Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical shell.

[David Roberson]

I agree that a phase shift would occur due to normal path length differences. 
What I am wondering about is whether or not that basic shift would have an 
additional component that depends upon the magnitude of the gravitational mass 
contained within the sphere's shell assuming that the path lengths do not vary.

For example, have a very small mass sphere and use the phase detector to obtain 
a reference. Then, greatly increase the mass as you maintain the same inner 
volume and hence total reflection path.  Compare the phase difference in case 2 
versus case1 when using the unaffected external photon.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Dec 9, 2016 5:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical 
shell.

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 9 Dec 2016 17:10:45 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Interesting question. Since the frequency of a photon increases as it gains 
>energy on the way into the hollow gravitational sphere one might expect time 
>to speed up for it.  If it is allowed to pass through another hole on the 
>other side the time rate would return to the original value once it reaches 
>the same distance away from the sphere in that direction.
>
>This appears to be a paradox of some type. It is common to speak of time 
>slowing down, but a bit strange to think of it as speeding up under some 
>conditions. Wonder where I went wrong with this arguement?
>
>Perhaps the photon could bounce around inside the hollow reflective sphere for 
>a long time before exiting an offset hole. Since its frequency is higher while 
>trapped inside it appears that many more cycles of oscillation would take 
>place for this photon than for a brother photon reflecting between two mirrors 
>outside the sphere for the same elapsed time.  Would a phase detector 
>comparing the two show anything?
>
>Dave

Since the lengths of the respective paths would be different, there should be a
phase difference, even if no time shift had taken place.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical shell.

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 9 Dec 2016 17:10:45 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Interesting question. Since the frequency of a photon increases as it gains 
>energy on the way into the hollow gravitational sphere one might expect time 
>to speed up for it.  If it is allowed to pass through another hole on the 
>other side the time rate would return to the original value once it reaches 
>the same distance away from the sphere in that direction.
>
>This appears to be a paradox of some type. It is common to speak of time 
>slowing down, but a bit strange to think of it as speeding up under some 
>conditions. Wonder where I went wrong with this arguement?
>
>Perhaps the photon could bounce around inside the hollow reflective sphere for 
>a long time before exiting an offset hole. Since its frequency is higher while 
>trapped inside it appears that many more cycles of oscillation would take 
>place for this photon than for a brother photon reflecting between two mirrors 
>outside the sphere for the same elapsed time.  Would a phase detector 
>comparing the two show anything?
>
>Dave

Since the lengths of the respective paths would be different, there should be a
phase difference, even if no time shift had taken place.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Spreadsheet from Melvin Miles' July 2016 experiment

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

Miles, M. and R. Cantwell, *Data from Melvin Miles' July 2016 experiment*.
2016.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMdatafromme.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical shell.

[David Roberson]

Interesting question. Since the frequency of a photon increases as it gains 
energy on the way into the hollow gravitational sphere one might expect time to 
speed up for it.  If it is allowed to pass through another hole on the other 
side the time rate would return to the original value once it reaches the same 
distance away from the sphere in that direction.

This appears to be a paradox of some type. It is common to speak of time 
slowing down, but a bit strange to think of it as speeding up under some 
conditions. Wonder where I went wrong with this arguement?

Perhaps the photon could bounce around inside the hollow reflective sphere for 
a long time before exiting an offset hole. Since its frequency is higher while 
trapped inside it appears that many more cycles of oscillation would take place 
for this photon than for a brother photon reflecting between two mirrors 
outside the sphere for the same elapsed time.  Would a phase detector comparing 
the two show anything?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H LV 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Dec 9, 2016 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical 
shell.







On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

  
Well known result -- gravitational time dilation has to do with the
gravitational potential, not the strength of the field.





 

Simple gedanken:  Drop a rock through a slender shaft into aspherical 
hollow cut out of the center of a spherical planet.  Therock has more 
kinetic energy when it gets to the center of theplanet.

Turn the rock (along with its kinetic energy) into photons, and beam
them back up the shaft.  At the top of the shaft, catch the beam andturn it 
back into a rock.

The rock must have the same mass at the end as it had to start with(or 
something's very wrong), which is smaller than the mass it hadat the bottom 
of the shaft (due its additional kinetic energy whichshows up as a mass 
excess).  This can only be true if the beam oflight was redder at the top 
of the shaft than the bottom. So, there must have been a gravitational 
red-shift as the lightclimbed the shaft.

So, the frequency of the light at the top of the shaft mustbe lower 
than the frequency at the bottom of the shaft.

But the total number of wave crests in the beam of lightcan't change.  
(You can count them, using appropriate equipment; inthat sense they behave 
like marbles.)  A certain number of wavecrests in the beam entered the 
shaft at the bottom; the same numberof wave crests must have come out the 
top.

So, if the frequency measured by an observer at the top ofthe shaft is 
lower than the frequency measured at the bottomof the shaft, the wave 
crests must have taken more time to exit thetop of the shaft than they took 
to enter the bottom of the shaft,and so, time must be passing faster for 
the observer at the top  of the shaft.
  


On 12/07/2016 12:53 AM, H LV wrote:


  

According to the shell theorem  the  gravitational force on a test mass 
inside a hollow sphere is  every where zero. This paper argues that 
this situation is not  equivalent from the standpoint of General 
Relativity to the  situation where gravity falls to zero far outside 
the sphere.  They conclude that General Relativity predicts that a 
clock  located inside a hollow sphere should run slower than a clock
  located outside the hollow sphere. (By contrast most people  are 
familiar with the fact that General relativity predicts a  clock should 
run faster as the force of gravity approaches  zero far from a 
gravitational body) This could provide a  laboratory test of Newtonian 
gravity which predicts that both  clocks should run at the same rate. 
  
  
  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4428.pdf








Harry
  


  

Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical shell.

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 12/09/2016 01:54 PM, H LV wrote:



On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:


Well known result -- gravitational time dilation has to do with
the gravitational potential, not the strength of the field.


​GR's principle of equivalence depends on the concept of a force and 
not on the concept of a potential.
A person in an elevator without windows can only detect either the 
presence or an absence of a force.​


A person in an elevator also can't detect redshift or blueshift of light 
moving into or out of the elevator, because they are restricted to 
making measurements /inside the elevator/. Gravitational time dilation 
is a non-local effect, detectable only by comparing the results of 
measurements at highly separated points.  The elevator metaphor doesn't 
have anything to do with it. In fact there is *no* time dilation of any 
sort associated with either acceleration or a strong local G-field.


On the other hand a person in an elevator */can/* tell whether there's a 
gravitational field present, by checking for tidal effects, which are 
IIRC linear in the spatial dimension and hence detectable even at small 
scales.  That breaks the "elevator=gravity" correspondence, as real 
gravitational fields /always/ exhibit tidal effects.  (Constructed 
fields which result from funniness at a domain boundary don't show tidal 
effects but they're also not real.)


Don't confuse explanations using a metaphor with actual reasoning about 
the results.  The elevator is a metaphor, useful in looking for general 
principles, but imperfect in detail.  The drop-a-rock-down-a-well 
experiment, on the other hand, can in principle be quantified, and in 
the absence of gravitational redshift which depends on the potential, it 
results in a violation of CoE.  In fact it, or a simple variation on it, 
is what led to the concept of gravitational redshift to begin with, or 
so I've read.





Simple gedanken:  Drop a rock through a slender shaft into a
spherical hollow cut out of the center of a spherical planet.  The
rock has more kinetic energy when it gets to the center of the planet.

Turn the rock (along with its kinetic energy) into photons, and
beam them back up the shaft.  At the top of the shaft, catch the
beam and turn it back into a rock.

The rock must have the same mass at the end as it had to start
with (or something's very wrong), which is smaller than the mass
it had at the bottom of the shaft (due its additional kinetic
energy which shows up as a mass excess).  This can only be true if
the beam of light was *redder* at the top of the shaft than the
bottom. So, there must have been a gravitational red-shift as the
light climbed the shaft.

So, the /frequency/ of the light at the top of the shaft must be
*lower* than the frequency at the bottom of the shaft.

But the *total number of wave crests* in the beam of light can't
change.  (You can count them, using appropriate equipment; in that
sense they behave like marbles.)  A certain number of wave crests
in the beam entered the shaft at the bottom; the same number of
wave crests must have come out the top.

So, if the /frequency/ measured by an observer at the top of the
shaft is /lower/ than the frequency measured at the bottom of the
shaft, the wave crests must have taken more time to exit the top
of the shaft than they took to enter the bottom of the shaft, and
so, /time must be passing faster for the observer at the top of
the shaft.

/


​The experiment is different in that it doesn't involve an exchange of 
mass or energy between the surface and the interior.​


Harry

On 12/07/2016 12:53 AM, H LV wrote:

According to the shell theorem  the gravitational force on a test
mass inside a hollow sphere is every where zero. This paper
argues that this situation is not equivalent from the standpoint
of General Relativity to the situation where gravity falls to
zero far outside the sphere. They conclude that General
Relativity predicts that a clock located inside a hollow sphere
should run slower than a clock located outside the hollow sphere.
(By contrast most people are familiar with the fact that General
relativity predicts a clock should run faster as the force of
gravity approaches zero far from a gravitational body) This could
provide a laboratory test of Newtonian gravity which predicts
that both clocks should run at the same rate.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4428.pdf



Harry

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Is hydrinos dark matter?

[Roarty, Francis X]

Axil, according to a 2005 paper by Jan Naudts the hydrino may be relativistic 
hydrogen, but considering the environment this is not your near C velocity 
induced SR, in fact the near C observer relative to us is the perspective that 
we now observe wrt the hydrino, the same suppression responsible for Casimir 
effect modifies the inertial frames in nano powders and skeletal catalysts such 
that hydrogen atoms loading into the bulk product is constantly changing 
inertial frames as it randomly migrates thru the lattice and defects. I remain 
convinced the “suppressed” longer vacuum wavelengths between Casimir plates are 
actually still present and that we are actually observing the same contraction 
and dilation phenomena the near C observer would see viewing us.. the baseline 
we call stationary for inertial frames is established by the remaining “rate” 
of the particles winking in and out of our plane. I put “rate” in quotes 
because we know from SR the local observer is never aware of a rate change 
since this rate establishes his clock. My point being the “baseline” is IMHO  
false, I think Casimir effect and all the London derived forces are based on 
reducing this baseline further thru suppression and that it accumulates far 
faster than the square law we are accustomed to and without the need for 
thust.. it is the poor mans nano route to relativistic effects utilizing 
geometry.
Fran

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 3:56 AM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Is hydrinos dark matter?

The hydrino cannot be smaller than the neutron. Being neutral, it must behave 
like the neutron. We should see hydrino damage on the structure of the SunCell 
and maybe even activation as hydrino kinetic energy is converted to gamma by 
impact with reactor structure. We might also expect to see nuclear reactions 
produced by hydrinos and associated transmutation as the hydrino enters nuclei. 
Dark matter does not do that sort of thing. What keeps hydrinos from acting 
like neutrons?

[Vo]:now at google

[Frank Znidarsic]

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.znidarsic_science_books.dreams

[Vo]:A dangerous moment in the LENR history

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/12/dec-09-2016-dangerous-moment-in-lenr.html

peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical shell.

[H LV]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> Well known result -- gravitational time dilation has to do with the
> gravitational potential, not the strength of the field.
>
>
​GR's principle of equivalence depends on the concept of a force and not on
the concept of a potential.
A person in an elevator without windows can only detect either the presence
or an absence of a force.​



> Simple gedanken:  Drop a rock through a slender shaft into a spherical
> hollow cut out of the center of a spherical planet.  The rock has more
> kinetic energy when it gets to the center of the planet.
>
> Turn the rock (along with its kinetic energy) into photons, and beam them
> back up the shaft.  At the top of the shaft, catch the beam and turn it
> back into a rock.
>
> The rock must have the same mass at the end as it had to start with (or
> something's very wrong), which is smaller than the mass it had at the
> bottom of the shaft (due its additional kinetic energy which shows up as a
> mass excess).  This can only be true if the beam of light was *redder* at
> the top of the shaft than the bottom.  So, there must have been a
> gravitational red-shift as the light climbed the shaft.
>
> So, the *frequency* of the light at the top of the shaft must be *lower*
> than the frequency at the bottom of the shaft.
>
> But the *total number of wave crests* in the beam of light can't change.
> (You can count them, using appropriate equipment; in that sense they behave
> like marbles.)  A certain number of wave crests in the beam entered the
> shaft at the bottom; the same number of wave crests must have come out the
> top.
>
> So, if the *frequency* measured by an observer at the top of the shaft is
> *lower* than the frequency measured at the bottom of the shaft, the wave
> crests must have taken more time to exit the top of the shaft than they
> took to enter the bottom of the shaft, and so,
>
> *time must be passing faster for the observer at the top of the shaft. *
>

​The experiment is different in that it doesn't involve an exchange of mass
or energy between the surface and the interior.​

Harry



> On 12/07/2016 12:53 AM, H LV wrote:
>
> According to the shell theorem  the gravitational force on a test mass
> inside a hollow sphere is every where zero. This paper argues that this
> situation is not equivalent from the standpoint of General Relativity to
> the situation where gravity falls to zero far outside the sphere. They
> conclude that General Relativity predicts that a clock located inside a
> hollow sphere should run slower than a clock located outside the hollow
> sphere. (By contrast most people are familiar with the fact that General
> relativity predicts a clock should run faster as the force of gravity
> approaches zero far from a gravitational body) This could provide a
> laboratory test of Newtonian gravity which predicts that both clocks should
> run at the same rate.
>
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4428.pdf
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical shell.

[H LV]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> Well known result -- gravitational time dilation has to do with the
> gravitational potential, not the strength of the field.
>
>


> Simple gedanken:  Drop a rock through a slender shaft into a spherical
> hollow cut out of the center of a spherical planet.  The rock has more
> kinetic energy when it gets to the center of the planet.
>
> Turn the rock (along with its kinetic energy) into photons, and beam them
> back up the shaft.  At the top of the shaft, catch the beam and turn it
> back into a rock.
>
> The rock must have the same mass at the end as it had to start with (or
> something's very wrong), which is smaller than the mass it had at the
> bottom of the shaft (due its additional kinetic energy which shows up as a
> mass excess).  This can only be true if the beam of light was *redder* at
> the top of the shaft than the bottom.  So, there must have been a
> gravitational red-shift as the light climbed the shaft.
>
> So, the *frequency* of the light at the top of the shaft must be *lower*
> than the frequency at the bottom of the shaft.
>
> But the *total number of wave crests* in the beam of light can't change.
> (You can count them, using appropriate equipment; in that sense they behave
> like marbles.)  A certain number of wave crests in the beam entered the
> shaft at the bottom; the same number of wave crests must have come out the
> top.
>
> So, if the *frequency* measured by an observer at the top of the shaft is
> *lower* than the frequency measured at the bottom of the shaft, the wave
> crests must have taken more time to exit the top of the shaft than they
> took to enter the bottom of the shaft, and so,
>
> *time must be passing faster for the observer at the top of the shaft. *
> On 12/07/2016 12:53 AM, H LV wrote:
>
> According to the shell theorem  the gravitational force on a test mass
> inside a hollow sphere is every where zero. This paper argues that this
> situation is not equivalent from the standpoint of General Relativity to
> the situation where gravity falls to zero far outside the sphere. They
> conclude that General Relativity predicts that a clock located inside a
> hollow sphere should run slower than a clock located outside the hollow
> sphere. (By contrast most people are familiar with the fact that General
> relativity predicts a clock should run faster as the force of gravity
> approaches zero far from a gravitational body) This could provide a
> laboratory test of Newtonian gravity which predicts that both clocks should
> run at the same rate.
>
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4428.pdf
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Is hydrinos dark matter?

[bobcook39923]

The neutron decays as we all know….to 2/3 of a proton and a “W-“ which in, turn 
quickly changes to an electron, a full proton and a anti neutrino—Standard 
Theory--think.  It’s the “W-“  that only exists virtually for 10e-27 seconds!  
That’s enough time to allow it to get away from the proton in the mean time 
takes up a virtual 1/3 + quark to become a full proton.  

I would note that this model does not include any possible outside influence by 
multiple real particles in a coherent system. 

IMHO electro-magnetic resonances are needed to accept an electron by a 
proton—the opposite of the decay reaction suggested by the Standard Model.
It’s the extra positron of the proton that wants to combine with the nearby 
electron.  In coherent  systems the tendency of a system to become more stable 
with respect to binding energy per nucleon drives the production of a neutron 
given the necessary resonant conditions (including proper electron and positron 
polarizations.   The magnetic B  field is probably important in achieving 
proper alignment to accomplish conservation of angular momentum of the 
interacting particles of the coherent system.  (I consider high energy electron 
scattering experiments support this idea  The partial, in-elastic nature of 
these experiments is a key observation.

Bob Cook.   
From: Jones Beene
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 7:22 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is hydrinos dark matter?

The hydrino is net neutral like the neutron, but unlike the neutron it has a 
strong negatively charged near-field due to the electron in the OS. Electrons 
don't feel the strong force, only the electromagnetic / electrostatic force 
thus they do not approach the nucleus closely enough to facilitate fusion. 
Although Mills pretends to reject QM, without it (in the form of diamagnetism) 
one could argue that the hydrino would readily enter the nucleus.


On Friday, December 9, 2016 12:56 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

The hydrino cannot be smaller than the neutron. Being neutral, it must behave 
like the neutron. We should see hydrino damage on the structure of the SunCell 
and maybe even activation as hydrino kinetic energy is converted to gamma by 
impact with reactor structure. We might also expect to see nuclear reactions 
produced by hydrinos and associated transmutation as the hydrino enters nuclei. 
Dark matter does not do that sort of thing. What keeps hydrinos from acting 
like neutrons?

Re: [Vo]:Is hydrinos dark matter?

[Jones Beene]

The hydrino is net neutral like the neutron, but unlike the neutron it has a 
strong negatively charged near-field due to the electron in the OS. Electrons 
don't feel the strong force, only the electromagnetic / electrostatic force 
thus they do not approach the nucleus closely enough to facilitate fusion. 
Although Mills pretends to reject QM, without it (in the form of diamagnetism) 
one could argue that the hydrino would readily enter the nucleus.

 

On Friday, December 9, 2016 12:56 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
 
 

 The hydrino cannot be smaller than the neutron. Being neutral, it must behave 
like the neutron. We should see hydrino damage on the structure of the SunCell 
and maybe even activation as hydrino kinetic energy is converted to gamma by 
impact with reactor structure. We might also expect to see nuclear reactions 
produced by hydrinos and associated transmutation as the hydrino enters nuclei. 
Dark matter does not do that sort of thing. What keeps hydrinos from acting 
like neutrons?


 
   

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

[Lennart Thornros]

Alain
I have the same experience about China.(France and US).
Isn't a good idea neglect political labels. There is none providing a
'best' result or worse for that matter. The culture with which they are
implemented is more of an important factor.
Eliminating energy pro lens would be a step to reduce tension in the world.
LENR is an important issue. Another important factor would be to eliminate
the bureaucrats supported by various political and cultural dogma. I think
that can happen when we find out that life is not a zero-sum game. Just the
opposite.
Lennart

On Dec 9, 2016 04:09, "Alain Sepeda"  wrote:

> the mentality of Chinese people is very capitalist at local level, and
> also more family than individual oriented.
> However at the political level they seems more imperial, and abroad they
> tolerate the local authorities, even local criminality as long as it is not
> impairing business...
> It is a mix we have problem to understand in the West.
> In a way I see a similar misunderstanding between French culture
> considering US way. It is hard to see in france that US solidarity is more
> group/community driven than state driven, even if things are changing (and
> many disagree, in both countries).
>
> The "policy mix" of a culture is surprising for another culture.
> In China "capitalism" is more popular in poling than in france and even in
> USA.
>
> french are more negative than people of irak about their future...
>
> Note that China may not be globally capitalist, more Mercantilist or
> Colbertist as we say in france (Crony too)... Not so different from US-way
> in foreign trade, with huge state implication in business to protect
> installed players.
> However both US and China (more China) unlike France, have a very strong
> local free capitalism with huge competition.
>
> 2016-12-08 22:26 GMT+01:00 Chris Zell :
>
>> China is the nation to watch as to Communism. I understand that it sees
>> capitalist methods as useful on a path to Communism and has never given up
>> on this idea.   If they can hold back corruption, they may continue with
>> the Party being dominant over all corporate forces (unlike the US in which
>> it is the other way around).
>>
>>
>>
>> Communism is mostly about developing and maintaining enough resources to
>> be easily shared.  If abundance can be created technologically, there could
>> be a withering away of the state. Think about what free energy, future 3-D
>> printing and digital currencies could accomplish. We already have an
>> enormous resource of free information at our fingertips – that frustrates
>> centralized media and governance. Who knows what follows next?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Vo]:Re:Kelly Smunt

[Kelly Smunt]

 





 http://date.localtransexualcontacts.com/lezyxycyvyvub.go 


 Kelly Smunt 





  3:21 AM

[Vo]:Is hydrinos dark matter?

[Axil Axil]

The hydrino cannot be smaller than the neutron. Being neutral, it must
behave like the neutron. We should see hydrino damage on the structure of
the SunCell and maybe even activation as hydrino kinetic energy is
converted to gamma by impact with reactor structure. We might also expect
to see nuclear reactions produced by hydrinos and associated transmutation
as the hydrino enters nuclei. Dark matter does not do that sort of thing.
What keeps hydrinos from acting like neutrons?

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

[Alain Sepeda]

the mentality of Chinese people is very capitalist at local level, and also
more family than individual oriented.
However at the political level they seems more imperial, and abroad they
tolerate the local authorities, even local criminality as long as it is not
impairing business...
It is a mix we have problem to understand in the West.
In a way I see a similar misunderstanding between French culture
considering US way. It is hard to see in france that US solidarity is more
group/community driven than state driven, even if things are changing (and
many disagree, in both countries).

The "policy mix" of a culture is surprising for another culture.
In China "capitalism" is more popular in poling than in france and even in
USA.

french are more negative than people of irak about their future...

Note that China may not be globally capitalist, more Mercantilist or
Colbertist as we say in france (Crony too)... Not so different from US-way
in foreign trade, with huge state implication in business to protect
installed players.
However both US and China (more China) unlike France, have a very strong
local free capitalism with huge competition.

2016-12-08 22:26 GMT+01:00 Chris Zell :

> China is the nation to watch as to Communism. I understand that it sees
> capitalist methods as useful on a path to Communism and has never given up
> on this idea.   If they can hold back corruption, they may continue with
> the Party being dominant over all corporate forces (unlike the US in which
> it is the other way around).
>
>
>
> Communism is mostly about developing and maintaining enough resources to
> be easily shared.  If abundance can be created technologically, there could
> be a withering away of the state. Think about what free energy, future 3-D
> printing and digital currencies could accomplish. We already have an
> enormous resource of free information at our fingertips – that frustrates
> centralized media and governance. Who knows what follows next?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>