Re: [Vo]:Bubblegate, Missing Act I, Version 2
Revised At 08:57 PM 9/3/2008, you wrote: Someone said they felt like they came in during the middle of Act 1. This was helpful for me. I've been so deep into this, sometimes I forget the perspective of others. I would appreciate hearing if this helps, or where it could use improvement. Thanks, Steve Excerpts from Bubblegate Conflict at Purdue - Timeline Overview 2005 (Feb. 10) Adam Butt, graduate student at Purdue, gives demonstration of his thorough knowledge of and experience with bubble fusion research at Purdue in front of numerous Purdue faculty including Sally Mason, former provost, and Linda Katehi, dean of the College of Engineering. (videotape coming soon) 2005 (July) Purdue issues http://newenergytimes.com/BubbleTrouble/2005PurduePressReleaseJulyNED-XuButt.pdfpress release announcing bubble fusion replication work of Butt and post-doctoral researcher Yiban Xu and their paper in Nuclear Engineering and Design. 2005 (July) Purdue Primary Committee votes on tenure and promotions in School of Nuclear Engineering. Rusi Taleyarkhan, professor of nuclear engineering, votes against Lefteri Tsoukalas, the head of the school. [http://newenergytimes.com/BubbleTrouble/NETBubbleFusionSpecialReport.pdfpage 63] 2006 (Feb) Tsoukalas obtains statement from Butt. [http://newenergytimes.com/BubbleTrouble/NETBubbleFusionSpecialReport.pdfpage 65] Document says Butt was not involved in bubble fusion research. 2006 (March) Tsoukalas and another Purdue professor, Tatjana Jevremovic, are quoted in Nature making serious allegations against Taleyarkhan. (Around this time, allegations surface that Taleyarkhan, desperate for recognition of an independent replication of bubble fusion, inappropriately inserted Butt's name into published papers and alleged that Butt had nothing to do with the work.) (Also around this time, Taleyarkhan's competitors at UCLA (Seth Putterman) and University of Illinois (Ken Susslick) are quoted in media reports that suggest that Taleyarkhan has committed science fraud. News of fraud is transmitted worldwide through media syndication.) 2006 (October) Tsoukalas is removed as head of School of Nuclear Engineering [http://newenergytimes.com/BubbleTrouble/2007SubcommitteeReport.pdfpage 2]. 2007 (May) Rep. Brad Miller, D-NC, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, completes investigation of Taleyarkhan matter. Miller's report cites the alleged statement from Butt as key evidence of research misconduct by Taleyarkhan. Media, other government agencies and Purdue administration pick up reference to Butt document and cast cloud over Taleyarkhan's research and character. 2008 (Feb. 1) Taleyarkhan is present when Butt (over telephone) is cross-examined by attorneys. Taleyarkhan states that Butt a) fails to confirm facts attributed to his alleged written statement and b) fails to remember facts that conflict with his alleged written statement. Taleyarkhan writes that the Butt video and the affidavits of Mize, [REDACTED], and [REDACTED] provide evidence contrary to the statements made by Butt under oath. (Around this time, all formal accusations of science fraud against Taleyarkhan are dismissed.) 2008 (July) Purdue completes investigation of Taleyarkhan matter and issues judgment against Taleyarkhan for research misconduct. Purdue uses alleged statement from Butt as key evidence. Purdue distributes press release before completion of appeals process. 2008 (Aug) After appeals process is complete, Purdue sanctions Taleyarkhan for research misconduct. Purdue orders demotion, cuts salary, distributes press release.
[Vo]:Bubblegate ACT i, Ver.3
Revised this segment: 2006 (Feb) Tsoukalas obtains statement from Butt. [page 65] Document says Butt was not involved in bubble fusion research. Document is not signed, notarized, taken under oath. It does not state that it was written willingly and without influence and duress from any other individuals.
[Vo]:Re: Bubblegate, Missing Act I, Version 2
Congratulations Steve for the great investigative work. Michel P.S. Just one detail, in the sentence (Around this time, allegations..., it isn't clear to me who or what alleged that Butt had nothing to do with the work. - Original Message - From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bubblegate, Missing Act I, Version 2 Revised At 08:57 PM 9/3/2008, you wrote: Someone said they felt like they came in during the middle of Act 1. This was helpful for me. I've been so deep into this, sometimes I forget the perspective of others. I would appreciate hearing if this helps, or where it could use improvement. Thanks, Steve Excerpts from Bubblegate Conflict at Purdue - Timeline Overview 2005 (Feb. 10) Adam Butt, graduate student at Purdue, gives demonstration of his thorough knowledge of and experience with bubble fusion research at Purdue in front of numerous Purdue faculty including Sally Mason, former provost, and Linda Katehi, dean of the College of Engineering. (videotape coming soon) 2005 (July) Purdue issues http://newenergytimes.com/BubbleTrouble/2005PurduePressReleaseJulyNED-XuButt.pdfpress release announcing bubble fusion replication work of Butt and post-doctoral researcher Yiban Xu and their paper in Nuclear Engineering and Design. 2005 (July) Purdue Primary Committee votes on tenure and promotions in School of Nuclear Engineering. Rusi Taleyarkhan, professor of nuclear engineering, votes against Lefteri Tsoukalas, the head of the school. [http://newenergytimes.com/BubbleTrouble/NETBubbleFusionSpecialReport.pdfpage 63] 2006 (Feb) Tsoukalas obtains statement from Butt. [http://newenergytimes.com/BubbleTrouble/NETBubbleFusionSpecialReport.pdfpage 65] Document says Butt was not involved in bubble fusion research. 2006 (March) Tsoukalas and another Purdue professor, Tatjana Jevremovic, are quoted in Nature making serious allegations against Taleyarkhan. (Around this time, allegations surface that Taleyarkhan, desperate for recognition of an independent replication of bubble fusion, inappropriately inserted Butt's name into published papers and alleged that Butt had nothing to do with the work.) (Also around this time, Taleyarkhan's competitors at UCLA (Seth Putterman) and University of Illinois (Ken Susslick) are quoted in media reports that suggest that Taleyarkhan has committed science fraud. News of fraud is transmitted worldwide through media syndication.) 2006 (October) Tsoukalas is removed as head of School of Nuclear Engineering [http://newenergytimes.com/BubbleTrouble/2007SubcommitteeReport.pdfpage 2]. 2007 (May) Rep. Brad Miller, D-NC, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, completes investigation of Taleyarkhan matter. Miller's report cites the alleged statement from Butt as key evidence of research misconduct by Taleyarkhan. Media, other government agencies and Purdue administration pick up reference to Butt document and cast cloud over Taleyarkhan's research and character. 2008 (Feb. 1) Taleyarkhan is present when Butt (over telephone) is cross-examined by attorneys. Taleyarkhan states that Butt a) fails to confirm facts attributed to his alleged written statement and b) fails to remember facts that conflict with his alleged written statement. Taleyarkhan writes that the Butt video and the affidavits of Mize, [REDACTED], and [REDACTED] provide evidence contrary to the statements made by Butt under oath. (Around this time, all formal accusations of science fraud against Taleyarkhan are dismissed.) 2008 (July) Purdue completes investigation of Taleyarkhan matter and issues judgment against Taleyarkhan for research misconduct. Purdue uses alleged statement from Butt as key evidence. Purdue distributes press release before completion of appeals process. 2008 (Aug) After appeals process is complete, Purdue sanctions Taleyarkhan for research misconduct. Purdue orders demotion, cuts salary, distributes press release.
[Vo]:Particle Physics Rap
Don't miss this! Rap about the LHC ! http://news.aol.com:80/article/no-jive-particle-physics-rap-is-web-hit/155074 George Holz
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
Suppose we actually have microscopic black holes in the center of the moon, or earth for that matter. They would tend to be maintained at the center of gravity. Their matter consumption rate would depend on relative motion with that matter, and their cross section for consumption would be very small. Even in a liquid core environment, the rate of matter consumption would eventually depend primarily on the viscosity of the core matter. The rate of consumption would be finite and for a very long time possibly exponential. In a solid core body like the moon, the consumption might never occur, because the black hole would essentially hollow out a vacuum around itself. If black holes can carry charge, then it may be feasible for them to form negative atoms in which they are the nuclei, and ordinary atomic nuclei act like electrons. Such atoms would be insulated from further accretion by electromagnetic action of the satellite nuclei on surrounding matter. Even purely by the force of gravity and by quantum constraints, a gravitation force atom might be feasible having nuclei for satellites. If sufficient delay can be obtained, then the black hole will evaporate. If the force of the black hole's gravity ever exceeds the EM force, at a macro distance, then the ball game is probably all over for the host body. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
Surprised that you didn't mention the possibility of a mirror matter black hole, which might be unreactive with normal matter, although at that level of extreme density - it is anyone's guess as to whether everything becomes cosmic mush. Hey - since we are walking on the wild-side anyway: Also the further possibility that the destructive ability of micro black holes, if they can exist at all (I think not) but if they can - that these can be effectively neutralized by small amounts of mirror matter which would accumulate due to gravity, but possibly form a dense surface shell - rather than be 'consumed', thus offering some 'protection' g. - Original Message From: Horace Heffner Suppose we actually have microscopic black holes in the center of the moon, or earth for that matter. They would tend to be maintained at the center of gravity. Their matter consumption rate would depend on relative motion with that matter, and their cross section for consumption would be very small. Even in a liquid core environment, the rate of matter consumption would eventually depend primarily on the viscosity of the core matter. The rate of consumption would be finite and for a very long time possibly exponential. In a solid core body like the moon, the consumption might never occur, because the black hole would essentially hollow out a vacuum around itself. If black holes can carry charge, then it may be feasible for them to form negative atoms in which they are the nuclei, and ordinary atomic nuclei act like electrons. Such atoms would be insulated from further accretion by electromagnetic action of the satellite nuclei on surrounding matter. Even purely by the force of gravity and by quantum constraints, a gravitation force atom might be feasible having nuclei for satellites. If sufficient delay can be obtained, then the black hole will evaporate. If the force of the black hole's gravity ever exceeds the EM force, at a macro distance, then the ball game is probably all over for the host body. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
There will be a new book on global warming coming out, provisionally titled What's the Worst that could Happen?. It's written by wonderingmind42 AKA Greg Craven, a school science teacher from Oregon. He did a 10 minute Youtube video that went viral called How it all ends http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg. He got a a book contract on the strength of this and there has been an online collaborative effort (in which I have had a small part) to hack out a book version in 3.5 months. He just succeeded a couple of days ago. His angle was to explore a risk analysis method for Joe Schmoe to use for deciding what to do about potential climate change when the science isn't certain. It's pretty entertaining... Nick Palmer
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
In the too cute to be real science department there is a rambling discourse floating around in cyberspace from an entity known as qdevice (John Titor wannabe?) ... and it provides another way to verbalize what mirror matter really is ... which BTW probably relates to the hypothesis (or gimmick) which is used throughout SciFi to rationalize FTL travel and communication with parallel universes (through non-destructive wormholes). If our observable universe is [effectively] a black hole, because its density matches critical density, [a few cosmologists believe it is *exactly* the critical density] then a smaller black hole in our universe would behave like another whole observable universe [i.e. a wormhole], and it would mean the black hole singularity would spread out all over its event horizon: it would never be located in any interior point at all. [All parallel unvierses would appear as black holes in our universe. Since these are a small fraction of stars, the number of parallel universes is relatively small in number- far from infinite. [comment: we are presently on the surface of a black hole which merely seems very large because of the inherent illusion - to a mentality which is trapped therein - IOW an inability for our minds to understand 4-space] [comment #2] instead of universe I would limit the identity of what we are focusing on to a local group of galaxies IOW to all of the matter which is gravitationally bound to us as evidenced by a blue shift] The weak holographic principle tells us there is not a core within a black hole, but all the information is encoded on its surface, the event horizon. So there aren't particles inside that black hole, only on its surface. We know that an event horizon is a 3-sphere which expands [there is no 'time' in 4-space, since time has been infolded into that dimension as space, ergo everything is simultaneously expanding] So once we've entered a black hole we remain in its event horizon forever, we do not fall into any point-like singularity. We do not suffer spaghettification at all. The cost to pay for this magical mystery tour is we will be unable to escape the black hole at any speed lower or equal to speed of light in the vacuum. Furthermore, something has happened to our constituent matter. Our matter is now mirror matter with respect to ordinary matter outside the black hole, although we can't locally realize this change of mirror symmetry. This is the reason why photons can't escape the event horizon of a black hole, there aren't photons, but mirror photons, from the point of view of an outer observer; mirror matter emits only mirror photons, so they only can be detected by mirror matter. An observer outside the black hole can't detect mirror photons. However he can detect mirror gravitons, because a mirror graviton is still a graviton. Hmm
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
The obvious problem with the argument of whether to do something about global warming always involves a basic error. The error is that if we try to do something, it will result in economic damage. Actually, if we invest in alternate energy, this will create jobs and keep more money in the economy. In the video, the choice of spending a lot of money to develop the atom bomb was used as an example of having to make a costly decision based on a lack knowledge about what the Germans were doing. Actually, by developing the atom bomb we also created nuclear power for energy production, which added greatly to the economy. As a result the initial investment was trivial compared to the eventual advantage. The same would be true of our response to global warming. In short, we actually have nothing to lose. Why can't this idea be accepted? Ed Ed On Sep 4, 2008, at 8:07 AM, Nick Palmer wrote: There will be a new book on global warming coming out, provisionally titled What's the Worst that could Happen?. It's written by wonderingmind42 AKA Greg Craven, a school science teacher from Oregon. He did a 10 minute Youtube video that went viral called How it all ends http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg. He got a a book contract on the strength of this and there has been an online collaborative effort (in which I have had a small part) to hack out a book version in 3.5 months. He just succeeded a couple of days ago. His angle was to explore a risk analysis method for Joe Schmoe to use for deciding what to do about potential climate change when the science isn't certain. It's pretty entertaining... Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Edmund Storms wrote: The obvious problem with the argument of whether to do something about global warming always involves a basic error. The error is that if we try to do something, it will result in economic damage. Actually, if we invest in alternate energy, this will create jobs and keep more money in the economy. With gasoline at $4 per gallon, alternative energy for transportation is cheaper than oil. That is to say, a mass produced plug-in hybrid car driven by electricity from wind turbines is cheaper per mile than gasoline at $4. It would be cheaper still to drive that car with coal, and coal would produce less CO2 per mile than oil, but wind is much better measured by CO2 emissions. It is unclear whether the price of gasoline will fall. It would be wise policy to make sure that it does not by taxing it, but I do not think any Washington politician could accomplish this. The voters would not stand for it. For other energy applications such as space heating and industry, fossil fuel will remain cheaper than alternatives such as wind and large-scale solar thermal for a while. In the southwest US, solar thermal has the potential to be far cheaper than any other conventional source of energy, and it is especially well-suited to the area because most electricity is used for air conditioning. But there has been essentially no investment in this technology since the electric power companies and fossil fuel companies drove Luz out of business. (That was as much a scandal as General Motors' destruction of electric car.) Alternate energy would also solve many political problems such as U.S. economic support of terrorism in the Middle East. - Jed
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 05:55:59 -0800: Hi, [snip] If black holes can carry charge, then it may be feasible for them to form negative atoms in which they are the nuclei, and ordinary atomic nuclei act like electrons. [snip] What is to stop the accelerated positive nuclei from emitting EM radiation and spiraling into the BH? Since the BH has a huge gravitational force associated with it, there is no need for either it, or the orbiting matter, to be charged. Other matter will happily orbit it (in the conventional sense), just in very tiny orbits. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:08:25 -0600: Hi, [snip] The obvious problem with the argument of whether to do something about global warming always involves a basic error. The error is that if we try to do something, it will result in economic damage. [snip] It will result in economic damageto the oil barons. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Yes Robin, but why do the nonoil barons keep making this point? Ed On Sep 4, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:08:25 -0600: Hi, [snip] The obvious problem with the argument of whether to do something about global warming always involves a basic error. The error is that if we try to do something, it will result in economic damage. [snip] It will result in economic damageto the oil barons. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:37:43 -0600: Hi, [snip] Yes Robin, but why do the nonoil barons keep making this point? Are you really sure that those who keep making the point are not influenced by the oil barons? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Good point Robin. Perhaps we should turn this around and use this as a criteria of who is influenced by the oil barons. For example, Obama made the point that development of alternate energy would put people to work. Using this criteria, Obama is apparently not under their influence. Ed On Sep 4, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:37:43 -0600: Hi, [snip] Yes Robin, but why do the nonoil barons keep making this point? Are you really sure that those who keep making the point are not influenced by the oil barons? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Vo]:gravity = pdf
For those who haven't seen it: The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research [as published in Physics Letters A 250:1-11 (1998)] http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp hint: this is not a pdf file but gavity is pdf (pretty damn fast)
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Ed - My information that the computer models can't accurately track reality? Chaos theory, mostly, and practical experience and observation too, validated by numerous people who know and use these systems and are honest about how they work. You can't expect a recursive computer model to accurately predict for you the outcomes of a planetary weather/ocean system. Even if you had precise data on every cubic centimeter of sky, ocean, and land surface, and the data weren't linked to geological, cosmic, and other influences from outside your system (they are of course), you still wouldn't get much more model accuracy than the wild guesses and massaged outcomes you have now. That's one. Another is bad data collection and analysis, documented extensively. That's two, but it's really moot because of one. Three: a false problem is being substituted for real ones, used as cover to impose socialist-style government control on a population that otherwise repeatedly rejects such attempts when allowed to express their choice at the ballot box. Liberals and socialists are inherently totalitarian and have a hard time with that darn voting thing, much preferring to rule the masses by direct edict. So they use false issues and the courts, if not force, to get what can't be obtained democratically. It's #3 that does make me a bit angry. To answer your question, the advantage of being angry about someone trying to steal your liberty on false pretense (or otherwise)is that you are inspired to act to stop it. One small example of such loss is the compact fluorescent bulb. Mercury leaching out of landfills into the groundwater is a Bad Thing. It is a fact. Yet their use is being *legislated* (incandescents banned - loss of liberty to choose) because they may reduce the emission of a harmless gas! The only real advantage is saving a small amount of oil, but the cost is real pollution vs. imaginary AGW. That is wrong. Food as energy (ethanol) is wrong. Failure to properly and safely exploit our own existing energy resources for those same false reasons is wrong. Yes we need to get off foreign oil in the very short term and eventually all oil as a fuel source. I'm in the tank for that. But we cannot afford to waste any more precious time and resources acting on the basis that AGW exists, much less do we have any predictive ability or practical capacity to mitigate such changes in any way. Notice where the posts trailed off about slowing a harmful cooling cycle? Good at a bad time, or maybe bad at good, but ... ft. The point is even if we were granted the power to begin directly manipulating the weather, we have no clue as to how to wield that power to obtain the desired result. So, what is the point of fighting this process? In addition to the practical matters above, our integrity and more. It's wrong to direct public policy based on a lie. For instance, I think most people here, including perhaps yourself Ed, feel that certain policies arising from the war on terror or at least the Iraq invasion are based on a lie. How does that make you feel? Sad? Angry? There you go. Let's use truth and good science this time. - Rick -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 2:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless Rick, I ask you where you get your information and why does the claim for global warming causes such an emotional reaction? The world is clearly warming. The only issue is how much of this warming is caused by burning fossil fuels. Regardless of the answer to this question, what is the advantage of being so angry about the debate? Reducing the use of fossil fuel has great advantage regardless of its contribution to CO2. So, what is the point of fighting this process? Ed On Sep 2, 2008, at 5:01 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote: Sounds scary. But why are sea ice levels still reported to be so low in the arctic if it's getting colder? Why is NOAA saying this July was the 9th warmest globally on record? http://www.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080815_ncdc.html What do sunspots have to do with global climate? Noctilucent clouds not forming? Do they matter? I know there's some coincidence between low sunspot cycles and colder climate, but how good is that circumstantial data? Better than the data associating warming with human greenhouse gas output? One thing is very certain: we do not have any possibility of predicting a global 'trend' either way in the absence of any real handle on the actual causes of such trends. That otherwise rational people have concluded that human activity is a significant climate change driver based on untenable models and theories is very sad, especially when false 'solutions' are proposed, even demanded and *legislated*, right at the time when real solutions such as you mention below are actually called for. I wouldn't want to repeat that mistake with sunspots or
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
On Sep 4, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 05:55:59 -0800: Hi, [snip] If black holes can carry charge, then it may be feasible for them to form negative atoms in which they are the nuclei, and ordinary atomic nuclei act like electrons. [snip] What is to stop the accelerated positive nuclei from emitting EM radiation and spiraling into the BH? This is a very interesting point. A stable BH atom with a neutral BH would indeed require a neutral satellite. However, if the black hole can exhibit charge, i.e. if virtual photons carry no mass charge (while real photos do) as in my gravimagnetics theory, then the same fields exist as for an ordinary atom, and radiation should be suppressed. There should exist quantized stable non-radiating orbits for charged black holes. Since the BH has a huge gravitational force associated with it, there is no need for either it, or the orbiting matter, to be charged. Other matter will happily orbit it (in the conventional sense), just in very tiny orbits. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, that's what I meant by the following sentence: On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:55 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: Even purely by the force of gravity and by quantum constraints, a gravitation force atom might be feasible having nuclei for satellites. However, a microscopic black hole does not necessarily have a hugh gravitational field associated with it at atomic radius distances. A black hole can be created using *any* amount of mass, provided the mass is stuffed within the Swartzchild radius for that mass. The mass required for a stable gravitationally based atom would be very large. Fe = Cc * (q^2/r^2) Fg = G * (m1 * mp) / r^2 The force between two charges at 1 Ang is 2.31x10^-8 N. Using equation 2 above: (r^2 * Fg)/ (G * mp) = m1 m1 = 2.07x10^9 kg So, to have a 1 angstrom orbital radius, say for a neutron orbiting the black hole, it would have to weigh over a billion kg. I think BH atoms from the Supercollider would have to be charge oriented only, unless they really took on some big mass quickly. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick, you don't need computer models. All you need is the fact ice is melting everywhere. In addition, the plants are moving up the mountains to cooler regions. The average temperature is going up. This has nothing to do with liberals or socialists. You can bitch all you want about government control but this will not change reality. Even if a cooling cycle is in the works, no harm is produced by putting as much effort into alternative energy as possible. It creates jobs and it gives us more energy in the long run. This is a win-win situation. The political battles can be fought over other issues, such as why wealth is moving out of the middle class and into fewer and fewer hands. As for government control, you well know that without control, society simply cannot function. Without control, the rich, the strong and the ruthless dominate everyone else. Total freedom has never lasted long in history. The only issue is how much control is required and where is it applied. The debate between liberals, conservatives, and now the religious right involves just what is to be controlled. As for voting, the closer a society is to a true democracy, the more likely it is to fail. This happens because the average person wants to receive as much as possible from the government and give as little as possible. Eventually, in their ignorance, the average person supports a government that bankrupts the country. We are now on this path. I suggest you pick you battles more carefully because unless we take a different path, you and many other people will pay a very dear price. Ed On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote: Ed - My information that the computer models can't accurately track reality? Chaos theory, mostly, and practical experience and observation too, validated by numerous people who know and use these systems and are honest about how they work. You can't expect a recursive computer model to accurately predict for you the outcomes of a planetary weather/ocean system. Even if you had precise data on every cubic centimeter of sky, ocean, and land surface, and the data weren't linked to geological, cosmic, and other influences from outside your system (they are of course), you still wouldn't get much more model accuracy than the wild guesses and massaged outcomes you have now. That's one. Another is bad data collection and analysis, documented extensively. That's two, but it's really moot because of one. Three: a false problem is being substituted for real ones, used as cover to impose socialist-style government control on a population that otherwise repeatedly rejects such attempts when allowed to express their choice at the ballot box. Liberals and socialists are inherently totalitarian and have a hard time with that darn voting thing, much preferring to rule the masses by direct edict. So they use false issues and the courts, if not force, to get what can't be obtained democratically. It's #3 that does make me a bit angry. To answer your question, the advantage of being angry about someone trying to steal your liberty on false pretense (or otherwise)is that you are inspired to act to stop it. One small example of such loss is the compact fluorescent bulb. Mercury leaching out of landfills into the groundwater is a Bad Thing. It is a fact. Yet their use is being *legislated* (incandescents banned - loss of liberty to choose) because they may reduce the emission of a harmless gas! The only real advantage is saving a small amount of oil, but the cost is real pollution vs. imaginary AGW. That is wrong. Food as energy (ethanol) is wrong. Failure to properly and safely exploit our own existing energy resources for those same false reasons is wrong. Yes we need to get off foreign oil in the very short term and eventually all oil as a fuel source. I'm in the tank for that. But we cannot afford to waste any more precious time and resources acting on the basis that AGW exists, much less do we have any predictive ability or practical capacity to mitigate such changes in any way. Notice where the posts trailed off about slowing a harmful cooling cycle? Good at a bad time, or maybe bad at good, but ... ft. The point is even if we were granted the power to begin directly manipulating the weather, we have no clue as to how to wield that power to obtain the desired result. So, what is the point of fighting this process? In addition to the practical matters above, our integrity and more. It's wrong to direct public policy based on a lie. For instance, I think most people here, including perhaps yourself Ed, feel that certain policies arising from the war on terror or at least the Iraq invasion are based on a lie. How does that make you feel? Sad? Angry? There you go. Let's use truth and good science this time. - Rick -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
On Sep 4, 2008, at 6:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Surprised that you didn't mention the possibility of a mirror matter black hole, which might be unreactive with normal matter, although at that level of extreme density - it is anyone's guess as to whether everything becomes cosmic mush. The quality of mirror matter is that its only reaction with ordinary matter is via gravitational influence. According to standard theory it would look no different from an ordinary BH. According to my gravimagnetics theory, it might exhibit negative gravitation, and thus fly off. Hey - since we are walking on the wild-side anyway: Also the further possibility that the destructive ability of micro black holes, if they can exist at all (I think not) Uh, I think the their feasibility is considered a certainty according to standard theory. but if they can - that these can be effectively neutralized by small amounts of mirror matter which would accumulate due to gravity, but possibly form a dense surface shell - rather than be 'consumed', thus offering some 'protection' g. That depends on whether such matter exhibits positive or negative gravitational charge. If my gravimagnetics theory is correct, then about half the universe carries negative gravitational mass and is in the form of mirror matter. This is the source of dark energy and explains the breaking of symmetry at the big bang. We just can't see the stuff that completes the symmetry. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
Jonse sez: For those who haven't seen it: The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research [as published in Physics Letters A 250:1-11 (1998)] http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp hint: this is not a pdf file but gavity is pdf (pretty damn fast) From the report: How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light? Always wondered about that conundrum. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
Howdy Jones, Black holes?? How does one address the bi-directional flow represented by the orifice of the vortex.. ?? Studying the pictures taken of a sonofusion bubble in a collapse mode,we see a spiral vortex form and suck the sphere into itself.. Hard to explain but I can search for the pics. Richard - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf OrionWorks wrote How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light? Simple my dear Watson, the influence of gravity itself IS superluminal (according to some) -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date: 9/4/2008 6:57 AM
RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Ed - Melting ice may tell us that some places have been warming, though it doesn't always indicate why. Whatever. As I said, climate changes are inevitable and ongoing. I'm taking issue with the computer model driven ideas that we caused warming, we can mitigate it, and giant Algore or worse versions of socialism are the only way to administer the effort. Instead we must prepare for and adapt to changes. And of course government should play an appropriate role in regulating and guiding us in that effort, since free markets, capitalism, and politics are not known for being very forward thinking, despite their strong instincts of self preservation. GW may or may not be real, but evidence is clear that global changes are always occurring, pollution will kill us and make us miserable, AGW is a hoax, and politicians are sometimes nothing more than dangerous posers or hoodlums. Knowing all that pretty much points us in the right direction, and there are some parallels in that direction to general AGW solutions like weaning off oil, but there are also some significant diversions. But like I said in my previous response, let's let truth guide us, not the lies. I believe the difference there is very important, and evidence supports my conclusion. As to the battles I pick, I first make sure they're right ones. Then I know that the price I pay, regardless of how high it is, is worth it. - Rick -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Edmund Storms; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless Rick, you don't need computer models. All you need is the fact ice is melting everywhere. In addition, the plants are moving up the mountains to cooler regions. The average temperature is going up. This has nothing to do with liberals or socialists. You can bitch all you want about government control but this will not change reality. Even if a cooling cycle is in the works, no harm is produced by putting as much effort into alternative energy as possible. It creates jobs and it gives us more energy in the long run. This is a win-win situation. The political battles can be fought over other issues, such as why wealth is moving out of the middle class and into fewer and fewer hands. As for government control, you well know that without control, society simply cannot function. Without control, the rich, the strong and the ruthless dominate everyone else. Total freedom has never lasted long in history. The only issue is how much control is required and where is it applied. The debate between liberals, conservatives, and now the religious right involves just what is to be controlled. As for voting, the closer a society is to a true democracy, the more likely it is to fail. This happens because the average person wants to receive as much as possible from the government and give as little as possible. Eventually, in their ignorance, the average person supports a government that bankrupts the country. We are now on this path. I suggest you pick you battles more carefully because unless we take a different path, you and many other people will pay a very dear price. Ed On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote: Ed - My information that the computer models can't accurately track reality? Chaos theory, mostly, and practical experience and observation too, validated by numerous people who know and use these systems and are honest about how they work. You can't expect a recursive computer model to accurately predict for you the outcomes of a planetary weather/ocean system. Even if you had precise data on every cubic centimeter of sky, ocean, and land surface, and the data weren't linked to geological, cosmic, and other influences from outside your system (they are of course), you still wouldn't get much more model accuracy than the wild guesses and massaged outcomes you have now. That's one. Another is bad data collection and analysis, documented extensively. That's two, but it's really moot because of one. Three: a false problem is being substituted for real ones, used as cover to impose socialist-style government control on a population that otherwise repeatedly rejects such attempts when allowed to express their choice at the ballot box. Liberals and socialists are inherently totalitarian and have a hard time with that darn voting thing, much preferring to rule the masses by direct edict. So they use false issues and the courts, if not force, to get what can't be obtained democratically. It's #3 that does make me a bit angry. To answer your question, the advantage of being angry about someone trying to steal your liberty on false pretense (or otherwise)is that you are inspired to act to stop it. One small example of such loss is the compact fluorescent bulb. Mercury leaching out of landfills into the groundwater is a Bad Thing. It is a fact. Yet their use
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
OrionWorks wrote How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light? Simple my dear Watson, the influence of gravity itself IS superluminal (according to some)
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
OrionWorks wrote: Jonse sez: For those who haven't seen it: The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research [as published in Physics Letters A 250:1-11 (1998)] http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp hint: this is not a pdf file but gavity is pdf (pretty damn fast) From the report: How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light? Always wondered about that conundrum. The gravitational field doesn't get out, it just is out -- it doesn't propagate, it just is. And in fact it predates the formation of the black hole -- the far field *does* *not* *change* when a black hole forms. Micro black holes, for instance, have exactly the same gravitational field the (small amount of) matter which went into their formation had, as long as we're farther away than the original radius of the pre-hole blob; the only difference is the radius of a black hole is vastly smaller than the radius of the original blob of pre-black-hole matter which formed it. Similarly, the field of an electron doesn't propagate, it just exists. Watch a stationary electron; how fast is its field propagating? Answer: It's not, just like the gravitational field of the Earth isn't propagating, nor is the field of a black hole. (Quantum gravity may put a different spin on the picture, of course; anything I say about it comes from the classical GR picture.) Radiation propagates, but radiation results from a *change* in a field, typically due to acceleration of the object producing it. Gravitational radiation propagates at C (according to the standard theory -- nobody's detected it, and that includes Van Flandern, so its velocity certainly hasn't been measured). EMR propagates at C also, and that has been measured, of course. Since a static gravitational field doesn't propagate, it shows no aberration either. Similarly, the static field of an electron doesn't propagate, and it also shows no aberration. People occasionally point to the lack of aberration of the Sun's gravity as evidence for a high gravitational propagation speed, which really makes little sense. It's like pointing to the lack of aberration of an electron's field as evidence that an EM field propagates infinitely fast -- really, in both cases there's no propagation involved. Here's a classic gedanken experiment which illustrates what I'm talking about: Imagine two spaceships sitting a few light hours apart, stationary relative to each other. Their clocks are synchronized (they're stationary relative to each other, so that's easy enough to do). Now, someone a very very long distance away fires a negatively charged particle at one of the ships. The particle, traveling at constant velocity, moves along a line perpendicular to the line connecting the ships. The particle arrives at spaceship B at 3:00 sharp. Now, over on spaceship A, there is a sensitive electric field detector, which senses the field of the charged particle; an indicator points at the (moving!) location of the particle, by pointing in the direction its electric field *currently* points (*no* compensation for its being a moving target). At some point, the detector will point directly toward spaceship B; that's the moment when the folks on A detect the arrival of the particle at ship B. WHEN WILL THAT HAPPEN? Answer: 3:00 sharp, according to relativity theory. There is *NO* propagation delay. That's what is meant by lack of aberration -- the field constantly points toward the CURRENT location of the particle (as long as it moves uniformly). Similarly, the gravitational field of the Sun always points directly at the Sun, rather than to a point where it was recently (as long as the Sun is moving uniformly). If anyone's curious I can go into more detail on this. Note particularly that we assumed the particle was traveling at uniform velocity -- if it accelerates, it radiates, and the picture gets more complicated. Don't ask me about virtual photons, tho, 'cause I don't know diddly about them. This is just classic field theory I'm talking about here (which matches experiment nicely AFAIK, until you get into the quantum realm). * * * I've encountered Van Flandern before in the physics news groups, and I wouldn't tend to spend a lot of time on his writing. Anyhow the blurb on Wiki pretty much sums it up: Van Flandern is best known for his contention that certain features on the surface of Mars are artificial sculptures of faces created by extraterrestrial beings, that Mercury may be a former moon of Venus, and that planets sometimes spontaneously explode. He's not an amateur; he's a professional (retired?) astronomer who worked at the Naval Research Laboratory for 20 years, for whatever that's worth.
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008 8:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf Jonse sez: For those who haven't seen it: The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research [as published in Physics Letters A 250:1-11 (1998)] http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp hint: this is not a pdf file but gavity is pdf (pretty damn fast) From the report: How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light? Always wondered about that conundrum. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks My answer without reference to general relativity: I begin by questioning the law of inertia from a naive or experiential perspective. Obviously inertia manifests itself during collision/contact between material bodies, However since a thrown ball travels in a arc contrary to the law of inertia AND since there is apparently no material action on the ball working to overcome the inertia of the ball, I contend the law of inertia simply does not apply to bodies moving freely, i.e. without material interaction. Instead material bodies have a natural propensity to accelerate towards each other. They contain, if you please, a spark of acceleration, whose magnitude and direction is affected (rather than effected) by the mere presence and relative proximity of other bodies. harry
[Vo]:OT Cynics Blue-Plate Special
If you have this love-hate relationship with US politics : hate it, but can't get away from it... suppress the gag-response, hold your nose - and ... well, try to make lemonade out of onions, as we cynics are wont to do, even as our eyes are watering over : http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nations_poorest_1_now_controls_two
