At 05:49 pm 19-10-04 -0500, you wrote:
>Ah, yes! Horace.. The freedom of the randomness
>of the quantum underpinnings of reality..well said..
>may I add.. the " awareness" of the freedom...
<snip>
>Some studies of porpoise motion and speed have considered
>the possibility of their use of vortexes. They cannot be
>seen unless air is inducted to trace the pattern.. but...
>how much do we fail to see because, like water, the picture
>is too clear ?
>
>Richard
Funny you should say that, Richard, because I've been
pondering how one could physically visualize high order
derivatives of distance with respect to time.
dL/dT ......VELOCITY .......moving scenery
- no problem
d2L/dT2 ....ACCELERATION ...being pushed back in ones
seat as the plane takes off
- no problem
d3L/dt3 ....JERK............Mmm..more difficult - being
hit over the head with a
bottle perhaps?
d4L/dT4 ....JOUNCE..........I have no feeling whatsoever
for this or high derivatives.
But the failure to visualise these higher order derivative
is because I am thinking in terms of straight line motion.
If I think instead in terms of circular motion, or better
still, helical motions, then things become very much easier.
If I allow myself to be pinned to the wall of a fairground
centrifuge then I can experience being "pushed back in my
seat on a continuous basis. By imposing a circular motion
on this circular motion to form an open vortex helix I can
visualize the next derivative, though I am well past the
age where I would want to experience it - and so on - and
so forth.
Now I suspect that phenomena such as sparks and lightning
- and perhaps even that stream which comes from a leaky
tap (faucet) may have these high order derivative motions.
I believe that is why they give rise to such strange
phenomena as ball lightning, buckminster fullerines,
etc.
Also, I've been following all those enthusiasts who claim
they can get OU by using sparks and batteries - very
difficult to be sure they are not deluding themselves.
But I noticed one interesting thing. They say that it
had to be sparks and the equivalent electronic circuits
wont work - or something like that. Well, it could be
that sparks have higher orders of dnL/dtn motion than
the electronic circuits.
But there's more. 8-)
Some years ago I had a desultory correspondence with
Dr Paul Rowe who was convinced he had evidence that
electric discharges in a vacuum could generate hydrogen.
Perhaps his stuff is on the web somewhere. Let's see.
Google "paul rowe" - 3100 hits. Mmm...Paul Rowe baritone?..
Paul Rowe is obviously a common name.
Let's add hydrogen - 213 hits - that's more like it.
Fancy that now! Right at the top of the page.
======================================
HYDROGEN FROM THE VACUUM? and More....
by Dr. Paul Rowe
Infinite Energy Magazine page 79
Issue 17 Dec 1997 - Jan 1998
======================================
I think St Eugene must be looking over my shoulder. 8-)
Well if, like the boy on the burning deck, sparks
can roll up little balls of carbon to make C60, etc.
I don't see why sparks shouldn't roll up materons
to make protons.
And if they can - that sure beats the hell out of
Cold Fusion, eh! There can't be any question that
the spark generation of hydrogen from the empty
(allegedly) vacuum is MASS-ively OU. :-)
Grimer
=================================
The boy stood on the burning deck
Picking his nose like mad.
He rolled it up in little balls
And flicked it at his dad.
=================================
