date:20121031

I think Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have the best explanation of
consciousness to date.  It's called Orchestrated Objective Reduction,
or Orch-OR.  The two actually developed the idea separately, Sir
Penrose being a physicist and Hameroff being a physician who
specialized in anesthesia and cancer research.  Roger was seeking a
model of the brain that did not require computation.  Hameroff wanted
to know how anesthesia worked and where the conscious went when under.
 Penrose theorizes that spacetime is granular at the size of the
Planck length and that quantum superposition is linked to the
curvature.  Orchestrated Reduction is the collapse of the
superposition.

Hameroff brought in the neuron microtubles which provide the
structure.  He sees a synchronous oscillation in neural MT can
influence other neurons.  Together they see these electrons as a sea
embedded in the geometry of spacetime.

Needless to say, they have many critics.  :-)

Re: [Vo]:The Quantum Soul?

2012-10-31 Thread ChemE Stewart

If Neurons can sense Neutrinos it makes sense to me we could synch up

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have the best explanation of
 consciousness to date.  It's called Orchestrated Objective Reduction,
 or Orch-OR.  The two actually developed the idea separately, Sir
 Penrose being a physicist and Hameroff being a physician who
 specialized in anesthesia and cancer research.  Roger was seeking a
 model of the brain that did not require computation.  Hameroff wanted
 to know how anesthesia worked and where the conscious went when under.
  Penrose theorizes that spacetime is granular at the size of the
 Planck length and that quantum superposition is linked to the
 curvature.  Orchestrated Reduction is the collapse of the
 superposition.

 Hameroff brought in the neuron microtubles which provide the
 structure.  He sees a synchronous oscillation in neural MT can
 influence other neurons.  Together they see these electrons as a sea
 embedded in the geometry of spacetime.

 Needless to say, they have many critics.  :-)

Re: [Vo]:Scientific American censors discussion of cold fusion, including statements by its own editors

Ouellette closed the discussion section of the article. (At least, she
closed it to me.)

I was going to tell her I summarized our discussion in the news item.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Scientific American censors discussion of cold fusion, including statements by its own editors

2012-10-31 Thread Daniel Rocha

She did close and George end up defending cold fusion!


2012/10/31 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 Ouellette closed the discussion section of the article. (At least, she
 closed it to me.)

 I was going to tell her I summarized our discussion in the news item.

 - Jed





-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

RE: [Vo]:Scientific American censors discussion of cold fusion, including statements by its own editors

2012-10-31 Thread Jones Beene

The county I live in (Marin Co. CA) is not large in population - but does
have 18 branch libraries with magazine sections. I suspect that all of them
subscribe to Sci-Am.

 

I am going to write to the head Librarian to request cancelation of all
subscriptions to Sci-Am except for one or two to archive. I will cc to the
mag. editors.

 

The argument for cancellation is of course not based upon one ignorant
blogger's uneducated comments, nor the lack of a fair appraisal of the
science (we expect that). Instead the argument for cancellation is based on
the magazine's implicit decision at the editorial level to allow selective
censorship of responses..

 

I doubt that this effort will succeed - but I encourage everyone else on
Vortex - who is in a locale that values freedom of speech, and has lots of
libraries with Sci-Am subscriptions g to do likewise.

 

Jones

 

 

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 7:40 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Scientific American censors discussion of cold fusion,
including statements by its own editors

 

LENR-CANR news item:

 

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1373

Re: [Vo]:Scientific American censors discussion of cold fusion, including statements by its own editors

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 I am going to write to the head Librarian to request cancelation of all
 subscriptions to Sci-Am except for one or two to archive. I will cc to the
 mag. editors.


I think that is going too far!

They are not the only ones attacking cold fusion, after all.


By the way, in my news item I added handy hyperlinks to my #2 message, in
case you are wondering who I had in mind at the PPPL.

It is astounding that Ouellette thinks she knows so much more than the
Chairman of the AEC and these others. She is arrogant. Pride goes before
the fall. I would say this column is a gift to us, except that it is very
well written. McKubre pointed that out. He suspects it is a concerted
effort by several leading members of the opposition.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Scientific American censors discussion of cold fusion, including statements by its own editors

2012-10-31 Thread James Bowery

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:


  She is arrogant. Pride goes before the fall. I would say this column is a
 gift to us, except that it is very well written. McKubre pointed that out.
 He suspects it is a concerted effort by several leading members of the
 opposition.


This is why I refer to her as a pawn and wonder what was the point of
this sacrifice.

Is it really just to immunize SciAm's herd of zombies against the heresy*
represented by the film The Believers?

*The heresy of The Believers being, of course, that it didn't, in the
mode of the faithful and pious pseudoskeptic, viciously attack genuine
skeptics.

Re: [Vo]: Nemesis Park

Terry sez:

 Lately Robert Park seems to be more interested in politix than fizzix:

 http://bobpark.org/

I have been unable to reach the website. Tried from two different
locations and at different times. Both failed

DId Park forget to pay the rent???

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Mark Prelas Studies Neutron Production at MU

2012-10-31 Thread pagnucco

From the references Alain posted earlier in the thread, it looks like
conformity trumps everything. It must be in our genes - dissidents are
probably at a Darwinian disadvantage. Violating the pecking order is a
career-ender, for sure.

The case of Stanley Ovshinsky, inventor of amorphous semiconductors is
instructive -

In 1960, he and his beloved second wife, Iris, scraped together some
savings and started a business called Energy Conversion Devices. Mr.
Ovshinsky soon created a stir by asserting that everything science knew
about semiconductors was wrong. The scientific establishment ignored him,
or wrote him off with scathing contempt.
Finally, a renowned physicist at MIT tested his theory. Stunned, the
physicist proclaimed that Mr. Ovshinsky was right.

http://www.toledoblade.com/JackLessenberry/2012/10/26/How-Stan-Ovshinsky-left-the-world-a-better-place.html

- fortunately someone actually tested his theory.

It is really discouraging how many science writers quickly joined the
anti-LENR/CF feeding frenzy by essentially only dutifully parroting the
establishment line. BTW, regurgitating the establishment party-line
seems to be the exclusive modus operandi of political journalists now,
so maybe physics is not so different.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Eric Walker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:27 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

(3) the power of conformity, and fear of ostracism, completely prevents
university experimentation.

I am not an academic, so I can only discuss what I observe from the
outside. But I suspect the pressure on academics is intense not to do
things that will pigeonhole them as eccentrics or mavericks. It is not
difficult to imagine that for all but the brightest the incentives for
avoiding these labels include the possibility of getting tenure at a
second- or first-tier institution. Even in cases of scientists whose
previous work has been acknowledged as groundbreaking, it is all too easy
for them to fall from grace later on -- Brian Josephson and David Bohm
come
to mind. Both now probably generate smirks among other scientists. One
sees from time to time the recurring theme of the formidable scientist who
goes on to lose his grasp of reality. This seems to be something that is
expected of a certain percentage of academics, and therefore a trap for
the
scientist to be especially wary of. Reputation is everything.

If Peter Hagelstein was accurately quoted in saying that the mainstream
scientific community is a close-minded mafia, I can see why he would think
this. None of this is to say that scientists aren't doing some amazing
work; only that the criteria used by many for assessing new developments
seem to be off.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real

2012-10-31 Thread LORENHEYER

Yeah whatever you might want to consider keeping your animals out of 
plain sight should BO visit your neighborhood, because it's a given that his 
appetite isn't limited to just Dog yummy!.  Oh!, don't forget that BO's  
IQ is so HI that it's literally off the charts (actually, it never got 
on) (Case in point) BO used his immense IQ to conjure up Hurricane Sandy, 
for policitcal reasons, just before an election.
If 
you had watched the news, it was plain to see that our beloved BO is 
committed to helping the many people involved in the devastating aftermath of 
Sandy.. As in the  case of the Embassy Terrorist Attack back in September 
in 
Benghazi, of which, had been planned weeks in-advance, by our early 
prehistoric animal people relatives. It was carried-out with such savage 
brutality, 
you undoubtedly were quite excited by the progress being made over there, 
and can't wait to see more!. 

   

 It takes one to know one.
 
  
 
 BTW, my two kitties Zoey  Charm wish the channel the following message:
 Boo!
 
  
 
 Regards,
 
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 
 www.OrionWorks.com
 
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks 
/HTML

Re: [Vo]:The Quantum Soul?

2012-10-31 Thread Giovanni Santostasi

I love Roger Penrose great thinker. Hameroff is too out there. I think
Penrose has dissociated from Hameroff because he went too far.
Orch-OR is not the best theory of consciousness. It has been debunked in
many different ways.
Giovanni


On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:37 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 If Neurons can sense Neutrinos it makes sense to me we could synch up

 Stewart
 darkmattersalot.com


 On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote:

 I think Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have the best explanation of
 consciousness to date.  It's called Orchestrated Objective Reduction,
 or Orch-OR.  The two actually developed the idea separately, Sir
 Penrose being a physicist and Hameroff being a physician who
 specialized in anesthesia and cancer research.  Roger was seeking a
 model of the brain that did not require computation.  Hameroff wanted
 to know how anesthesia worked and where the conscious went when under.
  Penrose theorizes that spacetime is granular at the size of the
 Planck length and that quantum superposition is linked to the
 curvature.  Orchestrated Reduction is the collapse of the
 superposition.

 Hameroff brought in the neuron microtubles which provide the
 structure.  He sees a synchronous oscillation in neural MT can
 influence other neurons.  Together they see these electrons as a sea
 embedded in the geometry of spacetime.

 Needless to say, they have many critics.  :-)

Re: [Vo]:The Quantum Soul?

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 Orch-OR is not the best theory of consciousness.

So, who wins that prize?

Re: [Vo]:The Quantum Soul?

2012-10-31 Thread Harry Veeder

I like Penrose. IMO he is the most philosophically sophosticated
physicist in academia today. I wonder ...did Penrose ever say anthing
about CF?

Harry

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
 I love Roger Penrose great thinker. Hameroff is too out there. I think
 Penrose has dissociated from Hameroff because he went too far.
 Orch-OR is not the best theory of consciousness. It has been debunked in
 many different ways.
 Giovanni


 On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:37 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 If Neurons can sense Neutrinos it makes sense to me we could synch up

 Stewart
 darkmattersalot.com


 On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I think Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have the best explanation of
 consciousness to date.  It's called Orchestrated Objective Reduction,
 or Orch-OR.  The two actually developed the idea separately, Sir
 Penrose being a physicist and Hameroff being a physician who
 specialized in anesthesia and cancer research.  Roger was seeking a
 model of the brain that did not require computation.  Hameroff wanted
 to know how anesthesia worked and where the conscious went when under.
  Penrose theorizes that spacetime is granular at the size of the
 Planck length and that quantum superposition is linked to the
 curvature.  Orchestrated Reduction is the collapse of the
 superposition.

 Hameroff brought in the neuron microtubles which provide the
 structure.  He sees a synchronous oscillation in neural MT can
 influence other neurons.  Together they see these electrons as a sea
 embedded in the geometry of spacetime.

 Needless to say, they have many critics.  :-)

Re: [Vo]: Nemesis Park

Maybe your browser wants to see the www:

http://www.bobpark.org/

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:04 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Terry sez:

 Lately Robert Park seems to be more interested in politix than fizzix:

 http://bobpark.org/

 I have been unable to reach the website. Tried from two different
 locations and at different times. Both failed

 DId Park forget to pay the rent???

 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Mark Prelas Studies Neutron Production at MU

2012-10-31 Thread Alain Sepeda

interesting you quote semiconductors, because LENr and semiconductors look
very similar in behavior, and in quantum nature. Mess in the lattice.
unreliable components at the beginning. ignored results at the beginning,
assumed experimental errors discarded

My school was training us to make a MsC in microelectronics, but i choose
parallel and distributed IT...
this is why I found in 92-93 a big archive on pre-web internet FTP site,
with abstract about cold fusion (don't remember how I fall on that).
I have no prejudice of Cf since I did not heard of it before.
After printing a thousand pages and reading the abstracts, It got clear :
- that there was interesting results
- that the critics have no substance, or have been addressed since long.
- that it was respecting physics, TD laws, and probably standard QM, yet
absolutely no theory was credible (there was very few)

for the rest i'm very conservative about science, about QM, TD laws, abuse
of modeling (guess why), abuse of theoretical arguments, abuse of
consensus, abuse of politics...

This is why I don't understand why CF is rejected, and not many
stupidities, false consensus, false alerts, that pollute the science
landscape and the media...
and French SciAm even a little...

2012/10/31 pagnu...@htdconnect.com

The case of Stanley Ovshinsky, inventor of amorphous semiconductors is
instructive -

http://www.toledoblade.com/JackLessenberry/2012/10/26/How-Stan-Ovshinsky-left-the-world-a-better-place.html

- fortunately someone actually tested his theory.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Eric Walker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:27 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

(3) the power of conformity, and fear of ostracism, completely prevents
university experimentation.

I am not an academic, so I can only discuss what I observe from the
outside. But I suspect the pressure on academics is intense not to do
things that will pigeonhole them as eccentrics or mavericks. It is not
difficult to imagine that for all but the brightest the incentives for
avoiding these labels include the possibility of getting tenure at a
second- or first-tier institution. Even in cases of scientists whose
previous work has been acknowledged as groundbreaking, it is all too easy
for them to fall from grace later on -- Brian Josephson and David Bohm
come
to mind. Both now probably generate smirks among other scientists. One
sees from time to time the recurring theme of the formidable scientist
who
goes on to lose his grasp of reality. This seems to be something that is
expected of a certain percentage of academics, and therefore a trap for
the
scientist to be especially wary of. Reputation is everything.

If Peter Hagelstein was accurately quoted in saying that the mainstream
scientific community is a close-minded mafia, I can see why he would
think
this. None of this is to say that scientists aren't doing some amazing
work; only that the criteria used by many for assessing new developments
seem to be off.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:The Quantum Soul?

2012-10-31 Thread Jones Beene

-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder [

 I like Penrose. IMO he is the most philosophically sophosticated
physicist in academia today. I wonder ...did Penrose ever say anthing
about CF?

I don't know if he specifically addresses LENR in the modern context, but
even he was negative on CF in the early days - Penrose now strongly believes
that a wave function is much more than a probability distribution AND that
it can collapse. This is easily a good description of the predecessor state
of Ni-H energy gain.

The Road to Reality is a recent book with his interpretation of wave
function collapse, which supports the electron density interpretation of an
atomic orbital. When an incident photon of enough energy hits an electron
orbital it can cause a wave function collapse all the way to point size and
if that sounds a bit like the inverted Rydberg or Deep Dirac Layer - it is
no coincidence.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Reality-Roger-Penrose/dp/0099440687/ref=sr_1_
1?ie=UTF8qid=1351709058sr=8-1keywords=%22The+Road+to+Reality%22

Jones

Re: [Vo]: Nemesis Park

Terry sez:

 Maybe your browser wants to see the www:

 http://www.bobpark.org/

Yup! That was the problem.

I find Park's rants on political machinations much more appealing. I
suspect he should know.

Incidentally, I noticed that when Carl Sagan became acutely aware of
his own approaching mortality, it seemed to me that his willingness to
speculate on topics previously considered taboo became much more
relaxed. When one is no longer concerned about appeasing the
establishment, or securing grant money and what-not...what can they do
to me... kill me?

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]: Nemesis Park

2012-10-31 Thread ChemE Stewart

I agree with that statement.

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Terry sez:

  Maybe your browser wants to see the www:
 
  http://www.bobpark.org/

 Yup! That was the problem.

 I find Park's rants on political machinations much more appealing. I
 suspect he should know.

 Incidentally, I noticed that when Carl Sagan became acutely aware of
 his own approaching mortality, it seemed to me that his willingness to
 speculate on topics previously considered taboo became much more
 relaxed. When one is no longer concerned about appeasing the
 establishment, or securing grant money and what-not...what can they do
 to me... kill me?

 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Mark Prelas Studies Neutron Production at MU

2012-10-31 Thread Alan Fletcher



Almost a day, and two entries on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion are still standing.
(Prelas, ICCF-18 hosting and Duncan welcome message).
(Might be a Sandy side-effect, of course. Nope -- the main deleter is
Irish)

[Vo]:Lattice Energy rebuts Ciuchi's analysis of W-L theory

2012-10-31 Thread pagnucco

Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a response to the recent
criticism of W-L theory by Ciuchi, et al, on Arxiv.org.  See -

Response to Sept 2012 Univ of Rome arXiv Preprint-Oct 30 2012

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-response-to-sept-2012-univ-of-rome-arxiv-preprintoct-30-2012-14956399

Re: [Vo]:Mark Prelas Studies Neutron Production at MU

Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 Almost a day, and two entries on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
 are still standing. (Prelas, ICCF-18 hosting and Duncan welcome message).


Adding stuff to Wikipedia is building a house of cards, or a sandcastle
when the tide is coming in. You know it will soon be washed away. What is
the point?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Scientific American censors discussion of cold fusion, including statements by its own editors

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 McKubre pointed that out. He suspects it is a concerted effort by several
 leading members of the opposition.


 This is why I refer to her as a pawn and wonder what was the point of
 this sacrifice.


This will not hurt her. Even if cold fusion triumphs, people will forget
that she played a minor role in opposing it. People such as Garwin and and
Frank Close may be held to account, but not her.

No matter what happens, many of the people who opposed cold fusion will
continue to play a major role in the scientific establishment. There are
not enough supporters to replace them. In his 1940 cabinet, Churchill kept
on many of Chamberlain's appointees. He later explained:

If one were dependent on the people who had been right in the last few
years, what a tiny handful one would have to depend on.

I expect that Garwin, Close and the others will do fine. They will soon
modestly accept credit for bringing cold fusion to the world.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Quantum Soul?

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 Orch-OR is not the best theory of consciousness.

 So, who wins that prize?

Well, while we await Giovanni's response, for those Vorts interested
in the development of the concept, here is a list archive that I
followed for years:

http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/quantum-mind/

Start at the bottom and just peruse the list and you will see famous
and infamous physicists and philosophers who participated in the
discussions.

I found it absolutely fascinating.

Re: [Vo]: Nemesis Park

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Incidentally, I noticed that when Carl Sagan became acutely aware of
 his own approaching mortality, it seemed to me that his willingness to
 speculate on topics previously considered taboo became much more
 relaxed. When one is no longer concerned about appeasing the
 establishment, or securing grant money and what-not...what can they do
 to me... kill me?

Yeah.  You know what they say, There are no atheists in the foxhole.
 Sagan fought  myelodysplasia for years finally succumbing to
pneumonia.  I watched his wasting and his change in attitude.

Like Mulder's poster said, I want to believe.

Re: [Vo]: Nemesis Park

Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:


 Yeah.  You know what they say, There are no atheists in the foxhole.


See:

Military Association of Atheists

Atheists in Foxholes, in Cockpits, and on Ships

http://militaryatheists.org/atheists-in-foxholes/

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Nemesis Park

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Military Association of Atheists

 Atheists in Foxholes, in Cockpits, and on Ships

 http://militaryatheists.org/atheists-in-foxholes/

Thanks, Jed; but, it was not meant to be a literal, quantitative
statement.  It was meant to express a general willingness to be open
toward the end.

Re: [Vo]: Nemesis Park

From Terry:

 Thanks, Jed; but, it was not meant to be a literal, quantitative
 statement.  It was meant to express a general willingness to
 be open toward the end.

I second that.

I have an anecdotal story regarding someone I knew who once
encountered Sagan in a casual setting. A group of cohorts, including
Sagan, were meeting in a hotel bar for a couple of drinks. As the
drinks flowed and tongues got a little looser, Sagan slipped out a
personal incident he once experienced where he wanted to get funding
to study how would society react if we were suddenly confronted with
irrefutable evidence proving beyond a shadow of doubt that
extraterrestrial civilizations existed. Sagan said he could not get
funding for such a project. It's my understanding that Sagan was also
told in no uncertain terms that he should drop the exploration of
further proposals of such a nature... that is, if he wanted to keep
his good standing. The observer of this conversation was left with the
distinct impression that Sagan did not like being told what he could
and could not research. But Sagan knew which side of the bread the
butter was on. And that was that.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]: Nemesis Park

Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:


 Thanks, Jed; but, it was not meant to be a literal, quantitative
 statement.


Hey, I am a literal-minded guy. What can I say?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Nemesis Park

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:


 Thanks, Jed; but, it was not meant to be a literal, quantitative
 statement.


 Hey, I am a literal-minded guy.

And we love you for being who you are!

Re: [Vo]: Nemesis Park