date:20121226

Is the event horizon of a black hole considered an observer relative location?  
We, who are at a very large distance relative to a black hole see the event 
horizon as located a finite distance from the center of the star.  If another 
observer happens to be closer to the same hole, does he detect it as somewhat 
nearer to the center of the hole?


I have an interesting thought experiment that depends upon the answer to this 
question.  My suspicion is that the perceived horizon location does depend upon 
the exact location and most likely motion of the observer.  Has anyone had an 
opportunity to actually calculate this effect?


Dave

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

2012-12-26 Thread Eric Walker

On Dec 25, 2012, at 21:41, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:

 However, there is a difference here. I'm the only Muslim on this list, as far 
 as I know.

Bingo. As members of modern, pluralistic societies, we shouldn't allow hate 
propaganda. We shouldn't allow it in relation to Jews, and we shouldn't allow 
it in relation to Muslims. I personally do not mind the occasional snarky 
comment about religion; but in that instance it is generally about *all* 
religion and does not single out one group.

There is no off-topic problem. This is a manufactured issue meant to serve as 
a pretext for what is essentially parasitic behavior. The one proposing that 
such an issue exists has shown little to no interest in providing a meaningful 
contribution to the on-topic threads. He is no doubt here primarily to get 
attention and to stir the pot; ie, whatever he was here for a year ago, he is 
now here to troll. Once this is recognized, we can deal with the matter  in the 
way that this kind of thing is normally dealt with -- summarily and with little 
comment.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

2012-12-26 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Dave:

That 1000 second sine wave period is ~16.7 minutes…  Is it an artifact of the 
model, or are there any physical properties of the materials used that would 
account for that oscillatory period?  Any insight to its cause?  Does the 
period decrease with time?

-Mark

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 2:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

 

OK Mark, 

 

Yes, the model does depend upon having accurate parameters obtained by 
calibration.  The model will need to be modified if the cell is changed, but 
that is to be expected since it attempts to match the performance of the cell.

 

I just began working on the EU cell and the results are pretty good so far.  My 
first attempt was to use the calibration run on 12/7/2012 to define the 
quadratic values.  They again were accurate to R^2=.9998 or so which is pretty 
good.  With these a, b, c terms I used my model to predict the time domain 
response.  The first run with with the power changing from .036 watts to 28.9 
watts during the calibration run matched with an error of .5 degrees or so.   I 
think the 0 power level gives the program a tough point to work with.  Next I 
went from 28.8 watts to 38.6 watts for the second step of their run.  Here the 
curve was beautiful as with the USA cell.  The noise level was less than .25 
volts with a sinusoidal addition again that dominated the noise.  The period of 
the sine wave was roughly 1000 seconds.  I would estimate that the sine wave 
was about equal to the average noise alone.

 

I am very encouraged by these results.  It will be most interesting when my 
simulation is applied to the systems with expected excess power.  It should 
stand out very well against the calibration data.

 

Dave 



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 4:25 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

Thanks Dave!

So one sigma is ~0.25 degsC, and that’s for several thousand points, so 
confidence level is high… 

No need for any other calcs at this time; just wanted to get an idea of the 
level of uncertainty.

 

Your model and the noise level are tied to the experimental setup and process; 
if any changes are made to the setup, your model may no longer apply… but I’m 
sure you know all that!  Hope the ones doing the tests understand all this…

 

-Mark

 

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com mailto:dlrober...@aol.com? ] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 11:24 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

 

Mark, I just let Excel run a standard deviation for all the points of the data 
series throughout the range of the experiment and obtained .24916 degrees C.  
This includes a time frame that begins at 0 seconds and continues to 9541 
seconds.  Each point is typically 2 to 3 seconds away from it's neighbors.  The 
total number is 5508 data points for the standard deviation calculation. 

 

Do you wish for me to perform additional tests upon the output?

 

Dave

-Original Message-
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

Mark, I can give you a hint as to how well the model matches the actual real 
life data.  I have plotted a curve of the difference between the actual data 
and my model prediction.  The difference looks like random noise that is more 
or less evenly distributed about 0 volts throughout the entire power input to 
temperature output transition.  This includes the case I analyzed beginning at 
48.2 watts and ending with 82.7 watts.  I see no evidence of any curvature 
associated with the error between my simulation and the real data.  There is a 
small, almost sinusoidal, signal hidden deeply within the noise that continues 
throughout the entire time frame which in this case is 9541 seconds long. 

 

The total noise peaks tend to be in the vicinity of .5 degrees C while the 
average of the flat noise is more in line with .2 degrees C.  Perhaps I should 
make a plot of the output and send it for you to review.   It is pretty 
impressive to see consistent noise when the large time domain transition signal 
is balanced out.

 

My mention of the possible excess power is based upon my having to include an 
additional 1 watt of input power for my model to achieve the perfect match.  It 
is quite obvious that the extra power is required for the curve to fit so 
perfectly.

 

The data I used was from 11/30/2012 at 2200 hours according to my download from 
the MFMP replication site.  I used the history points for my curve fitting and 
analysis.  I fitted the transition between the two power levels shown above.  I 
just took a look at the small noisy sinusoidal signal hidden within the noise 
and it appears to be in the ballpark of 2000

[Vo]:MFMP air flow calorimetry may start next week

2012-12-26 Thread Harry Veeder

From the MFMP blog Ryan Hunt reports:

We will be doing an insulated cell inside the Air Flow Calorimter.
Measuring the temperature across the insulation will give us a good
indication of heat flow. The Temp rise of the air flowing past it will
give us another. Both will be calibrated simultaneously. Because of
the insulation, any excess heat produced will cause a much larger rise
in temperature inside the cell, which will make a much better signal
to noise ratio. That experiment may start as early as next week.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age--for the education of Jojo


At 07:34 PM 12/25/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Once again, Lomax diverts the issue and attempts to spin it away.

The issue is not A'isha actual age, it is irrelevant what her actual 
age was.  She could have been 5 years older and what muhammed did 
would still be an abhorrent sex perverted act.


That's fascinating. Presumably he's referring to the commonly stated 
age of 9. So she'd be 14. That's commonly been a legal age of 
marriage in the U.S. It's still legal in many states. What's the 
abhorrent sex perverted act? I went over the hadith, it looks like 
Jojo may be imagining something that is not there. There is nothing 
there remotely perverted, except in Jojo's mind.


The issue is not A'isha mentrual cycle, it is irrelevant that she 
has had a menstrual cycle.  A girl of 9 is clearly an immature child 
not prepared for the rigors of being subjected to sex, being a wife 
and starting a family.


We don't actually know her age. We know some stories about it. What 
we *know*, relatively speaking, is that she was sexually mature. 
That, by the way, is completely sufficient to kill the pedophile 
argument. Actual pedophiles lose interest in the objects of their 
attention when they sexually mature.


The issue is not whether muhammed's tribe considered this as wrong 
or not. People can clearly see that it is wrong.


is. What is wrong. This all happened 1400 years ago. It happened 
under radically different circumstances.



The issue is not that pre-islam tribes do it.  The issue is that 
islam does it.


Does it? First of all, only a few Muslim countries allow early 
marriage. The trend in Muslim countries is pretty much the same as 
everywhere, toward an emphasis on extending childhood, for extended 
education, basically.


  The great prophet should have corrected this practice.  He should 
have disavowed this retrograde practice, not assimilate it and 
embrace it with gusto.


He repeats phrases that he's used before, that have been shown to be 
inapplicable. It's actually a characteristic of trolling.


What someone should have done depends on context. Above, Jojo says 
that it all would have been the same if she'd been 14. Perverted, 
allegedly. Now, some sources say she was 18. Still perverted? He said 
14, but didn't really mean it.


Just compare the behavior of the real true God Jesus Christ compared 
with a sex perverted HOLEY prophet like muhammed.


Uh, if Jesus was God what are you doing comparing him to a man? Hey, 
if you are going to call the Prophet holy, how about spelling it 
correctly? If you are going to call him sex perverted, how about an 
example of a sex perverted act, because the diagnostic standards of 
modern psychiatry -- or older psychiatry -- do not recognise sex 
perversion simply for an attraction by a man to a sexually mature 
woman -- of any age -- as perverted. It's *normal*. That is *not* 
pedophilia if she's sexually mature.


For *other reasons,* we now limit marriage to a higher age, but U.S. 
law still, in many places, readily contemplates marriage at 14. And 
marriage laws do not have any upper limit. Consider the marriage of 
Woody Allen to the adopted daughter of his wife. That certainly 
raised eyebrows, and Islamic law would generally consider that a 
prohibited relationship, that would be my judgment. (I won't go into 
the reasons, but it makes sense, if you think about what's behind the 
prohibited degrees.) But Woody Allen isn't a pervert. He's a 
normal man to be attracted to his wife.


When Jesus came on the scene, the practice of multiple wives to one 
man was still prevalent and Jews practiced it contrary to the 
original intent of God.  But it was a retrograde and abhorrent 
practice and what did Jesus do?  He put a stop to it.  Hence, 
Christians now do not have multiple wives, even when their 
predecessors the Jews had.


Jesus did not establish that law. He didn't bring law, remember? He 
didn't change law, remember? He said precisely that. I come not to 
change the law, but to fulfill it.


Now, were the Jews practicing something abhorrent? Be careful, 
Jojo, for Abraham had two wives, right? And it appears God approved 
of that, didn't he?


This is what the real God Jesus Christ or real progressive prophets 
do.  They correct abhorrent practices.  No, but not muhammed, he 
enjoyed it too much.


Ayesha accused him of that! Feisty one, she was.

Having dozens of wives and concubines and a 9 year old little girl 
BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS.


He now puts it in capital letters, it's pure trolling, because he 
*likes* that I point it out as a lie.


(He could claim that if she was nine, but when was she out of 
diapers. Barely would surely mean that it was close to nine. Like 
8, 7, what? But -- Arabs almost certainly didn't use diapers then, 
and even if they did, she'd have been out of them by two or three 
if the parents were really unfortunate.)


No, this is my point, and Jojo has acknowledged it. He's writing what 
he's writing, not because it

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


At 01:07 AM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Lomax is lying again.  I'm not surprised.  It is OK for him to lie 
as long as his goal are honorable and good for islam and muhammed.


No. It is not OK for me to lie for a supposedly noble goal. I wrote 
about when it's permissible to lie, and it's only permissible to 
prevent serious physical harm. And islam and muhammad can't be harmed.


OK, let me ask anybody here.  Who has actually seen Obama's Birth 
Certificate in actuality?


I'll answer that. What is a birth certificate? I had to supply 
oodles of them to the U.S. government, to the Chinese government, and 
the Ethiopian government. What they actually wanted was something 
that is legally *completely equivalent* to the original birth 
certificate. That is, a copy that is signed and sealed by a state 
employee as being a true copy of the original.


But perhaps Jojo means the original. Okay, it's been seen by the 
clerk who filled it out. The doctor who signed it. The state agency 
that filed it. Any employee of that agency who made a copy of the 
birth certificate had to see it, legally, to verify that the copy was 
a true copy. And the original sat in an archive, being occasionally 
accessed to make copies.


Then Hawaii computerized. Apparenty all the birth certificates in the 
state were computerized. They entered the data into a secure computer 
system. Did they enter all the data? No. They only entered the 
legally relevant data that is needed for what birth certificates are 
needed for. The date and time of birth, the parents, the location of 
birth, and other information, but not such things as the name of the 
delivering physician. Once that was done, providing a birth 
certificate for Hawaii then became a matter of accessing the 
computer record and printing it out, and certifying the copy.


That's what Obama originally provided, *the same as everyone else 
needing to certify a birth in Hawaii.* But the birthers demanded to 
see the vault certificate. It was legally insane. If someone really 
suspected that the ordinary certificate was forgery, the appropriate 
action would be to make a complaint under Hawaiian law (and to 
knowingly provide a false birth certificate for federal purpose could 
also violate federal law).


Hawaii does not routinely provide a copy of the vault certificate, 
and the reason is obvious: they want to limit access to those highly 
valuable original documents. Obama eventually requested a copy. He 
*cannot* request the original. Members of the public cannot view 
these, access is restricted. A court could order inspection, to be 
sure. If there were a criminal investigation, where fraud were 
suspected, the original is there, and that is the very reason it is 
so protected. So it will be there. I would assume tight access control.


The Hawaiian Secretary of State, who has authority over the records, 
decided to allow a certified copy of the vault certificate to be 
made. This is all covered in news reports, by the way. An offical 
signed the copy, and it was provided to Obama.


Obama then held a press conference. He showed the certified copy. He 
also provided ordinary copies to the press. A scan was put up on the 
internet. Had the scan been a full, high-resolution scan, it would 
have been an enormous file, and given the demand for the copy, it 
would have crashed the server.



  Not the scanned and altered copy posted on the Internet.


There copy on the internet is altered. Not in a way that you can 
casually see, though, because the alteration is simply file 
compression, using standard procedures, it's done automatically by 
PDF programs. What they do is to search the document for areas that 
are similar enough to each other that they can be replaced by a 
single image, with the other similar instances becoming *exact* 
copies of that. You see this all the time, most images on the 
internet have been compressed. It's subtle, you have to closely 
examine these similar areas -- which have become *exact* areas -- and 
notice that the fine detail, pixel by pixel, is identical -- which is 
highly unlikely in an original scan of typewritten material. Letters 
are very similar, but not exact on a pixel scale.


So people looked at the internet images and noticed letters that were 
exact copies of other letters. Aha! Caught them! They were really 
excited, and I can understand. They thought that, in order to alter 
the document, someone had copied and pasted letters from one place on 
the document to another, in order to alter the text, replacing the 
original text with something else.


When I first saw the birther excitement about the alterations, I 
thought they might have something. I know about image compression, 
but simply didn't think of it. The claim raised a severe puzzle, but, 
hey, life can be puzzling. But I continued searches, and found 
quickly that this claim had been quite carefully addressed, by 
experts. Artifact of file compression.


Now, I know

Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

Good question Mark,


I put together a quick one pole digital filter with a time constant of 100 
seconds to take a closer look at the waveform.  Reducing the noise made it a 
lot easier to see and now I would revise my earlier estimate of the period.  I 
see a relatively large negative going spike that appears to be repeated one 
good time while my data ends before the next.  The time between these peaks is 
4047 seconds.  An additional positive sharp peak that seems to track the first 
set also is seen.  The actual curve generated by my model is entirely smooth 
and does not demonstrate the spikes so the noise seen is hidden within the data.


It is difficult to describe the shape of the remaining filtered noise except to 
say that it roughly appears like 1/f  or 1/f^2 noise.  My filter has taken out 
most of the high frequency noise.


Would it be helpful if I were to make a jpeg of the data or filtered data and 
send it directly to you or others that are interested?  Many might benefit from 
the charts as well and I have not yet placed this type of information on sites 
within the web for others to link.  That is one area that I need to seriously 
work upon.  For the time being, you or someone else might wish to offer 
assistance.


I suspect that you will be amazed by the complete elimination of the transient 
waveform underlying the data.  I can see no evidence of the transition due to 
approximately 40 watts of extra input power.  The non linear differential 
equation plus one additional time constant must be a perfect model for the 
system.


Thanks for asking about the shape of the low frequency sine like waveform as it 
convinced me to perform additional filtering.  This addition to my model is 
quite helpful for its presentation.  If needed, I can perform additional 
filtering with a much sharper cut off frequency.


For the record, my data is now being filtered by a single pole low pass with a 
cut off of .00159 Hertz(TC=100 seconds).


Dave



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 1:04 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device



Dave:
That 1000 second sine wave period is ~16.7 minutes…  Is it an artifact of the 
model, or are there any physical properties of the materials used that would 
account for that oscillatory period?  Any insight to its cause?  Does the 
period decrease with time?
 
-Mark
 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 2:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

 
OK Mark, 

 

Yes, the model does depend upon having accurate parameters obtained by 
calibration.  The model will need to be modified if the cell is changed, but 
that is to be expected since it attempts to match the performance of the cell.

 

I just began working on the EU cell and the results are pretty good so far.  My 
first attempt was to use the calibration run on 12/7/2012 to define the 
quadratic values.  They again were accurate to R^2=.9998 or so which is pretty 
good.  With these a, b, c terms I used my model to predict the time domain 
response.  The first run with with the power changing from .036 watts to 28.9 
watts during the calibration run matched with an error of .5 degrees or so.   I 
think the 0 power level gives the program a tough point to work with.  Next I 
went from 28.8 watts to 38.6 watts for the second step of their run.  Here the 
curve was beautiful as with the USA cell.  The noise level was less than .25 
volts with a sinusoidal addition again that dominated the noise.  The period of 
the sine wave was roughly 1000 seconds.  I would estimate that the sine wave 
was about equal to the average noise alone.

 

I am very encouraged by these results.  It will be most interesting when my 
simulation is applied to the systems with expected excess power.  It should 
stand out very well against the calibration data.

 

Dave 



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 4:25 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device


Thanks Dave!

So one sigma is ~0.25 degsC, and that’s for several thousand points, so 
confidence level is high… 

No need for any other calcs at this time; just wanted to get an idea of the 
level of uncertainty.

 

Your model and the noise level are tied to the experimental setup and process; 
if any changes are made to the setup, your model may no longer apply… but I’m 
sure you know all that!  Hope the ones doing the tests understand all this…

 

-Mark

 

 


From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 11:24 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device


 

Mark, I just let Excel run a standard deviation for all the points of the data 
series throughout the range of the experiment and obtained .24916 degrees C.

Re: [Vo]:MFMP air flow calorimetry may start next week

I hate to say it, but this news might foul up the excellent model tracking that 
I have constructed.  I hope that my model can be modified in such a way as to 
compliment the new Flow Calorimeter system.  This will give us two independent 
ways to view the performance of the cell and to determine whether or not excess 
power is generated.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 1:07 pm
Subject: [Vo]:MFMP air flow calorimetry may start next week


From the MFMP blog Ryan Hunt reports:

We will be doing an insulated cell inside the Air Flow Calorimter.
Measuring the temperature across the insulation will give us a good
indication of heat flow. The Temp rise of the air flowing past it will
give us another. Both will be calibrated simultaneously. Because of
the insulation, any excess heat produced will cause a much larger rise
in temperature inside the cell, which will make a much better signal
to noise ratio. That experiment may start as early as next week.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:MFMP air flow calorimetry may start next week

2012-12-26 Thread Jed Rothwell

As I mentioned, Ed has some concerns about this air-flow calorimetry. I
believe he communicated with the MFM people.

- Jed

In reply to a.ashfield's message of Tue, 25 Dec 2012 21:47:40 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
The electronics are beyond my range of expertise but possibly someone
here can tell if this makes any sense.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=24ved=0CEQQFjADOBQurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F7679%2Fselfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze%2Fdlattach%2Fattach%2F111526%2Fei=BE7aUJmDCvKN0QGVtoGgDgusg=AFQjCNE6ar3Dv7Z3cKJar9XH6vwPq6oIMAbvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQcad=rja

Quote:

The NMR stimulation of the brass disc generates enough fast-moving radioactive
particles, as described below
(Beta-NMR), and this starts an avalanche of particle multiplication provided
that the cyclotron condition is also
fulfilled

As near as I can tell, the reference to beta-NMR is nonsense. The beta-NMR web
site uses actual radioactive nuclei, which they actually make with an
accelerator as near as I can tell, whereas there are no radioactive nuclei in
naturally occurring metals such as copper, zinc, iron etc. and no indication
that NMR makes them radioactive.
It's all very well to say that radioactive isotopes of copper exist (which they
do), however not in nature, and no indication is given as to how they might be
magically created under stimulation of varying magnetic fields etc. from normal
non-radioactive isotopes.

Furthermore, I found the video of the bank of lights on the island under
whelming to say the least. Have any of you seen how much light is output by a
single 100 W incandescent lamp? I have, and it hurts to look at it.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Electronics Project on promotion this week

2012-12-26 Thread mixent

In reply to  fznidar...@aol.com's message of Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:52:21 -0500
(EST):
Hi Frank,
[snip]
Thanks, however, my device works with that Obama phone.  The Obama phone is 
free and my device you build by yourself.  The problem is that the people with 
the Obama phone want me to build them one and install it for free.




As for my paper at peer review.



Specific comments from a member of the Editorial Board:

The author of this manuscript fails to make clear how his work relates to 
current discussions in the foundations of physics. This is displayed by a lack 
of references to recent literature. Before the manuscript can be taken into 
consideration this issue must be dealt with.

Wrong! Why on Earth does it need to relate to current discussions at all?
Haven't these people ever heard of a new topic of discussion?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Conclusion, there is no such Executive Order. It appears that Jojo
Jaro believes birther myths, long after they have been conclusively
and with evidence debunked. If he fails to apologize, or point to an
actual order doing what he claimed, he is, effectively, a liar.

I've said similar things about Naudin, because he made blatant errors
in his MAHG investigation, stonewalled friendly inquiries, and eft
the page with those major errors (that totally reverse his
conclusions) without corrections, thus continuing to mislead the
public. That's culpable. Until he fixes this, he's a *liar*.

If Naudin were a serious investigator, he'd do it in a flash. He made
a mistake. Embarrassing. So what? All it takes is Oops! and it is
almost entirely over.

And if Jojo were interested in truth, he'd do the same. From long
experience, now, I concluded he isn't interested in truth. He is
interested in *insult* and *winning.*

At 02:24 PM 12/26/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

At 01:07 AM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Funny thing is, the new governor of Hawaii Ambercrombie - a
democrat, strong supporter of Obama, wanted to silence the birther
movement once and for all. So, he sought to dig into Obama's vault
BC. Guess what? Even he can't penetrate the veil of corruption
Obama has put up to block access to his vault records. Why is
there an executive order to block access to Obama's vault BC.

Fascinating. Is there such an Executive Order? That would be quite
odd. Legally, the President has no authority over Hawaiian
officials, unless a federal issue could be shown. and this would not qualify.

Jojo went on to repeat the Executive Order claim that Obama is
preventing access to the vault certificate. Is that true? Is there an
Executive Order to block access.

What can be found on this?

The basis for the claim might be covered here:

http://www.politifact.com/subjects/obama-birth-certificate/

Is Politifact results from checking claims. It's remarkable how many
claims are shown as flaming lies, and how many of the rest are shown
as false. There really are only a few related claims that they show
as true. This is not one of them:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/feb/27/leo-berman/state-rep-leo-berman-says-hawaii-governor-cant-fin/

The claim: State Rep. Leo Berman says Hawaii governor can't find
anything that says Obama was born in Hawaii

They consider the claim by Berman to be false. What they found showed
that Berman apparently misinterpreted statements by Abercrombie. What
had actually happened?

... The Associated Press reported that Abercrombie's office had
ended its effort to make public more information about Obama's
birth. The story does not say that Abercrombie had failed to find
evidence of Obama's birthplace, but that the state's attorney
general had told the governor that he can't disclose birth
documentation without the person's consent. There is nothing more
that Gov. Abercrombie can do within the law to produce a document,
Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said.

We wondered whether Abercrombie sought Obama's permission to obtain
more proof of his birth. The White House wouldn't comment, but
Abercrombie told CNN on Dec. 27 that we haven't had any of those discussions.

Per the authenticity of the document posted online by Obama, our
colleagues at PolitiFact National pointed out July 1, 2009, that
FactCheck.org, a respected fact-checking unit at the University of
Pennsylvania, had traveled to Chicago to examine the document and
concluded that it's legitimate.

Unfortunately, that would be a reference to the short form
certificate. This page was written before the long form was released.

Abercrombie had apparently not requested permission.. My speculation
about why he'd not look at the vault certificate himself, and
announce it, turns out to be confirmed as the reason. It's illegal
without consent!

Were there later developments on this? (Sure: Obama requested the
long form, and then released copies of it, both as direct copies,
given to the media, and on-line, as a readable, but compressed copy,
as would be a necessity.)

Was there an Executive Order? Jojo claims it. That's a specific kind
of document, and is not informal, and obviously is not binding on
anyone not informed of it (and may not be binding, period, but that's
another issue.) I was concerned about Jojo's claim of such an Order,
which is why I'm investigating.

The claim is common. There was an Obama Executive Order that is
commonly asserted to prevent release of his birth certificate. That's
a totally naive and imbalanced understanding of the Order.

http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/other-stuff/ covers
it and links to the Order itself.

However, is there *another* Executive Order? To get the real poop (or
genuine bullshit), I'll need to go to birther sources, perhaps.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=246370

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

2012-12-26 Thread Jeff Berkowitz

I read all the relevant wikipedia pages. My conclusion is that this
question is very difficult and that the process of answering it will
involve rephrasing it in more precise terms. In particular the term event
horizon is a catchall for multiple distinct horizons, each backed by a
subtly different mathematical formalism.

Jeff



On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 9:20 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Is the event horizon of a black hole considered an observer relative
 location?  We, who are at a very large distance relative to a black hole
 see the event horizon as located a finite distance from the center of the
 star.  If another observer happens to be closer to the same hole, does he
 detect it as somewhat nearer to the center of the hole?

  I have an interesting thought experiment that depends upon the answer to
 this question.  My suspicion is that the perceived horizon location does
 depend upon the exact location and most likely motion of the observer.  Has
 anyone had an opportunity to actually calculate this effect?

  Dave

Re: [Vo]:[OT] jojo's knowledge -- was Lomax Question


At 11:40 AM 12/26/2012, de Bivort Lawrence wrote:

[...]
On Dec 24, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:

 Quite honestly, this is the first time I've heard of FGM.  After 
my first google, I found out what it was and was taken aback by the 
practice.  This sort of retrograde practice of course is typical of 
islam.  This is a tribal tradition.  When women are property, you 
can pretty much do anything to them.


I actually learned something from the question having been raised. 
The issue becomes highly contentious because minor circumcision is 
confused with radical circumcision, which truly qualifies as Female 
Genital Mutilation. Minor circumcision is very much equivalent to 
what is done with boys, commonly, in many places (and male 
circumcision is now being promoted in Africa as a way of inhibiting 
the spread of AIDS.)


Muslim authorities differ on what female circumcision means. There 
are opinions issued sometimes that apparently depend on a 
misinterpretation of baZr to mean clitoris. In researching this, 
I found that *authoritative opinion* was, regarding the 14th century 
work that is a Shafi'i authority, not that baZr means clitoris, but 
the prepuce, the hood over the clitoris, similar to what is removed 
from boys in male circumcision. However, just as we see with 
non-Muslims, sometime people seize on misleading evidence, to support 
what they want to support. It's shocking, I'll agree, that some 
Muslim scholars may have issued opinions supporting clitoridectomy. 
But I haven't seen any modern ones, and I'm not sure whom Lane was 
talking about, mid-19th century. He was in Egypt, where female 
circumcision would have been a Big Deal. It's not that way in most of 
the Muslim world.


However, something else is going on. There is a general attack taking 
place on the whole practice of circumcision, not just major 
circumcision. And traditionalist Muslims will naturally resist this, 
they see it as an attack on their religion. It's fairly clear that 
the highest Muslim authorities are solid on the issue: female 
circumcision is not an essential practice of Islam, but it's 
permitted -- and some say recommended -- but what they are talking 
about is *not* major circumcision. It's the minor form, and that's 
supported by traditions from the Prophet.


Nobody with any knowledge, recently, is claiming that removal of the 
clitoris is even allowed, not to mention the even more drastic forms.


What I gained was an understanding of the *political* issue. Sane 
people on all sides are suggesting a compromise, not with women's 
health, but with what is moderate. That is, support *education* on 
what the true sunna practice is, which is *not* clitoridectomy (I 
knew that from many years ago, it's actually obvious), but simply an 
*optional or suggested* removal of the hood of the clitoris, 
analogous to what is done with boys, or sometimes just a ritual cut 
or pinprick in it. And support outlawing and condemning more extreme 
forms of circumcision, which *violate* an explicit tradition from the 
Prophet, and general Islamic principles.


Long term, the arguments that circumcision, per se, is a barbaric 
practice, are aimed not just at female circumcision, but at the male 
form as well.


I wonder. Is shaving a barbaric practice? Ear piercing? Just asking!

One more point, the woman are property thing. That's definitely not 
Islamic law, but it has been maintained, to an extent, by 
male-dominated culture, and not just in the Islamic world. Mosty, the 
world is moving out of that, and it's about time, just as it's about 
time that racism be seen as a myth. Nevertheless, FGM has been 
maintained by *women*, the stories make that clear. *Sometimes men 
support it and think it some kind of religious obligation.* But the 
men would not be able to enforce that idea if not for women 
themselves wanting and acting to maintain the practice.


Education. Necessary.

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


At 11:54 AM 12/26/2012, de Bivort Lawrence wrote:

illimiati?


On Dec 26, 2012, at 1:07 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:

 And Lomax's is really naive to think that only Republicans are 
concerned with this issue.  Over 60% of Americans feel Obama should 
come clean on this issue.  But of course, the illiminati finds it 
convenient to forcibly reintall their puppet president.  And they 
have found willing sheeple in Lomax.  LOL..


I actually missed that. Illuminati. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati

Yes, very consistent.

RE: [Vo]:there is something funny go one out there

2012-12-26 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Interesting read, Abd. Thanks! 

 

As always, you are meticulous in your personal analysis - relentlessly and
obsessively so! I suspect it's one of your endearing traits that terrified
Mr. Krivit so much. I don't think he knows how to handle: meticulous
scrutiny, particularly when the cross-hairs are focused on his own
investigative work. One would think that a self-proclaimed investigative
reporter would to be able to handle being under the lime-light himself, but
there you go. ;-)

 

Some additional comments dispersed between yours:

 

 There are two approaches to this. The first would be to

 inquire as to what awareness is. We assume that we are

 aware. How do we know this? We can program a machine to

 spit out the words I am aware when certain conditions

 arise.

 

 Yet it does *seem* that there is something other than those

 words. Descartes wrote I think, therefore I am, but what

 is this I? A more sober statement would be Thinking,

 therefore existence.

 

A favorite contemporary writer/speaker who discusses such topics, including
Descartes (briefly) is Eckart Tolle.

 

http://www.eckharttolle.com/

 

Eckhart's most popular book is The Power of Now.

 

From Amazon:

http://tinyurl.com/c2x8bnb

 

More on that later.

 

 My own training is that the I is illusory, 

 

I suspect so too.

 

   it's how the

 brain refers to its own activity, but that activity is

 automatic, patterns of neurons firing. There isn't any self

 there, just a sense of identity that is only a pattern of

 patterns. That actually can't be specifically identified or

 found.

 

I suspect it's might not be inaccurate to say the I we personally
experience is the hive-mind of the entire neural network that comprises our
brain activity.

 

 Yet that same training does point to something else. We can

 experience something else, yet that something else is still

 experienced, we might think, through the brain. Or is it? And

 there is no answer to this question, not really. From my

 experience, there is a different quality to this something else,

 it is not personal, it is not individual, even though it's a

 well-spring of inspiration and self-expression.

 

 Again, the training: all these questions are invented, made up,

 by the brain, as part of our survival mechanism. Yet there is

 something other than the world of survival, and, in fact, it can

 be plainly experienced. It's palpable. In this work, it's called

 the Self. Experience of the Self seems to be universally possible,

 indeed it appears to be *instinctive.* The Self has obviously been

 around for a long time, for once one recognizes the Self, there is

 plenty of reference to it, back to the oldest writings we have.

 

Getting back to Descartes, I suspect the speaker, Eckhart Tolle, would say
something to the effect that one does not have to think anything at all in
order to inculcate the ...therefore I am experience. I suspect Eckhart
would simply suggest that we learn to stop thinking thoughts altogether. At
least for brief spells of time at first in order to begin sensing the
totality of nothingness. Later, as one gets the hang of experiencing
nothingness, learn to expand on it. Eckhart would simply say something to
the effect of: Be still, learn to be here in the now, experience the
simplicity of the present moment.

 

Such deceptively simple suggestions can drive certain individuals up the
wall, particularly those who tend to be impatient, or perhaps those who feel
they need complexity cluttering up their lives. It was reported that one
disgruntled reader of Eckhart's books mailed one of them back ripped to tiny
shreds. It was accompanied with a brick too. As for me, I have often found
the contents of his writings useful  helpful. To each his own. 

 

Eckhart claims he had an interesting transformational experienced early in
his life - a transformation which I can appreciate. I suspect I experienced
a similar kind of transformation at around the same age that he experienced
his, which was around 25 years of age. Unfortunately in my case I did not
fully comprehend the implications of what had just happened to me. I had no
one to talk to that could have helped me better inculcate the ramifications
in a more effective and practical manner. It has taken me decades to
understand the utter simplicity of what had happened to me.

 

 The story of Ahmadinejad, here, in the Jojo dialogues, was a

 demonstration of the Self, my suspicion. Ahmadinejad probably didn't

 realize this, his comments don't show an awareness of the human Self,

 he ascribes his experience to the divine. Maybe. But what he

 describes is simply what I might call the Presence. He seems to have

 taken it personally. Or not. I'm not his Judge.

 

In my own experiences... what I have inculcated so far, it would seem that
one does not need to take any of this personally. To take any of it
personally is to lose sight of the fact that a sense of Presence, of

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


At 12:30 PM 12/26/2012, Eric Walker wrote:

On Dec 25, 2012, at 21:41, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:

 However, there is a difference here. I'm the only Muslim on this 
list, as far as I know.


Bingo. As members of modern, pluralistic societies, we shouldn't 
allow hate propaganda. We shouldn't allow it in relation to Jews, 
and we shouldn't allow it in relation to Muslims. I personally do 
not mind the occasional snarky comment about religion; but in that 
instance it is generally about *all* religion and does not single 
out one group.


There was one unfortunate comment that made a reference to 
Christians, an indirect reference to Jojo. It was relatively mild, 
had a similar comment been made about me, I'd certainly not have 
dived in to argue with it. An equivalent might be, talking about some 
irrelevant topic, say some terrorist event involving Muslims, Will 
we hear from our resident fanatic Muslim.


Well, I hope I'm not fanatic, but that's really only a minor 
interpretive error. So what?


But some extended rant about, say, ignorant creationists, would be 
provocative, such discussions, if they are to take place at all, 
should not be allowed to become uncivil.


There is no off-topic problem. This is a manufactured issue meant 
to serve as a pretext for what is essentially parasitic behavior. 
The one proposing that such an issue exists has shown little to no 
interest in providing a meaningful contribution to the on-topic 
threads. He is no doubt here primarily to get attention and to stir 
the pot; ie, whatever he was here for a year ago, he is now here to 
troll. Once this is recognized, we can deal with the matter  in the 
way that this kind of thing is normally dealt with -- summarily and 
with little comment.


Eric


The evidence support's Eric's interpretation, generally. It might be 
enough to issue a specific warning, though, and then only deal with 
it summarily if the warning is ignored. It's up to the list owner, 
how much effort he wants to put into this. I've recommended the warning route.

[Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

2012-12-26 Thread Jed Rothwell

Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am looking into this as part
of an essay about the history of cold fusion I am writing. Anyway, see:

http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf

This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been experimenting with recording
data in DNA. He recorded his own book and then read it back, with only a
few errors. He reproduced it 30 million times, making it the biggest best
seller in history in a sense.

Quote: DNA storage is very dense. At theoretical maximum, DNA can encode
two bits per nucleotide (nt) or 455 exabytes per gram of ssDNA . . .

I'd like to confirm I have the units right here --

Present world data storage is variously estimated between 295 exabytes in
2011 to 2,700 exabytes today (2.7 zettabytes). See:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672 (295 exabytes)

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q (2.7 ZB)

I don't know what source to believe.

This takes a colossal number of hard disks and a great deal of electricity.
On NHK they estimated the number of bytes of data now exceeds the number of
grains of sand on all the beaches of the world. Assume it is 2.7 ZB. That
seems like a large number until you realize that you could record all of
this data in 6 grams of DNA.

That demonstrates how much our technology may improve in the future. We
have a lot of leeway. There is still plenty of room at the bottom as
Feynman put it.

DNA preserves data far better than any human technology. It can also copy
it faster and more accurately by far. I mean by many orders of magnitude.

It might be difficult to make a rapid, on-line electronic interface to DNA
recorded data, similar to today's hard disk. But as a back up medium, or
long-term storage, it seems promising. As Prof. Church demonstrates, this
technology may come about as a spin off from genome-reading
technology. Perhaps there are other 3-dimensional molecular methods of data
storage. Maybe, but I would say why bother looking for them when nature has
already found such a robust system?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


At 01:12 AM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
My friend, just because your morality allows you to troll and lie in 
wikipedia does not mean that I am like you.


I never lied on Wikipedia. I did one action that I allowed as a form 
of trolling. It's more like what a soldier might do in a war, present 
himself as a  target so that a sniper betrays his position. There was 
no lying involved, and the purpose wasn't actually to outrage.


The action itself was completely legitimate. In fact, here it is: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusiondiff=prevoldid=306930963


A talk page edit, not actually controversial, just providing information.

It worked. The admin took the bait, following his ego. And he lost 
his privileges as a result. My purpose was to allow him to do that, 
to take himself out of the Wikipedia adminstrative corps, where he'd 
been doing damage for years. Mostly, Jojo's not realized this, he'd 
been acting to harass and ban global warming skeptics, but he was 
also generally allied with the pseudoskeptics when it comes to 
anything fringe or psychic. He was famous, probably the most famous 
abusive Wikipedia administrator.


There was no purpose to insult him. The edit had nothing to do with 
him, except that he'd declared a total ban, something he did not 
actually have the authority to do. And we were in the middle of a 
case, over whether the ban was legitimate. His action showed a total 
loss of balance, and even his friends were backpedalling, distancing 
themselves from it.


Stop the off-topic posts and I will go away never to post here 
again, but I will read.  I am sacrificing my participation, my 
chance to ask questions if the chronic off-topic violators would 
simply stop their abuses.  JUST DO IT.


Off-topic posts are not going to stop, period. These threads might 
stop. But these threads are maintained by Jojo's continued insistence 
on the points he makes in them.


Clearly you understood Bill's no off-topic rule cause you quoted 
parts of it here and still claim that I am lying about it.  You are 
such a blatant liar. I'm not surprised.


I quoted the rules, and I didn't just quote parts, I quoted the 
entire set, as far as I know. I don't recall having say that Jojo was 
lying about the rules, only that they don't contain what he claimed. 
Since I don't know if he even read the rules recently, I have no idea 
whether he lied or not. He was merely incorrect or misled.


I'm leaving the relevant part of the post to which Jojo was 
responding, so that it can be seen that he is incorrect in his claim 
that I said he was lying about the rules. I don't see any reference 
to lying. When he said I still claimed that he was lying, was he 
lying, or was he so engaged in his anger and attack that he wasn't 
aware of what was in front of him?



Jojo


- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

[...]
If Bill changes the rules, I will follow.  But in the meantime, 
people should follow his rules and not make it up as we go - as 
famously said by one chronic off-topic poster here.


Jojo


So, what are the rules? I don't know if they have been changed, but 
below is what I was sent. There *are* rules that could easily be 
applied to this situation. Some of the rules were obviously written 
long ago, because behind some of the rules are conditions that used 
to apply, that hardly ever apply any more. Off-topic isn't a 
rule, per se. What is there related to that is



3. Small email files please.  The limit is set to 40K right now, those
   exceeding the limit will be forwarded to Bill Beaty.  If you wish to
   start extremely off-topic discussions, please feel free to exchange
   initial messages on vortex-L, but MOVE THE DISCUSSION TO PRIVATE MAIL
   IMMEDIATELY.  Some members are on limited service, or have to pay for
   received email.  Diagrams and graphics can be mailed to me and posted
   on a webpages for temporary viewing.


In other words, starting extremely off-topic discussions is 
specifically allowed, but the instruction is to move these to 
private email immediately. That does not resolve a certain 
problem, where a poster has posted something to the list which is 
broadly offensive. It assumes what is really a private discussion 
that merely starts here.


I'm not discussing with Jojo, not any more. I responding to his 
egregiously offensive claims here that attack all Muslims and what 
they believe, that attack the President of the United States, that 
attack almost the entire community of climate scientists, and that 
personally attack and deliberately insult anyone who dares to 
disagree with him, including many long-term participants on this 
list, such as Jed Rothwell.


He's acknowledged it, even today. This is what he does. He escalates.

I have *not* started

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

That makes it a bit more complicated.  I was referring to the exact radius at 
which light can not escape from a non spinning black hole as observed from far 
away.  If a space ship reaches that radius from our perspective, it would 
totally blink out of existence.   Theoretically, we are located far enough away 
from the black hole that its gravitational influence is approximately zero for 
us.  I realize that the ship will undergo serious stretching as it approaches 
the hole, but this is a thought experiment and not real life.  Does this help 
to narrow down the desired horizon?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


I read all the relevant wikipedia pages. My conclusion is that this question is 
very difficult and that the process of answering it will involve rephrasing it 
in more precise terms. In particular the term event horizon is a catchall for 
multiple distinct horizons, each backed by a subtly different mathematical 
formalism.


Jeff






On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 9:20 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Is the event horizon of a black hole considered an observer relative location?  
We, who are at a very large distance relative to a black hole see the event 
horizon as located a finite distance from the center of the star.  If another 
observer happens to be closer to the same hole, does he detect it as somewhat 
nearer to the center of the hole?


I have an interesting thought experiment that depends upon the answer to this 
question.  My suspicion is that the perceived horizon location does depend upon 
the exact location and most likely motion of the observer.  Has anyone had an 
opportunity to actually calculate this effect?


Dave

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

2012-12-26 Thread Craig

Isn't it a calculated location? Isn't it the radius from the center of
the black hole at which a theoretical object at a great distance would
reach the speed of light when falling into the black hole from its gravity?

Craig

On 12/26/2012 04:57 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
 I read all the relevant wikipedia pages. My conclusion is that this
 question is very difficult and that the process of answering it will
 involve rephrasing it in more precise terms. In particular the term
 event horizon is a catchall for multiple distinct horizons, each
 backed by a subtly different mathematical formalism.

 Jeff



 On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 9:20 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 mailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Is the event horizon of a black hole considered an observer
 relative location?  We, who are at a very large distance relative
 to a black hole see the event horizon as located a finite distance
 from the center of the star.  If another observer happens to be
 closer to the same hole, does he detect it as somewhat nearer to
 the center of the hole?

 I have an interesting thought experiment that depends upon the
 answer to this question.  My suspicion is that the perceived
 horizon location does depend upon the exact location and most
 likely motion of the observer.  Has anyone had an opportunity to
 actually calculate this effect?

 Dave

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

I think that might be the way it could be calculated.  I am looking at it from 
the other side where any photon of light sent out by our probe space ship at 
that location would exactly run out of energy as it reaches us.  I suppose you 
could say the red shift would be infinite for electromagnetic radiation 
departing that boundary.  And I guess any photon we emit from our vantage point 
would become infinitely high in frequency as it approached that location.  This 
sounds like a singularity since we know that it is not possible for a photon to 
obtain an infinite amount of energy in a finite amount of time.  The suggestion 
is that time must be slowed down from our perspective of the ship as it 
approaches that boundary.


I am hoping to establish that there exists a boundary from which an object 
becomes invisible to us once it is crossed.  


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 5:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


  
Isn't it a calculated location? Isn't  it the radius from the center of the 
black hole at which a  theoretical object at a great distance would reach 
the speed of  light when falling into the black hole from its gravity?
  
  Craig
  
  On 12/26/2012 04:57 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:


  
I read all the relevant wikipedia pages. Myconclusion is that this 
question is very difficult and that theprocess of answering it will 
involve rephrasing it in moreprecise terms. In particular the term 
event horizon is acatchall for multiple distinct horizons, each 
backed by asubtly different mathematical formalism.
  


Jeff



  
  



On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 9:20 AM, David  Roberson dlrober...@aol.com   
   wrote:
  
Is the event horizon of a black  hole considered an observer 
relative location?  We, who  are at a very large distance relative 
to a black hole see  the event horizon as located a finite distance 
from the  center of the star.  If another observer happens to be
  closer to the same hole, does he detect it as somewhat  
nearer to the center of the hole?  

  
  
I have an interesting thought experiment that dependsupon the 
answer to this question.  My suspicion is thatthe perceived 
horizon location does depend upon theexact location and most 
likely motion of the observer. Has anyone had an opportunity to 
actually calculatethis effect?
  

  
  
Dave

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


At 06:16 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
I am hoping to establish that there exists a boundary from which an 
object becomes invisible to us once it is crossed.


There must. An event horizon is a boundary in spacetime beyond 
which events cannot affect an outside observer. (WP).


The article notes that, from a perspective of an observer who is 
behind the object (i.e., the object is along a line between the 
observer and the black hole center), the object never appears to 
reach the event horizon, the image being increasingly red-shifted as 
the object approaches the horizon.


That puzzled me. It didn't seem to be correct. But I was misreading it.

Light would be red-shifted as the object emitting it approaches the 
event horizon, yes. The event horizon is the bundary where escape 
velocity reaches the speed of light. Light doesn't slow down, though, 
it shifts frequency or wavelength, and the wavelength as the object 
approaches the event horizon would approach infinity. Aother way of 
saying that would be that the photon energy approaches zero.


Old Black Hole Exploring Spaceships Never Die, They Just Fade Away.

But the WP article indicates that the object would never appear to 
reach the event horizon, which could be read to imply that it slows 
down. No, it would not slow down, it would be, unless under some 
other accelerating force, accelerating toward the black hole, and 
that could be seen. As it approachs the Event Horizon, the light, or 
any other signal, would be red-shifted until no energy reaches the 
observer as it reaches the Event Horizon.


The signals do still travel at the speed of light.

David, you didn't *exactly* state it correctly. The object becomes 
less and less visible as it approaches the Event Horizon, not once 
it is crossed.

Re: [Vo]:Electronics Project on promotion this week


At 03:47 PM 12/26/2012, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

Wrong! Why on Earth does it need to relate to current discussions at all?
Haven't these people ever heard of a new topic of discussion?


No. Your point?

Okay, okay. Perhaps they have a journal about a topic, and topic is 
a field, and a field is the state of discussions about the topic. 
Not about some *other* topic. So a new topic would be outside the 
field. Q.E.D. Rejected. Next case!


Infuriating, but also understandable. At the same time.

The reviewer did not recognize the paper as being about a field that 
s/he knew, or, alternatively, /he considered it old hat. That would 
be consistent with the message. But someone I think that what is more 
likely is that the reviewer did not want to take the time to figure 
out what the hell the paper was about, and blamed the author for a 
failure to connect the paper with the field's conversation.


Come to think of it, isn't it the job of the author to establish relevance?

I'm getting dizzy. We have to stop meeting like this.

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

Well, this was a type of trick question.  I agree that from the perspective of 
an observer far away out of the influence of the imaginary black hole boundary 
the probe ship would never appear to breech the boundary.  We would see any 
light emitted from this ship very red shifted as the ship proceeded forward 
from our perspective.  Eventually, as after an infinite amount of time the ship 
would become invisible entirely since no energy is left within photons that 
arrive at our location.


Now, here is my thought experiment.  Take another probe ship and let it follow 
the first one toward the boundary.  It is closer to the first ship than us such 
that it perceives the boundary as nearer to the black hole center than us.  It 
therefore remains in contact with the first probe and can receive transmissions 
from it after we can no longer receive significant energy.   We readily pick up 
signals from the second ship since it is a safe distance from the boundary that 
we perceive.  We obtain status from the first probe via the second.


I wonder if this is a hypothetical technique that would allow information to be 
obtained from objects such as our first probe ship as they arbitrarily approach 
a black hole?  Could a chain of relay stations defeat the lost information 
problem?  If this is possible then a lot of interesting questions arise.  
Perhaps information is not lost as it enters a black hole after all.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 6:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


At 06:16 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
I am hoping to establish that there exists a boundary from which an 
object becomes invisible to us once it is crossed.

There must. An event horizon is a boundary in spacetime beyond 
which events cannot affect an outside observer. (WP).

The article notes that, from a perspective of an observer who is 
behind the object (i.e., the object is along a line between the 
observer and the black hole center), the object never appears to 
reach the event horizon, the image being increasingly red-shifted as 
the object approaches the horizon.

That puzzled me. It didn't seem to be correct. But I was misreading it.

Light would be red-shifted as the object emitting it approaches the 
event horizon, yes. The event horizon is the bundary where escape 
velocity reaches the speed of light. Light doesn't slow down, though, 
it shifts frequency or wavelength, and the wavelength as the object 
approaches the event horizon would approach infinity. Aother way of 
saying that would be that the photon energy approaches zero.

Old Black Hole Exploring Spaceships Never Die, They Just Fade Away.

But the WP article indicates that the object would never appear to 
reach the event horizon, which could be read to imply that it slows 
down. No, it would not slow down, it would be, unless under some 
other accelerating force, accelerating toward the black hole, and 
that could be seen. As it approachs the Event Horizon, the light, or 
any other signal, would be red-shifted until no energy reaches the 
observer as it reaches the Event Horizon.

The signals do still travel at the speed of light.

David, you didn't *exactly* state it correctly. The object becomes 
less and less visible as it approaches the Event Horizon, not once 
it is crossed.

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

Abd, time is supposed to be dilated for the probe ship from our perspective as 
it approaches the black hole event boundary.  I think of it in the following 
way:  On the probe ship one could place any form of clock that he chooses to 
keep track of local time.   Let'c choose a laser beam for his clock where he 
sample the emission frequency and divides it down to what is needed.  Of course 
we would be able to compare the final counted down pulse rate to his heart rate 
for example.


I believe that the amount of time dilation is exactly the fractional change in 
the laser fundamental frequency.  The heart of the spaceman would appear to 
beat at the exact same ratio.  His every move would be slowed down to us until 
he freezes when the emission frequency of the laser becomes zero due to red 
shift as a limit.


It will take an infinite amount of time from our view point for this to occur.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 7:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


Well, this was a type of trick question.  I agree that from the perspective of 
an observer far away out of the influence of the imaginary black hole boundary 
the probe ship would never appear to breech the boundary.  We would see any 
light emitted from this ship very red shifted as the ship proceeded forward 
from our perspective.  Eventually, as after an infinite amount of time the ship 
would become invisible entirely since no energy is left within photons that 
arrive at our location.


Now, here is my thought experiment.  Take another probe ship and let it follow 
the first one toward the boundary.  It is closer to the first ship than us such 
that it perceives the boundary as nearer to the black hole center than us.  It 
therefore remains in contact with the first probe and can receive transmissions 
from it after we can no longer receive significant energy.   We readily pick up 
signals from the second ship since it is a safe distance from the boundary that 
we perceive.  We obtain status from the first probe via the second.


I wonder if this is a hypothetical technique that would allow information to be 
obtained from objects such as our first probe ship as they arbitrarily approach 
a black hole?  Could a chain of relay stations defeat the lost information 
problem?  If this is possible then a lot of interesting questions arise.  
Perhaps information is not lost as it enters a black hole after all.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 6:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


At 06:16 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
I am hoping to establish that there exists a boundary from which an 
object becomes invisible to us once it is crossed.

There must. An event horizon is a boundary in spacetime beyond 
which events cannot affect an outside observer. (WP).

The article notes that, from a perspective of an observer who is 
behind the object (i.e., the object is along a line between the 
observer and the black hole center), the object never appears to 
reach the event horizon, the image being increasingly red-shifted as 
the object approaches the horizon.

That puzzled me. It didn't seem to be correct. But I was misreading it.

Light would be red-shifted as the object emitting it approaches the 
event horizon, yes. The event horizon is the bundary where escape 
velocity reaches the speed of light. Light doesn't slow down, though, 
it shifts frequency or wavelength, and the wavelength as the object 
approaches the event horizon would approach infinity. Aother way of 
saying that would be that the photon energy approaches zero.

Old Black Hole Exploring Spaceships Never Die, They Just Fade Away.

But the WP article indicates that the object would never appear to 
reach the event horizon, which could be read to imply that it slows 
down. No, it would not slow down, it would be, unless under some 
other accelerating force, accelerating toward the black hole, and 
that could be seen. As it approachs the Event Horizon, the light, or 
any other signal, would be red-shifted until no energy reaches the 
observer as it reaches the Event Horizon.

The signals do still travel at the speed of light.

David, you didn't *exactly* state it correctly. The object becomes 
less and less visible as it approaches the Event Horizon, not once 
it is crossed.

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

2012-12-26 Thread ChemE Stewart

I believe whatever approaches a black hole will be shredded by radiation as
it approaches its surface since gravity is entropic. The point at which you
are completely shredded after you spin in its accretion disk for awhile you
will become part of the entropy of the hole...

On Wednesday, December 26, 2012, David Roberson wrote:

 Abd, time is supposed to be dilated for the probe ship from our
 perspective as it approaches the black hole event boundary.  I think of it
 in the following way:  On the probe ship one could place any form of clock
 that he chooses to keep track of local time.   Let'c choose a laser beam
 for his clock where he sample the emission frequency and divides it down to
 what is needed.  Of course we would be able to compare the final counted
 down pulse rate to his heart rate for example.

  I believe that the amount of time dilation is exactly the fractional
 change in the laser fundamental frequency.  The heart of the spaceman would
 appear to beat at the exact same ratio.  His every move would be slowed
 down to us until he freezes when the emission frequency of the laser
 becomes zero due to red shift as a limit.

  It will take an infinite amount of time from our view point for this to
 occur.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'dlrober...@aol.com');
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
 Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 7:18 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

  Well, this was a type of trick question.  I agree that from the
 perspective of an observer far away out of the influence of the imaginary
 black hole boundary the probe ship would never appear to breech the
 boundary.  We would see any light emitted from this ship very red shifted
 as the ship proceeded forward from our perspective.  Eventually, as after
 an infinite amount of time the ship would become invisible entirely since
 no energy is left within photons that arrive at our location.

  Now, here is my thought experiment.  Take another probe ship and let it
 follow the first one toward the boundary.  It is closer to the first ship
 than us such that it perceives the boundary as nearer to the black hole
 center than us.  It therefore remains in contact with the first probe and
 can receive transmissions from it after we can no longer receive
 significant energy.   We readily pick up signals from the second ship since
 it is a safe distance from the boundary that we perceive.  We obtain status
 from the first probe via the second.

  I wonder if this is a hypothetical technique that would allow
 information to be obtained from objects such as our first probe ship as
 they arbitrarily approach a black hole?  Could a chain of relay stations
 defeat the lost information problem?  If this is possible then a lot of
 interesting questions arise.  Perhaps information is not lost as it enters
 a black hole after all.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'a...@lomaxdesign.com');
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.comjavascript:_e({}, 
 'cvml', 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
 
 Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 6:53 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

  At 06:16 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
 I am hoping to establish that there exists a boundary from which an
 object becomes invisible to us once it is crossed.

 There must. An event horizon is a boundary in spacetime beyond
 which events cannot affect an outside observer. (WP).

 The article notes that, from a perspective of an observer who is
 behind the object (i.e., the object is along a line between the
 observer and the black hole center), the object never appears to
 reach the event horizon, the image being increasingly red-shifted as
 the object approaches the horizon.

 That puzzled me. It didn't seem to be correct. But I was misreading it.

 Light would be red-shifted as the object emitting it approaches the
 event horizon, yes. The event horizon is the bundary where escape
 velocity reaches the speed of light. Light doesn't slow down, though,
 it shifts frequency or wavelength, and the wavelength as the object
 approaches the event horizon would approach infinity. Aother way of
 saying that would be that the photon energy approaches zero.

 Old Black Hole Exploring Spaceships Never Die, They Just Fade Away.

 But the WP article indicates that the object would never appear to
 reach the event horizon, which could be read to imply that it slows
 down. No, it would not slow down, it would be, unless under some
 other accelerating force, accelerating toward the black hole, and
 that could be seen. As it approachs the Event Horizon, the light, or
 any other signal, would be red-shifted until no energy reaches the
 observer as it reaches the Event Horizon.

 The signals do still

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


Let's get down to the nitty gritty here.

At 12:20 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
Is the event horizon of a black hole considered an observer relative 
location?  We, who are at a very large distance relative to a black 
hole see the event horizon as located a finite distance from the 
center of the star.  If another observer happens to be closer to the 
same hole, does he detect it as somewhat nearer to the center of the hole?


No. Here is how I come up with that. I read closer as still being 
in the same inertial frame of reference, and that frame of reference 
includes the black hole. So the two observers and the black hole 
location are stationary with respect to each other. That requires 
some kind of restraining structure, we will make one out of 
unobtainium, if I have any left over from my other project. 
Obviously, the unobtainium structure is quite large, it surrounds the 
black hole and is thus not going to fall into it. No touchie, though.


Before the object reaches the black hole, it emits a photon toward 
the observers. That photon travels at the speed of light. As it 
climbs the gravity well, it red-shifts, but its velocity doesn't 
change. Because the red shift depends on the relative position of the 
point of emission, and the point of observation, and if one knows the 
original frequency of the light, and the gravitational field, one can 
determine the location of the object when the light was emitted. 
Let's assume that there are two photons, emitted together, parallel 
to each other, and one is captured by the inner observer, and one by 
the outer. The outer capture, of course, because of the time it takes 
the photon to travel to the outer station.


But both stations will calculate the same position for the emitting 
object. However, that's a calculated position.


The question implies a method for determining the position of an 
object. What do we mean by location? How do we determine it? How do 
we see an event horizon? What do we mean by seeing the position 
of the object?


A black hole cannot pass any light from behind it. Light that grazes 
it will be curved, toward the object.  Gravitational lensing. If 
there is a bright background, with collimated light, the black hole 
would appear, relatively close to the hole, to be larger than it is, 
because grazing light would converge. It would come to a focus point. 
Beyond that point, the black hole would be only a darkening of a 
region. Light that grazes would be blue-shifted as it approaches the 
black hole, and red-shifted as it continues past it.


Okay, a thought experiment. We have a very good telescope. We can see 
two targets on the object, and we see the distance of the targets 
by how far apart the targets appear, we can measure that, and use the 
angular distance to determine the physical distance.


Problem is, that damned gravitational lense. Suppose the targets are 
equidistant from the center line, i.e., the line between the 
observer and the black hole, and the object is held at a distance. 
Long strong string, out to our unobtainium structure. Unobtainium 
twine, special manufacture.


How do the two observers see the object?

Well, the light emitted from the targets is lensed. It will be bent 
toward the centerline. The targets will appear to be farther apart 
than they are. Our rangefinder will see the object as closer than 
it is. It seems that this effect will increase with distance, as the 
light curves more. So the further observer will see the object as further out.


But this is a mere optical effect! The method of determing distance 
by observing the red shift of light with a known emission frequency, 
through a known gravitational field, would not be fooled.


Look, this is really outside my field. There are many ways to get an 
analysis like this wrong. I have about 10% confidence that I got it right.


I have an interesting thought experiment that depends upon the 
answer to this question.  My suspicion is that the perceived horizon 
location does depend upon the exact location and most likely motion 
of the observer.  Has anyone had an opportunity to actually 
calculate this effect?


My suggestion is obvious. Nail down what you mean by exact 
location. Motion of the observer tosses another complication into 
the picture, relativity, time dilation, yatta yatta.


Gotta watch out for tought experiments. They often reveal more about 
how we think than they reveal about reality, and if our thinking is 
not really careful and solid, well, you can get more stinkin from 
thinkin than from drinkin, an old friend used to say.

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

For this thought experiment you need to assume that you are heading directly 
toward the center of the black hole and that it is not spinning.  I do not 
recall any laws of physics which prevent this case.


Are you assuming that the black hole has a surface that can be impacted?  It 
seems like some scientists consider a black hole to be a singularity that 
occupies zero volume.  A neutron star is thought of as consisting of packed 
neutrons, but the gravitational forces associated with a large black hole might 
crush those into a very tiny region.


I suspect that we are touching upon issues where the theory breaks down.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 7:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


I believe whatever approaches a black hole will be shredded by radiation as it 
approaches its surface since gravity is entropic. The point at which you are 
completely shredded after you spin in its accretion disk for awhile you will 
become part of the entropy of the hole...

On Wednesday, December 26, 2012, David Roberson  wrote:

Abd, time is supposed to be dilated for the probe ship from our perspective as 
it approaches the black hole event boundary.  I think of it in the following 
way:  On the probe ship one could place any form of clock that he chooses to 
keep track of local time.   Let'c choose a laser beam for his clock where he 
sample the emission frequency and divides it down to what is needed.  Of course 
we would be able to compare the final counted down pulse rate to his heart rate 
for example.


I believe that the amount of time dilation is exactly the fractional change in 
the laser fundamental frequency.  The heart of the spaceman would appear to 
beat at the exact same ratio.  His every move would be slowed down to us until 
he freezes when the emission frequency of the laser becomes zero due to red 
shift as a limit.


It will take an infinite amount of time from our view point for this to occur.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 7:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


Well, this was a type of trick question.  I agree that from the perspective of 
an observer far away out of the influence of the imaginary black hole boundary 
the probe ship would never appear to breech the boundary.  We would see any 
light emitted from this ship very red shifted as the ship proceeded forward 
from our perspective.  Eventually, as after an infinite amount of time the ship 
would become invisible entirely since no energy is left within photons that 
arrive at our location.


Now, here is my thought experiment.  Take another probe ship and let it follow 
the first one toward the boundary.  It is closer to the first ship than us such 
that it perceives the boundary as nearer to the black hole center than us.  It 
therefore remains in contact with the first probe and can receive transmissions 
from it after we can no longer receive significant energy.   We readily pick up 
signals from the second ship since it is a safe distance from the boundary that 
we perceive.  We obtain status from the first probe via the second.


I wonder if this is a hypothetical technique that would allow information to be 
obtained from objects such as our first probe ship as they arbitrarily approach 
a black hole?  Could a chain of relay stations defeat the lost information 
problem?  If this is possible then a lot of interesting questions arise.  
Perhaps information is not lost as it enters a black hole after all.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 6:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


At 06:16 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
I am hoping to establish that there exists a boundary from which an 
object becomes invisible to us once it is crossed.

There must. An event horizon is a boundary in spacetime beyond 
which events cannot affect an outside observer. (WP).

The article notes that, from a perspective of an observer who is 
behind the object (i.e., the object is along a line between the 
observer and the black hole center), the object never appears to 
reach the event horizon, the image being increasingly red-shifted as 
the object approaches the horizon.

That puzzled me. It didn't seem to be correct. But I was misreading it.

Light would be red-shifted as the object emitting it approaches the 
event horizon, yes. The event horizon is the bundary where escape 
velocity reaches the speed of light. Light doesn't slow down, though, 
it shifts frequency or wavelength, and the wavelength as the object 
approaches the event horizon would approach infinity. Aother way of 
saying that would be that the photon energy approaches zero.

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Yes, digital information is indeed present in DNA.

One has to wonder how it got there.  Natural Selection can not explain how 
random process can originate information; let alone exabytes of information 
present in DNA in its natural state.

But, of course, Darwinian Evolutionist are right because there's 2000 of them 
and nobody has heard on one of them being threatened or bribed.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:32 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am looking into this as part of 
an essay about the history of cold fusion I am writing. Anyway, see:

  http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf

  This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been experimenting with recording 
data in DNA. He recorded his own book and then read it back, with only a few 
errors. He reproduced it 30 million times, making it the biggest best seller 
in history in a sense.

  Quote: DNA storage is very dense. At theoretical maximum, DNA can encode two 
bits per nucleotide (nt) or 455 exabytes per gram of ssDNA . . .


  I'd like to confirm I have the units right here --


  Present world data storage is variously estimated between 295 exabytes in 
2011 to 2,700 exabytes today (2.7 zettabytes). See:


  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672 (295 exabytes)


  http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q (2.7 ZB)


  I don't know what source to believe.


  This takes a colossal number of hard disks and a great deal of electricity. 
On NHK they estimated the number of bytes of data now exceeds the number of 
grains of sand on all the beaches of the world. Assume it is 2.7 ZB. That seems 
like a large number until you realize that you could record all of this data in 
6 grams of DNA.


  That demonstrates how much our technology may improve in the future. We have 
a lot of leeway. There is still plenty of room at the bottom as Feynman put 
it.


  DNA preserves data far better than any human technology. It can also copy it 
faster and more accurately by far. I mean by many orders of magnitude.


  It might be difficult to make a rapid, on-line electronic interface to DNA 
recorded data, similar to today's hard disk. But as a back up medium, or 
long-term storage, it seems promising. As Prof. Church demonstrates, this 
technology may come about as a spin off from genome-reading technology. Perhaps 
there are other 3-dimensional molecular methods of data storage. Maybe, but I 
would say why bother looking for them when nature has already found such a 
robust system?


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Liar liar liar .  I'm not surprised after all I know who you are and 
your religion.



There is an executive order.  Obama issued it on the day he took power.  It 
covers his BC in Hawaii, his Occidental College records and his other thesis 
records from Harvard.


Lomax is getting blatant in his lies hoping that Vorticians reading are 
dumb.  He has such a low opinion of the intelligence of Vorticians, or a 
superior sense of his intelligence, that he does not even bother to hide the 
lies.  He lies outright.



Jojo


PS.  Expert spin with Naudin.  I am not, never have, and never will be 
associated with Naudin.  This is guilt by association.  A well known 
debating technique to spin the issue.




- Original Message - 
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


Conclusion, there is no such Executive Order. It appears that Jojo Jaro 
believes birther myths, long after they have been conclusively and with 
evidence debunked. If he fails to apologize, or point to an actual order 
doing what he claimed, he is, effectively, a liar.


I've said similar things about Naudin, because he made blatant errors in 
his MAHG investigation, stonewalled friendly inquiries, and eft the page 
with those major errors (that totally reverse his conclusions) without 
corrections, thus continuing to mislead the public. That's culpable. Until 
he fixes this, he's a *liar*.


If Naudin were a serious investigator, he'd do it in a flash. He made a 
mistake. Embarrassing. So what? All it takes is Oops! and it is almost 
entirely over.


And if Jojo were interested in truth, he'd do the same. From long 
experience, now, I concluded he isn't interested in truth. He is 
interested in *insult* and *winning.*


At 02:24 PM 12/26/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

At 01:07 AM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Funny thing is, the new governor of Hawaii  Ambercrombie - a democrat, 
strong supporter of Obama, wanted to silence the birther movement once 
and for all.  So, he sought to dig into Obama's vault BC.  Guess what? 
Even he can't penetrate the veil of corruption Obama has put up to block 
access to his vault records.  Why is there an executive order to block 
access to Obama's vault BC.


Fascinating. Is there such an Executive Order? That would be quite odd. 
Legally, the President has no authority over Hawaiian officials, unless a 
federal issue could be shown. and this would not qualify.


Jojo went on to repeat the Executive Order claim that Obama is preventing 
access to the vault certificate. Is that true? Is there an Executive 
Order to block access.


What can be found on this?

The basis for the claim might be covered here:

http://www.politifact.com/subjects/obama-birth-certificate/

Is Politifact results from checking claims. It's remarkable how many 
claims are shown as flaming lies, and how many of the rest are shown as 
false. There really are only a few related claims that they show as true. 
This is not one of them:


http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/feb/27/leo-berman/state-rep-leo-berman-says-hawaii-governor-cant-fin/

The claim: State Rep. Leo Berman says Hawaii governor can't find anything 
that says Obama was born in Hawaii


They consider the claim by Berman to be false. What they found showed that 
Berman apparently misinterpreted statements by Abercrombie. What had 
actually happened?


... The Associated Press reported that Abercrombie's office had ended its 
effort to make public more information about Obama's birth. The story does 
not say that Abercrombie had failed to find evidence of Obama's 
birthplace, but that the state's attorney general had told the governor 
that he can't disclose birth documentation without the person's consent. 
There is nothing more that Gov. Abercrombie can do within the law to 
produce a document, Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said.


We wondered whether Abercrombie sought Obama's permission to obtain more 
proof of his birth. The White House wouldn't comment, but Abercrombie told 
CNN on Dec. 27 that we haven't had any of those discussions.


Per the authenticity of the document posted online by Obama, our 
colleagues at PolitiFact National pointed out July 1, 2009, that 
FactCheck.org, a respected fact-checking unit at the University of 
Pennsylvania, had traveled to Chicago to examine the document and 
concluded that it's legitimate.


Unfortunately, that would be a reference to the short form certificate. 
This page was written before the long form was released.


Abercrombie had apparently not requested permission.. My speculation about 
why he'd not look at the vault certificate himself, and announce it, turns 
out to be confirmed as the reason. It's illegal without consent!


Were there later developments on this? (Sure: Obama requested the long 
form, and then released copies of it, both as

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


Here is how guile is defined:

 Noun 1. guile - shrewdness as demonstrated by being skilled in 
deception

 craftiness, cunning, foxiness, slyness, wiliness, craft
 astuteness, perspicaciousness, perspicacity, shrewdness - intelligence 
manifested by being astute (as in business dealings)

2. guile - the quality of being crafty
 deceitfulness, craftiness
 disingenuousness - the quality of being disingenuous and lacking 
candor
3. guile - the use of tricks to deceive someone (usually to extract 
money from them)

 chicanery, wile, shenanigan, trickery, chicane
 dissimulation, deception, dissembling, deceit - the act of deceiving
 dupery, hoax, put-on, humbug, fraud, fraudulence - something intended 
to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage
 jugglery - artful trickery designed to achieve an end; the senator's 
tax program was mere jugglery





My friend, what you did is known as guile.  Guile is a form of lying.  It 
is condemed in the Bible and equated to outright lying.  But apparently, by 
your own testimony of having commited it in Wikipedia, you have no problem 
with it.  OK.  I'm not surprised.



Jojo



- Original Message - 
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age



At 01:12 AM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
My friend, just because your morality allows you to troll and lie in 
wikipedia does not mean that I am like you.


I never lied on Wikipedia. I did one action that I allowed as a form of 
trolling. It's more like what a soldier might do in a war, present himself 
as a  target so that a sniper betrays his position. There was no lying 
involved, and the purpose wasn't actually to outrage.


The action itself was completely legitimate. In fact, here it is: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusiondiff=prevoldid=306930963


A talk page edit, not actually controversial, just providing information.

It worked. The admin took the bait, following his ego. And he lost his 
privileges as a result. My purpose was to allow him to do that, to take 
himself out of the Wikipedia adminstrative corps, where he'd been doing 
damage for years. Mostly, Jojo's not realized this, he'd been acting to 
harass and ban global warming skeptics, but he was also generally allied 
with the pseudoskeptics when it comes to anything fringe or psychic. He 
was famous, probably the most famous abusive Wikipedia administrator.


There was no purpose to insult him. The edit had nothing to do with him, 
except that he'd declared a total ban, something he did not actually have 
the authority to do. And we were in the middle of a case, over whether the 
ban was legitimate. His action showed a total loss of balance, and even 
his friends were backpedalling, distancing themselves from it.


Stop the off-topic posts and I will go away never to post here again, but 
I will read.  I am sacrificing my participation, my chance to ask 
questions if the chronic off-topic violators would simply stop their 
abuses.  JUST DO IT.


Off-topic posts are not going to stop, period. These threads might stop. 
But these threads are maintained by Jojo's continued insistence on the 
points he makes in them.


Clearly you understood Bill's no off-topic rule cause you quoted parts of 
it here and still claim that I am lying about it.  You are such a blatant 
liar. I'm not surprised.


I quoted the rules, and I didn't just quote parts, I quoted the entire 
set, as far as I know. I don't recall having say that Jojo was lying about 
the rules, only that they don't contain what he claimed. Since I don't 
know if he even read the rules recently, I have no idea whether he lied or 
not. He was merely incorrect or misled.


I'm leaving the relevant part of the post to which Jojo was responding, so 
that it can be seen that he is incorrect in his claim that I said he was 
lying about the rules. I don't see any reference to lying. When he said I 
still claimed that he was lying, was he lying, or was he so engaged in 
his anger and attack that he wasn't aware of what was in front of him?



Jojo


- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
a...@lomaxdesign.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

[...]
If Bill changes the rules, I will follow.  But in the meantime, people 
should follow his rules and not make it up as we go - as famously said 
by one chronic off-topic poster here.


Jojo


So, what are the rules? I don't know if they have been changed, but below 
is what I was sent. There *are* rules that could easily be applied to 
this situation. Some of the rules were obviously written long ago, 
because behind some of the rules are conditions that used to apply, that 
hardly

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


Lomax uses guile and deception again to spin the issue.

It's very simple friends.  Supposedly, they showed an original to snopes 
with the seal, the folding and other distinctive marking.  Snopes then 
certified it to be true and original and posted a blog about it.  Just show 
that to a respected Tea Party member or some respected individual. 
Finished.  End of the Birther movement.


But no, Lomax has to spin it with his verbal diarrhea.  Typical and I am not 
surprised.



Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age



At 01:07 AM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Lomax is lying again.  I'm not surprised.  It is OK for him to lie as long 
as his goal are honorable and good for islam and muhammed.


No. It is not OK for me to lie for a supposedly noble goal. I wrote about 
when it's permissible to lie, and it's only permissible to prevent serious 
physical harm. And islam and muhammad can't be harmed.


OK, let me ask anybody here.  Who has actually seen Obama's Birth 
Certificate in actuality?


I'll answer that. What is a birth certificate? I had to supply oodles of 
them to the U.S. government, to the Chinese government, and the Ethiopian 
government. What they actually wanted was something that is legally 
*completely equivalent* to the original birth certificate. That is, a 
copy that is signed and sealed by a state employee as being a true copy of 
the original.


But perhaps Jojo means the original. Okay, it's been seen by the clerk 
who filled it out. The doctor who signed it. The state agency that filed 
it. Any employee of that agency who made a copy of the birth certificate 
had to see it, legally, to verify that the copy was a true copy. And the 
original sat in an archive, being occasionally accessed to make copies.


Then Hawaii computerized. Apparenty all the birth certificates in the 
state were computerized. They entered the data into a secure computer 
system. Did they enter all the data? No. They only entered the legally 
relevant data that is needed for what birth certificates are needed for. 
The date and time of birth, the parents, the location of birth, and other 
information, but not such things as the name of the delivering physician. 
Once that was done, providing a birth certificate for Hawaii then became 
a matter of accessing the computer record and printing it out, and 
certifying the copy.


That's what Obama originally provided, *the same as everyone else needing 
to certify a birth in Hawaii.* But the birthers demanded to see the 
vault certificate. It was legally insane. If someone really suspected 
that the ordinary certificate was forgery, the appropriate action would be 
to make a complaint under Hawaiian law (and to knowingly provide a false 
birth certificate for federal purpose could also violate federal law).


Hawaii does not routinely provide a copy of the vault certificate, and the 
reason is obvious: they want to limit access to those highly valuable 
original documents. Obama eventually requested a copy. He *cannot* request 
the original. Members of the public cannot view these, access is 
restricted. A court could order inspection, to be sure. If there were a 
criminal investigation, where fraud were suspected, the original is there, 
and that is the very reason it is so protected. So it will be there. I 
would assume tight access control.


The Hawaiian Secretary of State, who has authority over the records, 
decided to allow a certified copy of the vault certificate to be made. 
This is all covered in news reports, by the way. An offical signed the 
copy, and it was provided to Obama.


Obama then held a press conference. He showed the certified copy. He also 
provided ordinary copies to the press. A scan was put up on the internet. 
Had the scan been a full, high-resolution scan, it would have been an 
enormous file, and given the demand for the copy, it would have crashed 
the server.



  Not the scanned and altered copy posted on the Internet.


There copy on the internet is altered. Not in a way that you can 
casually see, though, because the alteration is simply file compression, 
using standard procedures, it's done automatically by PDF programs. What 
they do is to search the document for areas that are similar enough to 
each other that they can be replaced by a single image, with the other 
similar instances becoming *exact* copies of that. You see this all the 
time, most images on the internet have been compressed. It's subtle, you 
have to closely examine these similar areas -- which have become *exact* 
areas -- and notice that the fine detail, pixel by pixel, is identical --  
which is highly unlikely in an original scan of typewritten material. 
Letters are very similar, but not exact on a pixel scale.


So people looked at the internet images and

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

He is reasoning and lying correctly. He gives links, provides reasonable
arguments that should prove beyond any reasonable doubt the he is correct
and you are not accepting his arguments, thus, being unreasonable beyond
doubt. You clearly show your lack of arguments by making childish comments
without any base.


2012/12/26 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com


 Lomax is getting blatant in his lies hoping that Vorticians reading are
 dumb.  He has such a low opinion of the intelligence of Vorticians, or a
 superior sense of his intelligence, that he does not even bother to hide
 the lies.  He lies outright.

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

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

sorry, arguing correctly, not lying correctly'.


2012/12/26 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com

 He is reasoning and lying correctly. He gives links, provides reasonable
 arguments that should prove beyond any reasonable doubt the he is correct
 and you are not accepting his arguments, thus, being unreasonable beyond
 doubt. You clearly show your lack of arguments by making childish comments
 without any base.


 2012/12/26 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com


 Lomax is getting blatant in his lies hoping that Vorticians reading are
 dumb.  He has such a low opinion of the intelligence of Vorticians, or a
 superior sense of his intelligence, that he does not even bother to hide
 the lies.  He lies outright.

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




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

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

This is a complex problem to think about.  I am making an effort to save 
information that is entering a black hole by a technique that is theoretically 
possible.  One of the main problems facing theorists is that information 
appears to be lost by  absorption into the hole and that is considered a no no.


You make a mistake in your suggestion that the boundary does not appear at a 
different location for each observer as I stated.  You chose our far away frame 
of reference for every observer and that is not proper in this case.  Each one 
has his own sets of observations.  The second shipmate looks toward the black 
hole and sees the first one until the first one crosses a boundary that is 
closer to the black hole than the one we calculate and view.  The second guy 
has a computer just like us and he knows that he has moved toward the hole by a 
certain amount.  When he passed slowly by our location we discussed his mission 
and he and us agreed that the distance both of us determined to the black hole 
boundary was the same.


Since he left our location, he traveled toward the beast and with his computer 
he knew that the distance to the center was becoming shorter with every moment 
of travel.  Now, it is quite obvious that if he stops short of the boundary, he 
sees that it has moved to a now location that is closer to the center of the 
hole.  He looks back and sees us a long way away since he has traveled for a 
long amount of time by his clock in the direction of the hole.


Each observer has his own perception of time and distance.  Of course each 
could transform his observations according to the rules of relativity, but his 
own observations must be valid.   It is unproductive for you to say that 
observer two can perform transformations to get back to our perspective far 
away.  Let him make his own observations of what he sees without our dilution.  
My contention is that he perceives the boundary as closer to the black hole 
than we originally thought.  Furthermore, the first probe ship now is easier 
for him to observe since light emitted from it has not been red shifted to the 
degree that us far away people observe.  Also, we look toward our good friend 
on the second ship that is closer to the center of the hole than us and see 
that his heart is beating slower than it was when he was nearby.  He does not 
measure any change to his pulse rate since his time is local.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 7:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


Let's get down to the nitty gritty here.

At 12:20 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
Is the event horizon of a black hole considered an observer relative 
location?  We, who are at a very large distance relative to a black 
hole see the event horizon as located a finite distance from the 
center of the star.  If another observer happens to be closer to the 
same hole, does he detect it as somewhat nearer to the center of the hole?

No. Here is how I come up with that. I read closer as still being 
in the same inertial frame of reference, and that frame of reference 
includes the black hole. So the two observers and the black hole 
location are stationary with respect to each other. That requires 
some kind of restraining structure, we will make one out of 
unobtainium, if I have any left over from my other project. 
Obviously, the unobtainium structure is quite large, it surrounds the 
black hole and is thus not going to fall into it. No touchie, though.

Before the object reaches the black hole, it emits a photon toward 
the observers. That photon travels at the speed of light. As it 
climbs the gravity well, it red-shifts, but its velocity doesn't 
change. Because the red shift depends on the relative position of the 
point of emission, and the point of observation, and if one knows the 
original frequency of the light, and the gravitational field, one can 
determine the location of the object when the light was emitted. 
Let's assume that there are two photons, emitted together, parallel 
to each other, and one is captured by the inner observer, and one by 
the outer. The outer capture, of course, because of the time it takes 
the photon to travel to the outer station.

But both stations will calculate the same position for the emitting 
object. However, that's a calculated position.

The question implies a method for determining the position of an 
object. What do we mean by location? How do we determine it? How do 
we see an event horizon? What do we mean by seeing the position 
of the object?

A black hole cannot pass any light from behind it. Light that grazes 
it will be curved, toward the object.  Gravitational lensing. If 
there is a bright background, with collimated light, the black hole 
would appear, relatively close to the hole, to be larger than it is, 
because grazing light

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Really, no off-topic problem?  I don't understand how you can say that. 
History has shown it to be a problem.  Many have left Vortex-L because of 
it.,  Many have complained about it.  You simply choose to see what you want 
to see.



OK, Let's agree to disagree.


Jojo




- Original Message - 
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


On Dec 25, 2012, at 21:41, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:

However, there is a difference here. I'm the only Muslim on this list, as 
far as I know.


Bingo. As members of modern, pluralistic societies, we shouldn't allow hate 
propaganda. We shouldn't allow it in relation to Jews, and we shouldn't 
allow it in relation to Muslims. I personally do not mind the occasional 
snarky comment about religion; but in that instance it is generally about 
*all* religion and does not single out one group.


There is no off-topic problem. This is a manufactured issue meant to serve 
as a pretext for what is essentially parasitic behavior. The one proposing 
that such an issue exists has shown little to no interest in providing a 
meaningful contribution to the on-topic threads. He is no doubt here 
primarily to get attention and to stir the pot; ie, whatever he was here for 
a year ago, he is now here to troll. Once this is recognized, we can deal 
with the matter  in the way that this kind of thing is normally dealt 
with -- summarily and with little comment.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

The Illuminati satanic occultic pagan group of powerful men and bankers 
behind everything in our society, including the President, Congress, Supreme 
Court, Federal Reserve, the Smithsonian and other institutions.  The 
Illuminati is the shadow government that FDR was alluding to and the reason 
JFK was assasinated.  He spoke too much when he called for the dissolution 
of secret societies.


This above is not speculation.

However, if you want speculation, I have some other speculations about who 
these people are.





Jojo




- Original Message - 
From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


illimiati?


On Dec 26, 2012, at 1:07 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Lomax is lying again.  I'm not surprised.  It is OK for him to lie as long 
as his goal are honorable and good for islam and muhammed.


OK, let me ask anybody here.  Who has actually seen Obama's Birth 
Certificate in actuality?  Not the scanned and altered copy posted on the 
Internet.  Not snopes which is a political hack job.  If Obama supposedly 
was issued an official Birth Certificate by the State of Hawaii as Lomax 
claims, that originally issued BC should be in the possesion of Obama, 
right?  OK, if Obama wants to kill the Birther movement, just show it to 
one, only one, highly respected individual.  Let's say, Ron Paul, Mike 
Huckabee, Sarah Palin or the like.  Just one well respected Tea Party 
member or a well respected Republican congressman or senator.   Let him 
handle that original BC, feel the official seal, look at the folds, and 
make an official scan open to the public and call an open honest press 
conference.  Not a white house press conference which is questionable to 
begin with.  This is very simple and the Birther movement will die an 
untimely death and I will apologize and tuck my tail between my legs in 
shame and go away.  Lomax lies when he says we have seen the official BC. 
We have not; no one has.   What we've seen which Lomax claims is the 
official BC is a scanned photoshop file.   No one except Obama and 
alledgedly snopes have seen it.  Why?  Is anybody buying Lomax's argument? 
It's very simple my friends, if there is an officially issued BC, complete 
with seal, and signature of the official representative of the State of 
Hawaii, just show it.  No amount of spin or eloquence or tiresome lengthy 
essay will overcome this very strong argument. Just show it. Period.


Funny thing is, the new governor of Hawaii  Ambercrombie - a democrat, 
strong supporter of Obama, wanted to silence the birther movement once and 
for all.  So, he sought to dig into Obama's vault BC.  Guess what?   Even 
he can't penetrate the veil of corruption Obama has put up to block access 
to his vault records.  Why is there an executive order to block access to 
Obama's vault BC.  This is the first time it has ever happened to a 
sitting president.  What the heck is wrong with seeing the original vault 
copy BC? If he has alledgedly issued an official copy, what's wrong with 
verifying it with the vault copy?   Why does Obama feel the need to go out 
of his way to issue an executive order to block access?


You know, only corrupt and lying leaders find the need to hide their 
history.  Obama is a corrupt lying usurper.



And Lomax's is really naive to think that only Republicans are concerned 
with this issue.  Over 60% of Americans feel Obama should come clean on 
this issue.  But of course, the illiminati finds it convenient to forcibly 
reintall their puppet president.  And they have found willing sheeple in 
Lomax.  LOL..




Jojo







- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
a...@lomaxdesign.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age



At 11:15 AM 12/25/2012, David Roberson wrote:
The recent intense concentration upon religious issues is not very 
useful for several reasons.  It is apparent that you have a strong 
Christian faith and that others within this group favor the Muslim faith 
to an equally strong degree.


David is addressing this to Jojo. However, there is a difference here. 
I'm the only Muslim on this list, as far as I know. And I have not used 
the list to propagandize Islam. But Jojo has used the list to 
propagandize a whole series of issues that are not actually Christian, 
per se, but specifically Evangelical Christian tropes, intensely 
anti-Muslim, in ways that have offended other list members, apparently 
non-Muslim. These are not necessirly favoring the Muslim faith, rather, 
they are, first, noting the inappropriateness of such highly sectarian 
and abusive expressions here, and, secondly, supporting a list member who 
is a relatively long-time participant here, who has never used the list 
to promote Islam.


The anti-Muslim material was

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

The elders of zion? :D

2012/12/26 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com



 However, if you want speculation, I have some other speculations about who
 these people are.


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

Re: [Vo]:[OT] jojo's knowledge -- was Lomax Question

It is better if you participate by discussing the facts rather than just 
vague statements that I am wrong.  Tell me which of the things I've said do 
you specifically disagree with.


You and Lomax seems to be of the same opinion that because marriage to 
little girls was practiced during the time of muhammed and practiced by all, 
that it would be OK for muhammed to do it himself.


As I said, it is irrelevant.  An abhorrent practice is always abhorrent 
whether in this century or the 14th.  A progressive religion would seek to 
correct such abhorrent practices.  Jesus corrected polygamy.  Even the 
Hindus  corrected their practice of child marriage.  No modern society 
accepts these practices anymore.  Only islam.  Polygamy and Child Marriage 
is still practiced in muslim countries today.  These also includes other 
barbaric practices like FGM and amputation and slavery.  That is the 
corruption of the religion you and lomax seek to follow.



Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] jojo's knowledge -- was Lomax Question


I can see that if someone knows nothing about Sharia and confounds it with 
childhood nightmares about zombies that he will end up woefully ignorant of 
sharia -- both its contents and its applications.


Lest any reader be confused by Jojo's assertions, I'll reiterate that he 
knows nothing of sharia (or Islam), if this posting is representative of his 
knowledge.


But in following this thread, I am beginning to think that it has little to 
do with discussing or finding the truth, and much to do with ego and, 
possibly, a separate political agenda.



On Dec 24, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Quite honestly, this is the first time I've heard of FGM.  After my first 
google, I found out what it was and was taken aback by the practice.  This 
sort of retrograde practice of course is typical of islam.  This is a 
tribal tradition.  When women are property, you can pretty much do 
anything to them.


No doubt, Lomax will spin and will say they will not do this in America. 
But, if this is in Sharia law, they will most assuredly do this.


Just imagining the conditions under sharia law is causing the hair on the 
back of my neck to rise.  It's worst than the worst horror movie, which to 
me was Zombies which I saw when I was a child.  It was the first and 
only movie that caused me a sleepless night.  Sharia law is your real life 
zombies movie.  Come to think about it, sharia law would be worse than 
living under communism.


Heck no wonder, countries under sharia law, despite their obvious oil 
wealth still do not have the same standard of freedom and standard of 
living western Christian countries have.


This my friends is the corruption of islam for all to see.



Jojo




- Original Message - From: mole4l...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 4:28 PM
Subject: [Vo]:[OT] Lomax Question



Lomax,

You said ask. Well if Muslim law were adopted in the US, would this 
include requirements of FGM for all young girls as practiced today in 
Muslim countries? See  Egypt Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS). EDHS 
also showed that 91 percent of all women in Egypt between the ages of 15 
and 49 have undergone FGM. .


Student

Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

2012-12-26 Thread Eric Walker

On Dec 25, 2012, at 11:15, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 During the night Santa brought me a gift!  A thought occurred to me that 
 there is a very good explanation for the 30 to 40 second time constant 
 exponential waveform that I have been seeking.  In order to get the best 
 curve fit to the exact solution of the differential equation I have been 
 forced to modify the constant of integration slightly away from the ideal 
 value as determined by steady state measurements.

Interesting discussion concerning the model you've been working on.

Concerning the second-order equation, what you're describing sounds quite 
similar to the equation Ed Storms proposes in his Calorimetry 101 paper.  I 
believe he is consciously ignoring radiative losses.

Concerning the calculation of the error, there is the error of the fit of your 
curve with the MFMP data, and there is the error of the MFMP instrumentation (I 
assume).  The error of the latter is related to the scatter in their 
calibration runs and is of two kinds -- stochastic and systematic.  I believe 
that the instrumentation error could easily swamp out 1W purported XP.

Concerning the 40 second constant you're adding, I wonder if this is related to 
the time the system requires to reach equilibrium; when you're calibrating the 
device, I think you need steps that last long enough for the cell to attain a 
new equilibrium after the change in input power. In a live cell, I suspect this 
same characteristic of the operation of the cell would manifest itself as a 
kind of momentum. Forty seconds might be too short to be this, however.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

I provided sources from Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.  Two of the most 
respected and venerated muslim scholarly works ever. I even provided the actual 
arabic in Sharia that shows that FGM mutilation of the clitoris is required in 
Sharia.  So, I provided the highest quality of evidence and Lomax provided 
links to wikipedia and blogs, and you have the audacity to complaim that I do 
not have any base.  How can I not consider you to be the dumbest of the dumb 
when you can not evaluate simple evidence quality like this.



Jojo




- Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 9:22 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


  He is reasoning and lying correctly. He gives links, provides reasonable 
arguments that should prove beyond any reasonable doubt the he is correct and 
you are not accepting his arguments, thus, being unreasonable beyond doubt. You 
clearly show your lack of arguments by making childish comments without any 
base.




  2012/12/26 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com


Lomax is getting blatant in his lies hoping that Vorticians reading are 
dumb.  He has such a low opinion of the intelligence of Vorticians, or a 
superior sense of his intelligence, that he does not even bother to hide the 
lies.  He lies outright.

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

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Ha ha ha ROTFL.  I did not even notice this but it sure seems that the truth 
eventually came out.  NO NO NO  you were right the first time.  Lomax was 
lying correctly.  LOL LOL LOL 


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 9:24 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


  sorry, arguing correctly, not lying correctly'. 



  2012/12/26 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com

He is reasoning and lying correctly. He gives links, provides reasonable 
arguments that should prove beyond any reasonable doubt the he is correct and 
you are not accepting his arguments, thus, being unreasonable beyond doubt. You 
clearly show your lack of arguments by making childish comments without any 
base.




2012/12/26 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com


  Lomax is getting blatant in his lies hoping that Vorticians reading are 
dumb.  He has such a low opinion of the intelligence of Vorticians, or a 
superior sense of his intelligence, that he does not even bother to hide the 
lies.  He lies outright.

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





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

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

He actually rebuted evertything. It's just that you are crazy religious
fundamentalist and cannot see beyond your prejudices.


2012/12/27 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com

 **
 I provided sources from Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.  Two of the most
 respected and venerated muslim scholarly works ever. I even provided the
 actual arabic in Sharia that shows that FGM mutilation of the clitoris is
 required in Sharia.



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

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Ridicule all you want.  There's nothing the Illuminati wants more than ignorant 
sheeple like you.

Here is what Theodore Roosevelt has to say about a shadow government.

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing 
no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.
Theodore Roosevelt



Jojo






  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 9:40 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


  The elders of zion? :D



  2012/12/26 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com



However, if you want speculation, I have some other speculations about who 
these people are.




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

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Alright, so you are living under a snowy barricade on a very high mountain.


2012/12/27 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com

 **
 Ridicule all you want.  There's nothing the Illuminati wants more than
 ignorant sheeple like you.

 Here is what Theodore Roosevelt has to say about a shadow government.

 *Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government
 owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.
 *Theodore Roosevelt


 Jojo




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

[Vo]:unsubscribe

2012-12-26 Thread George Baldwin

RE: [Vo]:there is something funny go one out there


At 05:28 PM 12/26/2012, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

Interesting read, Abd. Thanks!

As always, you are meticulous in your personal analysis - 
relentlessly and obsessively so! I suspect it's one of your 
endearing traits that terrified Mr. Krivit so much. I don't think he 
knows how to handle: meticulous scrutiny, particularly when the 
cross-hairs are focused on his own investigative work. One would 
think that a self-proclaimed investigative reporter would to be able 
to handle being under the lime-light himself, but there you go. ;-)


One would think. The trick is detachment. If the reporter is merely 
reporting observation, there really isn't a problem. However, that's 
not what some do, and they mix observation with analysis, which 
includes suspicion, what we like and dislike, all the rest, 
attachment to conclusions, etc. It's normal and practically 
unavoidable, to some degree, but if we don't realize we are doing 
this, and confuse our stories with the truth, that's when we can get 
seriously lost.


Krivit seems to be dedicated to an image of himself, he's got a tight 
concept of his own identity. It doesn't leave a lot of room for 
anything really new, outside of his box. It's a shame, he's very 
likely trashed his career through this. At one time he was widely 
trusted, but he wrecked that.


And investigative reporters need trust. Yeah, criminals aren't going 
to trust an investigative reporter, but Krivit alienated scientists, real ones.


It wasn't that he reported the truth. In fact, it was that he mixed 
up truth with speculation, blame, innuendo, etc., etc. Just reporting 
facts would never have done this. Scientists make mistakes. It's how 
they are reported that makes all the difference.



A favorite contemporary writer/speaker who discusses such topics, 
including Descartes (briefly) is Eckart Tolle.


http://www.eckharttolle.com/

Eckhart's most popular book is The Power of Now.


The realm of consciousness is much vaster than thought can grasp. 
When you no longer believe everything you think, you step out of 
thought and see clearly that the thinker is not who you are.


Crucial: When you no longer believe everything you think.



 From Amazon:
http://tinyurl.com/c2x8bnb

More on that later.

 My own training is that the I is illusory,

I suspect so too.


It's not like it's a recent idea.



   it's how the
 brain refers to its own activity, but that activity is
 automatic, patterns of neurons firing. There isn't any self
 there, just a sense of identity that is only a pattern of
 patterns. That actually can't be specifically identified or
 found.

I suspect it's might not be inaccurate to say the I we personally 
experience is the hive-mind of the entire neural network that 
comprises our brain activity.


Well, *who* experiences this? The training is to keep identifying 
*all of it* as IT. IT creates the concept of self, and we believe it. 
Or IT believes IT. Yes. The I that IT experiences is the hive-mind 
of the entire neural network that comprises IT's activity.


The ancient technique is to keep identifying IT. At some point there 
is a release, a freeing, a disconnection. IT doesn't go away, IT 
won't, and it shouldn't. IT is necessary for survival. But the game 
of survival will be lost. There are more inspiring games to play.




 Yet that same training does point to something else. We can
 experience something else, yet that something else is still
 experienced, we might think, through the brain. Or is it? And
 there is no answer to this question, not really. From my
 experience, there is a different quality to this something else,
 it is not personal, it is not individual, even though it's a
 well-spring of inspiration and self-expression.

 Again, the training: all these questions are invented, made up,
 by the brain, as part of our survival mechanism. Yet there is
 something other than the world of survival, and, in fact, it can
 be plainly experienced. It's palpable. In this work, it's called
 the Self. Experience of the Self seems to be universally possible,
 indeed it appears to be *instinctive.* The Self has obviously been
 around for a long time, for once one recognizes the Self, there is
 plenty of reference to it, back to the oldest writings we have.

Getting back to Descartes, I suspect the speaker, Eckhart Tolle, 
would say something to the effect that one does not have to think 
anything at all in order to inculcate the ...therefore I am experience.


I'm not particularly familiar with Tolle, but I did a quick search, 
and many, many people have connected his work with what I've been doing.


It's entirely possible to be overcritical, because words are not 
necessarily perfectly chosen, but *this* IT suggests avoiding I in 
the I am experience. It's just is. And I can be identified as 
the activity of IT. It's discriminable.


 I suspect Eckhart would simply suggest that we learn to stop 
thinking thoughts altogether.


Well, not

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

What has he rebuted?  Has he rebuted that A'isha was 9 years old when muhammed 
had intercourse with her?  I presented source like Sahih Muslim and Sahih 
Bukhari saying that this was true.  Lomax presented wikipedia and blogs and he 
rebuted what I said?  I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell you for 
cheap.  Very close to the beach?  LOL

What has he rebuted?  He said that pre-islam tribes practiced child marriage 
and therefore muhammed's practice of it was acceptable?  OK, whatever.  
Progressive religions need to correct abhorent retrograde practices, not 
embrace it with gusto.  LOL

What has he rebuted?  That FGM is not required in Sharia Law.  I presented the 
actual arabic text of what it says in Sharia.  The female's clitoris needs to 
be cut off.  I presented actual Sharia Text and Lomax presented internet blogs. 
 LOL 

What has he rebuted?  That Birthers are crazy.  He can't even answer a simple 
challenge.  Tell me who has actually seen the originally issued BC of Obama.  
Lomax presented links to internet blogs and he has rebuted me?  LOL ...


Get a cranial enema my friend.  You have been mesmerized by Lomax's excessive 
verbal diarrhea.  All the crap is getting into your head and Lomax is laughing 
at you for swallowing his spin and lies lock, stock and barrel.  LOL.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


  He actually rebuted evertything. It's just that you are crazy religious 
fundamentalist and cannot see beyond your prejudices.




  2012/12/27 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com

I provided sources from Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.  Two of the most 
respected and venerated muslim scholarly works ever. I even provided the actual 
arabic in Sharia that shows that FGM mutilation of the clitoris is required in 
Sharia.  




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

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

I think It's more likely that the inhabitants of Eta Reticuli mesmerized me!


2012/12/27 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com

 **
 Get a cranial enema my friend.  You have been mesmerized by Lomax's
 excessive verbal diarrhea.  All the crap is getting into your head
 and Lomax is laughing at you for swallowing his spin and lies lock, stock
 and barrel.  LOL.





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

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Not quite, but that's a good idea.  Not a snowy mountain though, I hate snow.  
Hey.  maybe some land in the Texas Pecos region.  Sounds good, thanks for 
the advice.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:28 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


  Alright, so you are living under a snowy barricade on a very high mountain.




  2012/12/27 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com

Ridicule all you want.  There's nothing the Illuminati wants more than 
ignorant sheeple like you.

Here is what Theodore Roosevelt has to say about a shadow government.

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government 
owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.
Theodore Roosevelt



Jojo





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

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Basically the Demon and his fallen companions.


2012/12/27 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com

 **
 My goodness, you have no idea how close to the truth you are with this
 joke.  Yes, residents of Eta Reticuli.  Except that they are not aliens
 from another world as in ET  - biological aliens.  They are in fact
 residents of another dimension beyond our 4 dimenstions - as in Fallen
 angels, jinns, demons and all sorts of malevolent spirits.  This my friend
 is who has you mesmerized.


 Jojo



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

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


At 05:55 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
That makes it a bit more complicated.  I was referring to the exact 
radius at which light can not escape from a non spinning black hole 
as observed from far away.  If a space ship reaches that radius from 
our perspective, it would totally blink out of existence.


No. Actually, nothing happens to the spaceship. Neglecting tidal 
forces or other effects from the environment near a black hole, it 
doesn't even experience the event horizon as anything special. 
Ummm it might start to see things that can't be seen from 
outside. Like what is in the hole and what is on the other side.


What happens is that the space ship becomes unobservable to us, 
except the mass is still there. The mass of the black hole increases 
by it. If I'm correct, gravity is the only observable that remains.

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

My goodness, you have no idea how close to the truth you are with this joke.  
Yes, residents of Eta Reticuli.  Except that they are not aliens from another 
world as in ET  - biological aliens.  They are in fact residents of another 
dimension beyond our 4 dimenstions - as in Fallen angels, jinns, demons and all 
sorts of malevolent spirits.  This my friend is who has you mesmerized.


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:43 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


  I think It's more likely that the inhabitants of Eta Reticuli mesmerized me!




  2012/12/27 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com

Get a cranial enema my friend.  You have been mesmerized by Lomax's 
excessive verbal diarrhea.  All the crap is getting into your head and Lomax is 
laughing at you for swallowing his spin and lies lock, stock and barrel.  
LOL.








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

Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

Eric,


Originally I was expecting to have a forth order relationship due to radiation 
but it did not happen.  I have made numerous curve fits to the data shown on 
the live site of the MFMP and it always fits to a nearly perfect quadratic.  
The typical R^2 value is .9998 with the values.


I just completed another fit to the latest USA calibration run and then used my 
solution to the non linear differential equation along with a short time 
constant adjustment for the leading edge and it is virtually a perfect match to 
their data.  I used the transition of input power from 58.6 watts to 79.9 
watts.  The temperature began at 127.5 degrees C and ended at 153.3 degrees C.  
I applied a digital filter with a time constant of 100 seconds to the error 
data and the end result is quite good.  The worst case error is + and - .4 
degrees C over the complete time range.  The end noise appears random about the 
zero error line and has the appearance of 1/f or 1/f^2 electronic noise.  I do 
not see any evidence of the transition waveform in the final result so the 
differential equation solution must be ideal.  I wonder if the remaining noise 
is due to supply output voltage noise?


Of course slow changing long term noise of this nature most likely contains 
effects due to ambient air currents, etc.


I think that I will be capable of detecting excess power is it is compared to 
this same calibration cell.  1 watt stands out quite well.  The time domain 
technique should be more sensitive to changes within the cell than just one 
average temperature reading.


I have no idea of how accurate their power measurements are, but DC can be 
determined very accurately.  The time ahead will be interesting.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 9:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device


On Dec 25, 2012, at 11:15, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:



During the night Santa brought me a gift!  A thought occurred to me that there 
is a very good explanation for the 30 to 40 second time constant exponential 
waveform that I have been seeking.  In order to get the best curve fit to the 
exact solution of the differential equation I have been forced to modify the 
constant of integration slightly away from the ideal value as determined by 
steady state measurements.




 

Interesting discussion concerning the model you've been working on.


Concerning the second-order equation, what you're describing sounds quite 
similar to the equation Ed Storms proposes in his Calorimetry 101 paper.  I 
believe he is consciously ignoring radiative losses.


Concerning the calculation of the error, there is the error of the fit of your 
curve with the MFMP data, and there is the error of the MFMP instrumentation (I 
assume).  The error of the latter is related to the scatter in their 
calibration runs and is of two kinds -- stochastic and systematic.  I believe 
that the instrumentation error could easily swamp out 1W purported XP.


Concerning the 40 second constant you're adding, I wonder if this is related to 
the time the system requires to reach equilibrium; when you're calibrating the 
device, I think you need steps that last long enough for the cell to attain a 
new equilibrium after the change in input power. In a live cell, I suspect this 
same characteristic of the operation of the cell would manifest itself as a 
kind of momentum. Forty seconds might be too short to be this, however.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe

2012-12-26 Thread Terry Blanton

Send it to

vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com

subject:  unsubscribe

On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 9:29 PM, George Baldwin
0georgebaldw...@gmail.comwrote:

 **

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

2012-12-26 Thread ChemE Stewart

Radiation will kill you before you get to the surface and gravity will
shred you and you will accrete around the hole until you are completely
entropified and that is what will be imprinted on the surface.  That will
take awhile with many black holes because as their surface area gets
smaller they suffer from indigestion

Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com

On Wednesday, December 26, 2012, David Roberson wrote:

 We both agree that nothing will happen to the ship itself unless tidal
 forces tear it apart.  That has not been an issue and I am not sure of why
 you start with the assumption that I think it will.  You must have
 misunderstood my statement.  I suppose I could have made it in a clearer
 manner.

  The ship itself will never think it reaches the ultimate boundary but we
 will see radiation emitted by it become red shifted until no more
 detectable energy comes our way from it.  That is what I refer to as blink
 out of existence, not actually be destroyed.  This process with take an
 infinite amount of time to complete so I guess theoretically it is always
 detectable until the noise hides what is left of the low frequency energy.

  The mass of the ship will appear to become infinite to us as it fades
 into the noise and the spaceman will appear to freeze in place due to time
 dilation.  From our perspective, the ship becomes frozen at what we believe
 is the event horizon, although the other closer observers will not agree
 with our location determination.

  Once before a long time ago you strongly disagreed with the idea of time
 dilation for a traveler as he enters a black hole.  I suspect that you now
 realize that this must occur.

  Yes, I see that now you understand that the spaceman nearing what we
 considered the event horizon sees to the other side.  He can continue to
 communicate with the first guy that started ahead of him on the journey and
 report back to us.  That is what I have been trying to prove all along.

  Who said off topic discussions are not interesting and educational?

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'a...@lomaxdesign.com');
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.comjavascript:_e({}, 
 'cvml', 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
 
 Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 9:53 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

  At 05:55 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
 That makes it a bit more complicated.  I was referring to the exact
 radius at which light can not escape from a non spinning black hole
 as observed from far away.  If a space ship reaches that radius from
 our perspective, it would totally blink out of existence.

 No. Actually, nothing happens to the spaceship. Neglecting tidal
 forces or other effects from the environment near a black hole, it
 doesn't even experience the event horizon as anything special.
 Ummm it might start to see things that can't be seen from
 outside. Like what is in the hole and what is on the other side.

 What happens is that the space ship becomes unobservable to us,
 except the mass is still there. The mass of the black hole increases
 by it. If I'm correct, gravity is the only observable that remains.

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

We both agree that nothing will happen to the ship itself unless tidal forces 
tear it apart.  That has not been an issue and I am not sure of why you start 
with the assumption that I think it will.  You must have misunderstood my 
statement.  I suppose I could have made it in a clearer manner.


The ship itself will never think it reaches the ultimate boundary but we will 
see radiation emitted by it become red shifted until no more detectable energy 
comes our way from it.  That is what I refer to as blink out of existence, not 
actually be destroyed.  This process with take an infinite amount of time to 
complete so I guess theoretically it is always detectable until the noise hides 
what is left of the low frequency energy.


The mass of the ship will appear to become infinite to us as it fades into the 
noise and the spaceman will appear to freeze in place due to time dilation.  
From our perspective, the ship becomes frozen at what we believe is the event 
horizon, although the other closer observers will not agree with our location 
determination.


Once before a long time ago you strongly disagreed with the idea of time 
dilation for a traveler as he enters a black hole.  I suspect that you now 
realize that this must occur.


Yes, I see that now you understand that the spaceman nearing what we considered 
the event horizon sees to the other side.  He can continue to communicate with 
the first guy that started ahead of him on the journey and report back to us.  
That is what I have been trying to prove all along.


Who said off topic discussions are not interesting and educational?


Dave




-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 9:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


At 05:55 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
That makes it a bit more complicated.  I was referring to the exact 
radius at which light can not escape from a non spinning black hole 
as observed from far away.  If a space ship reaches that radius from 
our perspective, it would totally blink out of existence.

No. Actually, nothing happens to the spaceship. Neglecting tidal 
forces or other effects from the environment near a black hole, it 
doesn't even experience the event horizon as anything special. 
Ummm it might start to see things that can't be seen from 
outside. Like what is in the hole and what is on the other side.

What happens is that the space ship becomes unobservable to us, 
except the mass is still there. The mass of the black hole increases 
by it. If I'm correct, gravity is the only observable that remains.

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


At 05:56 PM 12/26/2012, Craig wrote:
Isn't it a calculated location? Isn't it the radius from the center 
of the black hole at which a theoretical object at a great distance 
would reach the speed of light when falling into the black hole from 
its gravity?


No. Mass doesn't ever reach the speed of light. Light only travels at 
the speed of light


I'm puzzled here.

In fact, I'm seriously starting to smell a rat.

There is one somewhere around here, and I don't know if it's only in 
my thinking, or in how event horizons and the like are being explained.


The event horizon is being described as the boundary around a black 
hole where the gravity is so intense that light cannot travel away 
from the hole at all.


Yet it's also being stated that the event horizon is generally 
between the observer and the singularity, that if you cross the event 
horizon, the singularity is still in front of you.


I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my mind about both ideas at the same time.

It's also being said that a spaceship approaching the event horizon 
from an observer's direction would appear to slow down, and redshift, 
until it disappears. The slowing down, why? The ship is actually, as 
it approaches the horizon, accelerating. Light leaving it, before it 
reaches the horizon, will be redshifted, but that light will still 
travel at the speed of light. Why would the ship appear to slow down?

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

2012-12-26 Thread Craig

On 12/26/2012 10:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
 At 05:56 PM 12/26/2012, Craig wrote:
 Isn't it a calculated location? Isn't it the radius from the center
 of the black hole at which a theoretical object at a great distance
 would reach the speed of light when falling into the black hole from
 its gravity?

 No. Mass doesn't ever reach the speed of light. Light only travels at
 the speed of light

Black holes defy the laws of physics. The escape velocity of a black
hole is greater than the speed of light. The escape velocity is the same
speed at which an object, falling from infinity, would reach when it hit
the center of mass.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity treats gravity in a similar way
to objects travelling very fast. Objects in a strong gravitational field
appear to slow down from an observer in a lesser gravitational field. As
the ship neared the event horizon, its clock would slow down. An outside
observer would never see it reach the event horizon because at that
point, the clock would stop. The formulas are similar to that of a ship
speeding away at an ever increasing speed.

Craig


 I'm puzzled here.

 In fact, I'm seriously starting to smell a rat.

 There is one somewhere around here, and I don't know if it's only in
 my thinking, or in how event horizons and the like are being explained.

 The event horizon is being described as the boundary around a black
 hole where the gravity is so intense that light cannot travel away
 from the hole at all.

 Yet it's also being stated that the event horizon is generally between
 the observer and the singularity, that if you cross the event horizon,
 the singularity is still in front of you.

 I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my mind about both ideas at the
 same time.

 It's also being said that a spaceship approaching the event horizon
 from an observer's direction would appear to slow down, and redshift,
 until it disappears. The slowing down, why? The ship is actually, as
 it approaches the horizon, accelerating. Light leaving it, before it
 reaches the horizon, will be redshifted, but that light will still
 travel at the speed of light. Why would the ship appear to slow down?

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


At 07:17 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
Well, this was a type of trick question.  I agree that from the 
perspective of an observer far away out of the influence of the 
imaginary black hole boundary the probe ship would never appear to 
breech the boundary.  We would see any light emitted from this ship 
very red shifted as the ship proceeded forward from our 
perspective.  Eventually, as after an infinite amount of time the 
ship would become invisible entirely since no energy is left within 
photons that arrive at our location.


If you can explain that, great. (That infinite amount of time, 
i.e., the slowdown, fries my brain at this point. Yes, at the limit, 
no photons can reach us, but this doesn't match the description of 
the event horizon.)


As the ship *approaches* the event horizon, it is still outside of 
it. And the light still travels at the speed of light, it is merely redshifted.


Now, here is my thought experiment.  Take another probe ship and let 
it follow the first one toward the boundary.  It is closer to the 
first ship than us such that it perceives the boundary as nearer to 
the black hole center than us.  It therefore remains in contact with 
the first probe and can receive transmissions from it after we can 
no longer receive significant energy.   We readily pick up signals 
from the second ship since it is a safe distance from the boundary 
that we perceive.  We obtain status from the first probe via the second.


This is roughly the paradox that I came across, the rat I smell.

I wonder if this is a hypothetical technique that would allow 
information to be obtained from objects such as our first probe ship 
as they arbitrarily approach a black hole?  Could a chain of relay 
stations defeat the lost information problem?  If this is possible 
then a lot of interesting questions arise.  Perhaps information is 
not lost as it enters a black hole after all.


Or perhaps, far more likely, we are not understanding black holes. 
I'm not seeing any clear explanations out there, with an easy search. 
That's puzzing in itself.


I found plenty of articles that say this is how it is or that is 
how it is, but very little explanation that actually leads to 
understanding. When that happens in schools, it's a sign that the 
teacher doesn't really grasp the subject or, alternatively, is 
knowledgeable, but clueless as to how to explain it.


I'm suspecting there is a problem with relativity here.

If a photon can travel from spaceship A to spaceship B and from B to 
our outside observer, why can't the same photon just travel from A to 
the outside observer. It makes no sense, David.


Okay, here is how it could make sense. The photon from A to B is 
redshifted. If it continued to travel it would be redshifted out of 
existence. However, B emits a photon that is back at a starting 
frequency, so it can make it.


But this is all totally contrary to other explanations.

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


At 07:33 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
Abd, time is supposed to be dilated for the probe ship from our 
perspective as it approaches the black hole event boundary.


Yes, it would be. However,time is dilated for muons that are 
travelling close to c, but they don't slow down. They are 
travelling close to c! The muon decay clock slows down. Not the muon.


  I think of it in the following way:  On the probe ship one could 
place any form of clock that he chooses to keep track of local 
time.   Let'c choose a laser beam for his clock where he sample the 
emission frequency and divides it down to what is needed.  Of 
course we would be able to compare the final counted down pulse 
rate to his heart rate for example.


I believe that the amount of time dilation is exactly the fractional 
change in the laser fundamental frequency.  The heart of the 
spaceman would appear to beat at the exact same ratio.  His every 
move would be slowed down to us until he freezes when the emission 
frequency of the laser becomes zero due to red shift as a limit.


It will take an infinite amount of time from our view point for this to occur.


It would *not* take that time for the spaceship to reach the event 
horizon. We'd see the spaceship accelerating, in fact (nothing could 
hold it back), and it would redshift, but ... we'd not see it slow 
down. We'd see *events on board* slow down.


In fact, imagine the light beam coming to us from the ship. It has a 
certain source frequency, so many cycles per second. Suppose the 
black holonauts are talking to us, modulated on that beam. As it 
approaches the event horizion, the beam would redshift (for us) and 
the voices would slow down. It's actually a gravity-induced doppler 
shift, plus the velocity shift. To them, nothing special is 
happening. But if they are monitoring a beam from us, what would 
happen to it? (I can answer this with velocity-induced time dilation, 
but haven't much of a clue about the gravity kind, yet.)

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


At 10:23 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
We both agree that nothing will happen to the ship itself unless 
tidal forces tear it apart.  That has not been an issue and I am not 
sure of why you start with the assumption that I think it will.  You 
must have misunderstood my statement.  I suppose I could have made 
it in a clearer manner.


I never objected to the thought experiment, nor thought that this 
would be an issue. We can imagine a teeny-tiny spaceship that is 
super strong. and we can imagine a really big black hole, so that the 
curvature doesn't bite us.


The ship itself will never think it reaches the ultimate boundary 
but we will see radiation emitted by it become red shifted until no 
more detectable energy comes our way from it.


I'm no longer confident of any of the explanations. The holonauts 
never see the singularity, but if they are travelling toward it, in 
their own time, they see an event horizon ahead of them, becoming 
smaller more and more intense, I'd think. However, lots of sources 
say that events beyond the event horizon are meaningless.


Part of what is frying my brain here is the gravitational field at 
the event horizon. The event horizon is defined as the boundary where 
gravity is so intense that light cannot take a path that increases 
its distance from the center of gravity. That's geometrical. If the 
holonauts pass the originally observed event horizon, and see a 
receded event horizon in front of them, how would the light paths 
have shifted? It doesn't seem that time dilation would do this.


The sense I keep coming up with is that the event horizon is the 
place beyond which light cannot escape to the *external universe*, 
which means infinite distance, I found one article that refers to 
this. Not that it cannot escape to some greater distance.


But that contradicts the gravity so intense statements, and the 
light path statements.


I need to examine doppler shift from gravity more closely. I clearly 
don't understand the extreme case, where light not only can't escape 
to infinity (equivalent to escape velocity), but it can't go up *at 
all*. That means that the shift takes place immediately on emission, 
not upon rise through a gravitational field.


That is what I refer to as blink out of existence, not actually be 
destroyed.  This process with take an infinite amount of time to 
complete so I guess theoretically it is always detectable until the 
noise hides what is left of the low frequency energy.


Where do you get the infinite amount of time from? It seems you are 
claiming that *our time* slows down.


The mass of the ship will appear to become infinite to us as it 
fades into the noise and the spaceman will appear to freeze in place 
due to time dilation.  From our perspective, the ship becomes frozen 
at what we believe is the event horizon, although the other closer 
observers will not agree with our location determination.


I don't think so. The mass of the ship is incorporated into the mass 
of the black hole, and that's not infinite. The information coming to 
us from the ship, as I mention, would be doppler-shifted, but the 
velocity of the ship would be increasing, acceleration due to 
gravity. How would we know where the ship is? I mentioned how: I 
assume we know the gravitational field, and the ship is sending us 
photons. If they are gammas, they'll last longer! From the doppler 
shift in them we will know where they are in the field. (They will 
not be travelling at relativistic velocities.) As they approach the 
event horizon, the signal will be increasingly red-shifted, and it 
will end when they cross the event horizon. The photons still travel 
at the speed of light. They are not slowed, they are doppler-shifted.


Once before a long time ago you strongly disagreed with the idea of 
time dilation for a traveler as he enters a black hole.  I suspect 
that you now realize that this must occur.


Sure. I don't recall disagreeing with it, however. Just to be sure we 
are on the same page, the traveller does not experience time 
dilation. We observe it when we observe a traveller clock. Time 
dilation does *not* mean that the traveller appears to slow down.


Yes, I see that now you understand that the spaceman nearing what we 
considered the event horizon sees to the other side.


I understand what you *mean* but I'm not relating this to the 
traveller nearing the event horizon. They don't see beyond *their* 
event horizon, that's clear. The question I'm getting is how the 
event horizon is located. Does the curvature of space depend on where we are?


There is something we are not considering here.

He can continue to communicate with the first guy that started ahead 
of him on the journey and report back to us.  That is what I have 
been trying to prove all along.


This involves a paradox. There is contradictory information out 
there, as far as I can tell, or we are interpreting it in a way that 
leads to contradictions.

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


At 07:59 PM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Yes, digital information is indeed present in DNA.


Agreement!


One has to wonder how it got there.


Oh, we know pretty well. Details, not necessarily, but Reality (God, 
Allah) knows how to create DNA. Scientists follow the footprints, 
test to see if hypotheses work, and keep looking and testing. It's 
the Scientific Method, progressing through direct knowledge of 
Nature, cutting through interpretive dogma and assumptions. Thank God for it.


Natural Selection can not explain how random process can originate 
information; let alone exabytes of information present in DNA in its 
natural state.


Natural Selection is not Random Process. Nor are there exabytes of 
information encoded in our DNA, at least not in a single copy of our 
set. It's far, far less than that.


But, of course, Darwinian Evolutionist are right because there's 
2000 of them and nobody has heard on one of them being threatened or bribed.


Gee, bringing in two separate contentious issues at once, like AGW 
and Evolution.


Darwinian Evolution uses the name of a person. Why? Do we care 
about persons, or do we care about principles?





Jojo


- Original Message -
From: mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comJed Rothwell
To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:32 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am looking into this as 
part of an essay about the history of cold fusion I am writing. Anyway, see:


http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdfhttp://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf

This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been experimenting with 
recording data in DNA. He recorded his own book and then read it 
back, with only a few errors. He reproduced it 30 million times, 
making it the biggest best seller in history in a sense.


Quote: DNA storage is very dense. At theoretical maximum, DNA can 
encode two bits per nucleotide (nt) or 455 exabytes per gram of ssDNA . . .


I'd like to confirm I have the units right here --

Present world data storage is variously estimated between 295 
exabytes in 2011 to 2,700 exabytes today (2.7 zettabytes). See:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672 
(295 exabytes)


http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Qhttp://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q 
(2.7 ZB)


I don't know what source to believe.

This takes a colossal number of hard disks and a great deal of 
electricity. On NHK they estimated the number of bytes of data now 
exceeds the number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the 
world. Assume it is 2.7 ZB. That seems like a large number until you 
realize that you could record all of this data in 6 grams of DNA.


That demonstrates how much our technology may improve in the future. 
We have a lot of leeway. There is still plenty of room at the 
bottom as Feynman put it.


DNA preserves data far better than any human technology. It can also 
copy it faster and more accurately by far. I mean by many orders of magnitude.


It might be difficult to make a rapid, on-line electronic interface 
to DNA recorded data, similar to today's hard disk. But as a back up 
medium, or long-term storage, it seems promising. As Prof. Church 
demonstrates, this technology may come about as a spin off from 
genome-reading technology. Perhaps there are other 3-dimensional 
molecular methods of data storage. Maybe, but I would say why bother 
looking for them when nature has already found such a robust system?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

That sounds like a pretty hard way to leave this world ChemE.  Have you 
considered what it would be like to approach a massive black hole?  If the 
black hole is large and massive enough the event horizon as viewed from the far 
away sites might not have such a dramatic gravitational gradient.  I have not 
given that much thought, but it seems likely that the approach would be milder 
with less variation in gravitational strength as you head inward to the 
boundary.


If a photon left the surface of the black hole and headed outward in a vector 
along the radius what would happen to it?  Could the energy rapidly be drained 
as it headed outward until there is nothing left?  What would happen to the 
energy once things settled down?  I assume that it would still be in existence 
within some region.  What are your thoughts?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 10:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


Radiation will kill you before you get to the surface and gravity will shred 
you and you will accrete around the hole until you are completely entropified 
and that is what will be imprinted on the surface.  That will take awhile with 
many black holes because as their surface area gets smaller they suffer from 
indigestion


Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com

On Wednesday, December 26, 2012, David Roberson  wrote:

We both agree that nothing will happen to the ship itself unless tidal forces 
tear it apart.  That has not been an issue and I am not sure of why you start 
with the assumption that I think it will.  You must have misunderstood my 
statement.  I suppose I could have made it in a clearer manner.


The ship itself will never think it reaches the ultimate boundary but we will 
see radiation emitted by it become red shifted until no more detectable energy 
comes our way from it.  That is what I refer to as blink out of existence, not 
actually be destroyed.  This process with take an infinite amount of time to 
complete so I guess theoretically it is always detectable until the noise hides 
what is left of the low frequency energy.


The mass of the ship will appear to become infinite to us as it fades into the 
noise and the spaceman will appear to freeze in place due to time dilation.  
From our perspective, the ship becomes frozen at what we believe is the event 
horizon, although the other closer observers will not agree with our location 
determination.


Once before a long time ago you strongly disagreed with the idea of time 
dilation for a traveler as he enters a black hole.  I suspect that you now 
realize that this must occur.


Yes, I see that now you understand that the spaceman nearing what we considered 
the event horizon sees to the other side.  He can continue to communicate with 
the first guy that started ahead of him on the journey and report back to us.  
That is what I have been trying to prove all along.


Who said off topic discussions are not interesting and educational?


Dave




-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 9:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


At 05:55 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
That makes it a bit more complicated.  I was referring to the exact 
radius at which light can not escape from a non spinning black hole 
as observed from far away.  If a space ship reaches that radius from 
our perspective, it would totally blink out of existence.

No. Actually, nothing happens to the spaceship. Neglecting tidal 
forces or other effects from the environment near a black hole, it 
doesn't even experience the event horizon as anything special. 
Ummm it might start to see things that can't be seen from 
outside. Like what is in the hole and what is on the other side.

What happens is that the space ship becomes unobservable to us, 
except the mass is still there. The mass of the black hole increases 
by it. If I'm correct, gravity is the only observable that remains.

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


At 08:12 PM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Here is how guile is defined:

 Noun 1. guile - shrewdness as demonstrated by being skilled in deception
 craftiness, cunning, foxiness, slyness, wiliness, craft
 astuteness, perspicaciousness, perspicacity, shrewdness - 
intelligence manifested by being astute (as in business dealings)

2. guile - the quality of being crafty
 deceitfulness, craftiness
 disingenuousness - the quality of being disingenuous and lacking candor
3. guile - the use of tricks to deceive someone (usually to 
extract money from them)

 chicanery, wile, shenanigan, trickery, chicane
 dissimulation, deception, dissembling, deceit - the act of deceiving
 dupery, hoax, put-on, humbug, fraud, fraudulence - something 
intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage
 jugglery - artful trickery designed to achieve an end; the 
senator's tax program was mere jugglery



My friend, what you did is known as guile.


Who was deceived?

Guile is a form of lying.  It is condemed in the Bible and equated 
to outright lying.  But apparently, by your own testimony of having 
commited it in Wikipedia, you have no problem with it.  OK.  I'm not surprised.


Right. Not only have I no problem with what I did, it's one of the 
best things I did that year.


The administrator in question had written: I can demonstrate 
functional evidence of my bans existence.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshopdiff=prevoldid=306819768

I saw that and knew immediately what to do. He was saying that he 
could prove that his ban existed, and how was obvious: if I violated 
it, he'd block me. So I announced my intention:


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abddiff=prevoldid=306978541#Notice_regarding_the_editing_of_Cold_fusion_and_its_talk_page.

The core of it: I now withdraw that voluntary ban extension. Nobody objected.

And the next day, about 24 hours later, a question was asked on the 
Cold fusion talk page that I could answer, and so I answered, and the 
rest followed like clockwork.


Guile? Only by some of the first meaning. I wouldn't mind 
perspicacious. I knew what I was doing, and there is no harm in 
that. I simply stopped cooperating with an improper ban, declared by 
a highly involved adminstrator, against policy. The policy, in fact, 
was clarified by this case, bans like he'd issued became known as 
improper. I looked him in the eye, openly, and said, No.


Really, I was not a powerful editor, directly. This was David and 
Goliath. But I didn't take him down, he took himself down. I knew he 
would do it. He'd committed himself, and he was proud, very proud. He 
was not about to make an empty threat. He said he'd prove it, he'd prove it.


I did not hate him. I said nothing about him that I could not 
absolutely prove. He was far from the worst Wikipedia administrator, 
but he was doing damage. And he'd come after me. (He didn't give a 
fig about cold fusion, but he was a friend of JzG, who'd blocked and 
banned Pcarbonn, and Jed Rothwell. He was really just supporting his 
friend. I had taken JzG to the Arbitration Committee, successfully 
getting him reprimanded, over the blacklisting of lenr-canr.org, and 
that was not to be allowed. These people strongly disliked any 
challenge to their authority., and they retaliated.)


I'm being reminded that I'm a Muslim. We are not pacifists, we are 
permitted to establish justice, we are permitted to defend the weak 
and stand for freedom from oppression, and sometimes we are even 
commanded to do these things, where we are able. This never excuses 
going beyond limits, the verses on fighting are very explicit, it is 
not allowed to attack those who don't attack us, and responding in 
kind is *the limit*, and forgiveness is better *if justice is established.*


Hmph. End speech.




Jojo



- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age



At 01:12 AM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
My friend, just because your morality allows you to troll and lie 
in wikipedia does not mean that I am like you.


I never lied on Wikipedia. I did one action that I allowed as a 
form of trolling. It's more like what a soldier might do in a war, 
present himself as a  target so that a sniper betrays his position. 
There was no lying involved, and the purpose wasn't actually to outrage.


The action itself was completely legitimate. In fact, here it is: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusiondiff=prevoldid=306930963


A talk page edit, not actually controversial, just providing information.

It worked. The admin took the bait, following his ego. And he lost 
his privileges as a result. My purpose was to allow him to do that,

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

You are asking very good questions.  I have given this a little thought over 
the years and there are certain things that seem likely to happen.  It has been 
proven that a gravity field causes time to dilate.  A very large field will 
cause it to dilate a lot.  A black hole has an extremely large gravitational 
field around it due to the enormous mass.  This might explain why time for one 
on board a spaceship approaching the event horizon slows down from an observer 
outside of the field and eventually comes to a complete stop.


This is strange indeed.  Time actually coming to a standstill is difficult to 
put ones arms around.  The implication is that the guy on board that ship does 
not age at all as far as we are concerned.  A million years could go by for us 
and he would not seem to change.  This is a way to travel into our future 
provided you are not annihilated by the black hole.  If you escape the hole, 
then you get a look at working ECATS! LOL!  I sure hope that they are available 
for sell before a million years goes by.


As I was speculating before, I think that the amount of red shift that occurs 
is directly in proportion to the amount of time dilation for the fellow.  
Remember his heart beats at a rate that is a fraction of the cycles of the time 
measuring laser and it seems logical that we observe both changing by the same 
percentage.   The implication is that every method of time keeping is similarly 
effected by the gravity field present near the black hole boundary.  We need to 
explore this concept and determine whether or not it makes sense.


I understand that we should expect that the space guy is accelerating toward 
the black hole and from his perspective it must be true since he is within a 
gravitational field.  The only way out of this dilemma is if he indeed does 
continue forward until he becomes dissociated into atoms or whatever near the 
actual surface of the black hole.  This probably happens.  But, from our far 
off perspective it is in an infinite number of years into the future.  That is 
another reason that time dilation must occur.  We do not live long enough to 
see him hit the hole dead on.  It never happens during the age of the universe 
unless some other mechanism is at work that we are unaware of.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


At 05:56 PM 12/26/2012, Craig wrote:
Isn't it a calculated location? Isn't it the radius from the center 
of the black hole at which a theoretical object at a great distance 
would reach the speed of light when falling into the black hole from 
its gravity?

No. Mass doesn't ever reach the speed of light. Light only travels at 
the speed of light

I'm puzzled here.

In fact, I'm seriously starting to smell a rat.

There is one somewhere around here, and I don't know if it's only in 
my thinking, or in how event horizons and the like are being explained.

The event horizon is being described as the boundary around a black 
hole where the gravity is so intense that light cannot travel away 
from the hole at all.

Yet it's also being stated that the event horizon is generally 
between the observer and the singularity, that if you cross the event 
horizon, the singularity is still in front of you.

I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my mind about both ideas at the same time.

It's also being said that a spaceship approaching the event horizon 
from an observer's direction would appear to slow down, and redshift, 
until it disappears. The slowing down, why? The ship is actually, as 
it approaches the horizon, accelerating. Light leaving it, before it 
reaches the horizon, will be redshifted, but that light will still 
travel at the speed of light. Why would the ship appear to slow down?

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

I am thinking along the line of the second concept that you list at the end.  
The photon would cease to exist at any energy if allowed to continue by itself 
from the spaceship that is infinitesimally close to the boundary.  So, instead, 
the second ship intercepts it and any modulation it contains and then uses a 
new transmitter at a higher frequency to begin the path back to us.  The main 
point is that if they had tried to use the original frequency that they 
received from the first guy, it too would have gone away by the time it reaches 
us.  The magic is in the fact that more energy is available to complete the 
path.


I believe that this technique makes good sense and would allow the first ship 
to communicate back home.  It still remains to be seen whether or not we 
receive the message before a very long time has elapsed.  consider that the 
first guy has virtually stopped moving as far as we are concerned and it seems 
possible that the second ship would see him moving pretty slowly, but not as 
slowly as we observe.


My intuition is that the second spaceman would very quickly reach a state of 
extreme retardation as he approached the boundary and that there would be a 
short time window during which he could send a signal before he also froze.  
This is heavy.  For some reason it reminds me of the guy that covered half a 
given distance in a certain amount of time.  He never gets there as a result 
since distance can be halved forever.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 11:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


At 07:17 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
Well, this was a type of trick question.  I agree that from the 
perspective of an observer far away out of the influence of the 
imaginary black hole boundary the probe ship would never appear to 
breech the boundary.  We would see any light emitted from this ship 
very red shifted as the ship proceeded forward from our 
perspective.  Eventually, as after an infinite amount of time the 
ship would become invisible entirely since no energy is left within 
photons that arrive at our location.

If you can explain that, great. (That infinite amount of time, 
i.e., the slowdown, fries my brain at this point. Yes, at the limit, 
no photons can reach us, but this doesn't match the description of 
the event horizon.)

As the ship *approaches* the event horizon, it is still outside of 
it. And the light still travels at the speed of light, it is merely redshifted.

Now, here is my thought experiment.  Take another probe ship and let 
it follow the first one toward the boundary.  It is closer to the 
first ship than us such that it perceives the boundary as nearer to 
the black hole center than us.  It therefore remains in contact with 
the first probe and can receive transmissions from it after we can 
no longer receive significant energy.   We readily pick up signals 
from the second ship since it is a safe distance from the boundary 
that we perceive.  We obtain status from the first probe via the second.

This is roughly the paradox that I came across, the rat I smell.

I wonder if this is a hypothetical technique that would allow 
information to be obtained from objects such as our first probe ship 
as they arbitrarily approach a black hole?  Could a chain of relay 
stations defeat the lost information problem?  If this is possible 
then a lot of interesting questions arise.  Perhaps information is 
not lost as it enters a black hole after all.

Or perhaps, far more likely, we are not understanding black holes. 
I'm not seeing any clear explanations out there, with an easy search. 
That's puzzing in itself.

I found plenty of articles that say this is how it is or that is 
how it is, but very little explanation that actually leads to 
understanding. When that happens in schools, it's a sign that the 
teacher doesn't really grasp the subject or, alternatively, is 
knowledgeable, but clueless as to how to explain it.

I'm suspecting there is a problem with relativity here.

If a photon can travel from spaceship A to spaceship B and from B to 
our outside observer, why can't the same photon just travel from A to 
the outside observer. It makes no sense, David.

Okay, here is how it could make sense. The photon from A to B is 
redshifted. If it continued to travel it would be redshifted out of 
existence. However, B emits a photon that is back at a starting 
frequency, so it can make it.

But this is all totally contrary to other explanations.

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon

Abd, it is all in the perception of the various observers.  Each one does not 
detect anything special about their own situation.  We, as the far off guys, 
see the fellow on the ship being affected by the gravitational field he is 
within.  That field is so intense that we see it slow his time measurements 
down to zero eventually.  He does not see this happening from his point of 
view.  He sees that big black zero ahead of him and kisses his butt goodbye.  
It takes very little time as far as he is concerned until he becomes bacon.  
For us, an eternity passes before he dies.


Now, I find it interesting what we should observe during this process.  I agree 
with you that initially the ship leaving our vicinity must appear to accelerate 
toward the black hole.  I am confident that we could bounce radar pulses off of 
the ship and measure its velocity and distance from us and that these 
measurements would show what is expected for a while.  The acceleration of the 
ship would increase as the ship got further away from us until time dilation 
caught up with the device.   There must exist a distance from us at which the 
ship begins to slow down from our perspective.  This must be where the time 
dilation due to the gravity field exceeds the apparent acceleration due to the 
pull of the field.  As the time dilation wins the battle, the ship appears to 
decelerate until it eventually comes to a stop.


I suspect that you can obtain an idea of how a signal behaves when transmitted 
from us to the spaceman by thinking of behavior that is reversed from the other 
direction.  All of the frequencies we transmit will be blue shifted by the same 
proportion.  Have you practiced your Donald Duck speak lately?   Perhaps a 
bottle of helium might help!


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 11:22 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon


At 07:33 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote:
Abd, time is supposed to be dilated for the probe ship from our 
perspective as it approaches the black hole event boundary.

Yes, it would be. However,time is dilated for muons that are 
travelling close to c, but they don't slow down. They are 
travelling close to c! The muon decay clock slows down. Not the muon.

   I think of it in the following way:  On the probe ship one could 
 place any form of clock that he chooses to keep track of local 
 time.   Let'c choose a laser beam for his clock where he sample the 
 emission frequency and divides it down to what is needed.  Of 
 course we would be able to compare the final counted down pulse 
 rate to his heart rate for example.

I believe that the amount of time dilation is exactly the fractional 
change in the laser fundamental frequency.  The heart of the 
spaceman would appear to beat at the exact same ratio.  His every 
move would be slowed down to us until he freezes when the emission 
frequency of the laser becomes zero due to red shift as a limit.

It will take an infinite amount of time from our view point for this to occur.

It would *not* take that time for the spaceship to reach the event 
horizon. We'd see the spaceship accelerating, in fact (nothing could 
hold it back), and it would redshift, but ... we'd not see it slow 
down. We'd see *events on board* slow down.

In fact, imagine the light beam coming to us from the ship. It has a 
certain source frequency, so many cycles per second. Suppose the 
black holonauts are talking to us, modulated on that beam. As it 
approaches the event horizion, the beam would redshift (for us) and 
the voices would slow down. It's actually a gravity-induced doppler 
shift, plus the velocity shift. To them, nothing special is 
happening. But if they are monitoring a beam from us, what would 
happen to it? (I can answer this with velocity-induced time dilation, 
but haven't much of a clue about the gravity kind, yet.)

Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon