In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:44
-0400:
Hi,
[snip]
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:51
PM
While two particles might share a common value for specific coordinate in
a
higher dimension, that doesn't mean that they are in
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:44
-0400:
Hi,
[snip]
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Monday, June 07, 2010 6:51
PM
While two particles might share a common value for specific coordinate
in
a
higher dimension, that doesn't mean that they are
At 08:16 PM 6/7/2010, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 06/07/2010 07:29 PM, mailto:mix...@bigpond.commix...@bigpond.com
wrote:
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:31:49
-0400:
Hi,
I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two
*correlated* particles
A New article : Spooky Eyes: Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum
Entanglement
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-eyes-entanglement
Could this be a threat to the communication industry? Like big oil
opposition to free energy the thought of free communication must be
A New article : Spooky Eyes: Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum
Entanglement
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-eyes-entanglement
Could this be a threat to the communication industry? Like big oil
opposition to free energy the thought of free communication must be
On 06/07/2010 07:29 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:31:49 -0400:
Hi,
I think the whole notion of quantum entanglement is nonsense. When two
*correlated* particles are produced, they are like mirror images of one
another.
That
On 06/05/2010 10:52 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
Wading through the references, I've found the following paper:
A theory of mass and gravity in 4-dimensional optics
(http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0109027)
Which lays
Hi Terry,
Except on a whimsical or comical note, I fail to see how and why the
possible sabotage of Foucault's pendulum relates to the much hyped end
of times.
On 06/05/2010 05:12 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
Speaking of the Allais Eclipse Effect here is a web site with a good
summary of research
On 06/03/2010 11:59 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
FYI,
My Google News on Cold Fusion brought me the following link:
Free Science Public Day Challenges Mainstream Ideas Including Einstein
and Bernoulli Theories
Excerpts:
Guest speakers include Ron Hatch on GPS without
I can't believe they can't stop the oil spill after more than six weeks.
At this point it sounds like something intentional to me.
Don't they know about mechanical vices?
As they have access to the base of the leaking pipe, a powerful enough
mechanical vice can be used to slowly compress the
On 06/03/2010 07:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
I can't believe they can't stop the oil spill after more than six weeks.
At this point it sounds like something intentional to me.
That can't be! BP will lose billions of dollars. There is no way
anyone would cause
On 06/03/2010 08:22 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 06/03/2010 07:55 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
um, the pipe burst out. its a hollow column of rock.
Really? And what where they trying to cut some days ago?
what, where, when? were I meant
On 06/03/2010 09:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
I think that if they can cut it, they can certainly crunch it, and
keep
it pressed afterwards. But they should know better, isn't?
They should, and experts generally do
On 06/03/2010 10:50 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton
. . .and a third part of the sea became blood.
Odd that this spill from deep water looks red.
Say, speaking of deepwater revelations - is the new BP well-cap one of the
seven bowls?
I
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Has any *real* news service reported on this?
I've seen a documentary about a boy that was meditating for months in
India inside a hollow tree, supposedly practically without food, and
certainly without moving for hours. They also mentioned this man.
I think it was
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Has any *real* news service reported on this?
I've seen a documentary about a boy that was meditating for months in
India inside a hollow tree, supposedly practically without food, and
certainly without moving for hours. They also
Rick Monteverde wrote:
Maybe they just don't like the sun in their face?
They surely thought about this. From the abstract:
Because wind and light conditions could be excluded as a common
denominator determining the body axis orientation, magnetic alignment is
the most parsimonious
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
the sort of conspiracy theory I've come to associate with SR hating
crackpots who think physicists are all brainwashed fools.
It's not necessary to be a brainwashed fool to be proved wrong. Or are
you implying that intelligence and education are synonymous with
On 01/28/2010 07:26 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that
moves with respect to space yet SR
uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed
On 01/29/2010 10:19 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
That's simply not true. Read the papers I've pointed out.
Miller consistently obtained fringe shifts,
Yes, Miller was the only one who got a drift result. Nobody has
replicated his results.
Miller replicated M M results, with more precision
On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed)
to
clearly show what I mean by reality is not relative, but I'll not do
that.
Your choice. You understand what you mean, you could explain it, but
you won't.
I don't have
On 01/29/2010 12:35 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment
indeed)
to
clearly show what I mean by reality is not relative, but I'll not do
that.
Your choice. You understand what you mean, you
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that
moves with respect to space yet SR
uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be
perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma
Gibson Elliot wrote:
Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm
perhaps we could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his
equations work?
I know that LR is flawed also. I very much would like to hear your
explanation.
That's unlikely to occur, why throw out
Jones Beene wrote:
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion
Hi
The referenced paper in Note 9
Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance of c. D Gezari. NASA. Dec
'09.[2] http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934v2
is a very interesting paper. Thanks again, Jones.
It provides a
Jones Beene wrote:
No, I cannot see the flaw, but I do find the conclusions very
provocative – and, given the extreme minority conclusion - there is a
great incentive for everyone who disagrees to assert a flaw:
Indeed.
1) This is an apparent first-order violation of local Lorentz
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 12:06 PM 12/18/2009, Mauro Lacy wrote:
You maintain this business as long as you can, and when things are
starting to get murky(really murky) and profits are falling, you
suddenly fire all your employeess, close offices, and disappear in your
private jet
The news that Steorn is advertising their own failure on Al Jazerra is
mind boggling.
What to make of this? Are these people extremely clever and using
reverse psychology? Or are they what they appear to be: stupid,
incoherent, and flapping around trying one scheme after another, like a
mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:06:28 -0800:
Hi Jones,
[snip]
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
Matching lattice spacings may be at least one reason why CF is so
temperamental One of the lattice
Reading the comments section of the physorg.org article
(http://www.physorg.com/news157046734.html)
posted by Jones Beene at the start of the thread Tracking the colorful
Quark I stumbled on this:
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0
in a post from user WGUGLINSKI, Wladimir
Guglinski also claims to explain Cold Fusion as a consequence of his
neutron model, but I couldn't find the explanation. The book is not in
electronic form.
Correction: The book is in electronic form, and (part of it) is accessible
in books.google.com:
Jones Beene wrote:
...
Well - this is provocative, especially the part about the Letts/Cravens
effect, etc but it will take some time to study.
I hope Mauro will not hesitate to include his own thoughts and criticism.
I'm in a somewhat similar situation as you are at the moment: I found
Free-willing (or is it -weeling? :) friends,
Hi,
I assume you meant -wheeling.
Harry,
When quantum mechanics appeared the spirit had to accept that there
is a LIST of possible ways the universe could unfold. However, even if
this list
is infinitely long it still means
Michel Jullian wrote:
Well, we don't need to wait that longer. We already know that certain
phenomena are simply not contained within the framework of classical
mechanics, due to its stochastic nature.
So, for computers or machines to be able to achieve conscience, they'll
have to be built in
Michel Jullian wrote:
I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets
was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM
that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an
improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future.
are).
And anyway, my original reasoning applies to all that I consider to be
non-mechanical phenomena, including life and perception, not only
conscience and its cousin, free will.
Mauro
Jones
Mauro Lacy wrote re: Michel Jullian's quasi-random opinion:
I never implied the behavior of the universe
Mauro
By incommensurable I mean the residual that's always present in
every
calculation, measurement, modeling or simulation of a physical process.
Okay - I am with you there. What you seem to be describing is the
difference
between true randomness and a stochastic process - which itself
2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar:
Yes. The problem with all these approaches will always fortunately be
human free will
Then there is no problem is there?
Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I meant problem in the sense that the
outcomes of the future experiments in human cloning
, with all its complexity, including free will, is a product of the
Universe, that is, he does not exist in isolation. So, the Universe is at
least as complex and subtle as one of its creatures. And probably more.
Best regards,
Mauro
Michel
2009/11/25 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar:
2009/11/21 Mauro
V,
Can anybody figure out why the all 10 news articles are not showing up
on
this query?
Are you a news source syndicated with google news? I bet you're not.
I don't know what must be done (and if it's possible) to be added to that
list of news sources, but it could be a good idea to have
Steven Krivit wrote:
At 11:10 AM 11/24/2009, you wrote:
V,
Can anybody figure out why the all 10 news articles are not showing up
on
this query?
Are you a news source syndicated with google news? I bet you're not.
I think you are correct as far as the news index.
But I
Jed
I agree with all you said. You certainly don't have to be at the
defensive, justifying all your actions. This is specially so when you have
done nothing wrong.
But cold fusion is a controversial field, and sadly with a bad reputation.
This comes for a number of reasons, some of which are
Of course, there is *zero assurance* that the clone of a genius will
follow in the footsteps of the progenitor, and likewise rise to the same
level of accomplishment
I dare to make a prediction: if human cloning is achieved and done(and we
all know it will be, in some not so distant future)
Alexander Hollins wrote:
I was going to say, we've enough evidence of twins , seperated at
birth, brought up in very different environments, being very similar
to each other as adults.
I've heard that twins share a numer of startling coincidences in their
lives. Like naming their pets the
Yes, but it would be better if that document could be downloaded and/or
referenced from a goverment site. I searched and couldn't find any
official reference. If it's an unclassified document, it must be published
by the agency that unclassified it.
In my opninion, if this reference is not
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Yes, but it would be better if that document could be downloaded and/or
referenced from a goverment site.
Yes, it would be better, but the DIA does not do that. So that's not an
option.
I searched and couldn't find any
official reference. If it's an unclassified
Thanks Jed for the clarification.
There's a new comment by V now on wikipedia, stating that
public(unclassified) documents are, erm, public. So, no take down is
legally enforceable.
And also raising the question of how to deal with government documents
which are unclassified, but not published on
This is a good summary.
Maybe you could publish a version of it somewhere at lenr-canr.org. It
surely will not hurt, and could help first comers with doubts about the
validity of the sources and the information presented.
I never doubted the document was legit. In the name of truth, what
happened
Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 11:18:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reactionless propulsion
At 03:14 PM 11/10/2009, Harry Veeder wrote:
Wheteher or
Horace Heffner wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
OK here's Newton's law of gravitation defined:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
When bodies are large
Horace Heffner wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Regarding the concept of carrier particles, like photons and
gravitons,
it is clear to me that, in the case of the photon, we're in the
presence
of something like a pulse or wave train(a discrete number
Hi Jack,
As you're probably aware, possibility to choose freely is fundamental to
our human nature. And with freedom to choose, with free will, it came
the possibility for error. Because a poor thing would be our freedom, if
we did not have the freedom to choose wrongly.
Unfortunately, there are
Horace Heffner wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Enjoy the pickles.
Best regards,
Mauro
Pickled herring.
I'm wasting my precious time. Not anymore.
Best regards,
Mauro
Hi Taylor,
Thank you for your comments and opinion. I can assure you that the
theory is the (by no means final) result of much thinking and serious
reflection.
I have read about Le Sage gravity, but as I said in the past, I think
the carrier of gravity is similar (or even the same) as the
Horace Heffner wrote:
This is to examine the feasibility that gravity has a role in fusion
at some distance. The Coulomb force between two particles is:
Fc = Cc * q1 * q2 / r^2
where Cc is the Coulomb constant 8.99x10^9 m/F, the charge q1 or q2
of a particle is typically
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/8103557.stm
QUOTE:
An international plan to build a nuclear fusion reactor is being
threatened by rising costs, delays and technical challenges.
Emails leaked to the BBC indicate that construction costs for the
experimental fusion project called
On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
This is to examine the feasibility that gravity has a role in fusion
at some distance. The Coulomb force between two particles is:
Fc = Cc * q1 * q2 / r^2
where Cc is the Coulomb constant 8.99x10^9 m/F, the charge
- Original Message -
From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:36 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
Not true.
Why you say that? Do you know according to which law
OK here's Newton's law of gravitation defined:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
When bodies are large with respect to the distance between them, or
even overlap, forces on every tiny volume of a given body are
computed as the sum of forces over many small
- Original Message -
From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
- Original Message -
From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:36 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role
Harry Veeder wrote:
FYI
Copernicus said the sun is motionless and that it is _near_ the centre
of the universe.
Harry
from
http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Copernicus.html
In De revolutionibus Copernicus states several reasons why it is logical
that the sun would be at the
Terry Blanton wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
Here's (again) an indication that the Solar system is actually not (not
only) moving in the direction of the rotation around the galactic center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_apex
Horace Heffner wrote:
...
...
I really don't think that is possible. There is indeed a slight
apparent retrograde motion of the stars, and it is at an inclination
to the ecliptic. (The poles of the earth's rotation don't match the
poles of the ecliptic.) It amounts to a yearly
Horace Heffner wrote:
On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:13 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
...
...
I really don't think that is possible. There is indeed a slight
apparent retrograde motion of the stars, and it is at an inclination
to the ecliptic. (The poles of the earth's
Horace Heffner wrote:
...
And we still do this today, for all
practical, cultural, and even scientific and astronomical purposes.
I don't think that is true. It is only true with respect to typical
solar system internal calculations, like trajectories and orbits.
And when we do
Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
Date: Monday, October 12, 2009 10:59 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Want to do some real astronomy?
What I'm saying is this: even as early as in Copernicus times, the
doorwas open, so to speak
Terry Blanton wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
Here's (again) an indication that the Solar system is actually not (not
only) moving in the direction of the rotation around the galactic center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_apex
Hi Horace
Since cataloguing (even galaxies) is not on my list of 'most
enlightening things to do during the weekend', I'll present some
alternatives.
Here's a paper on galaxies I've found on the web recently:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3793
And here's valuable and relatively rare information on
Jones Beene wrote:
Mauro,
I wonder how much can I find when searching the deep web
http://www.fravia.com/deepweb_searching.htm
. It is my hope that those last links will serve also as a form of
obituary, because Fravia passed away on may 3, 2009. It's a sad day for
mankind
Horace Heffner wrote:
Below are some comments based on the gravimagnetic viewpoint, as
described here:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf
On Oct 11, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Hi Horace
Since cataloguing (even galaxies) is not on my list of 'most
Mauro Lacy wrote:
...
As I don't read latin, here's fortunately an english version
http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html
I'll post the excerpt when/if I find it.
The third motion in inclination is consequently required. This also is
a yearly revolution
' center in either direction it will turn its' profile to us and appear
smaller and faster for up-conversion or down conversion.
Regards
Fran
-Original Message-
From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo
Hi Frank
Time does not exist at the physical level. So, you have no right in
physics to talk about time dimensions. You can do it, of course, and
even model it mathematically, but your theory will make no physical sense.
This was discussed to a certain extent in the past here on vortex.
Search
for an entertaining read.
Mauro
[snip]
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Mauro Lacy
Sun, 24 May 2009 06:25:52 -0700
grok wrote:
As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
mounted the barricade and roared out:
The problem with so called time dimensions, is that they lack
underlying
Horace Heffner wrote:
On Sep 24, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Hi,
I've plotted the different vectorial components of the velocity
vector, and distance to the Sun on the same graph, and curiously
enough, the y component of the velocity vector (and probably of the
distance vector
On Sep 25, 2009, at 3:33 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Here's my best shot at the moment:
http://maurol.com.ar/decay_rates/halflife_bnl+Rx.jpg
I've superposed the graphs. The red line is 1/Sun-Earth
distance^2-1 (distance is now in au, and scaled up vertically), and
the green line is the -x
Horace Heffner wrote:
Here is the original article
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3283v1
Here is a follow-on article looking for any variations in decay rates
of Pu 238.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.4248v1
Data from the power output of the radioisotope thermoelectric
generators aboard the
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Jack Smith wrote:
...
I would note ... that the phase seems slightly off from
sun's distance. So we can say there is an annual cycle,
but it might be cosmic rays, gravitational potential or
perhaps temperature or other environmental variable.
velocity? If I'm
Hi Frank
Something along those lines. Your derivation of the elastic nature of
the electron is a little bit confusing, but I think is the way to go.
I suggest you to abandon the particle paradigm completely, and
concentrate on the extended wave paradigm, i.e. pulsating strings,
that is, elastic
Jack Smith wrote:
...
I would note ... that the phase seems slightly off from
sun's distance. So we can say there is an annual cycle,
but it might be cosmic rays, gravitational potential or
perhaps temperature or other environmental variable.
velocity? If I'm not mistaken, velocity is
Mauro Lacy wrote:
By the way, I have a question for you, in the form of a zen koan: We
know the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one hand
clapping? We can reformulate it for the ocassion as: We know the
interference pattern produced by two streams of light, but what
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
By the way, I have a question for you, in the form of a zen koan: We
know the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one hand
clapping? We can reformulate it for the ocassion as: We know the
interference pattern produced by two streams
) the debate
will continue, independently of the elapsed decades or centuries.
Mauro
David
David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence
sa...@pobox.comwrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
By the way, I have a question
Jones Beene wrote:
*An unfolding story- and e**legant and convincing demo** (of
something)** :*
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E*
*Rotatable** Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment.** *
*P*ossible implications:* *
1) An optical gravitometer?
2) the mirrors
Jones Beene wrote:
*From:* Mauro
At first I thought Strange they didn't mention the fourth dimension.
But Fournier is the man of the furnace, and furnus (oven) is the
french origin for four.
http://genealogy.about.com/library/surnames/f/bl_name-FOURNIER.htm
This I did not know …
Jones Beene wrote:
“Onion” usually always attempts to be an eye-watering spoof … This one
rises almost to the level of conspiracy theory, given recent threads
on Vortex ;-)
… and as we know, reality can be stranger than fiction. In several
layered ways… not unlike an the
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Frank Roarty wrote:
s
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
labelNo
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Frank Roarty wrote:
s
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or labelNo, but I'll read about it. Reciprocal space sounds like a mirror space
to me. By
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Frank Roarty wrote:
s
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
labelNo, but I'll read about
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Frank Roarty wrote:
s
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
labelNo, but I'll read about
Hi
Thanks for this post about Hotson's ideas.
Don't know about you, but to me, everything is starting to make a lot of
sense.
Please take into account that when Hotson says 'imaginary direction' you
can read '4th spatial dimension'.
And when, relativistically it's said 'time dilation' or 'time
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
I was thinking recently that it's not enough for gravity to be explained
merely as a consequence of a distortion of space.
It's not a distortion of space, it's a distortion of spaceTIME, and the
difference is extremely important
Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mauro Lacy
Please take into account that when Hotson says 'imaginary direction' you
can read '4th spatial dimension'.
Are you familiar with the Dirac concept of reciprocal space?
No, but I'll read about it. Reciprocal space
OrionWorks wrote:
...
However, I've come around to the suspicion that the majority of alien
abduction experiences are the result of a timeless, ancient
phenomenon, a unique and valid human experience that is just as
real, and IMHO, a possibly whole lot more important.
...
At present there
Terry Blanton wrote:
Is the planet-boosting flyby anomaly:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4184
an indication of insufficient integration resolution of the Matrix?,
Hi,
More likely, indications pointing to the inadequacy of our current
theory and understanding, or lack of understanding, of
Hi,
There seem to be some evidence that nuclear decay is not so stable as
thought:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36108
http://arxivblog.com/?p=596
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
And a negative result, for completeness :)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3265v1
Wow. Think big, and you'll be pleased :-). A massive(when more massive
it is, it could be relatively cheaper), government sponsored
(partially?) backed, reconversion to ecologically friendly (and also
very cheap in the medium/long term, and completely sustainable) energy
alternatives. That's the
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I don't know why he didn't run.
He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their
very definition.
It's always better to blame it all on a lone shooter, than acknowledge
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
OrionWorks wrote:
From Mario Lacy:
Edmund Storms wrote:
Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not
have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people,
many of whom are very powerful and will connected to
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Talking about the power of Open Source, what about the same concept but
applied to material goods?
The first version of RepRap, an almost completely self replicating 3D
printer, is ready:
http://reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome
At least
201 - 300 of 339 matches
Mail list logo
