RE: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Some people in this forum may be surprised that I have not contributed to this discussion. So, here I am to make a few points. 1. This is a valid discussion, since the religious/political events of the next 20 years will affect us all more seriously than the success or failure of cold fusion. 2. Jews have no regard for the authority that Jesus claims as the Son of God. They do not accept the New Testament of the Bible as scripture. 3. Of the three major religions in this discussion: Muslims are instructed to destroy their enemies (which include infidels). Christians are instructed to love their enemies (A very difficult thing for most of us to do) Jews are instructed that God will destroy their enemies. 4. The nation of Israel was destroyed by the Romans over 1900 years ago, but Bible talks of the existence of Israel during the end times. For centuries this was thought to be impossible, but in 1948 the nation came back to life! Is this a coincidence or divine intervention? The nation's survival over the past 60 years may likewise be miraculous. Is it irony or God's judgment that the Hebrew language survived to be the official language of Israel while the language of the empire that conquered them is extinct as a conversational language? Enough for now; I hate typing. Jeff No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1498 - Release Date: 6/11/2008 7:13 PM
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Howdy Jeff, No problem with you bellying up to the bar on this topic , provided you got big enough elbows. Your point makes a case of effect until you factor in China and the Pacific Rim where China is the master. Our religions and politics represent near zero in the great game.. it is our consumer market that keeps us alive, Relying on interpretations of the bible has sure caused lotsa people grief. The book of Revelation is revealing in what it don't say which tells you it ain't gonna say until it is time to say and that ain't yet.. maybe tomorrow. In short.. the Texas version is hide and watch. Your recognition of Israel's restoration in 1948 as the physical Israel may be valid. History and Satan has a strange way of playing tricks on the unsuspecting as ole Willlie Shakepeare observed watching the antics of the king. As for spiritual Israel.. that's a one on one thing. Richard Jeff Fink wrote, 1. This is a valid discussion, since the religious/political events of the next 20 years will affect us all more seriously than the success or failure of cold fusion but in 1948 the nation came back to life!
Re: [Vo]:Tell us how you really feel Bob
Krivit sez: http://bobpark.org/ 2. HYDRINOS: HOW LONG CAN A REALLY DUMB IDEA SURVIVE? BlackLight Power (BLP), founded 17 years ago as HydroCatalysis, announced last week that the company had successfully tested a prototype power system that would generate 50 KW of thermal power. BLP anticipates delivery of the new power system in 12 to 18 months. The BLP process, (WN 26 Apr 91) , discovered by Randy Mills, is said to coax hydrogen atoms into a state below the ground state, called the hydrino. There is no independent scientific confirmation of the hydrino, and BLP has a patent problem. So they have nothing to sell but bull shit. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains. We have been so focused on Dr. Park's latest BLP comments that we almost forgot another prurient analysis: 1. ENERGY: $4 GAS SEEMS TO BE THE TIPPING POINT. The nation has suddenly become energy conscious, forcing GM to slash production of SUVs and dump the Hummer. Why, you may wonder, did it take so long? Meanwhile, old energy scams are blossoming again. This week, a reader pointed out, a new web site that sells instructions ($49.95) for converting your car to run on tap water www.runyourscarwithwater.com. It uses the car battery to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Are these the same people who sold George W. Bush on the hydrogen car in 2003? Predictably, the focus on energy has even brought cold fusion back, with physicist Yoshiaki Arata at Osaka University claiming to have the first real demonstration of the 1989 Pons and Fleischmann fizzle. Even the hydrino is back. * * * * I wonder where the good doctor gets his information. He seems so knowledgeable about these matters. ;-) Actually, I learn a lot from Dr. Park. I feel like I'm getting a better understanding of the paradigms that motivate his opinions. Let it be a lesson to me. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Would an antimatter apple fall up?
http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn14120 Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Tell us how you really feel Bob
Even when Park is talking about ordinary things, i.e. improved gas mileage, he is uninformed. Use of a small amount of hydrogen in the air entering an engine can improve the efficiency of combustion. The only issue is whether this increased efficiency is larger than the energy needed to make the hydrogen. Of course, installing and maintaining an electrolyzer is a pain that most people don't want to endure. Nevertheless, the effect is real and worthwhile for some desperate people. I wish Park would spend his talents finding solutions rather than shooting down ideas that actually work. Ed OrionWorks wrote: Krivit sez: http://bobpark.org/ 2. HYDRINOS: HOW LONG CAN A REALLY DUMB IDEA SURVIVE? BlackLight Power (BLP), founded 17 years ago as HydroCatalysis, announced last week that the company had successfully tested a prototype power system that would generate 50 KW of thermal power. BLP anticipates delivery of the new power system in 12 to 18 months. The BLP process, (WN 26 Apr 91) , discovered by Randy Mills, is said to coax hydrogen atoms into a state below the ground state, called the hydrino. There is no independent scientific confirmation of the hydrino, and BLP has a patent problem. So they have nothing to sell but bull shit. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains. We have been so focused on Dr. Park's latest BLP comments that we almost forgot another prurient analysis: 1. ENERGY: $4 GAS SEEMS TO BE THE TIPPING POINT. The nation has suddenly become energy conscious, forcing GM to slash production of SUVs and dump the Hummer. Why, you may wonder, did it take so long? Meanwhile, old energy scams are blossoming again. This week, a reader pointed out, a new web site that sells instructions ($49.95) for converting your car to run on tap water www.runyourscarwithwater.com. It uses the car battery to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Are these the same people who sold George W. Bush on the hydrogen car in 2003? Predictably, the focus on energy has even brought cold fusion back, with physicist Yoshiaki Arata at Osaka University claiming to have the first real demonstration of the 1989 Pons and Fleischmann fizzle. Even the hydrino is back. * * * * I wonder where the good doctor gets his information. He seems so knowledgeable about these matters. ;-) Actually, I learn a lot from Dr. Park. I feel like I'm getting a better understanding of the paradigms that motivate his opinions. Let it be a lesson to me. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Would an antimatter apple fall up?
On 12/6/2008 8:57 AM, OrionWorks wrote: http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn14120 If I had to bet a case of champagne, I would bet that antihydrogen and hydrogen fall exactly the same, AEGIS project member Michael Doser told New Scientist. And that's a case of champagne I'd love to lose we're dreaming to see something unexpected. If one wishes to see something unexpected watch the motion of a curling stone. New physical paradigms can emerge from the mundane and not just the ultra small/large or the ultra hot/cold. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
On 12/6/2008 6:26 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: 3. Of the three major religions in this discussion: Muslims are instructed to destroy their enemies (which include infidels). Christians are instructed to love their enemies (A very difficult thing for most of us to do) Jews are instructed that God will destroy their enemies. and all three loves themselves to no end. ;-) Harry
Re: [Vo]:Global dimming will be reduced
A related topic: http://theheavystuff.com/?p=63 Have ChemTrails Stopped Global Warming? Terry On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: High oil prices are causing reduced flights and reduced fuel consumption by the airlines. The sudden and dramatic reduction in flights and simultaneous decrease in dimming in the US in the days subsequent to 9/11/2001 is a strong indication that it will happen again to the degree airline fuel consumption is reduced. It is thus reasonable that the US can expect to be in for a hotter summer and more weather extremes, increasingly so as the airlines cut back their fuel consumption. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm ...the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling ... the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought. More on global dimming: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/about.html http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/09/22/keen-dimming/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1108853,00.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0513-01.htm http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1325819.htm Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Sichuan Quake Triggered by Nuke?
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-6-3/71353.html Nuclear Explosion Occurred Near Epicenter of the Sichuan Earthquake, Expert Says By Wu Weilin Epoch Times Staff Jun 03, 2008 Boxun News, a Chinese-language Web site based outside China, reported that an unnamed expert has claimed that there was a nuclear explosion near the epicenter of the Sichuan earthquake, based on witness reports and the discovery of concrete rubble believed to have come from an underground military installation. The news of this nuclear explosion has raised questions about the cause of the earthquake. more
Re: [Vo]:Three Words That Could Overthrow Physics
On 9/6/2008 3:51 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: On 4/6/2008 10:53 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: I am calling your bluff. ;-) Not a bluff, though it involves some fuzzy reasoning. The difference between a proof and an explanation has bugged me since junior high, when I found out that most mathematical facts are proven without ever being explained. As I said before, a model may predict what's going to happen but will never tell you why. Using a model is a tacit admission that we don't know what the reasons behind things are, or even if there are any such reasons. I would think the _construction_ of a model depends on some a-priori explanations (or stories?) of the world. Not necessarily, though some certainly seem to be. Aether theory is predicated on the notion that there is some kind of aether which carries some kind of vibrations; as such that's a sort of fuzzy explanation (though the details are pretty wild if you stop and think about what sort of material aether must be, keeping in mind the obvious fact that planets and stars plow through the aether with no impediment to their motion, along with the fact that vibrations traveling in any known medium go faster as the medium becomes stiffer and slower as the medium becomes floppier -- and vibrations in the aether travel really wicked fast, so it must be really wicked stiff, which makes those planets cruising through the middle of it all the harder to understand). An aether is untenable if one begins with the assumption that the aether is some sort of medium which obeys Newton's three of laws motions. One could argue that the medium offers no resistance (i.e. has no inertia), but instead is limited by how fast it can part or give way to the motion of a body through it. This parting occurs at the speed of light. An an illustration consider this non-mechanical analogy: A queen is walking through a crowd of loyal subjects. The crowd offers no drag, but the speed of the queen is limited by the ability of the crowd to part. But to take a contrary example, special relativity postulates no mechanism at all for anything; it's just a proposal that the geometry of space is just like what you get if you assume the distance between any two events is fixed for all observers *if* you measure distance as x^2 - t^2. The justification for it is that it works, with no reference to whether or not it makes sense or explains anything. Another contrary example is Ptolemaic cosmology, which as far as I can see explains nothing, and is really just a mathematical construct. You have to situate it within the cosmology from which it emerged to find the explanation. In that cosmology a distinction exists between the celestial relm and the earthly relm. Heavenly bodies had to move in circles because circular motion expressed the perfection of the heavens. What is the difference between an explanation and a model? You have said something substantive about models, but nothing substantive about explanations, except to say that explanation is not a model. Or is it just an issue of semantics? Maybe it's just semantics, but I actually think it's more a matter of gut feel, and satisfaction level. If you look at the link Terry gave, the author's objection is that physics doesn't say why magnets attract. Well, what would it mean to say why they attract? This is the heart of the issue -- just exactly what is an explanation? In physics it's hard to say, for me, at least, because I don't know of any explanations. As far as I know modern physics has none. It does and it is called mechanics, I can't really agree. We tend to think mechanics explains something because it so neatly matches our experience with stuff, but really it is nothing more than a *description* of what Newton thought things did. A centerpiece of Newtonian mechanics is the law of gravity, which is simply a bald statement that two bodies attract with a force equal to G m_1 m_2 / r^2 Although it was formally consistent with his laws of motion Newton's notion of gravity as universal attraction was very unmechanical, as it violated another aspect of the mechanical paradigm which only permits one body to influence another body by collision or through the action of an intervening material (inertial) medium. with no hint of an explanation -- and what's more, that's a description of action at a distance, with information as to where each body is located being transmitted to the other body in *zero* time, with, again, no proposed mechanism for this information transfer. Newton, as I recall, had misgivings about that (and he was right, of course). He was not the first to suggest gravity was a kind of attraction. At the time this would have been called an occult theory. I believe he distanced himself from his own occult theory because the mechanical paradigm had become the dominant
Re: [Vo]:Sichuan Quake Triggered by Nuke?
--- Terry Blanton wrote: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-6-3/71353.html Nuclear Explosion Occurred Near Epicenter of the Sichuan Earthquake, Expert Says The above could be an expert opinion, or else a political smear by one of China's many enemies in the region, but if it is the former, then there are implications worth verbalizing. On the slightly cynical side - Terry, are you thinking China Syndrome in reverse? Ha so. China has a research reactor, two nuclear fuel production sites and two atomic weapons sites in Sichuan province, where the quake struck, but they are reportedly between 40 and 90 miles from the epicenter. If it was a test site at 60 miles distance, say -- wow! French nuclear experts said the Chinese reported light damage to an older nuclear facility that was being dismantled before the quake, noting that seismic construction codes were less strict when those sites were built. Less strict in China may mean that bamboo was used as the containment material. Accidental? If a nuke triggered the quake, it would probably need to be extremely large- tens of megatons and up. This is not the place China tests that large kind of device - if they test at all - too populated. That size would be tested in the Gobi should they want to break treaties - but just yesterday Yang reaffirmed China's position, saying China is for the safeguarding of the Non-proliferation Treaty. Riiight. If it was not planned but accidental - that is even scarier because of its presumed size. I could not find any studies on it, so who knows? If it was both accidental and much larger than would be expected from related secret RD work - say on fast reactors, then that is of extreme importance to the World to know ! and could indicate an anomaly which is brand new - but sadly it is also one which may have destroyed all evidence of whatever happened. Since the Chinese have poorer controls on almost everything dangerous - than does the West, we can only hope that it is not negligence on their part since the death toll is surely much higher than they have admitted to, and it could happen again. There could be lessons to be learned here beyond safety- except that they would likely never admit to it being accidental. Hey - maybe - it was a Keanu-type of LENR experiment gone berserk ;-) Where is Liz Shue(or Jane Fondle) when we need to know these deep hidden secrets about nukes ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Sichuan Quake Triggered by Nuke?
unusual glow (artificial aurora) immediately before quake... http://youtube.com/watch?v=1IHoZoAVLo0 other vids also Could be 1) relic of camera lens with air pollution 2) ionization of deep rocks rising to clouds, or 3) ionization due to an accident, which got worse 4) intentional small nuke, unfelt until the earthquake (Rulison type using PFB) I suspect #2 as this kind of thing has been reported before, several times, in the literature. Of course, there is the possibility that there was deep gas or shale found there, which they were trying to nuke it as we tried 40 years ago: http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=727
Re: [Vo]:Tell us how you really feel Bob
svj - I was so fixated on Park's comments on BLP I didn't notice this. Indeed, Park does seem to be rather up on LENR... s into hydrogen and oxygen. Are these the same people who sold George W. Bush on the hydrogen car in 2003? Predictably, the focus on energy has even brought cold fusion back, with physicist Yoshiaki Arata at Osaka University claiming to have the first real demonstration of the 1989 Pons and Fleischmann fizzle. Even the hydrino is back. * * * * I wonder where the good doctor gets his information. He seems so knowledgeable about these matters. ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Would an antimatter apple fall up?
On Jun 12, 2008, at 5:57 AM, OrionWorks wrote: http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn14120 Based on the gravimagnetic theory I proposed: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf I seems unlikely, though possible, that antimatter will fall up. I suggested in the above article that mirror matter carries a negative mass charge. Antimatter has ordinary charge, creates ordinary photons, interacts with magnetic fields, and thus is not mirror matter. A scientist in the mirror world can be expected to also be able to do antimatter experiments just like ours, and to see conservation of charge, the creation and annihilation of pairs of opposed charge particles. We can expect his universe to be to him identical to what our universe is to us. Preservation of symmetry requires that gravitational charge and Coulomb charge be independent. So, in an energy to matter pair creation, how is symmetry conserved? On page 30 of the above Gravimagnetic reference, I suggest the possibility that pair creation actually always occurs as a foursome, i.e. a dual pair, a mirror matter pair and ordinary pair. In the simplest symmetric universe gravitational charge and Coulomb charge must be independent. In the simplest possible arrangement, it seems to me that mirror matter and ordinary matter have opposed gravitational charge. Preservation of symmetry requires that gravitational charge and Coulomb charge be independent. So, in an energy to matter pair creation, and also importantly, in annihilation, how is symmetry conserved? Perhaps I had this analysis wrong. My solution provides symmetry in pair creation, but provides no means to handle the like gravitational charges at annihilation, except possibly via neutrino creation. Neutrinos may simply be a manifestation of naked gravitational charge. There is an even simpler arrangement possible at pair production than that proposed originally in the gravimagnetic theory. That possibility is based on the idea that the mirror state has nothing to do with gravitational charge (and thus we have somewhat more complicated universe because it is all doubled to accommodate mirror state.) It can simply be that, during pair creation, gravitational charge is created from the vacuum and allocated to a given particle of the pair totally independently from the Coulomb charge. We can call this the *independent charge principle*. Electron-positron pair creation can thus result in two possible combinations: +x, -y -x, +y Here x indicates positive gravitational mass, y indicates negative gravitational mass. This would mean that half of all matter created from the vacuum would carry negative gravitational charge, and half carry positive gravitational charge. Upon annihilation, however, the matter in the vicinity would tend to carry like gravitational charge, as the other would have been repelled away from the vicinity. We thus end up with the need for neutrino or other neutral particle creation to account for the annihilation (or at least disappearance) of the residual pair of like gravitational charges. Despite this similar shortcoming, this independent charge principle scenario makes as about much sense as one in which we only see -x, +y, i.e. in which all antimatter carries negative gravitational charge. It strikes me as also possible that symmetry is broken here, where in a given mirror state, one pair type is more likely than another. We might see 99% -x, +y and 1% +x, -y pair creation here, while in a mirror world it would be the opposite, and thus full symmetry restored. The *independent charge principle* might better be called the *quasi- independent charge principle* in that case. What makes the independent charge principle in pair creation scenarios as proposed above of interest is that it is far far easier to test than the premise that antimatter has negative gravitational charge! It is not necessary to save the antimatter from the pair creations. This is a major advantage! It is only necessary to save all the ordinary matter from the pair creations. If half of that matter (or even some small proportion) has negative gravitational mass, then this will be comparatively easy to determine. The ability to create ordinary matter with negative gravitational mass also has much more utility. Electrons are not even of much interest because they are so light. It is only necessary to trap the protons from proton-anti-proton pair creations. If the independent charge principle turns out to be correct, then this has huge cosmological implications. One of them is that sufficiently heavy black holes can spew forth simultaneously both matter and antimatter. All such matter will have a gravitational charge opposed to that of the black hole. As proposed in the gravimagnetic theory, the black hole, even under within the
Re: [Vo]:Would an antimatter apple fall up?
--- Horace Antimatter has ordinary charge, creates ordinary photons, interacts with magnetic fields ...out of curiosity, assuming that the photons from antimatter, even if ordinary, would be polarized differently - what about mirror matter photons? You mention symmetry is conserved but I wonder if that goes to every detail? You probably know about Jones calculus? (no relation, and new to me ;-) Before stumbling on it, I had no idea that photons were so complex... but the implications are many - there may be a statistical ways in the future (or now) to determine, from a study of photon emission, if a star (more likely a whole galaxy) is composed of antimatter. ... maybe mirror matter has distinctive photons? or have you answered that before? Every time you mention mirror matter, I get this vague and uneasy sense of deja vu... Makes the head spin. Jones Speaking of circularly polarized apples falling up ... ... and other 'Dusty' memories Like a circle in a spiral Like a wheel within a wheel Never ending or beginning On an ever-spinning reel Like a snowball down a mountain Or a carnival balloon Like a carousel thats turning Running rings around the moon Like a clock whose hands are sweeping Past the minutes of its face And the world is like an apple Whirling silently in space Like the circles that you find In the windmills of your mind
