform
I think we nailed it down? Here then goes the quantum reloaded version
of the same experiment.
An experiment devised to detect absolute motion.
The experiment is very simple in theory, although it can be relatively
complex to realize it in practice: To measure the time a ray of light
takes
On 04/24/2011 02:33 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
If experiment does detect a difference in the arrival times won't the relativits
just say it results from spatial contraction?
Maybe, but, who cares. The experiment is not trying to refute relativity
theory, but to detect absolute motion.
If the
On 04/24/2011 03:56 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message
From: Mauro Lacyma...@lacy.com.ar
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, April 24, 2011 1:56:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Detecting absolute motion, quantum reloaded
On 04/24/2011 02:33 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
If
On 04/24/2011 04:58 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
It occured to me that a one way light speed experiment performed under the
assumption that absolute motion is correct does not need to worry whether clock
sychronisation is affected by motion.
The experiment should proceed on the assumption that it
On 04/23/2011 10:04 AM, Angela Kemmler wrote:
sorry, i wanted to start a new thread. BTW, how to start a new one here? I have
two new issues to talk about.
Do not reply to a message, but instead compose a new one, and address it
to vortex-l@eskimo.com.
Regards,
Mauro
On 04/23/2011 10:13 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Angela,
You have already done that automatically by the new Subject heading.
The software picks it up as a new thread, so please continue now, by replying
to this. Alternatively, you can start a new Subject heading. It is automatic.
That's
An experiment devised to detect absolute motion.
Like I said in the past, the experiment is very simple in principle: To
measure the time a ray of light takes to go from one direction to
another, one-way. That is, without the return time.
The total travel time is usually known as
On 04/23/2011 11:14 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
An experiment devised to detect absolute motion.
Like I said in the past, the experiment is very simple in principle: To
measure the time a ray of light takes to go from one direction to
another, one-way. That is, without the return time.
The total
On 04/23/2011 05:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 04/23/2011 10:14 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
That way, absolute motion will be detected in the direction at which
the time delta is greater. The light ray will take longer, travelling
at a fixed velocity, to reach the receiving device
On 04/23/2011 01:53 PM, francis wrote:
On Sat 4/23/11 Mauro wrote
[SNIP]
The proposed explanation is as follows:
1) Light is not pushed by the emitting device. It leaves the emitting
device as a perturbation in the medium, and propagates at a fixed velocity.
That velocity is dependant only on
On 04/23/2011 05:35 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 04/23/2011 05:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 04/23/2011 10:14 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
That way, absolute motion will be detected in the direction at which
the time delta is greater. The light ray will take longer, travelling
On 04/23/2011 05:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
...
In short, according to Lorentz's theory, the aether can't be detected
through velocity measurements. There is an aether frame but there is
no way to tell how fast you're moving relative to it.
Again: I'm not proposing taking any
, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 04/23/2011 05:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
What you may not be aware of is that the final (most mature?) version of
Lorentz's aether theory included physical contraction of objects which
were in motion relative to the aether along the line of motion
On 04/23/2011 06:59 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 04/23/2011 05:17 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 04/23/2011 05:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
...
In short, according to Lorentz's theory, the aether can't be detected
through velocity measurements. There is an aether frame
On 04/22/2011 11:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
* Kudos * is the translation of a Greek word meaning acclaim or praise
for exceptional achievement .
Of course, it applies first and foremost to Andrea Rossi , by way of
Focardi , and then to the surprising Greeks , who were not exactly
well- know
On 04/22/2011 12:38 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
* From: * Mauro Lacy
What th e f uck is wrong with your e-mail writer?
It was made by Microsoft?
Or is the odd spacing encoding instructions for getting Rossi's cat
out of the bag? ;)
… Could be that too. The program is MS Office. It picks up
On 04/22/2011 12:38 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
* From: * Mauro Lacy
What th e f uck is wrong with your e-mail writer?
It was made by Microsoft?
Or is the odd spacing encoding instructions for getting Rossi's cat
out of the bag? ;)
... Could be that too. The program is MS Office. It picks up
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:23:11 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12911806
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
The rendering seems to be exactly wrong. I would think that the regions
with
In the real/physical aspect: when gravity is stronger, the ocean water
tends to form bumps, not lumps, because water will tend to accumulate in
areas of stronger gravity. A greater gravitational field will tend to
produce greater water accumulation, and because water is not compressible,
it
Information related to the internal explosion in unit 2 at Fukushima 1,
by Yoichi Shimatsu:
http://newamericamedia.org/2011/03/tohoku-quake-and-tsunami-monitoring-internal-combustion.php
From the article:
That's the bad news. The even worse news is that the explosive force of
the internal blast
and more of the radioactive steam.
This is quickly going from worse to worst.
On 03/15/2011 06:19 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Information related to the internal explosion in unit 2 at Fukushima
1, by Yoichi Shimatsu:
http://newamericamedia.org/2011/03/tohoku-quake-and-tsunami-monitoring-internal
On 03/13/2011 08:37 AM, John Berry wrote:
Might be fewer people stupidly insisting Nuclear power is safe now...
I disagree. What happened to this point (always based on available news
reports, of course) is a proof of safety, more than anything else.
The fact that the containment vessel resisted
On 03/01/2011 11:17 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
Jones,
I love your brain storming ability par excellance. I have found it
inspiring on numerous occasions.
Yes, me too.
Personally, I don't think gravity has anything to do with cold fusion.
I'm practically sure it has. I'm practically sure too
On 02/19/2011 09:58 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/
Abstract
Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the
protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We
investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet
On 02/20/2011 08:05 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 02/19/2011 09:58 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/
Abstract
Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the
protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We
On 02/11/2011 11:32 AM, David Jonsson wrote:
I had to adjust my calculations again because of failures of the
previous calculations. It is significantly simplified and the torque
effect is now much lower than in previous versions. I can no longer
explain the Venusian winds.
Hi David,
The
On 02/12/2011 09:24 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
The right thing to do would be to do the calculations, assuming an
initial spin in accordance with Venus's distance to the Sun, and
testing for various atmospheric densities, velocity gradients, Venus's
estimated age, etc. etc.
I don't have the time
On 02/12/2011 11:15 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 02/12/2011 09:24 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
The right thing to do would be to do the calculations, assuming an
initial spin in accordance with Venus's distance to the Sun, and
testing for various atmospheric densities, velocity gradients,
Venus's
On 02/12/2011 05:17 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
Various representations for the constellations of the zodiac are
identifiable here:
http://voynichcentral.com/gallery/highlights?page=3
http://voynichcentral.com/gallery/highlights?page=4
Yes, this is known. See the Astronomical section on the
On 02/12/2011 12:45 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mauro Lacy
The language is a mystery. Encryption seems unlikely. A hoax seems very
unlikely to me too. Probably an ancient, lost, secret language?
Now that you mention it - there is one group from that time
On 01/28/2011 08:01 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Could Rossi be from the future?
No, David Lynch.
All very nice(in a sense) except that the gentleman in the picture is
not David Lynch, but Tim Robbins in the poster of a David
On 01/29/2011 12:57 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
All very nice(in a sense) except that the gentleman in the picture is
not David Lynch,
Thanks, Mauro; but, when Jones said Rossi was from the future, I meant
he was from a David
A demolishing criticism
http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2010/11/16/grandiose-crackpottery-proves-pi4/
of Miles Mathis, particularly on his paper about Pi being 4
http://milesmathis.com/pi.html (among many other things, Miles shows
that Pi equals four, with an elegant(and wrong) proof, which
I do not know what to make of this. Here is an eye-witness report of a
press conference, which sounds like what is scheduled for tomorrow.
Perhaps this was a dress rehearsal and they intend to do it again.
According to this link:
It has a link to a writing of yesterday, Celani is there- our friend
Francesco.
The essence is that the demo works.
I have waited almost 22 years to see that. Details later, I am studying
the
documents.
It seems they've made a similar anouncement in March 1995:
On 01/12/2011 08:25 PM, David Jonsson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
On 01/12/2011 07:38 PM, David Jonsson wrote:
I have derived an effect which differs from Newton/Kepler orbits but
with the wrong sign
On 01/13/2011 05:19 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Mauro Lacy's message of Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:23:01 -0300:
Hi,
[snip]
Let's calculate the acceleration produced by 200 million suns. This is
doomed to fail because, as we know, galaxies don't obey Newton's
gravitational law, but
On 01/11/2011 04:43 PM, David Jonsson wrote:
Yes, under effects of centripetal acceleration which is by the way
an erroneous title since it should be centrifugal acceleration.
Don't think so. In Newtonian terms, the acceleration's centripetal,
caused by the centripetal force, which is
On 01/12/2011 07:38 PM, David Jonsson wrote:
I have derived an effect which differs from Newton/Kepler orbits but
with the wrong sign apparently increasing the problem even more.
I would be glad if someone could check the calculations before I take
them further. It would also be nice to
We've have talked in the past about entanglement understood as an
hyperdimensional connection.
According to this paper on Efimov states, Topologist Predicts New Form
of Matter (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26144/)
The deep and unworldly link between particles in Efimov states is
On 01/08/2011 08:09 AM, John Berry wrote:
It is a hacker from China (Beijing?) that hacked my gmail account.
How do you know that?
My password was random characters, but I have used the password before.
Still I wonder, I just before used a usb wifi device I just squired,
it was bough as
On 01/08/2011 09:29 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 01/08/2011 08:09 AM, John Berry wrote:
It is a hacker from China (Beijing?) that hacked my gmail account.
How do you know that?
My password was random characters, but I have used the password before.
Still I wonder, I just before used a usb wifi
On 12/26/2010 08:32 PM, francis wrote:
The fundamental Principle of the Conversion of Zero-point-energy of the
Vacuum
Claus W. Turtur (Fachbereich Elektrotechnik, University of Applied Sciences
Braunschweig-Wolfenbuettel)
Published in physic.philica.com
A well written article on the attempts to reconcile Quantum mechanics
with Special relativity, with a clear explanation of non-locality,
entanglement and Bell's theorem.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity
Some days ago I was able to read the whole
On 12/19/2010 05:01 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 12/19/2010 04:44 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 12/19/2010 01:28 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Here's an open version of the same database:
http://www.hermit.org/Eclipse/when_search.shtml
I've downloaded the raw file, and after searching for total lunar
On 12/20/2010 09:57 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 12/19/2010 05:01 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 12/19/2010 04:44 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 12/19/2010 01:28 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Here's an open version of the same database:
http://www.hermit.org/Eclipse/when_search.shtml
I've downloaded the raw file
Jones, from where did you get those numbers? In this NASA article
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/17dec_solsticeeclipse/
they mention the year 1638, 372 years ago.
The discrepancy can be probably explained considering that's not so
straightforward to estimate the exact
Here's an open version of the same database:
http://www.hermit.org/Eclipse/when_search.shtml
I've downloaded the raw file, and after searching for total lunar
eclipses from Dec 19 to Dec 23, post Oct 15 1582(before that, Julian
dates are used), I've found the following solstice eclipse candidates:
On 12/19/2010 01:28 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Here's an open version of the same database:
http://www.hermit.org/Eclipse/when_search.shtml
I've downloaded the raw file, and after searching for total lunar
eclipses from Dec 19 to Dec 23, post Oct 15 1582(before that, Julian
dates are used), I've
On 12/19/2010 04:44 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 12/19/2010 01:28 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Here's an open version of the same database:
http://www.hermit.org/Eclipse/when_search.shtml
I've downloaded the raw file, and after searching for total lunar
eclipses from Dec 19 to Dec 23, post Oct 15 1582
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Are you saying that gravity behaves in the traditional (Newtonian) way
inside solid bodies? Do you have links or papers to experiments that
support this? As I said, there are reported anomalies inside boreholes.
How do you or others explain them?
Take into
On 11/27/2010 04:53 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Mauro Lacy's message of Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:39:30 -0300:
Hi,
[snip]
Take into account that although gravity can be related to mass and
density, that is, it can have a dependency on mass and density, that
does not mean mass and
...
However, in the end I think that physics will want to keep up the
appearance
of verbal continuity is its description of fundamental particles, even if
they are non-particles.
...
It's not only a matter of verbal continuity. Five hundred years of
materialism will not dissappear with the
On 10/24/2010 10:33 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
...
We'll probably never know for sure what forces are really exerted
inside a solid mass, due to the simple fact that bodies don't move
inside solids. Measurements of acceleration and velocity in the
gaseous giants, or in Venus's atmosphere, can
Hi,
Yesterday I was reading the wikipedia entry for Newton's law of
universal gravitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation,
and under Bodies with spatial extent it says:
If the bodies of question have spatial extent (rather than being
theoretical point masses),
On 10/24/2010 06:28 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
From Mauro:
...
It is interesting to continue reading the explanation,
for the force exerted on points inside the sphere.
Indeed, I bet it does get interesting! In my own computer simulations, this
is where I've
. How to do it is left as an exercise for
the reader at the moment :-)
Mauro
On 10/16/2010 09:28 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 10/14/2010 08:06 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 10/11/2010 01:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
A question for you, Mauro:
I would nevertheless love
12 replies to my question is not bad but the integral is actually about
what
the gravity force is to a spherical mass distribution compared to a
point
mass. The so called center of gravity can not be used as a center of
gravity
since matter closer to a body attracts more than what the remote
.
Regards,
Mauro Lacy
On 10/14/2010 06:18 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson's message of Thu, 14 Oct 2010
10:10:10 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
FYI,
A couple of days ago I sent a message off to Miles Mathis, mentioning
the fact that I just finished reading his
On 10/14/2010 08:06 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 10/11/2010 01:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
A question for you, Mauro:
I would nevertheless love to computer simulate a so-called authentic
elliptical orbit that is more accurately based on Miles' three-part
gravity model
On 10/11/2010 01:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
Hi again,
Today is a state-wide furlough day for most state of Wisconsin
employees, like me. ... How nice to have an extra holiday to explore
some of Mile's concepts. I'll rake the lawn later...
Regarding the
Hi,
It's in fact thanks to you that I discovered Mathis's work, when
researching your precession question. So I thank you, too.
He seems to be a kind of contemporary Newton, yes. I suppose he'll
perdure. Time will tell. I don't like his mechanistic ideas, although I
agree that it's convenient to
On 10/08/2010 03:00 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
BTW, Mauro Lacy suggest googling Miles Mathis, for an entertaining
read on certain formulas used in regards to Celestial Mechanics. I've
waded through Mathis' article on Mercury's Precision. Lots of
interesting stuff
Insofar as what my own Celestial Mechanics research seems to indicate:
No elliptical orbits are stable. None. Strictly speaking, and in
Neutonian terms, using differential equations and feed-back
algorithms, my research indicates that eventually all elliptical orbits
will decay. By decay I mean
On 09/23/2010 05:39 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Mauro,
I agree that numerical/finite-based simulations can never model real
systems like our solar system in the absolute sense. At present I'm
certainly not trying to model such systems, at least not in the
strictest sense. The
I haven't been able to get a clarification to a vexing question
concerning Mercury's perihelion precession-al orbit, specifically the
angular direction such observations manifests as. For example,
hypothetically speaking here, let's pretend we have a space ship and
have stationed it
I haven't been able to get a clarification to a vexing question
concerning Mercury's perihelion precession-al orbit, specifically the
angular direction such observations manifests as. For example,
hypothetically speaking here, let's pretend we have a space ship and
have stationed it
Hi,
I'm in the same situation at the moment regarding the work of
Mathis. I've just found out about his, at least at first sight,
surprising and impressive body of work, when doing research to answer
your question.
Regarding your research: We talked here on vortex-l in the past about so
On 09/22/2010 07:47 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Hi,
I'm in the same situation at the moment regarding the work of
Mathis. I've just found out about his, at least at first sight,
surprising and impressive body of work, when doing research to answer
your question.
Well, it's certainly
On 09/08/2010 06:05 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
entering a new age of enlightenment, a new golden age. It is in that
sense that the concept of apocalipsis must be understood. Apocalypsis
meaning the rising of the veil..
As you can imagine, it's very important to understand the Apocalypsis
The short answer is, that I don't have a clear idea about how these
energies work with and interact with matter. I think that they are
related to velocity, to something equivalent to increased friction. By
the way, that could serve to give meaning and measurable qualities to
the much needed
On 09/08/2010 01:16 AM, Cosmo Manning wrote:
Hi,
I have been lurking and have to ask a burning question!
Mauro Lacy or anyone: in a hypothetical situation... Let's say for
instance that the earth was in near alignment with galactic central
point and then wobbled about it for a few days
It's been my observation that these planetary doomsday scenarios seem to
crop up every generation, every 23 years or so. I'm under the opinion that
some of these sociological events may in part be fueled by batches of
younger observers (initiates) who may not have had the opportunity to have
We don't need to do anything; we only have to
wait, and in a matter of weeks, or even days, all of our serious problems
will be magically swept away by a sequence of galactic waves of higher
frequency, that will automatically bring a new age to Earth.
Or, the other version: the world will be
On 09/04/2010 08:38 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
The X component of the distance ($3 in the graphs), and the Y
component of the velocity ($7 in the second graph), both closely
match the bnl decay rate changes.
After a careful orientation of the solar system inside the galaxy, I
realized that X
Hi,
The results of both papers are addressed, to a certain extent, in
Power Spectrum Analyses of Nuclear Decay Rates
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0924
Mauro
On 09/06/2010 02:31 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Here are two papers which find no evidence of periodic fluctuations in decay
rates. Both
Rothwell wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
More recent data, just reported to the author, indicate that *the
“24-hour” period is actually slightly shorter, and corresponds
quite precisely to a sidereal day!* The latter would suggest, that
*at least one astronomical factor influencing
.
Best regards,
Mauro
On 08/31/2010 09:01 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Sirs,
I've read the preprints of your recent papers related to changes in
decay rates
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0924
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318
In the first paper a number of possible systematic causes are checked
of the
hypothesis. I would also like to match the other datasets against these
velocities, but the other published graphs are not so clear as the bnl
graph is.
Best regards, and please let me know what you think.
Mauro Lacy
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
On 07/24/2010 01:39 PM, David Jonsson wrote:
Thanks, interesting.
I started reading and I wonder what
*EM accelerating force (gravity)*
*frequencies of 7.07Hz, 14.14Hz, 21.21Hz and 28.28Hz*
means in document
be thought of as geometrical distortions of something it calls
spacetime, that is, that they affect not only matter but also light.
-Original Message-
From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jul 26, 2010 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Latest Gravity
to this question.
-Original Message-
From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Jul 24, 2010 3:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Latest Gravity Research with AlienScientist
On 07/24/2010 01:39 PM, David Jonsson wrote:
Thanks, interesting.
I started reading
On 07/24/2010 01:39 PM, David Jonsson wrote:
Thanks, interesting.
I started reading and I wonder what
/EM accelerating force (gravity)/
/frequencies of 7.07Hz, 14.14Hz, 21.21Hz and 28.28Hz/
means in document GravityPrst22.ppt page 16
I don't think I will read more before I have
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100707/full/news.2010.337.html
What is to say: a proton has a given size when measured against an
electron,
and a slighty different one when against a moun.
On 06/22/2010 12:21 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
The same things was reported by Argentina in the 1950's. The article
about this in the book Sun in a Bottle.
The inventor claims turned out to be a fake. He was using gunpowder
to initiate the reaction.
Hi,
As I'm actually living near the
On 06/23/2010 03:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
As I'm actually living near the city of Bariloche, which is on the
shore of the Nahuel Huapi lake in which Huemul island(Richter's
laboratory site) is, and as this can at least in a potential way be
related to cold fusion, I feel
On 06/19/2010 01:40 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
First off, the fine structure constant isn't :-) meaning it is not really
constant, and supposedly has a value that must be determined
experimentally but never has - yet, there are many tantalizing natural
quantum relationship that get you
101 - 200 of 339 matches
Mail list logo
