Re: [Vo]:Anyone want to debate Darwinian Evolution with me in VortexB
send email to vortexb-l-requ...@eskimo.com with subscribe in subject line. So far, only one person accepted my challenge. I am going thru his links to study what proof he has provided. I'll respond to him as soon as I have studied his links. Jojo - Original Message - From: Kevin O'Malley To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anyone want to debate Darwinian Evolution with me in VortexB How does one get to Vortex B? I'd like to witness this debate. My prediction: None of the vorts who complained so loudly will be able to mount any kind of defense of Darwinian religious viewpoint, nor will there be any real debate from those who haven't complained so loudly. And also, the quality of the opposing debate diminishes as you go back further in time to the point of abiogenesis, where it has been shown that the chances are one in hundreds of trillion*trillion*trillions and even more. No one wants to debate it, they just want to tell you that it's established science. Even wikipedia won't call it established science. On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, things are slow here, but some crybabies are complaining that I am cluttering VortexL, burdening them and imposing on them. So, I am not going to start a new Darwinian Evolution thread here. But, I am issuing a challenge to anyone who thinks they understand Darwinian Evolution better than me, to please show up in VortexB and debate it with me. Heck, you have thousands of books with irrefutable proof; so dispatching me with your well-informed retorts should be easy. You should be able to dismantle my fairy-land arguments quickly. So, how about it, any takers? (Jed?, Nigel?, James?, Lixa?, jwinter?, Sunil?, Rocha?, Ian Walker?) Anyone willing to give it a try to silence me and a chance to embarrass me and put me back into my fairyland? Please indicate your willingness to participate in VortexB, by responding on this thread. If there are enough people accepting my challenge, I will get the ball rolling by posting on Irreducible Complexity. Or, you can start the ball rolling by posting a Darwinian Evolution topic of your choice in VortexB. Don't start the discussion here, lest we burden and impose on the deep thinking and meditation of some people. If you don't accept my challenge, please have enough integrity to forever not refer to my beliefs as a fairytale. Fair Enough? Put up or shut up. Oh, please don't hide behind your I don't want to waste time or I don't want to debate cause that will only give them some credibility nonsense. I am mocking your beliefs. I am mocking the stupidity of Darwinian Evolution and questioning the intelligence of those who believe in it.. Stand up and defend it with your honor. Let's have fun!!! Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Anyone want to debate Darwinian Evolution with me in VortexB
I don't think that's true Terry. I had to explicitly subscribe before I can post to it. Jojo - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anyone want to debate Darwinian Evolution with me in VortexB You are automatically subscribed when you subscribe here. On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How does one get to Vortex B? I'd like to witness this debate. My prediction: None of the vorts who complained so loudly will be able to mount any kind of defense of Darwinian religious viewpoint, nor will there be any real debate from those who haven't complained so loudly. And also, the quality of the opposing debate diminishes as you go back further in time to the point of abiogenesis, where it has been shown that the chances are one in hundreds of trillion*trillion*trillions and even more. No one wants to debate it, they just want to tell you that it's established science. Even wikipedia won't call it established science. On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, things are slow here, but some crybabies are complaining that I am cluttering VortexL, burdening them and imposing on them. So, I am not going to start a new Darwinian Evolution thread here. But, I am issuing a challenge to anyone who thinks they understand Darwinian Evolution better than me, to please show up in VortexB and debate it with me. Heck, you have thousands of books with irrefutable proof; so dispatching me with your well-informed retorts should be easy. You should be able to dismantle my fairy-land arguments quickly. So, how about it, any takers? (Jed?, Nigel?, James?, Lixa?, jwinter?, Sunil?, Rocha?, Ian Walker?) Anyone willing to give it a try to silence me and a chance to embarrass me and put me back into my fairyland? Please indicate your willingness to participate in VortexB, by responding on this thread. If there are enough people accepting my challenge, I will get the ball rolling by posting on Irreducible Complexity. Or, you can start the ball rolling by posting a Darwinian Evolution topic of your choice in VortexB. Don't start the discussion here, lest we burden and impose on the deep thinking and meditation of some people. If you don't accept my challenge, please have enough integrity to forever not refer to my beliefs as a fairytale. Fair Enough? Put up or shut up. Oh, please don't hide behind your I don't want to waste time or I don't want to debate cause that will only give them some credibility nonsense. I am mocking your beliefs. I am mocking the stupidity of Darwinian Evolution and questioning the intelligence of those who believe in it.. Stand up and defend it with your honor. Let's have fun!!! Jojo
[Vo]:Anyone want to debate Darwinian Evolution with me in VortexB
Folks, things are slow here, but some crybabies are complaining that I am cluttering VortexL, burdening them and imposing on them. So, I am not going to start a new Darwinian Evolution thread here. But, I am issuing a challenge to anyone who thinks they understand Darwinian Evolution better than me, to please show up in VortexB and debate it with me. Heck, you have thousands of books with irrefutable proof; so dispatching me with your well-informed retorts should be easy. You should be able to dismantle my fairy-land arguments quickly. So, how about it, any takers? (Jed?, Nigel?, James?, Lixa?, jwinter?, Sunil?, Rocha?, Ian Walker?) Anyone willing to give it a try to silence me and a chance to embarrass me and put me back into my fairyland? Please indicate your willingness to participate in VortexB, by responding on this thread. If there are enough people accepting my challenge, I will get the ball rolling by posting on Irreducible Complexity. Or, you can start the ball rolling by posting a Darwinian Evolution topic of your choice in VortexB. Don't start the discussion here, lest we burden and impose on the deep thinking and meditation of some people. If you don't accept my challenge, please have enough integrity to forever not refer to my beliefs as a fairytale. Fair Enough? Put up or shut up. Oh, please don't hide behind your I don't want to waste time or I don't want to debate cause that will only give them some credibility nonsense. I am mocking your beliefs. I am mocking the stupidity of Darwinian Evolution and questioning the intelligence of those who believe in it.. Stand up and defend it with your honor. Let's have fun!!! Jojo
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Steven, I appreciate your point of view. I will respond this last time on this subject matter here and then I will move the discussion to VortexB and if you are willing to continue this discussion, meet me over there. I think it's fun to try to understand another's point of view. Regarding dirty dancing - which is really most forms of dancing we have nowadays. Would it surprise you that I support dirty dancing. Yes, I think dirty dancing is OK in the eyes of God if it is done under the following conditions: 1. It is done with the proper individual/partner (husband or wife; Male husband with female wife), not with your same sex, multi-sex, or androgenous partner. and not with someone who is not your wife or husband. There is no sexual sin if sex is done with your husband or wife. Dirty dancing is not dirty if done with your husband or wife. 2. It is done in the privacy of your own home. No one else can see you. Displaying your dancing in public is tantamount to commiting that same dirty dancing with the person looking at you. 3. It is done to the tune of proper Godly music. Not rock and roll, punk rock, heavy metal or whatever. Music is part of the dancing and in fact, it is the biggest component of dancing. Proper music is not sin. So, in fact, since we are not married in Heaven, there will be no need for dancing, let alone dirty dancing. There will be Godly dancing associated with Godly music of praise and worship. Not dancing and music to satisfy carnal lust. No, comments about sexuality do not offend me. Why should it? Sexuality is a God-given desire and need; and God gave us abundant resource to express it with our own husbands and wives. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 5:45 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Greetings Jojo, my ancient respected nemesis from the past. I do not believe my previous comments implied that I am rejecting God and Heaven. The conflict, if there really exists one between us, seems to be that we may have slightly different intellectual perspectives as to what God and the Kingdom of Heaven might consist of. IMHO, both reside within us. http://biblehub.com/luke/17-21.htm In terms that I hope may establish a way for you and I to find some common ground in which to stand on I would submit that God and the Kingdom of Heaven is an eternal dance of Unity. To my way of thinking and feeling, that eternal dance includes sexuality. I include the expression of sexuality because, in my view, it is one of the most obvious, primal forces of Cosmic Creation that conscious sentient beings can experience. The ultimate expression of sexuality is Unity. When it comes to expressing Unity, I suspect God is not a prude, nor do I suspect has the Kingdom of Heaven banned Dirty Dancing. It seems to me that only humans have learned how to behave prudishly when it comes to the infinite creativity sexuality bestows upon sentient creatures like us. Fortunately, I suspect God is very patient about such foibles. I don't know if my comments about sexuality have possibly offended you or not. Be that as it may, in the end I think we must remain True to Our Own School. That means we must live our Own School as best we can. We must be responsible for expressing our own POVs as clearly as we can so that others can evaluate them at their own pace and level of comprehension. That is the only way I know how common ground can be found amongst each other. Likewise, it is not our responsibility nor sacred duty to attempt to manipulate, coerce, or force our POVs, or Our Own School onto others. Again, it would appear that only sentient creatures, like us, seemed to have learned how to do that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Jojo My friend, if this is the only reason why you reject God and heaven, you are missing out on a lot of things. We vorticians enjoy intellectual stimulation. We debate arcane subject matters like number of angels on the head of a pin. because we enjoy thinking, analysing, deep analysis and other mental and intellectual exercises. And I think you do to. The Bible talks of the unsearchable riches of Christ. So, imagine an existence where you can indulge in this exercise of seaching the unsearchable riches of Christ for eternity. You will never finish searching everything there is to know. To me, that would be an enjoyable existence. One will not have time to dance, nor would one want to. So, dancing would be the last thing you would want to. Although there is a form of dancing associated with praise and singing to worship God. I am not referring to that; I am referring to carnal sexual dancing we indulge in.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
at the Planck size. Hence, it would make sense that the smallest manifestation they can have would be the Planck size. Hence, even if Angels can not occupy the same space and time as I originally speculated, they can still be as small as the Planck size, hence 100 million of them would still fit on the head of a pin. Regarding dancing, I was referring to carnal dancing that our generation indulges in. Angels have no need nor desire to engage in carnal dancing, (at least the non-fallen ones). Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 8:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. At 07:55 PM 8/29/2014, Jojo Iznart wrote: Thus, Angels are in fact multi-dimensional creatures. They can come and go into our dimension, assume any shape they like in our dimension So far, so good. and can occupy the same space at the same time in our dimension. That's not clear at all. First, God (I'll capitalize it as a proper noun) is described (not in the bible) as omnipitent (all powerful), omnipresent (everywhere, presumably at the same time), and eternal. But eternal means that he lasts for ever, not that he can move backwards and forwards in time. Your statement about angel's habitation implies that they exist in a finite volume of n-space and, like God, move only forward in time. Likewise, their penetration into a volume of our 3-space is a finite 3-space volume. Therefore your argument that they take up a zero 3-space volume is invalid (or 2-space, if we restrict the solution to the surface of the head of a pin). It may be at the planck scale, but it's still a volume or area. I do agree that the finite number of angels (100+ million) provides a practical upper limit. For example, we could say (and I'm picking these numbers out of the air), that 100 Billion people could stand in a thousand-square mile area -- but the actual number is limited by the world's population. I see no evidence that angels, NOT being omnipresent, can occupy the same volume of n-space, so the exclusion principal applies: they must occupy separate volumes in n-space and, as a sub-set, in 3-space. Next, we come to standing or dancing. The Bible has nothing to say about whether heavenly beings dance or not, but some human dancing is endorsed (and some is declaimed.). But I cannot conceive of a heaven filled with the sound of musical instruments, and the listeners of that celestial movement being required to stand still. In any case, you argue that the 3-D size of an angel is vanishingly small. It will most likely also be subject to a N-dimensional Heisenberg uncertainty principal. By setting their velocity to zero (no dancing) you set the uncertainty of their position to infinity, so you can no longer claim with certainty that they are ON the head of the pin.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
My friend, if this is the only reason why you reject God and heaven, you are missing out on a lot of things. We vorticians enjoy intellectual stimulation. We debate arcane subject matters like number of angels on the head of a pin. because we enjoy thinking, analysing, deep analysis and other mental and intellectual exercises. And I think you do to. The Bible talks of the unsearchable riches of Christ. So, imagine an existence where you can indulge in this exercise of seaching the unsearchable riches of Christ for eternity. You will never finish searching everything there is to know. To me, that would be an enjoyable existence. One will not have time to dance, nor would one want to. So, dancing would be the last thing you would want to. Although there is a form of dancing associated with praise and singing to worship God. I am not referring to that; I am referring to carnal sexual dancing we indulge in. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:55 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. I would not want to live an eternity in heaven where dancing is frowned upon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6K7OC-IKnA My cousins are one-half Greek. The parties are memorable. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
The answer to this question is 100 million. It may come as a surprise to many but the Bible may have an answer to this question. I am answering this not to show how biblically knowledgeable I am, but to show the skeptic that the Bible has many many answers to many many difficult questions if one simply takes the time to study it and evaluate the evidence it presents with an open mind. To try to answer this question - the question of how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin? I need to lay some groundwork. But before I do that, let it be clear to everyone that Angles don't dance. That carnal behavior is beneath them. So, the proper question is - How many Angels can stand on the head of a pin. 1. First, let's understand that the Bible teaches that our 3.5 dimensional world (3 space dimensions, plus 1/2 of time dimension - 1/2 because we can only travel in that dimension 1 way - only towards the future, we can't move back in time.) - that our 3.5 dimensional world is but a part of a reality that is composed of maybe up to 10 dimensions. Paul talks of being taken to the third heaven - this is another place of existence inaccesible to us mortals. Maimonides, an ancient Jewish Scholar, believed that we live in a 10-dimensional world only 4 of which was knowable. John, when describing the New Jerusalem, talks of the streets of being made of Pure Gold like clear glass. How can pure gold be like clear glass other than there is another dimension wherein this pure opaque gold exists wherein one can see thru it. Jude, when describing angels talks of how fallen angels left their habitation, which imply that they have another type of habitation (Body). Jesus in his ressurection body was able to pass thru doors and appear and disappear at will, and also float up to heaven at his ascension. Jesus at the transfiguration was transformed to a bright and shining form of body. Even our latest science tells the same story. There are many scholar who believe that our reality is but a projection - a hologram, a simulation of a larger multi-dimensional reality. Doesn't Dawkins talk of a multiverse? He is reflecting the sentiment of many scholars, who may not necessarily, and in fact, are not Christians. Doesn't our Latest String Theory talk of a 10-dimensional Universe? So, the point of my first point, is that there is reason to believe from the Bible as well as from Science that we live in a Universe which may be up to 10 dimensions. Thus, Angels are in fact multi-dimensional creatures. They can come and go into our dimension, assume any shape they like in our dimension and can occupy the same space at the same time in our dimension. 2. Second, to begin to answer how many Angels can fit on the head of a pin, let's examine the broader question of how many Angels there are. Revelations 5.11 has this to say. As far as I know, this is the only place in the Bible where the number of Angels is explicitly mentioned. It says 10 thousand times 10 thousands and thousands of thousands. Rev 5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; I don't know what thousands of thousands is, but I do know that 10 thousand times 10 thousand is 100 million. Hence, the answer to the question is 100 million Angels can fit on the head of pin. If you count fallen Angels in the mix, the number would be 150 million because 1/3 of the Angels followed Satan in the fall leaving behind 2/3 which is 100 million. Jojo - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: ps Did anyone ever figure out how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin? Between one and 30 vigintillion angels. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comicsid=2576 about the origin of that question: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin Harry
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
- Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 7:42 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: As pointed out, the odds for a mutation occuring that would result in a feature that is useful enough is astronomical. If the necessary information is present from the beginning, then it only needs to be triggered and it will express itself. This is my suspicion of how the process might work. This process my friend, is called micro-evolution or variation or adaptation. The genetic information required to trigger a change is already encoded in the DNA. This mechanism can create large changes in a short time. It does not rely on mutations. This mechanism does not result in a new kind (~species). It does not result in Macro-evolution. This idea of reversibility in itself is already a violation of one of the tenets of Darwinian Theory. Darwinian Theory says the change must be persistent. If the reverse is easier than the forward change, it violates the persistence requirement. Regarding E. Coli resistance. You are correct in that the resistance is conferred by an expression of a gene. In this case, just a single gene which creates a single protein on the cell wall of the bacteria that prevents the antibiotic from attaching itself to the bacteria which prevents the denaturing/splitting of the bacteria cell wall. But this is precisely my argument for the difference between micro from macro-evolution. The mechanism for expressing a trait is already encoded in the DNA in micro-evolution - it is adaptation. There is no mutation that needs to confer a survival advantage. Everything the bacteria needs to mount a defense is already encoded. That is why you will never find E. Coli that is resistant to Chlorine for example. Chlorine will always kill E. Coli, because E.Coli does not have a gene that it can express to confer Chlorine resistance. The extent of what E. Coli can be resistant to is determined by its genetic tool box. It can never be resistant to something that is not in its tool box. Since we don't understand what all the information in the non-coding regions is there for, we can never be sure quite what might pop out of that tool box once a key mutation has had time to occur. You have a point, but since we have never seen E. Coli which can survive a good bleaching, it is safe to assume it does not have the necessary genetic encoding to mount that defense. Micro-evolution has a limited set of stresses it can adapt for. That is why certain whole variations dissappear and go extinct.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
You would have a point, and I would be with you if there are indeed only one or two anomalies. But, the fact of the matter is, there are hundreds of anomalies that Darwinian Theory can not explain. Even staunch Darwinian Evolutionists are beginning to see that DE theory is becoming untenable. There are new holes poked thru it everyday. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 7:59 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell, what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years old? I don't know how these particular fossils were dated, but I know how this field of science works in general and have been highly impressed at the quality of some of the data. I have no argument with sincere scientists doing the job the best way they know how. Mistakes can be made but with enough diverse minds at work on the same problems the truth usually ends up prevailing. I'm really not interested in being told that one or two interesting anomalies renders this whole field of science invalid.
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
It's a slow time. If something interesting occurs, I'm sure people will stop asking me questions and I will stop responding. You should not begrudge a few off-topic discussions. It helps while the time away. Besides, I am not starting these threads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: PS. Most of my responses are answers to queries. Carbon Dating is science (supposedly) and Darwinian Evolution is science (as Jed would claim) so what off topic flame are you referring to. Responses to religious questions to me have been few and far between. Jojo, you're one of the main drivers behind the off topic threads of late. You should take the temperature in the room. People are starting to find your participation a burden. This may or may not matter to you. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Then show me fossil evidence where transition forms are clearly evident. How can we construct the entire narrative of Human evolution when all the fossils of all previous humanoid forms fit in the bed of a F-150 truck. That is some flimsy evidence for humanoid evolution. Also, precisely for the reason that macro-evolution is not obeservable, why I call it a theory, not science, let alone settled science. Jojo PS: I want concrete proof because I wanted to be convinced. As Mulder would say I want to believe. I want to be convinced that I have not wasted my life believing the Bible. But so far, Darwinian Evolution has been shallow and empty from an intellectual point of view. It does not make sense I studied the Bible for a while before I was convinced it is reliable. - Original Message - From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 7:26 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Jojo, if we assume macro-evolution occurs in long time-frames, how can anyone show you concrete proof the way you say you want it? I found this http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-Observable-Evidence-for-Macroevolution/1/ from which I took this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg and this: a.. (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern a.. (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My a.. (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My a.. (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My a.. (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My a.. (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My a.. (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My a.. (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My a.. (I) Homo heidelbergensis, Rhodesia man, 300,000 - 125,000 y a.. (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y a.. (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y a.. (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y a.. (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y a.. (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern (Of course, this list is useless in light of your radioactive dating discussion) Best Regards, Sunil PS A personal question: For what reason you want concrete proof? -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:04:13 +0800 Ken, are you saying the Clymene dolphin is an example of Macro-evolution. It seems to me that it is just a variation of the spinner dolphin. Not sure what you are claiming here. Which 2%-4% of flowering plants are you referring to? Please be specific so that I can research it to see if you are right. So, you people make fun of my probability calculation so I pointed out the probability calculation of a staunch evolutionists who have already considered many of your objections. Now, you make fun of him (Julian Huxley). What level of proof or which personality would you really consider credible? Whose proof is acceptable to you? Please don't just say there are thousands of textbooks. If there are thousands of proofs, it shouldn't be difficult for you to point out one example of an observable macro-evolution event. Though I can understand part of your problem. As a biology teacher, you have been totally immersed in this Darwinian paradigm. Like Huzienga, it is very difficult for you to change your mind or to admit that what you believed your entire life has been a lie. Me? I will accept Darwinian Evolution today if someone can show me concrete proof. Not conjectures, and imaginations and suppositions and speculations and interpretations. I challenged Nigel to do just that, but it seems he could not. Jojo - Original Message - From: Ken Deboer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Jojo, Here's one (actually a few ): clymene dolphin plus 2-4% of all flowering plants, inc. many sunflowers, and many crop species. BTW. This whole 'odds' thing is a joke. Julian Huxley, for example, did not state his opinion re; the astronomical 'odds' of a horse, but did ridicule the guy that did. It appears, for example, that the odds that you and I could ever agree on most anything is, let's see, 80 billion neuronal actions per sec X 80 billion neurons actions per sec by you X 30 years = (I'm not too good at math, you do the math). From a former biology teacher, ken PS. don't call me, I'll call you back. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis. Your unyielding adherence
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
OK, I stand corrected if you consider those are new threads. To me, they are extensions of the topic started by someone else. But, I think we've beaten this dead horse many times over. I think it's time to move on. Why don't you start a controversial thread for discussion, so that no one can accuse me of spamming this forum. Jojo - Original Message - From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Jojo said: Besides, I am not starting these threads. Hehe : ) Yes you are. You started Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. You started [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating And as the fifth message in [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots you were the one to ask: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:28:48 +0800 It's a slow time. If something interesting occurs, I'm sure people will stop asking me questions and I will stop responding. You should not begrudge a few off-topic discussions. It helps while the time away. Besides, I am not starting these threads. Jojo - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: PS. Most of my responses are answers to queries. Carbon Dating is science (supposedly) and Darwinian Evolution is science (as Jed would claim) so what off topic flame are you referring to. Responses to religious questions to me have been few and far between. Jojo, you're one of the main drivers behind the off topic threads of late. You should take the temperature in the room. People are starting to find your participation a burden. This may or may not matter to you. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
My friend, caterpillars turning to butterflies are not micro-evolution, that is normal development associated with butterflies. How about a tadpole turning into a frog, is that micro-evolution also? Or an egg into a chick? Heck, we can go hogwild, how about a female ovary egg into a human. The egg is one species Macro-evolving into a human (another species). Is this how you really look at it? My friend, let's get serious. I had hoped not to respond on this subject but this is just plain funny. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 6:22 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: On 28/08/2014 11:14 AM, jwinter wrote: If the necessary information is present from the beginning, then it only needs to be triggered and it will express itself. This is my suspicion of how the process might work. This process my friend, is called micro-evolution or variation or adaptation. The genetic information required to trigger a change is already encoded in the DNA. This mechanism can create large changes in a short time. It does not rely on mutations. This mechanism does not result in a new kind (~species). It does not result in Macro-evolution. If a species of caterpillars which reproduced as caterpillars, one day laid a batch of eggs out of which hatched butterflies which then reproduced as butterflies (which was my example), there is no way that anyone in their right mind would call that micro-evolution! Given that this profound level of transformation occurs millions of times every day within a single generation of many diverse species, it is not a great stretch to imagine that this level of transformation could also have occurred between generations in the process of speciation. My point is that the information for a completely new life form can lie latent in an existing lifeform to suddenly appear fully formed when the trigger occurs - which trigger may in fact need a genuine mutation. But no precursors or slow mutation and adaptation need be required. Such a process would embarrass the evolutionists because they can find no fossil record of transitional forms. It would also embarrasses the honest creationists because all the dating and genetics would point to the first species (caterpillars) giving rise to the second (butterflies). If such a mechanism existed and acted, it would be the perfect producer of the effect known as punctuated equilibrium - and as I understand it, is what the fossil evidence largely points to.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Darwinian Evolution is the most popular due to one element. It postulates a natural undirected process that does not require God or a creator. Some proposals of evolution are directed. The evolution is directed or forced into a plan or path towards the more complex form, presumably by God or some Intelligent being. These are not popular because it can be argued that an intelligent being is directing the evolution. This is unpalatable to atheists evolutionists. If fact, Charlie himself really disliked any suggestion of a process that occurs quickly, like micro-evolution or adaptation. He disliked it for the simple reason that it can be argue that an intelligence is behind the evolution. Hence, he already rejected one possible mode of evolution due to his dislike for the concept of God. That attitude my friends is a RELIGION. Darwinian Evolution is a religion. Many people nowadays are afflicted with this unreasonable philosophy. This philosophy is also known as Methological Naturalism. This says all answers must be naturalistic. Jojo - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Darwin's theory or explanation of evolution is distinct from the general concept of evolution. Several explanations of evolution have been proposed over the last few hundred years. To date Darwin's theory has been the most fertile but it also has major shortcomings. Only neo-Darwinists insist that all aspects of evolution must be explained in Darwinian terms. harry On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: You would have a point, and I would be with you if there are indeed only one or two anomalies. But, the fact of the matter is, there are hundreds of anomalies that Darwinian Theory can not explain. Even staunch Darwinian Evolutionists are beginning to see that DE theory is becoming untenable. There are new holes poked thru it everyday. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 7:59 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell, what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years old? I don't know how these particular fossils were dated, but I know how this field of science works in general and have been highly impressed at the quality of some of the data. I have no argument with sincere scientists doing the job the best way they know how. Mistakes can be made but with enough diverse minds at work on the same problems the truth usually ends up prevailing. I'm really not interested in being told that one or two interesting anomalies renders this whole field of science invalid.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
You're absolutely correct. I realized my error after I posted it but I had to take care of something so I did not have time to correct what I said. I apologize for my mistake. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 10:38 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: My friend, caterpillars turning to butterflies are not micro-evolution, that is normal development associated with butterflies. You think I don't know that!? Why don't you read what I wrote - hint look for the If at the beginning of the sentence. From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 6:22 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: On 28/08/2014 11:14 AM, jwinter wrote: If the necessary information is present from the beginning, then it only needs to be triggered and it will express itself. This is my suspicion of how the process might work. This process my friend, is called micro-evolution or variation or adaptation. The genetic information required to trigger a change is already encoded in the DNA. This mechanism can create large changes in a short time. It does not rely on mutations. This mechanism does not result in a new kind (~species). It does not result in Macro-evolution. If a species of caterpillars which reproduced as caterpillars, one day laid a batch of eggs out of which hatched butterflies which then reproduced as butterflies (which was my example), there is no way that anyone in their right mind would call that micro-evolution! Given that this profound level of transformation occurs millions of times every day within a single generation of many diverse species, it is not a great stretch to imagine that this level of transformation could also have occurred between generations in the process of speciation. My point is that the information for a completely new life form can lie latent in an existing lifeform to suddenly appear fully formed when the trigger occurs - which trigger may in fact need a genuine mutation. But no precursors or slow mutation and adaptation need be required. Such a process would embarrass the evolutionists because they can find no fossil record of transitional forms. It would also embarrasses the honest creationists because all the dating and genetics would point to the first species (caterpillars) giving rise to the second (butterflies). If such a mechanism existed and acted, it would be the perfect producer of the effect known as punctuated equilibrium - and as I understand it, is what the fossil evidence largely points to.
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
First, The burben you feel is due to the nature of how discussions in this list are distributed. I feel your pain and I feel the burden myself. I made a suggestion in the past that this list should be converted to a forum format to lessen the burden and distraction to members. The forum format allows the member to participate in a topic only he desires without annoying others. Clearly, this fact alone has contributed to this impose and burden that you are lamenting. The list email format is counter-productive. Maybe you should try to prevail on Bill to change it to improve the increasing communication burden you feel, instead ot trying to stifle discussion on topics clearly many people are interested in. Second, Clearly, there is much interest in the topic of Darwinian Evolution and Carbon Dating and Global Warming. I have many posts because many questions have been directed to me by several members. They ask an important question, I try to answer. You will notice that this time around, I have not posted on a purely religious topic unless as an answer to a direct religious question. Third, the topic of Evolution, Carbon Dating and Global Warming are controversial and discussions will necessary drift to areas where other people consider to be religious and metaphysical - although these topics in itself is science, and hence appropriate for this forum. This is part of the vibrancy that creates the unique environment in this forum. If you want a monolithic mindset and you want to suppress discussion because you feel burdened or imposed, you only do so at the expense of what makes this forum unique. If you want non-controversial topics only, you will get a dull forum. Take a page from Lomax's NewVortex forum. It's heavily moderated where monolithic thinking is imposed. It is an oppressive and dull place to participate in. (Funny thing - Even Rocha got booted out of that place.) Fourth, The spat in the past was due to me reacting to lies and insults thrown my way. I have since taken that lesson to heart and this time around, I don't repond to insults and lies against me anymore. I try to stay on the topic of the discussion. Fifth, What's with this sneaking accusation. If I tried to sneak back, I would have not used my real name and confess to every one that I am Jojo Jaro. I came back because I feel that certain ideas are taking hold in vortex that I feel were leading many people down the wrong LENR research path. But my involvement has since balooned beyond what I would have initially wanted due to many questions and controversies, and people's deliberate attempts to provoke me. (Rocha comes to mind.) This forum has been a burden to my time these last few days, so I wouldn't consider it a big loss if I get banned again. In fact, I have moderated my response this last day, due to time constraints. So, have at it my friend. Sixth, Clearly it is a slow time. The discussion about these topics you lament, has clearly made this forum a more vibrant place these last few days. If you begrudge that, then you are not interested in the success of this forum. Besides, you are one of the more prolific posters on a topic you are now accusing as an Off-topic topic - global warming. Do I sense hypocrisy and a double-standard here? Seventh, I have made a promise to myself to try waste less time in here. So, you will find fewer post from me. Jojo - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: It's a slow time. If something interesting occurs, I'm sure people will stop asking me questions and I will stop responding. You should not begrudge a few off-topic discussions. It helps while the time away. Besides, I am not starting these threads. I will take your cavalier response as an indication that you don't care about whether you're being a burden on other people on this list and will be in touch with Bill Beaty shortly. He may or may not remove you once again. That will be his decision. Eric (For those of you who missed the backstory, Jojo was previously on this list under the alias Jojo Jaro, and was removed sometime back along with Abd Lomax. Abd Lomax was a valuable contributor to this forum and got caught up in an extended altercation with Jojo centering on religion. The thread on religion lasted many weeks. During that time Jojo demonstrated that he had no regard for the other list members, who repeatedly asked him to get back on topic and moderate his participation and tone. Jojo has since sneaked back onto Vortex with a different email address and alias, but it seems he has not learned from the previous incident, even the lesson of keeping a low profile.)
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist? Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000. That's a number with 300,000 zeroes. Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in the Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say? This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the math acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't happen. Only ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing yourself. http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ Jojo PS: I can already predict your reaction. You: Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic science. Me: Whatever!!! LOL... - Original Message - From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have ever seen. Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace.. And stop misusing the proof word all the time : D I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in arguments like these: The failure to realize what a big number is. First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time. Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity. Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just proved something. May I suggest: The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL. So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do. (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one change every 140 hours is fast.) Why are you assuming changes are sustained? Why are you assuming changes are observable? The math would say: A very small change x A rather long time (from your perspective) = An unobservably small change. /Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 +0800 Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion
Re: [Vo]:Re: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Actually, my friend, DNA vastly complicates Macro-Evolution because DNA is essentially a repository of Information. Try scrambling a few letters in a book and see if you come up with more information. No, you will not, information is lost everytime there is s mutation. Information which is the outward manifestation of order never increases due to a random process. Darwinian Evolution is wrong for a lot of reasons, one of the strongest of which is it can not explain the origin of information in our DNA. Panspermia (life from outer space) faces the same Abiogenesis problem we face here. It does not matter where in the Universe you think the first life originated, it is still constrained by the limitations of probability and time. The probabilities are huge and there is not enough time. 16 billion years may seem long to us, but in the realm of random processes, it is but a tick of time. Jojo PS. Do you think Julian Huxley was unaware of DNA when he made his calculations? Au contraire, he was accutely aware of it and its limitations which contributed to the huge probability number he came up with. - Original Message - From: pjvannoor...@caiway.nl To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:44 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Jojo I will send only one email about this subject. The fact that a stucture like DNA is involved increases the chances to produce new lifeforms dramatically. If there were only atoms and molecules involved and no mechanism to arrange them the chance of creating a horse would indeed be very small as you describe. It would correspond to the chance of creating an aircraft by letting a twister pass over a junkyard. You can ofcourse ask me where DNA originated from and that the chance to produce it is to small to happen by chance. According to R.Mills we live in a indefinitely oscillating universe. That makes it more plausible that life developed naturally without any intelligent design by a God bcs there is no time restriction. It could be that primitive life (bacteria) is present in many parts of the universe and survives on for instance frozen comets and is seeded over and over on fertile planets and also destroyed many times. Peter From: Jojo Iznart Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist? Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000. That's a number with 300,000 zeroes. Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in the Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say? This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the math acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't happen. Only ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing yourself. http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ Jojo PS: I can already predict your reaction. You: Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic science. Me: Whatever!!! LOL... - Original Message - From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have ever seen. Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace.. And stop misusing the proof word all the time : D I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in arguments like these: The failure to realize what a big number is. First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time. Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity. Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just proved something. May I suggest: The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL. So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do. (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one change every 140 hours is fast.) Why are you assuming changes are sustained? Why are you assuming changes are observable? The math would say: A very small change x A rather long time (from your perspective) = An unobservably small change. /Sunil From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
I believe in the Bible fully from cover to cover. The Bible says the Universe and the Earth was created in 6 literal days. Now, the day may not necessarily be 24 hours but the idea was that God created everything in a short time. When he did that is not revealed in the Bible. Many Biblical scholars claim that they can backtrace the genealogy and concluded that it is currently about 6000 years old. I have no reason to doubt them although I fully admit that they could be wrong. After all, they are all human and their calculation is not from God. Also, this is a rough estimate. No exact dates are provided in reference to major events. Just hints here and there that place the event in its historical context. Also, Biblical scholars who study Eschatology (study of End times, like Armageddon, 2nd Coming of Christ, Millenial Kingdom, etc.) sometimes apply prophecy to Biblical history. This is a valid Bible Study technique, since Prophecy is Prologue. What that means is that many events that occur in the Bible always have prophetic significance one way or another. Many scholars equate a 7-day prophecy to our history. 1 day is prophecied to be equal to 1000 years. Many prophecies put us on the 6th day. That is also where the 6000 years came from. The 7th day is the day of rest which they equate to the Millenial reign of King Christ from a literal throne in Jerusalem. So, if you ask me what I believe, there it is. Jojo PS. BTW, as a believer, the Bible says that I am a King and Priest. So, I will be running a city and/or a church in the Millenium. Most likely just a city cause there would only be one church. So, I'll be looking up some of you who have been nasty to me. (In case you missed it, IM JOKING) - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:44 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Thanks for giving me a specific time-frame within the you tube link to fast forward to. Right now I don't have the time to wade through the entire lecture, but I did listen to the specific section about disproving the horse evolution theory. I did perform a spot check here and there. I do see the lecturer has a lot of charisma. Possessing charisma always helps to persuade the audience. Using a healthy dose of ridicule is always entertaining too. As for me, using ridicule to insinuate we are trying to create a whale from corn is not likely to convince me that evolution is a failed theory, 41:15. I think you would enjoy reading Forbidden Archeology, if you haven't already. I think there are some intriguing, as well as controversial, findings listed in this book. http://books.google.com/books/about/Forbidden_Archeology.html?id=vhV9MAAJ http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409142589sr=1-1keywords=forbidden+archeology In your personal opinion, how long do you think the Earth has been around? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Jojo Iznart [mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Actually, reproduction by cellular mitosis would favor evolution. If Macro-evolution is occuring, cellular mitosis should prove it quickly. Why? Because one one set of genes can produce a trait that would confer a survival advantage. If reproduction is by cellular meiosis. both mutations have to be compatible for it to generate a trait. This task is more difficult and will occur at less probability compounding the long long long odds already facing Macro-Evolution. Regarding Horse Evolution, that was debunked about 5 decades ago. I have a video for that but it is long. Horse evolution discussion starts at time 41:26. It talks about the Equus seris of horse evolution in your article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:18 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From: Jojo Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years of natural selection. And yet, what did we find? We find that the bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same bacteria. This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The bacteria was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA. No mutation. In this particular experiment
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Do you have a free copy of this Forbidden Archeology book. The Bible teaches us to hear (eaxmine) the matter before asnswering (concluding) it. So, I'd like to read this on my spare time if I have access to a free copy. I am not willing to pay for one. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:44 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Thanks for giving me a specific time-frame within the you tube link to fast forward to. Right now I don't have the time to wade through the entire lecture, but I did listen to the specific section about disproving the horse evolution theory. I did perform a spot check here and there. I do see the lecturer has a lot of charisma. Possessing charisma always helps to persuade the audience. Using a healthy dose of ridicule is always entertaining too. As for me, using ridicule to insinuate we are trying to create a whale from corn is not likely to convince me that evolution is a failed theory, 41:15. I think you would enjoy reading Forbidden Archeology, if you haven't already. I think there are some intriguing, as well as controversial, findings listed in this book. http://books.google.com/books/about/Forbidden_Archeology.html?id=vhV9MAAJ http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409142589sr=1-1keywords=forbidden+archeology In your personal opinion, how long do you think the Earth has been around? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Jojo Iznart [mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Actually, reproduction by cellular mitosis would favor evolution. If Macro-evolution is occuring, cellular mitosis should prove it quickly. Why? Because one one set of genes can produce a trait that would confer a survival advantage. If reproduction is by cellular meiosis. both mutations have to be compatible for it to generate a trait. This task is more difficult and will occur at less probability compounding the long long long odds already facing Macro-Evolution. Regarding Horse Evolution, that was debunked about 5 decades ago. I have a video for that but it is long. Horse evolution discussion starts at time 41:26. It talks about the Equus seris of horse evolution in your article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:18 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From: Jojo Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years of natural selection. And yet, what did we find? We find that the bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same bacteria. This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The bacteria was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA. No mutation. In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained resistance to penicilin. That is adaptation,no macro evolution. In the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli. the same bacteria. No species jump. It did not become some other kind of mold or something. And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. Natural selection was clearly not operative here. Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on people. Interesting experiment. I know I also suggested using bacteria in a previous post. I'm glad someone has actually conducted it using bacteria. Do you know how long the experiment was conducted? I do see a problem with this particular experiment, even though I think it was a good stab at trying to observe evolution working. Bacteria don't reproduce sexually. They clone themselves. It's a much more simplified carbon-copy process of perpetuating the species. There's far less potential to introduce mutation and other genetic changes with each successive generation. There is very little chance for the random exchange of genes between two organisms. Introducing random genetic change is, IMO, crucial for the theory of evolution to work effectively. I would like to see an equivalent experiment done with a much more complex organism, say a simple animal, a Planarian. They are fascinating little creatures
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
You have a point. Though my view is, it may not be worth making these elaborate modifications. Are we striving for superaccuracy, or are we just trying to hit it in the ballpark? To me, the most important question is to see if the input power is in the vicinity of 5J. If it is, that would be a slam dunk for Mills cause you can't deny the output power. Those Solar panels have known efficiency figures. So, output power appears to be more or less accurate, which would bring the COP to 100 or more - more or less. Jojo - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Last night it struck me that these voltage measurements are going to require a compensating loop to subtract out the induced voltage in the measurement loops. If you had a simple twisted pair wire to make the measurement, you would still end up with a measurement loop through which the magnetic fields from the welding action will flow. These magnetic fields will induce a voltage in the measurement loop, even if the voltage across the gap is 0V. To get rid of this error voltage, you need to make the measurements with a compensating loop present. The compensating loop will cancel this induced voltage by being connected in anti-series with the measurement connection. I have never had to do this in other experiments because the currents were so low in those cases, but it is probably necessary in this case. I don't know if Mills' team knew to do this. Also, it would be possible to measure the current with a clip-on probe. Such a probe only measures AC, so you would have to integrate the waveform that you measure and use the condition that at t=0, the current was 0. You would also have to calibrate with an AC current. It would probably be useful to do both current measurements. Just doing a control calorimetry experiment is not good enough. Let's say you are using a porous titanium particle to hold the milligrams of water that supposedly compose the hydrino reaction. Encapsulate a dry particle in wax and detonate it underwater and measure the energy that heated the water. Then, add the water to the titanium particle and encapsulate it in wax [one way to do this might be to freeze the particle with its water and then coat it with wax]. Then repeat the experiment and see how the energy obtained from the temperature rise in the water compared. This comparison is simple only if the electrical energy input in both cases was the same - which is not likely. So you would still need to measure the electrical energy from the current and voltage waveforms to make sense of the results. These are the kinds of details that go into research that is unassailable - it is meticulous work. Bob Higgins On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Jumping over the precipice, you will need to use one of the big copper arms as a current shunt. Connect a lead across two points on one arm. Use another calibrated source to run X known amps (lets say 10A) of current across the two points and see what voltage you get out. Calculate the shunt resistance as a calibration factor. Now you can use a digital storage oscilloscope to measure the differential voltage and capture the current waveshape. Next you need an oscilloscope connection across the two arms to simulaneously (with the current measurement) measure the voltage across the contacts - the connections don't have to be super close to the contacts because the voltage drop across the big conductors will be small. Then you can capture the voltage waveform. I don't think it will exceed 50V. To test, you can put a diode to capacitor across the gap and capture the peak voltage to know what you will need to protect against. You will need the simultaneous voltage and current waveform to calculate the input energy. There are other ways to do this, but this provides a lot of information.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
a big number is. First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time. Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity. Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just proved something. May I suggest: The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL. So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do. (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one change every 140 hours is fast.) Why are you assuming changes are sustained? Why are you assuming changes are observable? The math would say: A very small change x A rather long time (from your perspective) = An unobservably small change. /Sunil From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 +0800 Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
In his bomb calorimetry demo, he demonstrated an input of about 200+ J. Correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm working from memory here. In the bomb calorimetry, they seems to have demonstrated a COP of 4+ I think the spot welder need to be modified to maintain a fix gap between the electrodes where the fuel pellet needs to be slightly wedged in. This way, as soon as the fuel pellet detonates, that automatically stops the welder from delivering more power, since there would be a gap where no further current can flow. The open voltage of the welder would not jump the gap. If we did this, we can control how much input energy is being delivered. From there, we can verify the 5J claim. Jojo - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt This type of spot welder is likely to deliver something in the range of 50-300 joules, without any means of controlling it (but measurable). Mills only claims that he should be able to detonate his wet particles with 5 joules and get the same output, but has never demonstrated this AFAIK. The claim of 100 COP would only be if he got the same output with an input of 5 joules; which, as far as I can tell, he has only speculated and not demonstrated. With the equipment Jack has, he will not be able to adjust his spot welder for a 5 joule input. He will only be able to replicate what Mills has done, which is with an input of about 200 joules. Bob Higgins On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: You have a point. Though my view is, it may not be worth making these elaborate modifications. Are we striving for superaccuracy, or are we just trying to hit it in the ballpark? To me, the most important question is to see if the input power is in the vicinity of 5J. If it is, that would be a slam dunk for Mills cause you can't deny the output power. Those Solar panels have known efficiency figures. So, output power appears to be more or less accurate, which would bring the COP to 100 or more - more or less. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
In my opinion. Calorimetry using water is a non-starter. There is just to many points of entry where error can creep in. The biggest of which would be, will a hydrino transition even occur under water. It seems to me that it would electrolyze and split the water first before it initiates a hydrino transition reaction. Remember Ed's mantra - you can not ignore the Chemical environment. Jojo - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt In his previous bomb calorimetry, only a COP of about 2 was reported. I have previously pointed out in detail the flaw in this calorimetry owing to the variable heat taken away by the large copper electrodes between the control and the actual experiment. Because of this flaw, the COP could be substantially over-estimated - easily by a factor of 2. Thus, even the COP of 2 was not demonstrated. I think it extremely unlikely that by controlling the gap you could tune the energy delivered down by even 50%. This type of welder has no separate means of initiating plasma - it requires the contact. It probably has a saturable core to limit the current flow. A special apparatus would be needed to deliver an ignition pulse and then a controlled energy in the plasma conduction. This would probably be a regulated capacitor discharge circuitry to get to the very high current, but short pulse needed to create a 5 joule ignition. I think there is no chance to verify a 5 joule ignition with this spot welder setup. Best case is to replicate what Mills has done with ~200 joule input and with better calorimetry (for example, doing it with the electrodes under water). Bob Higgins On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: In his bomb calorimetry demo, he demonstrated an input of about 200+ J. Correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm working from memory here. In the bomb calorimetry, they seems to have demonstrated a COP of 4+ I think the spot welder need to be modified to maintain a fix gap between the electrodes where the fuel pellet needs to be slightly wedged in. This way, as soon as the fuel pellet detonates, that automatically stops the welder from delivering more power, since there would be a gap where no further current can flow. The open voltage of the welder would not jump the gap. If we did this, we can control how much input energy is being delivered. From there, we can verify the 5J claim.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis. Your unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma is blinding you and preventing you from asking the right questions. You assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and that skews your analysis. For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. How do you know that? You know that only because Darwinian Evolution theory told you so. Since your first assumption is that Darwinian Evolution is true, you can liberally conclude that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. Then a wrong question stems from this wrong understanding - wrong assumption. You then ask why the coelacanth stopped evolving? This of course is the wrong question that you are trying to answer. What you should do is not assume anything. You then look at the data and see if Darwinian Evolution fits the data. Can Darwinian Evolution explain the existence of the Coelacanth up to today and why it hasn't evolved? If not, Darwinian Evolution theory is wrong. Instead, you ask, how could the Coelacanth exist unchanged for 350 million years? This is the wrong questions that should not have been asked if your initial assumptions did not screw with your analysis. Jojo PS: I'm really at a loss understanding why people can't seem to see the stupidities of their belief in Darwinian Evolution - why they can see that Darwinian Evolution could be wrong. - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Hi Nigel, Thanks again for your answer, but again I cannot find the data point I am after in all the interesting information you have provided! So I will try again. Purely as an illustration or analogy, consider the growth of the human body. It starts at conception having many embryonic stem cells. These all have the potential to differentiate into the many varieties of cell types that are required to form all the organs in the body. Once they have fully differentiated, they seem to lose the plasticity that they once had when stem cells and can no longer go back and reproduce into different types of organ cells. Elements in the phylogenetic tree (made up of life forms instead of cells) seems to possess similar traits. There are elements such as the coelacanth which has reproduced itself for ~350 million years with scarcely a whisker out of place, while the offspring of some very near neighbour has crawled out of the water onto dry land and formed into all the reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and finally as human, looked back at its own evolutionary history. I think all must agree that this enormous difference in the evolutionary potential of such near neighbours is truly remarkable! If this has an explanation I would love to hear it. But I am getting sidetracked. My point is that there are some life forms which seem to be like stem cells and have the plasticity to evolve into a countless variety of other life forms. And there are others which seem to be like fully differentiated cells which have spent their evolutionary potential and can no longer produce other forms. So if one draws the phylogenetic tree, there must be a trunk (or root) of simple life forms at the centre from which all large branches proceed, leading finally to leaves at the outer extremities where the fully complex but often evolutionarily spent life forms exist. One could put the first creature that crawled from the sea (which you failed to name but which I might call a proto-frog) as one of the major branches, and things like the bat (which seems have remained unchanged for 50 million years) as one of the leaves. What I would mostly like to find out is whether the DNA information content seems to increase or decrease as we go from trunk to leaves? I appreciate it may be difficult to know the information content when you can't pick the difference between random numbers and vital information. But if one was to zip or compress the DNA letters so as to at least get rid of duplicates and repetitive strings, that would provide an upper limit. So do simple organisms like stromatolites and cyanobacteria seem to have significantly more, or significantly less DNA information than complex organisms like vertebrates? John On 27/08/2014 7:35 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: Hi John Evolutionary principles can help understand how the first self replicating cell originated. For example all the evidence suggests that it came from an RNA based predecessor, where RNA is replicated and splits into chunks to form enzymes etc. We are currently finding RNA has far more roles than we had previously realised, plenty of scope for RNA based lifeforms. As for whether there is an inevitability of humanoid based life forms, no there is nothing that suggests that we were
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
If evolution is driven by a random process via random mutations, then evolution can not be reversible, since it is unlikely that a random mutation would occur that cancels out a previous random mutation. The odds are astronomical for that to occur. The fact that we see E. Coli gain penicilin resistance and then loose it again simply means that this micro-evolution variation is reversible and thus not based on a random mutation process. This conclusion can not be denied. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Hi Nigel, Thanks again for your answer, but again I cannot find the data point I am after in all the interesting information you have provided! So I will try again. Purely as an illustration or analogy, consider the growth of the human body. It starts at conception having many embryonic stem cells. These all have the potential to differentiate into the many varieties of cell types that are required to form all the organs in the body. Once they have fully differentiated, they seem to lose the plasticity that they once had when stem cells and can no longer go back and reproduce into different types of organ cells. Elements in the phylogenetic tree (made up of life forms instead of cells) seems to possess similar traits. There are elements such as the coelacanth which has reproduced itself for ~350 million years with scarcely a whisker out of place, while the offspring of some very near neighbour has crawled out of the water onto dry land and formed into all the reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and finally as human, looked back at its own evolutionary history. I think all must agree that this enormous difference in the evolutionary potential of such near neighbours is truly remarkable! If this has an explanation I would love to hear it. But I am getting sidetracked. My point is that there are some life forms which seem to be like stem cells and have the plasticity to evolve into a countless variety of other life forms. And there are others which seem to be like fully differentiated cells which have spent their evolutionary potential and can no longer produce other forms. So if one draws the phylogenetic tree, there must be a trunk (or root) of simple life forms at the centre from which all large branches proceed, leading finally to leaves at the outer extremities where the fully complex but often evolutionarily spent life forms exist. One could put the first creature that crawled from the sea (which you failed to name but which I might call a proto-frog) as one of the major branches, and things like the bat (which seems have remained unchanged for 50 million years) as one of the leaves. What I would mostly like to find out is whether the DNA information content seems to increase or decrease as we go from trunk to leaves? I appreciate it may be difficult to know the information content when you can't pick the difference between random numbers and vital information. But if one was to zip or compress the DNA letters so as to at least get rid of duplicates and repetitive strings, that would provide an upper limit. So do simple organisms like stromatolites and cyanobacteria seem to have significantly more, or significantly less DNA information than complex organisms like vertebrates? John On 27/08/2014 7:35 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: Hi John Evolutionary principles can help understand how the first self replicating cell originated. For example all the evidence suggests that it came from an RNA based predecessor, where RNA is replicated and splits into chunks to form enzymes etc. We are currently finding RNA has far more roles than we had previously realised, plenty of scope for RNA based lifeforms. As for whether there is an inevitability of humanoid based life forms, no there is nothing that suggests that we were inevitable. In 10 million years time it might be that the descendants of todays mice (see Douglas Adams) or dolphins who are in many ways as advanced as we are might be asking themselves the same question, and they are not sexually compatible with us. There is an emergent phenomena that gives rise to more complex life forms that are better fitted than their predecessors to survive. Darwin describes well the process that makes this happen, and all that we have found in genetics supports and can be understood based this idea. OK this is something that I would like to find out. I can see no ratchet mechanism to help complexity develop from simplicity rather than vice-versa. Every molecular level mutation that you can imagine must be effectively reversible. Thus every micro-evolutionary step must also be reversible. Thus every macro-evolutionary change must also be reversible if the selection pressure is removed or reversed
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
First, you can not guarantee that the water is 100% deionized, can you? DI water sold in stores is not completely Deionized. Second, because you can not guarantee number 1 above, you can not guarantee that no electrolysis will occur. If there is current flowing thru that water, it will electrolyze water, possibly preventing enough energy to catalyze a hydrino transition. Water will electrolyze first before doing a hydrino transition. That is the chemical environment you are putting your electrodes in. You can not ignore this chemical process that will always take precedence over your hydrino transition. Bottom line is, you can not guarantee a hydrino transition under water. If you can not guarantee a hydrino transition, what then are you measuring with your water bath? You would just be measuring the heat of your electrolysis. This is the reason why I believe it won't work - it's a non-starter. I believe a better approach is simply follow Mill's lead. Use solar panels to measure output. Like I asked before, what is our goal? Is it to figure out a complete energy balance accounting or simply to verify certain aspects of Mill's claims. Jack needs to answer this for himself so that he can decide which direction to go. This is his experiment after all. Jojo - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt It would appear that you are not qualified to say that calorimetry using water is a non-starter. First, in DI water there is no electrolyte added (just the opposite) and there will be no current flowing through this water being used to capture the heat and thermalize the UV. The DI water has no current, hence not hydrolysis. Second, Mills' experiment begins with water. Within the high current flow, the water in the porous metal container (particle) is thermally and electrically decomposed into various hydrogen, oxygen, and hydroxide species both neutral and ionized, though the voltage is specifically held low to help prevent impact ionization of the hydrogen (the hydrino state requires the electron). I proposed isolating the test pellet in a wax container so that the DI water does not contaminate the water in the test pellet, though that may not be necessary. If Mills is correct, the whole reaction is chemical. If you have a better idea for calorimetry, describe it. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: In my opinion. Calorimetry using water is a non-starter. There is just to many points of entry where error can creep in. The biggest of which would be, will a hydrino transition even occur under water. It seems to me that it would electrolyze and split the water first before it initiates a hydrino transition reaction. Remember Ed's mantra - you can not ignore the Chemical environment.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
As pointed out, the odds for a mutation occuring that would result in a feature that is useful enough is astronomical. (See my first link). Its like fllipping 1000 consecutive heads followed by 1000 consecutive tails. Unlikely does not mean possible. It depends on the odds. If it is greater than 10^50, it is considered impossible. The concept of reversing the change is just as improbable because the mechanism is random. There is no such thing as rolling downhill. The process is the same in both directions. This idea of reversibility in itself is already a violation of one of the tenets of Darwinian Theory. Darwinian Theory says the change must be persistent. If the reverse is easier than the forward change, it violates the persistence requirement. Regarding E. Coli resistance. You are correct in that the resistance is conferred by an expression of a gene. In this case, just a single gene which creates a single protein on the cell wall of the bacteria that prevents the antibiotic from attaching itself to the bacteria which prevents the denaturing/splitting of the bacteria cell wall. But this is precisely my argument for the difference between micro from macro-evolution. The mechanism for expressing a trait is already encoded in the DNA in micro-evolution - it is adaptation. There is no mutation that needs to confer a survival advantage. Everything the bacteria needs to mount a defense is already encoded. That is why you will never find E. Coli that is resistant to Chlorine for example. Chlorine will always kill E. Coli, because E.Coli does not have a gene that it can express to confer Chlorine resistance. The extent of what E. Coli can be resistant to is determined by its genetic tool box. It can never be resistant to something that is not in its tool box. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 1:17 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: If evolution is driven by a random process via random mutations, then evolution can not be reversible, since it is unlikely that a random mutation would occur that cancels out a previous random mutation. The odds are astronomical for that to occur. If it is unlikely, then it is possible! But my point is not that a random mutation might actually reverse, my point is that there is no preferred directionality to the process. Evolutionists try to come up with random processes that can produce more complex proteins and structures from simpler ones (climbing mount improbable), without it seems, ever considering that the reverse path is just as possible in every case and typically many many orders of magnitude more probable (rolling down mount improbable). The fact that we see E. Coli gain penicilin resistance and then loose it again simply means that this micro-evolution variation is reversible and thus not based on a random mutation process. This conclusion can not be denied. Sorry but I can see no reason why this effect cannot occur by a random mutation processes? Some mutation can allow resistance and a different mutation prevent it again. I don't know whether penicillin resistance requires something to work, or requires something to be prevented from working. But there are often many ways to switch on some gene to get it working (eg by clobbering whatever is preventing it), and an infinity of ways of breaking something to stop it working.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell, what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years old? Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. How do you know that? We have been over this ad nauseum. I accept radiometric dating. In many cases it is simply superb. You are welcome to continue rubbishing it but you should be aware that in the almost unanimous view of intelligent and well educated people you are thereby only rubbishing yourself.
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Look my friend, you and I appear to have a difference in what we think should be the goal of this replication attempt. That is why I said, we need to step back and think about this before we (or Jack) embark on an elaborate modification plan to build whatever it is he decides. 1. If Jack wants to characterize the energy balance completely down to the mW level, then a calorimeter water bath may be necessary, which would not guarantee a hydrino transition (so what are we testing..) and would complicate the procedure openning up this replication attempt to myriads of criticisms. 2. If on the other hand, Jack simply wants to verify certain aspects of the Mill's claims, then a simpler modification is in order. Solar panels will verify the output to a reasonalbe degree of accuracy while simple modifications to the electrodes with an oscilloscope can verify the input power. It's a matter of goals. What are we trying to achieve? We have a reasonable disagreement in philosophical outlook that does not need to turn to personal innuendos and insults. I do not know why you are reacting this way. Maybe because you take personal offense when I said that a water bath is a non-starter. That statement refers to the impracticality of the water bath calorimeter, not an attack on your character or your personal beliefs. It does not need to get personal. Jojo PS. Most of my responses are answers to queries. Carbon Dating is science (supposedly) and Darwinian Evolution is science (as Jed would claim) so what off topic flame are you referring to. Responses to religious questions to me have been few and far between. - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:52 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt You do not appear to know what you are talking about; except in one respect: You are correct that it is Jack's experiment and his course of action is absolutely his choice. My inputs to this topic are terminated. I have no intention to contributing to this becoming a flame like some of the other off-topic junk showing up on Vortex-L (to which you seem to be contributing). On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: First, you can not guarantee that the water is 100% deionized, can you? DI water sold in stores is not completely Deionized. Second, because you can not guarantee number 1 above, you can not guarantee that no electrolysis will occur. If there is current flowing thru that water, it will electrolyze water, possibly preventing enough energy to catalyze a hydrino transition. Water will electrolyze first before doing a hydrino transition. That is the chemical environment you are putting your electrodes in. You can not ignore this chemical process that will always take precedence over your hydrino transition. Bottom line is, you can not guarantee a hydrino transition under water. If you can not guarantee a hydrino transition, what then are you measuring with your water bath? You would just be measuring the heat of your electrolysis. This is the reason why I believe it won't work - it's a non-starter. I believe a better approach is simply follow Mill's lead. Use solar panels to measure output. Like I asked before, what is our goal? Is it to figure out a complete energy balance accounting or simply to verify certain aspects of Mill's claims. Jack needs to answer this for himself so that he can decide which direction to go. This is his experiment after all.
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Ken, are you saying the Clymene dolphin is an example of Macro-evolution. It seems to me that it is just a variation of the spinner dolphin. Not sure what you are claiming here. Which 2%-4% of flowering plants are you referring to? Please be specific so that I can research it to see if you are right. So, you people make fun of my probability calculation so I pointed out the probability calculation of a staunch evolutionists who have already considered many of your objections. Now, you make fun of him (Julian Huxley). What level of proof or which personality would you really consider credible? Whose proof is acceptable to you? Please don't just say there are thousands of textbooks. If there are thousands of proofs, it shouldn't be difficult for you to point out one example of an observable macro-evolution event. Though I can understand part of your problem. As a biology teacher, you have been totally immersed in this Darwinian paradigm. Like Huzienga, it is very difficult for you to change your mind or to admit that what you believed your entire life has been a lie. Me? I will accept Darwinian Evolution today if someone can show me concrete proof. Not conjectures, and imaginations and suppositions and speculations and interpretations. I challenged Nigel to do just that, but it seems he could not. Jojo - Original Message - From: Ken Deboer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Jojo, Here's one (actually a few ): clymene dolphin plus 2-4% of all flowering plants, inc. many sunflowers, and many crop species. BTW. This whole 'odds' thing is a joke. Julian Huxley, for example, did not state his opinion re; the astronomical 'odds' of a horse, but did ridicule the guy that did. It appears, for example, that the odds that you and I could ever agree on most anything is, let's see, 80 billion neuronal actions per sec X 80 billion neurons actions per sec by you X 30 years = (I'm not too good at math, you do the math). From a former biology teacher, ken PS. don't call me, I'll call you back. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis. Your unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma You are mistaken. I have no adherence to Darwinian dogma whatsoever. If Darwinian dogma (whatever that is) happens to coincide with my understanding - well maybe its right. is blinding you and preventing you from asking the right questions. You assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and that skews your analysis. For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. How do you know that? We have been over this ad nauseum. I accept radiometric dating. In many cases it is simply superb. You are welcome to continue rubbishing it but you should be aware that in the almost unanimous view of intelligent and well educated people you are thereby only rubbishing yourself. You know that only because Darwinian Evolution theory told you so. Since your first assumption is that Darwinian Evolution is true, you can liberally conclude that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. Then a wrong question stems from this wrong understanding - wrong assumption. You then ask why the coelacanth stopped evolving? This of course is the wrong question that you are trying to answer. What you should do is not assume anything. You then look at the data and see if Darwinian Evolution fits the data. What about you? You make one massive assumption (that the history and legends brought back by the Jews after their exile in Babylon has to be completely inerrant), and then you look at the data and no matter how good it is, you toss it out if you can't make it fit that massive assumption. Can Darwinian Evolution explain the existence of the Coelacanth up to today and why it hasn't evolved? If not, Darwinian Evolution theory is wrong. Instead, you ask, how could the Coelacanth exist unchanged for 350 million years? This is the wrong questions that should not have been asked if your initial assumptions did not screw with your analysis. Jojo PS: I'm really at a loss understanding why people can't seem to see the stupidities of their belief in Darwinian Evolution - why they can see that Darwinian Evolution could be wrong. Take out the plank that is in your own eye, and then you can see better to pick specks of dust from others assumptions.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. There are facts here. The facts are that human, fly and worm appears to have some common genomic processes. These are facts that I will not deny. This is the interpretation. That human, fly and worm have a common ancestor. The interpretation of the facts is just an opinion. It is not a fact that human, fly and worm have a common ancestry. That is simply an interpretation, a conclusion, of what the person thinks it means. Evolutionist like to conflate their interpretation with the facts and promote their interpretation as fact. This is the reason why so many people are deluded. They do not think enough to separate the facts from the interpretation of what the facts mean. If you are still confused as what my point is: FACT: Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these species have a number of key genomic processes in common INTERPRETATION: reflecting their shared ancestry. I could just as easily said: MY INTERPRETATION: reflecting a common designer. Hence: YOUR VIEW: Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting their shared ancestry. MY VIEW: Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting a common designer. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. http://phys.org/news/2014-08-scientists-human-worm-genomes-biology.html Scientists looking across human, fly and worm genomes find shared biology Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting their shared ancestry. The findings, appearing Aug. 28, 2014, in the journal Nature, offer insights into embryonic development, gene regulation and other biological processes vital to understanding human biology and disease. Consortium studied how gene expression patterns and regulatory proteins that help determine cell fate often share common features. Investigators also detailed the similar ways in which the three species use protein packaging to compact DNA into the cell nucleus and to regulate genome function by controlling access to DNA. The insights gained about the workings of model organisms' genomes greatly help to inform our understanding of human biology. One way to describe and understand the human genome is through comparative genomics and studying model organisms, said Mark Gerstein, Ph.D., Albert L. Williams Professor of Biomedical Informatics at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and the lead author on one of the papers. The special thing about the worm and fly is that they are very distant from humans evolutionarily, so finding something conserved across all three – human, fly and worm – tells us it is a very ancient, fundamental process. Investigators showed that the ways in which DNA is packaged in the cell are similar in many respects, and, in many cases, the species share programs for turning on and off genes in a coordinated manner. More specifically, they used gene expression patterns to match the stages of worm and fly development and found sets of genes that parallel each other in their usage. They also found the genes specifically expressed in the worm and fly embryos are re-expressed in the fly pupae, the stage between larva and adult. The researchers found that in all three organisms, the gene expression levels for both protein-coding and non-protein-coding genes could be quantitatively predicted from chromatin features at the promoters of genes. A gene's promoter tells the cell's machinery where to begin copying DNA into RNA, which can be used to make proteins. DNA is packaged into chromatin in cells, and changes in this packaging can regulate gene function. If Darwinian Evolution was considered an Absurdity, this work would not have been done. Such is the danger of religious precipice in science. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:42 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: The universe is in a constant state of creation, evolution and decay. The past, present and future are just humanities attempt to pin it down, like wrestling a greased pig. God has big fuzzy dice and rolls them every day. I hope that clears things up. On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: You illustrate a typical denial reaction that seems to have taken hold here in Vortex. If you do not like the result, you say it is an error or an outlier or incompetence. (my friend Jed does that a lot.) If Huxley was a creationist, you would say he is biased and not objective or not honest
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Baloney, if you know the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example. Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one species change into another. JUST ONE... Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
It is important to make this distinction because we need to be specific in our definition of what is occuring. Mircro and Macro has nothing to do with size or amount of evolution. It has something to do with the mechanism of evolution. Many people nowadays do not like to use the term microevolution cause it invites confusion just like this. Microevolution is adaptation within a species (kind). Lots of microevolution and adaptation does not result in Macro-evolution (change of species/kind). This distinction is important. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:22 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From Jojo By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Butting in here... Seems to me that Macro-Evolution is nothing more than Micro-Evolution happening on a much longer geological time-scale. I don't see what the big deal is. Why is it so important to make the distinction between what is considered micro versus macro. To me it makes logical sense to assume that stringing a couple hundred thousand micro changes together on a long successive string of successive micro-mutations will inevitably end up with blatant macro-mutation changes - when compared with what one started with. To me macro changes would have to be inevitable outcome. One just needs enough time for the baking process to complete. In a sense I think it is also somewhat of a misconception to describe Macro evolution as starting with species :A and then ending up with species B. Macro evolution isn't about a start point, nor an end point. Macro evolution about the present and only the present. It doesn't care one whit about what happened yesterday, and it has no idea what to expect tomorrow. There is only one goal: to survive in the present. According to evolution theory, this is a never-ending process of constant change and adaption to minute changes in current environment conditions. But again, there really isn't any start and end point. I think it would be more accurate to describe both species A and species B as nothing more than tiny snapshots belonging to the uncompleted motion feature film showing the motion of evolution in constant change. This would be a film that for all tense and purposes never ends. There is no practical way to conduct a science experiment in a laboratory on observing Macro evolution changing a complex multi-cellular organism from species A to species B, particularly when it takes geological time to make the transformation blatantly obvious. OTOH, it might be interesting to see if it's possible to observe the macro-evolution a simple organism, say a bacterium, or better yet a paramecium. Because their life cycles are short, one can produced countless generations which might allow an accumulation of micro mutations to eventually accumulate into macro mutations. We need to start with one kind of an environment and then gradually change the conditions in order to allow evolution to manifest a radically different organism over several years. Make sure the environmental changes occur reasonably slow so that the organism has time to produce FAVORABLE micro mutations and as such adjust micro-genetically. Keep a separate (original) sample of the initial organism, A ,then presumably after the experiment ends, compare the original genetic mapping with the later time-line genetic mapping. One important point to see if we really have produced new organism: The new organism must be so different that it is incapable of living in the environmental conditions of where its progenitors came from, and vice versa. For example, organism A can only live in temperatures of 50 degrees below, and organism B can only live in temperatures above 100 degrees... something like that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
My friend, are you actually saying that my propane flat plate heat exchanger did not work is because I did it wrong? Did you do any better? Are you here to contend that the propane FPHE contraption actually works as you theorized? Can you make it work? Please show us cause if it is overunity, that would be revolutionary and you will win the Nobel Prize. Please show us your experiments. (Oh sorry for asking ... you DONT do any experiments LOL.) Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots One reason why JoJo's systems do not work is that he spends a great deal of time posting and not enough experimenting. He expects other people to do his work for him. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Sure, we can work together, but I was not asking a religious question. I am presenting a genuine challenge that Darwinian Evolutionist must meet. Just show me one example of a species turning to another species. Preferably one that is observed and repeatable. But I am willing to back off and require only observed. Surely if this were to happen, this should have happened in our accelerated bacteria experiments. We should have seen bacteria change into some other species like a fungi or mold or leaf, etc. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo, I'm a genuine evolutionist. I don't pick and choose when to turn on and off my intellectual integrity regarding evolution. One thing my theory tells me is that you, like so many others who are irrationally religous, are doing what is necessary to survive in the hell hole that has been created of our civilization. I sympathize with your religious beliefs and, unlike scum like Dawkins et al, I do not begrudge them you. Please, let us continue to with our separate beliefs and work together where we can. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Hi Folks, I was excited to receive my spot welder today. After ensuring it was in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything like what BLP showed. Lo and behold I got something on the first try. I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was one of them. I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! Here's a link to the vid. Sorry for the bad camera work. Let me know what you think. I'll do another vid soon in complete darkness. http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA Jack
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also with nothing at all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes. These would be your controls. to compare it with samples with water. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put between the electrodes. The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that managed to adhere to the metal). You don't get that without the water. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Hi Folks, I was excited to receive my spot welder today. After ensuring it was in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything like what BLP showed. Lo and behold I got something on the first try. I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was one of them. I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! Here's a link to the vid. Sorry for the bad camera work. Let me know what you think. I'll do another vid soon in complete darkness. http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA Jack
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
consider grinding a titanium bar into powder and then forming a small pellet with water. This should be the quintessential Mill's fuel pellet. See if the spark is as intense as Mill's suncell. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Yes, I was planning to do that. I'll make a video of each test case. I'll try with just the electrodes, with the copper wire only, and then dip it in water. I'm also planning to try with titanium. It will take a little work to get a small enough piece of that cut. I'm also going to try a small piece of metal with a little impression drilled into it so I can place water into the impression. Then I'll set the electrode into the impression where the water is. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also with nothing at all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes. These would be your controls. to compare it with samples with water. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put between the electrodes. The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that managed to adhere to the metal). You don't get that without the water. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Hi Folks, I was excited to receive my spot welder today. After ensuring it was in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything like what BLP showed. Lo and behold I got something on the first try. I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was one of them. I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! Here's a link to the vid. Sorry for the bad camera work. Let me know what you think. I'll do another vid soon in complete darkness. http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA Jack
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
New diseases caused by new bacteria or viruses are simply variation within a species. The bacteria never change to become something else other than bacteria. This is not Macro-Evolution, this is micro-evolution. Jojo - Original Message - From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots I really don't know if new diseases counts as an example of evolution to you, but a quick search came up with this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/ A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!) But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading species (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the new diseases suggestion. /Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800 Baloney, if you know the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example. Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one species change into another. JUST ONE... Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Well, science is supposed to be observable and repeatable. That implies a timeframe within our lifetimes. If you can not satisfy these 2 criteria, it's not science, let alone settled science that Darwinists would like you to believe. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:28 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Just show me one example of a species turning to another species. On what time scale are we talking here? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Because the mechanism is different. Macro-Evolution stipulates mutations that results in features that confer a survival advantage. These changes occur from generation to generation. This is the definition of Natural Selection. Micro-Evolution involves changes in features within a single individual species within its own lifetime. When our skin turns dark after prolonged exposure to the sun, that is change but that is not Macro-evolution - it's micro-evolution, it's simply adaptation - changes within a species. The changes never result in a new species. The changes are rapid which results in new features. The genetic code is already there in our DNA, no mutations need to occur to confer that new feature. This is the critical thing that people must understand to understand the difference between Macro-Evolution vs. Micro-Evolution. Macro-Evolution has never been observable or repeatable. If you know of any example where we clearly observe a species changing to another species; please let me know and I'll shut up about Darwinian Evolution forever. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:28 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Lots of microevolution and adaptation does not result in Macro-evolution (change of species/kind). This distinction is important. How do you know that? And why must you maintain this distinction? Why is it important for you to keep them separate. I don't. What for? Have you measured all those thousands of micro changes over hundreds of thousands of years and proven the contention that a species can't eventually transform into a different one? I know I'm not capable because I can't live that long, but neither can you. You seem to be implying that each micro change can never reset the center of the genetic normality of any species. But that's inaccurate. Every micro change... every micro-mutation automatically resets the center of genetic normality of the species for that particular organism. Actually, there is no way to keep a species from NOT changing over millennium. Each and every species on the planet is essentially an unstable macro-organism if one is capable of perceiving this change from a geological POV. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Yeah, looks like the last two are indeed more intense. Could it just be a trick of the camera? Does it really look more intense in person? If it is indeed more intense, I think Randy may have something Bummer. For those people who don't understand why I feel the Suncell technology may be real, it is pictures like these that convince me. How do you explain more intense sparking when dipped in water. There appears to be no chemical explanation for this. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Jojo, I'll see if I can accomplish that. In the meantime, here are the results of testing. http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/ We do get sparks without dipping in water. The last two are after dipping in water. What do you think--more intense? Jack On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: consider grinding a titanium bar into powder and then forming a small pellet with water. This should be the quintessential Mill's fuel pellet. See if the spark is as intense as Mill's suncell. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Yes, I was planning to do that. I'll make a video of each test case. I'll try with just the electrodes, with the copper wire only, and then dip it in water. I'm also planning to try with titanium. It will take a little work to get a small enough piece of that cut. I'm also going to try a small piece of metal with a little impression drilled into it so I can place water into the impression. Then I'll set the electrode into the impression where the water is. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also with nothing at all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes. These would be your controls. to compare it with samples with water. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put between the electrodes. The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that managed to adhere to the metal). You don't get that without the water. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Hi Folks, I was excited to receive my spot welder today. After ensuring it was in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything like what BLP showed. Lo and behold I got something on the first try. I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was one of them. I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! Here's a link to the vid. Sorry for the bad camera work. Let me know what you think. I'll do another vid soon in complete darkness. http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA Jack
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
How do you know that my friend? Do you have your own Climate Model? It's statements like these that make me conclude Axil does not really know what he is talking about. He keeps spewing statements like these which no one challenges. Look, the latent heat of fusion of water is 334kJ/kg, while the latent heat of Vaporization of water is 2260kJ/kg. This means that water turning to steam will absorb more than 6.7 times of heat. Why would water melting be the critical factor? Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? Loss of ice is the key factor. The climate won't change much until most of the ice is gone.
Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe
My friend, you're the one causing great controversy and much questions for me. I'm simply responding to questions. I haven't started a thread about religion at all. You and other start the discussion about religion this time around. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe He's out because Jojo is spamming Vo with bullshith. 2014-08-26 4:17 GMT-03:00 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (peter.gl...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule | More info Mark, I and the history of LENR will regret your absence. You are a fine journalist- was you forced to do this? Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
That's some good work Jack. Are the wire diameters and lengths the same? If so, these evidences are very compelling to me. Randy may truly be on to something. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt It does look more intense. I also got to thinking that the electrodes could have condensation on them, thus producing a little bit of the effect. After I wiped them down and did another control run with electrodes only, there was very little spark/light. One attempt after wiping the electrodes, produced no spark. Also, the control with the wire only picks up moisture from my fingers. I'll have to figure out a way to place it to minimize that. I tried a new run with constantan wire. It was the most intense light yet. See the picture at the bottom of the post. http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/ On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, looks like the last two are indeed more intense. Could it just be a trick of the camera? Does it really look more intense in person? If it is indeed more intense, I think Randy may have something Bummer. For those people who don't understand why I feel the Suncell technology may be real, it is pictures like these that convince me. How do you explain more intense sparking when dipped in water. There appears to be no chemical explanation for this. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Jojo, I'll see if I can accomplish that. In the meantime, here are the results of testing. http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/ We do get sparks without dipping in water. The last two are after dipping in water. What do you think--more intense? Jack On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: consider grinding a titanium bar into powder and then forming a small pellet with water. This should be the quintessential Mill's fuel pellet. See if the spark is as intense as Mill's suncell. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Yes, I was planning to do that. I'll make a video of each test case. I'll try with just the electrodes, with the copper wire only, and then dip it in water. I'm also planning to try with titanium. It will take a little work to get a small enough piece of that cut. I'm also going to try a small piece of metal with a little impression drilled into it so I can place water into the impression. Then I'll set the electrode into the impression where the water is. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also with nothing at all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes. These would be your controls. to compare it with samples with water. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put between the electrodes. The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that managed to adhere to the metal). You don't get that without the water. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Hi Folks, I was excited to receive my spot welder today. After ensuring it was in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything like what BLP showed. Lo and behold I got something on the first try. I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was one of them. I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
How about following Randy's lead. Why not use a small solar panel and measure electrictiy output. Just make sure you zero out the ambient light, or test it in the dark. Surely, this will be able to register small light intensity differences. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt It seems to me that Jack needs to find some way of objectively measuring light output through some sort of instrumentation. Any ideas? On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jack Cole, I will give you a few tips. Do not try pressures above 10milibars. It will hardly block FUV. And you need vacuum to detect XUV. Also, do not get in contact directly with the firing. These can yield neutrons and you can get very high doses overtime. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Dave, A very thin film of water on a piece of wire should not change the impedance that much. Certainly not explain the clearly more intense light output. There appears to be something going on here. Jack, it might help if you measured the temperature and humidity as you are performing the tests. The output power can be measured with a small solar panel. That leaves the input power. Any ideas on how to measure input power? Other than a watthour meter, I'm out. Although I doubt a common watthour meter would be sensitive enough. Another option is an oscilloscope on the electrodes. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Interesting results Jack. Could it be that with copper only the conductivity of the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out at the pellet? This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising enough thereby keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low value. A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that will result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered. What I am describing is related to the concept of matching the source impedance to get the maximum power from the source. In that case an open or short will have zero power delivered. You may have a near zero condition with copper only and a much better power match with the water film. Dave -Original Message- From: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put between the electrodes. The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that managed to adhere to the metal). You don't get that without the water. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Hi Folks, I was excited to receive my spot welder today. After ensuring it was in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything like what BLP showed. Lo and behold I got something on the first try. I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was one of them. I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! Here's a link to the vid. Sorry for the bad camera work. Let me know what you think. I'll do another vid soon in complete darkness. http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA Jack
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Dave, you have a valid argument. However, it might also be possible that constantan is a material able to catalyze an LENR (maybe hydrino transition) reaction more, hence, it would naturally be disintegrated in its own reaction. It is critical that we be able to measure input power to rule out your argument. Any Ideas on how to measure input power accurately? Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:52 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Note that the constantan wire disintegrated during the test. The implication is that much more energy was deposited into it than in the other cases. This supports the proposition that some form of impedance matching is taking place since the impedance of constantan is much greater than copper. Dave -Original Message- From: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Thanks Jojo. I use the same piece of wire for the control and experimental. The only difference is dipping in water (and any changes related to running the current through the wire on the control run). The constantan wire disintegrated on the last experimental trial. On Aug 26, 2014 10:38 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: That's some good work Jack. Are the wire diameters and lengths the same? If so, these evidences are very compelling to me. Randy may truly be on to something. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt It does look more intense. I also got to thinking that the electrodes could have condensation on them, thus producing a little bit of the effect. After I wiped them down and did another control run with electrodes only, there was very little spark/light. One attempt after wiping the electrodes, produced no spark. Also, the control with the wire only picks up moisture from my fingers. I'll have to figure out a way to place it to minimize that. I tried a new run with constantan wire. It was the most intense light yet. See the picture at the bottom of the post. http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/ On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, looks like the last two are indeed more intense. Could it just be a trick of the camera? Does it really look more intense in person? If it is indeed more intense, I think Randy may have something Bummer. For those people who don't understand why I feel the Suncell technology may be real, it is pictures like these that convince me. How do you explain more intense sparking when dipped in water. There appears to be no chemical explanation for this. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Jojo, I'll see if I can accomplish that. In the meantime, here are the results of testing. http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/ We do get sparks without dipping in water. The last two are after dipping in water. What do you think--more intense? Jack On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: consider grinding a titanium bar into powder and then forming a small pellet with water. This should be the quintessential Mill's fuel pellet. See if the spark is as intense as Mill's suncell. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Yes, I was planning to do that. I'll make a video of each test case. I'll try with just the electrodes, with the copper wire only, and then dip it in water. I'm also planning to try with titanium. It will take a little work to get a small enough piece of that cut. I'm also going to try a small piece of metal with a little impression drilled into it so I can place water into the impression. Then I'll set the electrode into the impression where the water is. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also with nothing at all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes. These would be your controls
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
If you measure before the input side, you have to minus the base load of the transformer (its losses). Then you can run the spark and see if your instruments are sensitive enough to register a fast power spike. Then you have to integrate the chart to compute energy. I believe this is what BLP did, hence this technique is open to criticism as erroneous. The only way to absolutely prove overunity is to close the loop. Any ideas on how to accurately measure Input Power from the group? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt I don't know how to measure the input power. We're talking 2-5V and 3000-4000 amps. I'd be scared to hook my oscilloscope up to it. You could maybe do it on the supply side from the 110AC with a watt meter, but that would be the power going in to the transformer. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Dave, A very thin film of water on a piece of wire should not change the impedance that much. Certainly not explain the clearly more intense light output. There appears to be something going on here. Jack, it might help if you measured the temperature and humidity as you are performing the tests. The output power can be measured with a small solar panel. That leaves the input power. Any ideas on how to measure input power? Other than a watthour meter, I'm out. Although I doubt a common watthour meter would be sensitive enough. Another option is an oscilloscope on the electrodes. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Interesting results Jack. Could it be that with copper only the conductivity of the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out at the pellet? This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising enough thereby keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low value. A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that will result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered. What I am describing is related to the concept of matching the source impedance to get the maximum power from the source. In that case an open or short will have zero power delivered. You may have a near zero condition with copper only and a much better power match with the water film. Dave -Original Message- From: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put between the electrodes. The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that managed to adhere to the metal). You don't get that without the water. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Hi Folks, I was excited to receive my spot welder today. After ensuring it was in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything like what BLP showed. Lo and behold I got something on the first try. I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was one of them. I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! Here's a link to the vid. Sorry for the bad camera work. Let me know what you think. I'll do another vid soon in complete darkness. http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA Jack
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Well, we are testing the theory that Randy is proposing. In that theory, the water should split to H atoms which would then undergo a hydrino transition in the presence of a catalyst (the wire in Jack' case; powder in Mill's case). This is what we are ruling out. Can you explain the origin of the more intense spark in the presence of a thin film of water. You're argument of impedance change is valid; though I tend to think it is irrelevant given the small change a thin film of water would contribute. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt It is the initial contact point that I am thinking about Jojo. The water in that immediate path should rapidly turn into gas or plasma due to the energy deposited into it. If the water does not matter then why would we expect it to contribute to the spark? I suppose the real question is how thick is the film of water and how does it affect the voltage/current waveforms across the large contactors? I believe that it will take a very good voltage and current measurement system to get to the bottom of this issue. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Dave, A very thin film of water on a piece of wire should not change the impedance that much. Certainly not explain the clearly more intense light output. There appears to be something going on here. Jack, it might help if you measured the temperature and humidity as you are performing the tests. The output power can be measured with a small solar panel. That leaves the input power. Any ideas on how to measure input power? Other than a watthour meter, I'm out. Although I doubt a common watthour meter would be sensitive enough. Another option is an oscilloscope on the electrodes. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Interesting results Jack. Could it be that with copper only the conductivity of the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out at the pellet? This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising enough thereby keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low value. A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that will result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered. What I am describing is related to the concept of matching the source impedance to get the maximum power from the source. In that case an open or short will have zero power delivered. You may have a near zero condition with copper only and a much better power match with the water film. Dave -Original Message- From: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put between the electrodes. The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that managed to adhere to the metal). You don't get that without the water. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Hi Folks, I was excited to receive my spot welder today. After ensuring it was in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything like what BLP showed. Lo and behold I got something on the first try. I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was one of them. I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! Here's a link to the vid. Sorry for the bad camera work. Let me know what you think. I'll do another vid soon in complete darkness. http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA Jack
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
We used to think that mating and reproduction is the criteria to judge that the offspring is a new species, but I don't think that is a valid argument. We see cases everyday in humans wherein an offspring is so genetically deformed that it can not reproduce and yet it is still human. Failure to mate and reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem, not demonstrate a Macro-Evolution event. I do not believe this reproduction criteria is valid. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Correct me if I am wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case where a beginning species evolves into a second species that can no longer share genes with the original mother species, but can reproduce among its new members. My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I believe that they can still breed together. I suppose my dog is a wolf in disguise. Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of two different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I have read about). I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species that mate among themselves but do not bear young as a result. I do not keep up with such statistics and perhaps some on the list are knowledgeable in the subject and can enlighten us. If these different mating species have the same number of chromosomes then perhaps once they shared a common ancestor species. At least this would seem to be a good way to seek examples of current evolution if it can be found. Dave -Original Message- From: Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots I really don't know if new diseases counts as an example of evolution to you, but a quick search came up with this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/ A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!) But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading species (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the new diseases suggestion. /Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800 Baloney, if you know the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example. Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one species change into another. JUST ONE... Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
In my previous existence here, Nigel and I engaged is quite a long discussion about evolution. We did it offline. At that time, I asked Nigel to provide evidence of what he considers to be clear proof of evolution. I don't believe he has satisfied that criteria. So, now, I would like to ask Nigel to provide the group with his best proof (genetic or otherwise) of evolution happenning. Not speculation of maybe this, maybe that, this should happen, that should happen ...etc. Just clear simple proof of evolution that is observable. You see, sometimes many highly qualified people would infer from the data their interpretation of what the data means. This is what Nigel is doing. He is inferring that the genetic data appears to match Darwinian Evolution Theory. But Folks, we need to be circumspect enough to separate the fact from its interpretation. The fact is the fact, but interpretation of what that fact infers is just an opinion. Jojo - Original Message - From: Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium In answer to jwinter To my mind there are two separate evolution question problems that need to be addressed. The first, which you pick up on, is the evolution of the complex folding proteins, and the second is the evolution of the information that is used to define the complex structure of multi celled organisms (such as us). There are countless examples which show how duplication of whole or parts of genes genes, mutation of parts of genes can create complex proteins from simple proteins. Indeed the relationship between equivalent proteins in different organsisms can often be used to produce a 'family tree' or phylogentic tree which closely mirrors the accepted evolutionary relationship between the species, and shows how a simple ancestral protein gave rise to lots of complex variants in different plants/animals. The evolution of structure/form and instincts which is what Darwin talks about, because he knows nothing of proteins, is very different because we still understand very little about how this is encoded into the DNA, although there is absolute evidence that it is. This is increasingly looking to be encoded in the 'junk' DNA in a much more distributed and robust way (like a hologram). These can change and mutate and give rise to variations in the organism without being lethal. A lot of the statistics that creationists use to show that evolution is improbable is based on the sequences in genes that encode for proteins, where small changes are frequently lethal. The statistics for the rest of the DNA is completely different, and I beleive completely compatible with the evolutionary model. So, I see no need for additional injection or meddling in order that DNA could go from producing simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms, but I dont think this can be proved mathematically yet because we dont understand the 'junk DNA' coding rules yet. However, my hunch is that we are in for a big surprise when we finally work out what the coding rules are, but that is a different topic entirely. And the first animal to emerge from the sea was not a frog, but probably shared some aspects of the way that it breathed with frogs. Nigel For quite a while I have wanted to ask someone working in your field about what DNA has to say about evolution of species so maybe now is a good time. I have almost no doubt that physical life on this planet has evolved from a very simple looking self-replicating organism into the plethora of life forms which past and present have occupied it. But the mechanism by which this process occurs is still a complete mystery to me. I am totally convinced (from the maths) that random processes cannot by any means produce the complex folding proteins that are needed for life - so the question is how did they arise? Is it possible that the first life form (that as a minimum must have been implanted on this planet) could have contained in some condensed form sufficient information and machinery to evolve into all the life forms that have occurred? Or is it necessary that some additional injection or meddling was necessary along the way? For instance, as I understand it, the frog was one of the first creatures to invade the land from the sea and all land vertebrates evolved from the frog. So one question would be, is there sufficient information in the DNA of a frog, to have the potential of developing (by pre-designed but natural means) into all the land animals that have occurred (and of course the sea mammals)? Or is it necessary to postulate some other source of DNA information which needs to be added to the limited information available in frog DNA? So my question is really this:- From your knowledge of the DNA content of various life forms (and assuming the so-called junk DNA between
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years of natural selection. And yet, what did we find? We find that the bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same bacteria. This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The bacteria was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA. No mutation. In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained resistance to penicilin. That is adaptation,no macro evolution. In the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli. the same bacteria. No species jump. It did not become some other kind of mold or something. And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. Natural selection was clearly not operative here. Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on people. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:31 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From Jojo: Well, science is supposed to be observable and repeatable. That implies a timeframe within our lifetimes. If you can not satisfy these 2 criteria, it's not science, let alone settled science that Darwinists would like you to believe. I think I see where the confusion might lie. I can also see why you might think evolution isn’t following proper scientific protocol. Regarding proper scientific protocol, I certainly hope the length of time involved for evolution to be observed has been made abundantly clear in previous posts. Otherwise, the rest of what this post will attempt to touch on, I fear, will be considered garbage. But you are right in a sense. Concerning evolution, we are not talking “science”. We are instead talking “theory”. Evolution is described as a theory, but a pretty convincing theory, at least from my POV. It’s called a theory because there is no way we know how to practically assemble a scientific experiment that could document evolution occurring considering the extremely short time-frames scientific experiments have to be conducted within. A real authentic scientific experiment would have to be conducted over hundreds of thousands of years. Millions of years would be better. I doubt humans would ever get around to funding something that would take that much time. We tend to be an impatient species. Not enuf of an immediate Return-On-Investment (ROI). But then, for Mr. or Mrs. God - a million years here… a million there… it’s probably nothing more than a flick of a majestic eyelash! I tend to imagine God’s ROI, as something akin to “Oh! Cool! That’s interesting. What If I try… THIS!” Thus, God throws the dice again, and again. But then, I freely admit, that’s just my personal interpretation of how the Grand Scheme of Things tends to play out over an eternity of time. ;-) What are your thoughts about certain fossil records that seem to indicate what present-day horses may have come from? What did their ancestors possibly look like starting about 30 million years ago? What happened to those little creatures in-between the time-frames of 30 million years ago up to today? http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse What do you personally believe is happening here? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
This is how I know I am winning the argument. When people resort to mockery and insults. But, my friend, have at it. Jojo - Original Message - From: CB Sites To: vortex-l Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo says Failure to mate and reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem, not demonstrate a Macro-Evolution event. Oh is that why your not getting any? Hahaha. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: We used to think that mating and reproduction is the criteria to judge that the offspring is a new species, but I don't think that is a valid argument. We see cases everyday in humans wherein an offspring is so genetically deformed that it can not reproduce and yet it is still human. Failure to mate and reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem, not demonstrate a Macro-Evolution event. I do not believe this reproduction criteria is valid. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Correct me if I am wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case where a beginning species evolves into a second species that can no longer share genes with the original mother species, but can reproduce among its new members. My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I believe that they can still breed together. I suppose my dog is a wolf in disguise. Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of two different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I have read about). I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species that mate among themselves but do not bear young as a result. I do not keep up with such statistics and perhaps some on the list are knowledgeable in the subject and can enlighten us. If these different mating species have the same number of chromosomes then perhaps once they shared a common ancestor species. At least this would seem to be a good way to seek examples of current evolution if it can be found. Dave -Original Message- From: Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots I really don't know if new diseases counts as an example of evolution to you, but a quick search came up with this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/ A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!) But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading species (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the new diseases suggestion. /Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800 Baloney, if you know the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example. Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one species change into another. JUST ONE... Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast tracts of the northern American Continent for agriculture. There is little agriculture in the Southwest so impact of a megadrought would be minimal to the US food security picture. Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for humanity. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? http://phys.org/news/2014-08-southwest-megadrought-century.html No matter how it is caused, the residences of the west coast will need to adapt. Due to global warming, scientists say, the chances of the southwestern United States experiencing a decadelong drought is at least 50 percent, and the chances of a megadrought – one that lasts up to 35 years – ranges from 20 to 50 percent over the next century. The study by Cornell, University of Arizona and U.S. Geological Survey researchers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate. For the southwestern U.S., I'm not optimistic about avoiding real megadroughts, said Toby Ault, Cornell assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences and lead author of the paper. As we add greenhouse gases into the atmosphere – and we haven't put the brakes on stopping this – we are weighting the dice for megadrought. Ault said that the West and Southwest must look for mitigation strategies to cope with looming long-drought scenarios. This will be worse than anything seen during the last 2,000 years and would pose unprecedented challenges to water resources in the region, he said. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an overall warming cycle. We can be fairly confident that one day it will reverse and we will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over and over again according to the best historical measurements. No doubt that polar ice contributes to the process along with countless other natural and man made phenomena. When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we have many years before that devastating event comes upon us. So far I have not heard a great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that the current warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so dangerous to our existence. It is only a matter of time before this becomes a rallying cry of that group of alarmists. They will get my attention at that point provided their models begin to demonstrate accurate predictions without needing serious corrections every few years. We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands of this group until and if their predictions can be shown to be trustworthy. It may well turn out that what they are attempting is intractable and not subject to accurate modeling. What they contend to be caused by man might merely be a natural consequence of the earths response to solar and cosmic driving forces. Sometimes it is very difficult to separate cause and effect. The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will rapidly reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas releases needed to supply our energy future demands. Lets reserve our concerns about what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current conditions and realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the past and will find a solution to any problems that arise. The scientific understanding that will develop during that period will appear as magic to us. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few decades to cool off the coasts. Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of disaster. Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, that is when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the oceans controls the temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice is the factor that introduces the oscillations in the climate. If you put a glass of ice in an oven, the water in the glass will stay at freezing until the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, the water will begin to heat on its way to boiling. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Please note that I pointed out that I have not seen one graph predicting the long term pause. Of course I have not reviewed every single model output since that would be a useless exercise. Which predictions should we depend upon? Those of the IPCC likely carry
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Actually, reproduction by cellular mitosis would favor evolution. If Macro-evolution is occuring, cellular mitosis should prove it quickly. Why? Because one one set of genes can produce a trait that would confer a survival advantage. If reproduction is by cellular meiosis. both mutations have to be compatible for it to generate a trait. This task is more difficult and will occur at less probability compounding the long long long odds already facing Macro-Evolution. Regarding Horse Evolution, that was debunked about 5 decades ago. I have a video for that but it is long. Horse evolution discussion starts at time 41:26. It talks about the Equus seris of horse evolution in your article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:18 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From: Jojo Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years of natural selection. And yet, what did we find? We find that the bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same bacteria. This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The bacteria was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA. No mutation. In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained resistance to penicilin. That is adaptation,no macro evolution. In the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli. the same bacteria. No species jump. It did not become some other kind of mold or something. And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. Natural selection was clearly not operative here. Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on people. Interesting experiment. I know I also suggested using bacteria in a previous post. I'm glad someone has actually conducted it using bacteria. Do you know how long the experiment was conducted? I do see a problem with this particular experiment, even though I think it was a good stab at trying to observe evolution working. Bacteria don't reproduce sexually. They clone themselves. It's a much more simplified carbon-copy process of perpetuating the species. There's far less potential to introduce mutation and other genetic changes with each successive generation. There is very little chance for the random exchange of genes between two organisms. Introducing random genetic change is, IMO, crucial for the theory of evolution to work effectively. I would like to see an equivalent experiment done with a much more complex organism, say a simple animal, a Planarian. They are fascinating little creatures. They are simple animals but complex multi-cellular organisms nevertheless. But if you split them part way down the middle down their length starting with the head they will eventually split apart completely and become two individuated worms. You wouldn't think a complex multi-cellular animal organism would be capable of doing that, not after they have been hatched! Alas, I'm not sure this kind of an experiment would work because of the time frames involved. It would have to take decades of persistent research in order to possibly notice if we could eventually create a new species of worm that is incapable of sexually reproducing with the original organism. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian . . . In the meantime, I'd still like your opinion on what you think is happening concerning what the text below reveals as an example of the evolution of horses starting 30 million years ago. http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse What do you personally believe is happening here? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
CB, I still don't understand your contention. A Delta T of 6C would cause all plant life to die? Is this what you are saying? Jojo - Original Message - From: CB Sites To: vortex-l Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? Jojo said: Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast tracts of the northern American Continent for agriculture. There is little agriculture in the Southwest so impact of a megadrought would be minimal to the US food security picture. Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for humanity. Unlikely this will be a plus for Humanity. More like a tragedy as nothing will grow, and place that do get rain will get too much of it. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast tracts of the northern American Continent for agriculture. There is little agriculture in the Southwest so impact of a megadrought would be minimal to the US food security picture. Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for humanity. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? http://phys.org/news/2014-08-southwest-megadrought-century.html No matter how it is caused, the residences of the west coast will need to adapt. Due to global warming, scientists say, the chances of the southwestern United States experiencing a decadelong drought is at least 50 percent, and the chances of a megadrought – one that lasts up to 35 years – ranges from 20 to 50 percent over the next century. The study by Cornell, University of Arizona and U.S. Geological Survey researchers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate. For the southwestern U.S., I'm not optimistic about avoiding real megadroughts, said Toby Ault, Cornell assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences and lead author of the paper. As we add greenhouse gases into the atmosphere – and we haven't put the brakes on stopping this – we are weighting the dice for megadrought. Ault said that the West and Southwest must look for mitigation strategies to cope with looming long-drought scenarios. This will be worse than anything seen during the last 2,000 years and would pose unprecedented challenges to water resources in the region, he said. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an overall warming cycle. We can be fairly confident that one day it will reverse and we will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over and over again according to the best historical measurements. No doubt that polar ice contributes to the process along with countless other natural and man made phenomena. When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we have many years before that devastating event comes upon us. So far I have not heard a great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that the current warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so dangerous to our existence. It is only a matter of time before this becomes a rallying cry of that group of alarmists. They will get my attention at that point provided their models begin to demonstrate accurate predictions without needing serious corrections every few years. We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands of this group until and if their predictions can be shown to be trustworthy. It may well turn out that what they are attempting is intractable and not subject to accurate modeling. What they contend to be caused by man might merely be a natural consequence of the earths response to solar and cosmic driving forces. Sometimes it is very difficult to separate cause and effect. The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will rapidly reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas releases needed to supply our energy future demands. Lets reserve our concerns about what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current conditions and realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the past and will find a solution to any problems that arise. The scientific understanding that will develop during that period will appear as magic to us. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
I think we should step back and ask ourselves (or Jack) what the goal of this replication attempt really is. Is it to fully test the energy balance. In which case, we need to measure energy output via a calorimetry setup, which greatly complicates the setup and introduces myriad of error possibilities. Or is the goal simply to verify certain aspects of Mill's claims. If for instance we simply want to verify Mill's input energy claim of 5J or his output energy claims, then a simpler setup which is like the suncell would suffice. Solar panels for output, an oscilloscope rigged like Bob suggested for input power measurements. If COP is as large as 100, extreme precision is not needed to establish OU operation - ala Mill's claim. I say lets opt for the second goal. Jojo - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Eric, I am an EE. I would try it myself, but I don't have a spot welder. DI water is very high resistance - essentially an insulator. But it won't stay non-conductive for long if you are welding in it. One of the electrodes is likely ground. To boot, you are normally connecting the electrodes to conductive sheet metal and no one is getting electrocuted. I would be more concerned about the energetics. I would just start with snapping the electrodes in a plastic bucket with DI water - or maybe distilled water to start. I would put the electrode bars through holes in a sheet of plastic so water cannot splash up into the welder. Doing this underwater I estimate to be a step forward over what Mills did; and simpler. When testing with a fuel pellet, I might encapsulate the prepared pellet in wax to isolate it - then crush through the wax with the electrodes. Of course, if someone is uncomfortable with doing this, they shouldn't try it! Protect yourself! Bob On Aug 26, 2014 8:49 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: If you embed the electrodes reasonably well into the water, you may be able to avoid most of the error for the heat that goes into the electrodes. Asking as someone who knows little about electronics, what are the hazards of submerging the electrodes of a spot welder and then turning it on? Eric
[Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
This is not OT since this is science. A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence for the inaccuracy claims I made about radioneucleotide dating. It took me some time to find it but here are some: 1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-637 2. Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, Sept-Oct `971 p.211 3. Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, 1984 p58-61 4. Vollosovitch Mammoth: one part 29,500 years old, another part 44,000 years old - Troy L Pewe Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska Geological Survey Professional Paper #62 5. Dino (frozen baby mammoth): one part 40,000 years old, another part 26,000 years old, wood around mammoth 9-10,000 years old - Troy L Pewe Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska Geological Survey Professional Paper #62 6. Fairbanks creek mammoth: lower leg dated 15,380 years old, skin and flesh 21,300 years old - Harold E. Anthony Nature's Deep Freeze Natural History Sept 1949 p300 7. 2 mammoths found in Alaska: one was 22,850 years old, the other 16,150 years old - Robert M. Thorson and R Dale Guthrie :Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth locality Alaska Quaternary Research Vol 37, March 1992 pp214-228 8. Eleven skeletons of earliest human remains in the western hemisphere all dated less than 5000 years old. - R.E. Taylor Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, American Antiquity Vol 50 no. 1, 1985 pp136-140 9 Ngadong river beds dated 300,000 years old plus or minus 300,000 years (that's right, the error is the same as the age) - Birdsell. J.B. Human Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally 1975) p295 There are many more example but I got tired of typing. Enjoy looking up the references. Next! Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
OK, what would be the explanation why different parts of the mammoth would be dated so widely differently? A few hundred years maybe acceptable, but thousands of years is ridiculous. The only explanation is that the technique is faulty and unreliable. The dates are all after 1950s. So your objection is unwarranted. I forgot to mention, the last example is dated using K-AR radionucleotides. The skeleton measurements are not outliers. All of them dated less than 5000 years old. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Jojo, my dear alien, you cannot do carbon dating of anything past ~1950 because there is a lot of contamination due C13 from nuclear explosions. The mammoth ages seem OK, it is usual to find parts of different animals together. You don't take the age of non living things with carbon dating. Carbon dating don't go to 300ka, there isn't calibration for that. An age like this mean you have just measured background contamination. Old Amerindian remains, specially during the 80's, were involved in many controversies, since the mainstream academic view was that the Clovis culture had to be the oldest, and any pre Clovis was considered outright bullshit. So, there was a lot of nitpicking to lower the age of these outliers. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Stewie, No, I am claiming the technique itself is unreliable and based on too many finicky assumptions based on processes we do not fully understand. How can we build a solid scientific foundation based on such faulty scientific methods? Radionucleotide Dating simply does not work reliably enough for it to be useful; unless one is inclined to claim it is reliable because the data fits one's own preconceived theories - ie. Darwinian Evolution. Jojo - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating JoJo, Jed is correct, experimental data and the models based upon them can be incorrect, just like weather and climate data and models. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: It took me some time to find it but here are some: 1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-637 2. Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, Sept-Oct `971 p.211 3. Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, 1984 p58-61 You can find problems with any instrument or any experimental technique. Any instrument has limitations. Any instrument can be used incorrectly. I have seen thermocouples register room temperature as hundreds of degrees. The Defkalion setup registered a flow rate when the flow was zero. Some types of mass spectrometers show complete nonsense when the sample does not conduct electricity, or when it is made up of small particles not in good contact with one another. Even the tools used in industry and in critical control applications sometimes produce false data. That is why Air France flight 447 fell out of the sky and crashed in the Atlantic. No instrument is perfect. This is why experimental findings have to be independently replicated before we can be sure they are real. What you are describing will not surprise anyone familiar with science and technology, or for that matter anyone who know how to cook, drive a car, or use of a blood pressure monitor. Blood pressure monitors often come up with wild readings, completely off the scale, for no apparent reason. You ignore these readings and try again. You seem to be concluding that because instruments sometimes fail to work, we can never believe them, and we should dismiss all the findings from them. I do not think you would say that no one can measure blood pressure, so we should ignore a diagnosis of hypertension. You would not say that because on rare occasions automobile speedometers fail, we should not have speed limits, and everyone should drive as fast as they like. The fact that carbon dating sometimes fails with some types of samples, in the hands of some people, does not mean that carbon dating never works or that it is meaningless. This means that archaeologists have be careful when they do carbon dating. They have to run some samples twice; they have to run some samples with known ages; and they have someone else do an independent reading on some samples. Every cold fusion experiment I have investigated was checked independently by several others, for similar reasons. - Jed
[Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jed, The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of wide circulation. Do you think these are all errors? Don't you think they would have checked for errors before publishing it? Your contention that these measured dates are errors simply do not make sense. Every measurement that does not fit your preconcieved theory must be an outlier and an instrument error. Only those that fit your theory are valid, hence carbon dating is valid. I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are just a few I found. There are hundreds more cases of such faulty readings. Yet, you claim that all these are faulty and instrument errors. How can one discuss science in the face of such INTRACTABLE RIDICULOUSNESS? Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
My dear ADD friend, that is the reason I provided 4 mammoth dating examples. Cause I knew someone will retort using a senseless reason like you just did. The widely differing results clearly show that the technique is inherently unreliable, no matter what Radionucleotide you use. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Jojo, my dear multidimensional lizard, sometimes a careless mammoth will have an accident, shit happens for many thousands of years. An object that you know is from after 1950 will give wrong results. You want to talk about C dating, so you were dishonest. Bad Christian. K-Ar dates is specially prone to errors. You have to be careful. So that measurement just meant that the river is younger than 600.000 years. That's useful information, depending on what you want. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Danny boy, I wanted to respond to this assertion earlier but I was laughing so hard, that I had to calm down first before I can respond sensibly. So, the river is between 0-600,000 years old using K-AR dating. Well, praise mother earth, that is some useful result. Heck, why do we even need to measure its age. We already know the Earth is between 0 - 4.6 billion years old. ROTFLMAO Jojo PS: Seriously man, you're killing me.ROTFLMAO - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating You want to talk about C dating, so you were dishonest. Bad Christian. K-Ar dates is specially prone to errors. You have to be careful. So that measurement just meant that the river is younger than 600.000 years. That's useful information, depending on what you want. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Genesis 6:1-5 It talks of fallen angels coming down to mate with female humans producing a hybrid race of wicked Giants called Nephilims. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Where are the Aliens in the Bible, btw? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Oh ... the decay rates are accurate and more or less stable all right. It's the assumptions surrounding this that I have a lot of problems with. For example, how can we assume that C-14 levels are the same today as they were 5,000 years ago? There is proof that C-14 levels have not reached equilibrium in our atmosphere. C-14 levels are still increasing today. And they vary from year to year, decade to decade based on our suns' temper tantrums. How can we be so confident assuming we understand C-14 levels from 5,000 years ago, when we can't even predict the weather 48 hours from now. If C-14 levels are lower in the past, it is clear that ages determined using Carbon dating would read ages that are older than they should be. I believe the crazy mammoth readings we get should make that abundantly clear. But for some reason, people can't seem to process this simple fact. Radionucleotide Dating techniques are inherently unreliable because we do not fully understand the validity of our assumptions surrounding this technique. Jojo - Original Message - From: Chris Zell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:37 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally correlated with Egyptian history. Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'.
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Because they are Interdimensional Beings of spirits, fallen angels and demons. But since you appear to be ignorant on this subject, let me see if I can educate you. There are 2 current prevailing theories of who the aliens are. One theory says these UFO aliens are biological beings from distant star systems travelling to us using hyper warp speeds. (Faster than warp 10, otherwise, they'll never get here because of the vast distances.) The other theory, which was promoted by Jacques Vallee (a non-christian) says that there is valid reason to believe that these UFOs are beings from another dimension of existence. These are spiritual beings, demons and other interdimensional manifestations. (let me help you out... google Interdimensional hypothesis) That would explain for instance how these UFOs appear to be incorporeal and shapeshift at will. Biological beings can not shapeshift. (Oh.. I forgot, yes they can according to Captain Piccard.) Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating And they are aliens because...? 2014-08-25 12:34 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: Genesis 6:1-5 It talks of fallen angels coming down to mate with female humans producing a hybrid race of wicked Giants called Nephilims. Jojo -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
And what exactly makes science more trustworthy. Is it because it is repeatable? or is it because we can feel it with our senses? or simply because it is presumed to be the opposite of religion? It seems that science now a days means anything that is anti-relgion. To me science is simply the search for the truth. Whatever the search leads to should be considered. Science should not exclude a whole class of explanations because it is not repeatable or can not be experienced with our five senses. There are many concepts today that pretend to be science which are not repeatable, can not be observed and measured. Yet, they are science. I am assuming I do not need to elaborate about Charlie's theory. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Thank you for your education. It's quite more reasonable to suppose that the Nephilim are aliens than legends. After after all, random words in the Bible are more trustful than science. 2014-08-25 13:00 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: But since you appear to be ignorant on this subject, let me see if I can educate you. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
More assumptions to calibrate an assumption. Whatever Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Ihttp://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html 2014-08-25 12:49 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: For example, how can we assume that C-14 levels are the same today as they were 5,000 years ago? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Pretty much. And I think you head is so deep in the sand, that I question your ability to make science. 2014-08-25 13:24 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: Is it because it is repeatable? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Thanks for identifying yourself my friend. I already forgot who it was that challenged me and I wasn't inclined to waste my time searching the archives. You asked for proof of my assertion that radionucleotide dating is unreliable, and I provided several actual egregious examples from reputable researchers published in reputable peer-reviewed publications. And yet, your response is: These are all outliers and errors and legends. My friend, You are only willing to accept results that seem right to you. Any other result is an outlier, and error and incompetence automatically. You claim that they are legends with no truth to it, yet they are published in publications that you respect. The problem with your version of science is that you want to have the right to decide which experimental result is valid. Any result you don't like is a mistake, an instrument error or legend. How can one discuss science in the face of such intractable ridiculousness. Of course these results are well known, and published in creationist web sites and elsewhere. Why? Because they show the truth that people like you would rather bury as an error, outlier or legend, so that you can promote your own twisted theories and beliefs. Your rebutal to my #1 and #2 items seems to illustrate very well my oriignal point. These two links claim that there are other processes that could skew the result. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/A_freshly_killed_seal_was_C14_dated_at_1300_years_old Which is precisely my point. The technique depends on many assumptions many of which we do not fully understand. Hence, results are unreliable. My friend, you can discuss all you want till you turn blue, all the wiggly lines, all the calibration reports, the tree lines, all the expert opinions, etc etc but if you can not explain how these egregious results come about from a technique you deem reliable, your argument rings hollow. Your only other option is to claim error, outlier and/or incompetence, which is precisely what you and a couple of other folks like Jed is claiming. You don't like the result, it must be an error, an outlier. How convenient. Regarding what Moses wrote, if you want to discuss religion, start a new thread. Jojo - Original Message - From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:24 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating On 25/08/2014 8:33 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: ...A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence for the inaccuracy claims I made about radioneucleotide dating. It took me some time to find it but here are some: I didn't ask for just any old list of radiocarbon dating anomalies. I asked specifically for a reference to the piece of leather from a shoe made in the 1800's dating to 600,000 years ago. That seemed remarkable as it is very difficult to imagine how any process such as contamination could explain it. But having also searched in vain for such a report myself, I guess it was just a YEC circulated legend after all, with no truth to it. 1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-63 2. Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, Sept-Oct `971 p.211 3. Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, 1984 p58-61 ... As for this somewhat interesting list which you have provided, they seem to be the very few outliers and anomalies which have been picked up on by YECs and circulated around and around (eg you will find an almost identical list here: http://www.godrules.net/drdino/FAQcreationevolution3.htm) However they seem to have pretty good explanations if you can be bothered to look for them. For instance the living shells dated as old are discussed here: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old And the freshly killed seal is discussed here: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/A_freshly_killed_seal_was_C14_dated_at_1300_years_old But I think you don't want evidence. You would much rather stir up as much mud as you can find so that you can say - look it is really too hard to see any pattern here, this evidence is of no value whatsoever and the whole field should be tossed out as just so much crap. But anyone without a gigantic agenda (which does not include you) will not fail to see how all the radiocarbon measurements for ~50,000 years fall within a very small measurement error - being the thickness of the wiggly line - which on average decays exactly as predicted. Even the wiggles in the line (which are the variations in the atmospheric C14 concentration at those ancient dates) can be matched between widely varying deposits of very different types and in very distant locations. As I now
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Bob, please read the context in which this number came up? CB was talking about the increase which he claims would bring the global average to 42.8F, which I point out he probably meant 42.8C Jojo - Original Message - From: Bob Cook To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F? Sent from Windows Mail From: CB Sites Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 7:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Jojo, I really think you miss the point. Let assume a moment the global average temperature was 6C above average. That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit! You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means. It means extinction of life as we know it. I know you deniers think some how man kind will survive. To be honest, I think that is doubtful. Economic systems will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and warring political systems will doom the planet. I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play out future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the extinction of man. On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must be. That is the root cause of their problem. You have listed several good points and I will take them into consideration. My main issue with the current models is that new processes and interactions are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of the models in a significant manner. I ask what would be the output of a model at the end of this century that had all of the known and unknown pertinent factors taken into consideration? The recent acknowledgement of a new factor that allows for a 30 year pause in temperature rise is not an issue to be taken lightly. It also inflicts upon me the concern that there are likely more of these factors that remain hidden as of today. I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and realize that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set of input data as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse. You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted range. The problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future points. We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I am speaking of. The old data apparently matched the functional relationship that the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until the pause. They were confident that no pause would appear and many suggested that they would be worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5 years. As we know that time period came and passed and the pause continued which forced many of these guys to seek an explanation. Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up with their best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle. Where was this cycle included during the long hockey stick period? Some might consider that the high rate of heating during the earlier period might have come about due to added heating by this same cycle. That certainly makes sense to me. So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based upon a defective model. Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be that these guys now have all the important factors included within their models? The proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the models during a period of time where they show reasonable results that compare to the real world. We are seeking knowledge of the world's climate in 100 years time as we make plans to counter the expected dangers. It is non sense to trust a model that does not work 20 years into the future for this purpose. The past fits are trivial and can always be obtained by curve fitting. The future fit reveals how good the model actually performs. That is where they are lacking. Eric, when I design an electrical network that is built and tested I expect it to perform as my model predicts. If I measured results that were seriously in error I would not recommend the circuit to others for the same application with known problems. Instead I would dig deeper into the model and devices until the results match the model fairly well. I have in fact done this on several occasions. Only then is the model useful to generate predictions of value. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:global
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jed, if you doubt that, then look up the reference themselves. Last time I checked, Science is and was a reputable publication. You like to make these qualified statements to try to wiggle yourself from a tight spot. You claim these results are errors, outlier or instrument errors,. Now, you are saying you wouldn't know. If you don't know, how can you say they were instrument errors. How do you know they were imaginary, or fully explicable or gathered by someone who does not understand how instruments work. What qualifies you to make an assertion like that? Were you there? You see, the problem with you is you have preconveived notions for a belief system you hold dear. Anything that upsets that belief system, you reject as a lie, an error, incompetence, etc. My friend, you are no better than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of wide circulation. I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you saying these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the authors, and used to point out problems with the technique? An article on blood pressure monitors would point out problems that produce the wrong readings, such as 180/160 when the correct number is 130/85 (an actual example). Finding and explaining problems is a good thing. Do you think these are all errors? I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how instruments work. Don't you think they would have checked for errors before publishing it? If these are errors, then the editors and authors failed to discover them. That happens in science. It happens in every institution. That is why trains sometimes smash together, airplanes crash, banks fail, programs give the wrong answer or stop dead, and doctors sometimes amputate the wrong leg. People everywhere, in all walks of life, are prone to making drastic mistakes. To err is human. I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are just a few I found. You do not have enough expertise in this subject to find proof, or judge whether you have found it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jed, If it is a repeatable as you would like to believe, we wouldn't have so much problems convincing the rest of the world. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:45 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable. Of course it is repeatable. It has been replicated thousands of times. Please stop making ignorant assertions. Read the literature before commenting. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Better Design Possibilities?
This is my problem with anonymous Axil. He says things like this with such certainty and conviction as if it were truly accurate. People reading this does not realize it is just Axil's theory. We know high current works, but how does Axil know High Voltage works the same? Has he tried it? How does he know that it is Instantaneous Power that's important, not high current - which by the way, is opposed to what Mills said. Mills said High Current, not High Instantaneous Power? How does Axil know 5 million volts will work? Where did under a nanosecond come from? How does he know it will result in the best COP? Did he conduct experiments to make this claim? To my other friends who are attempting Suncell replication. Please be very wary of these certainties from Axil. He suffers no consequence when he misdirects your efforts and/or drags you down a useless rabbit hole. I feel obliged to issue these warnings because I can speak from experience and I can prove it. Axil needs to climb out of his anonymous hole and take responsibility. Like everyone, he should bear responsibility for this theories, statements and speculations. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 12:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Better Design Possibilities? The important factor is instansious power(IP). High amperage can produce the required level of IP, or high voltage can, or the duration of the pulse can be shortened. To get the best COP, a very high voltage pulse...say 5 million volts, that is pulsed for under a nanosecond will provide the required results with the best COP.
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Better Design Possibilities?
Come to think about it, you might be right. Axil proposes concepts like high-temperature BEC solitions with Metaphasic Shielding capability that protect nanonickel antennas from temps over 1000C. Only an alien from an advance civilization would know of such things as those concepts are unknown and impossible in our current state of science. Axil speaks will such certainly and conviction, so he must really know what he is talking about. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Better Design Possibilities? It is late this evening and I felt like throwing out something cute to the crowd. The reason Axil does not come out is that he is an alien from a distant star system. His task is to help mankind to venture into space and LENR is required to make this possible. We need to follow his instructions carefully on this subject and his second project is to teach us how to make a reactionless drive. :-) Time to hit the sack...zz Unsigned -Original Message- From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 3:04 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Better Design Possibilities? This is my problem with anonymous Axil. He says things like this with such certainty and conviction as if it were truly accurate. People reading this does not realize it is just Axil's theory. We know high current works, but how does Axil know High Voltage works the same? Has he tried it? How does he know that it is Instantaneous Power that's important, not high current - which by the way, is opposed to what Mills said. Mills said High Current, not High Instantaneous Power? How does Axil know 5 million volts will work? Where did under a nanosecond come from? How does he know it will result in the best COP? Did he conduct experiments to make this claim? To my other friends who are attempting Suncell replication. Please be very wary of these certainties from Axil. He suffers no consequence when he misdirects your efforts and/or drags you down a useless rabbit hole. I feel obliged to issue these warnings because I can speak from experience and I can prove it. Axil needs to climb out of his anonymous hole and take responsibility. Like everyone, he should bear responsibility for this theories, statements and speculations. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 12:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Better Design Possibilities? The important factor is instansious power(IP). High amperage can produce the required level of IP, or high voltage can, or the duration of the pulse can be shortened. To get the best COP, a very high voltage pulse...say 5 million volts, that is pulsed for under a nanosecond will provide the required results with the best COP.
Re: [Vo]:Gaia mission to show that Universe is older than 30 000 years
Maybe I'm just too dumb to follow, but does distance have to do with age? Are you saying that the shortest distance they will measure is 30,000 light years, hence the age is 30,000 years? Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 5:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Gaia mission to show that Universe is older than 30 000 years It will be able to observe the distance of a star from our Galaxy with a 20% precision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft) That means, they will use triangulation, to directly find the distance. So, it will disprove theories that says universe is younger than that. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Gaia mission to show that Universe is older than 30 000 years
Hmmm... That's interesting, Cause I saw Obama's motorcade in Pensylvannia Ave in Washington DC this morning. They were travelling at 50mph. I'm 300 miles away right now. So, I guess Bambi must have started his travel 6 hours ago, since It would take them 6 hours to travel 300 miles at 50 mph. Ok, my friend, thanks for the math lesson about distance and time. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gaia mission to show that Universe is older than 30 000 years In this case, yes. The curvature is negligible and light speed, so you can take the distance as a measure of time. This is true, such that the method to measure the distance is parallax. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
We scare people with 6C temp rise but we ofter neglect to examine what a 6C rise really means. I submit that it won't be bad, in fact, I believe it would be beneficial to mankind. More planting seasons, more planting land reclaimed from ice, and more steady temps in temperate regions for more consistent crop yields. The downside is a few low lying areas will be inundated (including my place here in Philippines) - if the predictions are accurate. Reasonable tradeoff I think for this worst case scenario. But, the more basic problem is, global warming alarmist still has to explain why our global temps have been steady for at least a decade now in the face of accelerating carbon emissions. Why is that? and please don't tell me that it is due to Global warming. Jojo - Original Message - From: CB Sites To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? I've wondered if the Oil industry isn't just trying to stall other forms of energy until the inventory of Oil is used up. This is also a race against mankind's interests in reducing greenhouse gasses. This is a rough estimate, but there are only about 40 years left of oil. Here are the calculations; Total world oil reservers is ~1,35 Trillion Barrels. Average daily oil consumption is estimated at ~85.6 million barrels/day. 1350GB / 0.0856GB/day = 15771 days of oil left. 15771 / 356 days/year = 44 years of oil left. +/- a couple of years. In addition, this is the approximate CO2 produced by that oil to be added on to the 400ppm we already have; 3.15 barrels produces 1.0 tonne of CO2. So in 44 years, we will have dumped 1350GB/3.15 TCo2/B = 428,571,428,571 TonsCO2 (429 GTons CO2). Every 15 GT CO2 will rise CO2 by 1.0ppm. 50ppm will rise global temps by 1C. 429/15=28.6ppm or ~0.6C gain from now until oil is used up in 40 years or so. Similar calculations on coal will yield a 1.30C change in the same time period, and combined with oil it give 1.58C global average temp change in 40 years. Coal us in the developing countries has increased exponentially so this really could be an underestimate. If there is a 2C rise in global average temperatures occurs by 2050, (in line with these estimates), 4C by 2100 is very likely and if coal use is accelerating, a 6C change is really likely. Sadly for mankind, the corporate world is more than happy to do the waiting game and continue to gather huge profits from stone age polluting technologies for years to come. . On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Terry Blanton But, have you considered how much cheaper it will be to pump oil from the ground using a LENR source? :-) Actually that is not sarcasm. It is likely that a prime early use of LENR will to extend the productive life of oilfields by a large factor. The USA has a sunk-cost infrastructure of 150,000,000 working vehicles, and the supply system for fuel delivery, so the economics of using LENR to leverage multi-trillion dollar legacy is a no-brainer. That is accomplished by bringing up deeper oil, and is actually a stronger incentive, economically - than using LENR as an alternative to the ICE… EVEN when the new technology lowers the value of the deeper oil! …at least for most consumers in the near term. Green activists do not want to believe this, but it is obvious to realists and most economists – nothing is more compelling economically than extending the lifetime of a sunk cost. In terms of geology, it appears now that most if not all of the mega oil fields are sitting on top of deeper shale which was in fact - the original source of the now depleted lighter oils. That is the real lesson of the Bakken and fracking. This is why Texas has and will continued to lead in oil production – even after most of the shallow wells are depleted. There could 10 times more oil than realized if and when it can be pumped up from 2 miles. This will leverage the energy of LENR in a non-green way, but follow the buck… it will happen and politics will not likely change that. Look for Texas oil money to try to put their man in the White House next go around… even if he is a Canuck J
Re: [Vo]:Gaia mission to show that Universe is older than 30 000 years
No, I'm not in the Philippians, I'm in the Philippines, and I did not see Bambi's motorcade in Pensylvannia Ave either. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 1:38 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Gaia mission to show that Universe is older than 30 000 years Hmmm... That's interesting, Cause I saw Obama's motorcade in Pensylvannia Ave in Washington DC this morning. They were travelling at 50mph. I'm 300 miles away right now. ... 300 miles away? I thought you lived in the Philippians. You visiting? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Better Design Possibilities?
Robin is right. Except that we don't realize that these aliens are not extraterrestrial BIOLOGICAL beings from another planet. These ALIENS are aliens to our dimension. They are INTERDIMENSIONAL beings of spirits, fallen angels and demons, controlling our destiny thru their proxy of wicked men composing the Masonic Order, the Illuminati and other Secret Societies. The last US president who tried to oppose them ended with a bullet in his head. They already know who I am and where I live. I already have a bull's eye on my back. I'd be dead already except that I am not too much of nuisance yet and more importantly, they can't. Jojo - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 5:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Better Design Possibilities? In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 24 Aug 2014 03:48:06 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] It is late this evening and I felt like throwing out something cute to the crowd. The reason Axil does not come out is that he is an alien from a distant star system. His task is to help mankind to venture into space and LENR is required to make this possible. We need to follow his instructions carefully on this subject and his second project is to teach us how to make a reactionless drive. :-) Time to hit the sack...zz Unsigned the aliens are doing everything in their power to stop us getting into space. Why do you think LENR gets no funding? ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
What? Extinction of LIfe? My friend, I am here in the Philippines today, and my roof temperature is 48C. Last month it was over 50C. The sun is beating down on all our crops and quite obviously, they are not dead. What are you talking about? Let me tell you what a 42.8C temp will do. It will open up vast temperate areas of US land for triple cycle cropping, like we have here in thePhilippines. Crops grow faster in warmer climates. Food production will increase to meet the increase in demand from over 12 Billion people or more. There was a study I was aware of a few years back. It was commissioned by the UN before it was taken over by the Illuminati agenda. The study concluded that it would take the area the size of Texas to produce enough food for all the people of the world at that time - 2 Billion. Heck, we certainly will have 3 times Texas land area for cropping today. We can feed over 6 billion today with just the available farm land we have. There is no overpopulation nor Global Warming problem. That's a lie from the Illuminati elites because they want to depopulated the Earth for their own use alone. They want to reduce human population to 50 million. A few thousand elites being served by the rest as slave labor force. My friend, it would serve you well to refrain from hyperbole such as this. This will only serve to destroy your credibility in any discussion. Jojo PS. I think you meant 42.8C not 42.8F. 42.8F is very close to freezing. - Original Message - From: CB Sites To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? Jojo, I really think you miss the point. Let assume a moment the global average temperature was 6C above average. That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit! You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means. It means extinction of life as we know it. I know you deniers think some how man kind will survive. To be honest, I think that is doubtful. Economic systems will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and warring political systems will doom the planet. I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play out future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the extinction of man. On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must be. That is the root cause of their problem. You have listed several good points and I will take them into consideration. My main issue with the current models is that new processes and interactions are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of the models in a significant manner. I ask what would be the output of a model at the end of this century that had all of the known and unknown pertinent factors taken into consideration? The recent acknowledgement of a new factor that allows for a 30 year pause in temperature rise is not an issue to be taken lightly. It also inflicts upon me the concern that there are likely more of these factors that remain hidden as of today. I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and realize that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set of input data as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse. You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted range. The problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future points. We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I am speaking of. The old data apparently matched the functional relationship that the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until the pause. They were confident that no pause would appear and many suggested that they would be worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5 years. As we know that time period came and passed and the pause continued which forced many of these guys to seek an explanation. Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up with their best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle. Where was this cycle included during the long hockey stick period? Some might consider that the high rate of heating during the earlier period might have come about due to added heating by this same cycle. That certainly makes sense to me. So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based upon a defective model. Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be that these guys now have all the important factors included within their models? The proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the models during a period of
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
I hope my point is now ultra clear to readers. Axil is basically saying the temperature oscillation is related to Global Warming. Hence, my point, that Global Warming theory has an all-inclusive symptoms list. Everything is due to Global warming. INTRACTABLE RIDICULOUSNESS Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? There is a 30 year ocean temperature oscillation due to the Atlantic and southern sea saline inversion. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: Fraud is too strong a word. Last I heard, there was controversy about including temps from the 1930's ( which were unusually high). Some people would discard them as an outlier, others would include them entirely. I can understand both opinions.
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Jed, your comparison seems appropriate at first glance, except you forgot one thing. Actuarial Studies and Medicine are fields of science with solid mathematical,experimental and actual data. It is hard science that is refutable and falsiable and has stood the test of time. Global Warming and Weather forecasting is based on assumptions made in the modelling. The models used are all assumptions that are no more accurate that a 10 year old guessing what the weather will be like tommorrow. Supporters of Global Warming are only able to claim good results because of the aforementioned all-inclusive symptoms list. Everything is taken as proof of the theory. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 9:24 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Bullsht The comparison between weather forecasting and long term climate change is not bullshit at all. It has been made by many experts. There are many other scientific fields with similar limitations, and also fields such as history, psychology, social science research, some areas of engineering and physics, and much else in which similar statistical proof is available but it does not work in a more granular analyses, or on a shorter timescale. This is common knowledge. You can learn about it in detail. You should not call this concept bullshit if you have not studied it. Frankly, you are out of line in this forum publishing such an ignorant dismissal. To be a little more specific, do you have the notion that an insurance company can tell you the year and month when you will die? That would be magic. Unless you happen to have a serious, terminal disease, no one can tell you that. But any insurance company can sell you a policy, and they can be sure that in the aggregate, their policies will make money, barring some major disaster such as 1918 avian influenza. I would also point out that short term weather forecasts are incredibly accurate these days, and the error ranges are well understood by forecasters. Everyone knows you can predict the weather in Georgia, but not in southern Pennsylvania. (Or, for Pennsylvania, you can say: there will be rain, sunshine, clouds and bright sun repeated at random times during the day, which is a sort of forecast, after all.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers
Can you tell us exactly what he said, minus your interpretation? Jojo - Original Message - From: Frank Acland To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 7:43 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers No, nothing about that. On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the clarification Frank. Did the tester indicate to you privately the reason for the delay, even if it is something they don't want to say in public? Jojo - Original Message - From: Frank Acland To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Sorry, I just found this thread -- I didn't realize there was such controversy going on. The term 'polarized opinions' was in reference to people on the outside -- not among the testers. Frank On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:26 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: It seems there are polarized opinions on the meaning of 'polarized opinions'. From the standpoint of an optimist it could mean the polarized opinions of the outside world, but from the standpoint of a pessimist it could mean the polarized opinions of the testers. Someone could ask Frank Acland to clarify the meaning. Harry On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Dave, you and I picked up on the most important phrase that others seems to have missed - Polarized Opinions. This by itself has got to refer to opinions of the testers, not the outside world. For why would the polarized opinions of the outside world suddenly make a difference in the release of the TIP2 report? The outside world opinion has always been polarized since the beginning, why make a difference now? especially in the context of the TIP2 release date? Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 5:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Jojo, I hope you are wrong about your conclusion. It does concern me by the expression of Polarized opinions. Best case is for them to be referring to how the device operates instead of how well it works. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 20, 2014 11:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Sure, you can be optimistic and read it that way; but it seems clear in the context of the statements, that the Polarized opinions is the reason. Reason for what? reason for not giving pre-statements about a timing or content of the report. Why would any polarized outside opinion be the reason for any delay in the timing of the release? or affect the content of the report? It seems clear. The testers can not agree on what to write. This can only mean some think it is positive, some think it is negative. They can't agree like a hang jury. Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:07:08 AM http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/20/e-cat-report-watch-thread/ As reported in e-catworld. It seems the TIP2 testers are having a lot of disagreements; hence the delay in the release of the report. This does not bode well for the ECat. I have been one of a few that think too many warning flags have been seen lately regarding the ECat. Chances of it being a Scam has increased. I don't read it that way --- The response I received was that they realize there is a great amount of interest in the report, but that because of polarized opinions surrounding the LENR and E-Cat, it was not advisable to give any pre-statements about the content of timing or the report. The polarized opinions are those in the outside world, not within the team - which wants to get it right. And, quite correctly, say nothing to nobody until the report's out. -- Frank Acland Publisher, E-Cat World -- Frank Acland Publisher, E-Cat World
[Vo]:global warming?
Global Warming is the only field in science that can get away with an all-inclusive symptoms list. If it's hot, it's due to Global Warming If it's cold, it's due to Global Warming. If it's raining, it's due to Global Warming. If it's not raining, it's due to Global Warming. If the Glaciers are melting, it's due to Global Warming. If the Glaciers are not melting, it's due to Global Warming. If it's El Nino, it's due to Global Warming. If it's La Nina, it's due to Global Warming. If the fish die, it's due to Global Warming. If the fish don't die, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature goes up, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature goes down, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature stays the same, it's due to Global Warming.. on and on it goes. Everything we see is due to Global Warming. The claims never end despite an utter lack of evidence and/or common sense. It never ceases to amaze me how Global Warming alarmists do not realize that their theory is not falsifiable. Everything that happens is taken as proof of their theory. How can one discuss science in the face of such intractable ridiculousness.
[Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/20/e-cat-report-watch-thread/ As reported in e-catworld. It seems the TIP2 testers are having a lot of disagreements; hence the delay in the release of the report. This does not bode well for the ECat. I have been one of a few that think too many warning flags have been seen lately regarding the ECat. Chances of it being a Scam has increased. This is bad news for humanity, but VERY VERY GOOD NEWS for me. Of course, I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers
Sure, you can be optimistic and read it that way; but it seems clear in the context of the statements, that the Polarized opinions is the reason. Reason for what? reason for not giving pre-statements about a timing or content of the report. Why would any polarized outside opinion be the reason for any delay in the timing of the release? or affect the content of the report? It seems clear. The testers can not agree on what to write. This can only mean some think it is positive, some think it is negative. They can't agree like a hang jury. Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:07:08 AM http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/20/e-cat-report-watch-thread/ As reported in e-catworld. It seems the TIP2 testers are having a lot of disagreements; hence the delay in the release of the report. This does not bode well for the ECat. I have been one of a few that think too many warning flags have been seen lately regarding the ECat. Chances of it being a Scam has increased. I don't read it that way --- The response I received was that they realize there is a great amount of interest in the report, but that because of polarized opinions surrounding the LENR and E-Cat, it was not advisable to give any pre-statements about the content of timing or the report. The polarized opinions are those in the outside world, not within the team - which wants to get it right. And, quite correctly, say nothing to nobody until the report's out.
Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers
I am not rich, but I will soon be. Richer beyond my wildest expectations. It was God who gave me the knowledge how to build the wave-powered pumps at a very low cost. There is no doubt the knowledge and skill came from God to do this. And I will give it all back to build thousands of Churches and a few dozen Bible colleges. To God be the Glory!!! Jojo PS: Who is ʿĪsā:? - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Jojo, you should repent before ʿĪsā: ʿĪsā tells, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+4 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-24.htm “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither. The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Job%201%3A21 - See more at: http://omidsafi.religionnews.com/2013/11/09/prosperity/#sthash.wLRDj9yD.dpuf Do not celebrate your rich, give away what you have, if you are a Christian. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers
You seem to be implying that one can not be both a Christian and Rich. If so, I can assure you that is not the case. Here are a few examples for you: 1. Joseph was a believer and was the 2nd in command in Egypt. He was rich in power, money and Glory 2. Abraham was very rich with thousands upon thousands of sheep and camels, and a household with 400 able-bodied fighting men. This guy had his own private army bigger than the army of many city states at that time. His men was able to defeat 4 kings and their armies. If he had 400 fighting men, the size of his household must be between 3000-5000 people. That is rich. 3. Job was the greatest man in the east. Job was from the area of Ur. The region we know as the fertile crescent - Shinar or Babylon - the cradle of civilization. So, Job was the richest man in the world at that time. When God was done blessing him, he was twice as rich. 4. Solomon had brass that could not be counted. Enough gold and silver to overlay all the surfaces of the large building - the temple he built. The guy was richer than anyone alive today. Jojo PS. What possesses you to call Jesus Isa? - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-24.htm -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers
They were believers in the true God just like Christians today. But if you want to be picky and unreasonable about it, here are a few examples of rich Christians. 1. Joseph of Arithmatea was rich. He owned his own private tomb hewn from a rock. A very expensive piece of exclusive real estate at that time. 2. Barnabas owned land worth enough to feed the whole Jerusalem church. The church at that time was at least 5000 men strong. This would be a membership of over 20,000 if you include women and children. 3. Lydia was a seller of purple. Purple was the clothing for kings and royals. She was rich enough to be associated with kings and royals. 4. Philemon was rich. He had many servants and a house with guest room for Paul. At that time, a family normally lived in a house with one room. The living room was the kitchen, the dinning room, the bedroom. Philemon has a hosue with multiple rooms and he maintained many servants. He was rich. 5. Luke was a medical doctor. A very expensive and rare vocation at that time, which means his family must have been rich enough to send him everywhere to learn medicine. They didn't have centralized medical colleges, if you want to be a doctor, you have to travel everywhere and learn from many people and places. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Those people were not Christians. 2014-08-20 14:51 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: You seem to be implying that one can not be both a Christian and Rich. If so, I can assure you that is not the case. Here are a few examples for you: 1. Joseph was a believer and was the 2nd in command in Egypt. He was rich in power, money and Glory 2. Abraham was very rich with thousands upon thousands of sheep and camels, and a household with 400 able-bodied fighting men. This guy had his own private army bigger than the army of many city states at that time. His men was able to defeat 4 kings and their armies. If he had 400 fighting men, the size of his household must be between 3000-5000 people. That is rich. 3. Job was the greatest man in the east. Job was from the area of Ur. The region we know as the fertile crescent - Shinar or Babylon - the cradle of civilization. So, Job was the richest man in the world at that time. When God was done blessing him, he was twice as rich. 4. Solomon had brass that could not be counted. Enough gold and silver to overlay all the surfaces of the large building - the temple he built. The guy was richer than anyone alive today. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers
That is a misconception. God does not require every Christian to sell all they have and give to the poor. This command was for a specific person who was rich and his riches was hindering him from serving God. For some Christians, riches do not hinder them. It's simply a question of priority; not mutual exclusivity. If you want to be contentious about this; I only ask that you study the life of Lydia and Philemon. Did they sell all they had after their conversion? Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers If they were Christians, they left all behind after convertion: Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-21.htm 2014-08-20 15:13 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: They were believers in the true God just like Christians today. But if you want to be picky and unreasonable about it, here are a few examples of rich Christians. 1. Joseph of Arithmatea was rich. He owned his own private tomb hewn from a rock. A very expensive piece of exclusive real estate at that time. 2. Barnabas owned land worth enough to feed the whole Jerusalem church. The church at that time was at least 5000 men strong. This would be a membership of over 20,000 if you include women and children. 3. Lydia was a seller of purple. Purple was the clothing for kings and royals. She was rich enough to be associated with kings and royals. 4. Philemon was rich. He had many servants and a house with guest room for Paul. At that time, a family normally lived in a house with one room. The living room was the kitchen, the dinning room, the bedroom. Philemon has a hosue with multiple rooms and he maintained many servants. He was rich. 5. Luke was a medical doctor. A very expensive and rare vocation at that time, which means his family must have been rich enough to send him everywhere to learn medicine. They didn't have centralized medical colleges, if you want to be a doctor, you have to travel everywhere and learn from many people and places. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Those people were not Christians. 2014-08-20 14:51 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: You seem to be implying that one can not be both a Christian and Rich. If so, I can assure you that is not the case. Here are a few examples for you: 1. Joseph was a believer and was the 2nd in command in Egypt. He was rich in power, money and Glory 2. Abraham was very rich with thousands upon thousands of sheep and camels, and a household with 400 able-bodied fighting men. This guy had his own private army bigger than the army of many city states at that time. His men was able to defeat 4 kings and their armies. If he had 400 fighting men, the size of his household must be between 3000-5000 people. That is rich. 3. Job was the greatest man in the east. Job was from the area of Ur. The region we know as the fertile crescent - Shinar or Babylon - the cradle of civilization. So, Job was the richest man in the world at that time. When God was done blessing him, he was twice as rich. 4. Solomon had brass that could not be counted. Enough gold and silver to overlay all the surfaces of the large building - the temple he built. The guy was richer than anyone alive today. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers
Who appointed you judge and jury in this forum? I didn't get that memo. LOL... Jojo - Original Message - From: Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Jojo and Daniel, Take the religious crap offline. It doesn't belong here. To remain on topic, Defkalion's web site has been suspended. http://defkalion-energy.com Doesn't make me feel very confident that a LENR device is forthcoming. - Brad On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: That is a misconception. God does not require every Christian to sell all they have and give to the poor. This command was for a specific person who was rich and his riches was hindering him from serving God. For some Christians, riches do not hinder them. It's simply a question of priority; not mutual exclusivity. If you want to be contentious about this; I only ask that you study the life of Lydia and Philemon. Did they sell all they had after their conversion? Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers If they were Christians, they left all behind after convertion: Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-21.htm 2014-08-20 15:13 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: They were believers in the true God just like Christians today. But if you want to be picky and unreasonable about it, here are a few examples of rich Christians. 1. Joseph of Arithmatea was rich. He owned his own private tomb hewn from a rock. A very expensive piece of exclusive real estate at that time. 2. Barnabas owned land worth enough to feed the whole Jerusalem church. The church at that time was at least 5000 men strong. This would be a membership of over 20,000 if you include women and children. 3. Lydia was a seller of purple. Purple was the clothing for kings and royals. She was rich enough to be associated with kings and royals. 4. Philemon was rich. He had many servants and a house with guest room for Paul. At that time, a family normally lived in a house with one room. The living room was the kitchen, the dinning room, the bedroom. Philemon has a hosue with multiple rooms and he maintained many servants. He was rich. 5. Luke was a medical doctor. A very expensive and rare vocation at that time, which means his family must have been rich enough to send him everywhere to learn medicine. They didn't have centralized medical colleges, if you want to be a doctor, you have to travel everywhere and learn from many people and places. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Those people were not Christians. 2014-08-20 14:51 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: You seem to be implying that one can not be both a Christian and Rich. If so, I can assure you that is not the case. Here are a few examples for you: 1. Joseph was a believer and was the 2nd in command in Egypt. He was rich in power, money and Glory 2. Abraham was very rich with thousands upon thousands of sheep and camels, and a household with 400 able-bodied fighting men. This guy had his own private army bigger than the army of many city states at that time. His men was able to defeat 4 kings and their armies. If he had 400 fighting men, the size of his household must be between 3000-5000 people. That is rich. 3. Job was the greatest man in the east. Job was from the area of Ur. The region we know as the fertile crescent - Shinar or Babylon - the cradle of civilization. So, Job was the richest man in the world at that time. When God was done blessing him, he was twice as rich. 4. Solomon had brass that could not be counted. Enough gold and silver to overlay all the surfaces of the large building - the temple he built. The guy was richer than anyone alive today. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers
Please refer to my answer to this challenge in my reply to Daniel. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 5:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Jojo, the people on your list are not Christians if I recall correctly. They were Jewish...right? Not sure that it really makes that much difference about this particular subject. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 20, 2014 1:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers You seem to be implying that one can not be both a Christian and Rich. If so, I can assure you that is not the case. Here are a few examples for you: 1. Joseph was a believer and was the 2nd in command in Egypt. He was rich in power, money and Glory 2. Abraham was very rich with thousands upon thousands of sheep and camels, and a household with 400 able-bodied fighting men. This guy had his own private army bigger than the army of many city states at that time. His men was able to defeat 4 kings and their armies. If he had 400 fighting men, the size of his household must be between 3000-5000 people. That is rich. 3. Job was the greatest man in the east. Job was from the area of Ur. The region we know as the fertile crescent - Shinar or Babylon - the cradle of civilization. So, Job was the richest man in the world at that time. When God was done blessing him, he was twice as rich. 4. Solomon had brass that could not be counted. Enough gold and silver to overlay all the surfaces of the large building - the temple he built. The guy was richer than anyone alive today. Jojo PS. What possesses you to call Jesus Isa? - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-24.htm -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers
Dave, you and I picked up on the most important phrase that others seems to have missed - Polarized Opinions. This by itself has got to refer to opinions of the testers, not the outside world. For why would the polarized opinions of the outside world suddenly make a difference in the release of the TIP2 report? The outside world opinion has always been polarized since the beginning, why make a difference now? especially in the context of the TIP2 release date? Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 5:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Jojo, I hope you are wrong about your conclusion. It does concern me by the expression of Polarized opinions. Best case is for them to be referring to how the device operates instead of how well it works. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 20, 2014 11:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Sure, you can be optimistic and read it that way; but it seems clear in the context of the statements, that the Polarized opinions is the reason. Reason for what? reason for not giving pre-statements about a timing or content of the report. Why would any polarized outside opinion be the reason for any delay in the timing of the release? or affect the content of the report? It seems clear. The testers can not agree on what to write. This can only mean some think it is positive, some think it is negative. They can't agree like a hang jury. Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:07:08 AM http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/20/e-cat-report-watch-thread/ As reported in e-catworld. It seems the TIP2 testers are having a lot of disagreements; hence the delay in the release of the report. This does not bode well for the ECat. I have been one of a few that think too many warning flags have been seen lately regarding the ECat. Chances of it being a Scam has increased. I don't read it that way --- The response I received was that they realize there is a great amount of interest in the report, but that because of polarized opinions surrounding the LENR and E-Cat, it was not advisable to give any pre-statements about the content of timing or the report. The polarized opinions are those in the outside world, not within the team - which wants to get it right. And, quite correctly, say nothing to nobody until the report's out.
Re: [Vo]:Ignore Jojo Iznart's fairy tales about what e-catworld actually said, unless you enjoy being conned.
I don't know who you think the troll is but let me tell you one such technique trolls use. A Troll will saturate a forum with ridiculous, evidence-free ideas and wear down legitimate challenges to his ideas. We lost an emminent tried-and-true LENR researcher to the unrestrained unbriddled unfounded speculations of a troll. If he can not answer a challenge (a simple one at that), he resorts to this tactic of destroying the challenger instead of answering the challenge. . Then accuses the messenger of conning people. How exactly is this conning achieved when the full text of the document is available for everyone to see. This troll seems to think that my opinion has some magical hypnotic power to deceive Vortex people. Such low opinion of the people in Vortex. I provided a link to a report from e-catworld. One is free to offer his understanding of what the report means as Alan Fletcher has done. People disagree on how to interpret the text as Alain has done. A friendly discussion ensues. Where is the conning? Why get personal and accuse people of conning? Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 7:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ignore Jojo Iznart's fairy tales about what e-catworld actually said, unless you enjoy being conned. http://phys.org/news/2014-08-debating-science-withtrolls.html Chances of it being a Scam has increased. I have received an education in the tactics many trolls use. These tactics are common not just to trolls but to bloggers, journalists and politicians who attack science, from climate to cancer research. Some techniques are comically simple. Emotionally charged, yet evidence-free, accusations of scams, fraud and cover-ups are common. While they mostly lack credibility, such accusations may be effective at polarising debate and reducing understanding. On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all In Reply to Jojo Iznart: You just love making stuff up. You would have a great future writing for the Daily Mail, they write lots of fairy tales too. This is what it says in the report Jojo Iznart is referring too in full rather than Jojo Iznart's spin Update #17 (August 20, 2014) I was able to make contact with one of the people involved in the third party test, asking if they could provide any guidance as to the release date of the report. The response I received was that they realize there is a great amount of interest in the report, but that because of polarized opinions surrounding the LENR and E-Cat, it was not advisable to give any pre-statements about the content of timing or the report. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/20/e-cat-report-watch-thread/ always go to the original source to check what I or any one else writes. As we can see the real thread says nothing like Jojo Iznart's spin, it seems he is a bit of a FUD merchant. I wrote this in separate thread so as not to give its false headline any attention by writing a reply in that thread. Kind Regards walker
Re: [Vo]:Ignore Jojo Iznart's fairy tales about what e-catworld actually said, unless you enjoy being conned.
My friend, I quoted the original text. That was the first line in my original post. Maybe you should get a better email reader before you start accusing people of deliberate lies. The full text was there for everyone to see. I offered an opinion as to what I understand it to mean. Some offered their opinion. Everyone offered their opinion on what they think it means. Everyone's own opinion is a spin. Nothing extraordinary or sinister there. Need I remind you that I have been a big supporter of Rossi and the eCat. That I too, am eagerly awaiting the TIP2 report. I signed up for a 1 megawatt plant and home unit from the earliest days. Jojo - Original Message - From: Ian Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 7:13 AM Subject: [Vo]:Ignore Jojo Iznart's fairy tales about what e-catworld actually said, unless you enjoy being conned. Hi all In Reply to Jojo Iznart: You just love making stuff up. You would have a great future writing for the Daily Mail, they write lots of fairy tales too. This is what it says in the report Jojo Iznart is referring too in full rather than Jojo Iznart's spin Update #17 (August 20, 2014) I was able to make contact with one of the people involved in the third party test, asking if they could provide any guidance as to the release date of the report. The response I received was that they realize there is a great amount of interest in the report, but that because of polarized opinions surrounding the LENR and E-Cat, it was not advisable to give any pre-statements about the content of timing or the report. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/20/e-cat-report-watch-thread/ always go to the original source to check what I or any one else writes. As we can see the real thread says nothing like Jojo Iznart's spin, it seems he is a bit of a FUD merchant. I wrote this in separate thread so as not to give its false headline any attention by writing a reply in that thread. Kind Regards walker
