Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> Probably most of them I would imagine since in the course of one
> short e-mail you managed to misspell Vortex TWICE!
>
> "lay population of Votex" "I hope others in and of votrtex"
I think it is perhaps better to misspell than to populate Vortex-L
with any number of oddball theories and/or speculated subatomic
particles of which there is not the least bit of experimental
evidence for their existence.
I believe the charter for Vortex includes just such things as being "on
topic".
I admit that some of the things bandied about here set my teeth on edge
with their imprecision and improbability but, in general, this is
supposed to be a friendly forum in which one can air oddball and/or
absurd theories without getting shot down by folks armed with
Conventional Wisdom. If you like your science to always be of the most
"hard" sort then this may not be the best possible forum for you.
> There is really no excuse for this type of sloppiness in a
> scientific discussion. It is insulting to other members.
Really now, there is a lot that goes on here which is insulting to
other list members, and you ALL know that.
Be it politics, religion,
completely ignoring reasonable posts by list members, and most
annoying of all to me at least, propagation of conjecture for which
there is either no evidence at all, or of which no tests are even
SUGGESTED to test for said evidence.
Now, to ask a few questions of my own and rephrase a few of John's so
that (perhaps) someone will answer them:
1. I know what "ZPE" is supposed to be. Besides the Casimir effect
and some theoretical predictions, is there and HARD evidence that
such actually exists in any way shape or form that is similar to what
is being bandied about here?
I think the answer is "no, not yet" but I have the general impression
that work is being done even as we speak on detecting the ZPE and we may
expect some results in the next year or two. In particular, it's
supposed to be possible to detect a nonzero "background" energy flux in
an accelerated frame; the effect is similar to Hawking radiation around
a black hole and is closely related to the notion of the zero point
energy. Experiments are under way to detect that flux.
Is that "similar" to what is bandied about here? Well, not exactly; the
idea is carried 'way, 'way past that point on Vortex. But, again,
that's the sort of thing the list is for, I think.
By the way, the theory which leads to a belief in hydrinos also rules
out existence of the ZPE, or at any rate that's the impression I have.
The problem is that the ZPE is intimately bound up with the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle, and Heisenberg and hydrinos are mutually
incompatible. (If I'm completely off base here I hope someone will take
the time to point it out.)
2. "Beta atmosphere"....? What is this supposed to be, really?
Oops I shouldn't answer this one :-) But I'll say a few words anyway.
"Beta atmosphere" is also sometimes called the "Beta aether" (at least
in the older posts on the subject). I have the general impression that
it's supposed to be a variant on a classical aether, and it's supposed
that EM radiation travels as vibrations in the beta aether. Of course
it has lots of other interesting properties as well, but as far as I'm
concerned its behavior as a classical aether is certainly its most
interesting property in that it provides the opportunity to actually
test for it; see below.
What
is "Alpha" and or (insert other Greek letters) in this context? What
experimental proof is there that this exists? How can we measure it,
test for it, test its properties, and use it to our advantage?
To the extent that the beta aether is a classical aether, it must behave
in a way that is consistent with the results of experiments which were
done to test classical aether theories. In particular, it must behave
in a way that is consistent with the Fizeau, Sagnac, and
Michelson-Morley experiments, with all the different materials which
have been used in those experiments.
Classical aether theories typically have trouble with these experiments.
MMX is consistent with a "fully dragged" aether -- one which co-moves
with the Earth -- but is inconsistent with an undragged aether or a
Fresnel (partially dragged) aether. MMX has been repeated with gas,
glass, and vacuum in the paths carrying the light rays, and, IIRC, it
has been repeated with one leg in glass and one leg in gas and/or
vacuum; in all cases the result is consistent only with a fully dragged
aether (or relativity, of course).
Fizeau's result is consistent with a Fresnel aether which is partially
dragged along with the apparatus, but is inconsistent with an aether
which is not dragged at all or which is fully dragged with the
apparatus. (This the experiment in which light rays pass longitudinally
through a moving stream of water. Travel time went as predicted by the
SR composition of velocities formula; Fresnel aether shares that -- to
second order IIRC -- but other classical aethers don't.)
Sagnac effect with an evacuated apparatus is consistent with an
_undragged_ aether, but is inconsistent with an aether which is dragged
along with the apparatus. Sagnac effect with glass fibers is consistent
with a Fresnel aether which is partially dragged with the apparatus, but
is inconsistent with an undragged aether or with a fully dragged
aether. (It's fully consistent with relativity, of course.) By the
way, you can go out and buy an iFOG device which will sit on your desk
and demonstrate the Sagnac effect using glass fibers. The other
experiments here are a bit too complex to do in the typical home laboratory.
This set of experiments (along with some others I'm less familiar with)
"bracket" the territory in which aether theories can exist. In short,
any viable aether theory is constrained to produce the same
transformation equations as special relativity if it's to be consistent
with the experiments which have already been done. There is such a
theory; it's typically referred to as Lorentz Ether Theory or LET, and
AFAIK its predictions are indistinguishable from those of special
relativity. So, since it's basically the same theory as SR but it adds
an undetectable aether without measurable properties along with some
very strange assertions about how things behave (in order to arrive at
Fitzgerald contraction and time dilation, which must, of course, be part
of it) it doesn't have a lot of currency save among diehard aether
"believers".
I hope this is of some help. (In any case, I should probably apologize
at this point because I'm quite sure I have gone 'way over the line in
violating the charter of the group with this post...)
3. "Electronium"...I understand that positronium is supposed to be a
bound state of a positron and an electron which is very unstable.
What then is electronium? Two electrons and a positron, yielding a
"thing" with mass of 3e(or p) and a net charge of -1? Evidence for
this thing please? I seem to recall an experiment involving playing
with the vertical drive coils of a small TV, and looking for a less
deflected lineon the phosphor screen which would correspond to
something with an electron's charge but higher mass. I recall also
that nothing was found. If positrons are in it, the only thing I can
think of is maybe doping the cathode with something that emits
positrons is relatively high quantities. But who knows.
4. What John has been asking, I believe is basically this. Has anyone
doing these cold fusion/electrolysis experiments been taking into
account evolved H and O (either in atomic or molecular form) and
figuring it into net energy output either by
1. Volume of gas evolved 2. Total mass of gas evolved 3. Heat
produced by burning this nicely volatile mixture
Yes, if I understand your question, that's absolutely been done, many times.
In fact, the more recent experiments (like, during the last 20 years...)
typically recombine the H and O and include the heat of recombination in
the measured energy budget. Open-cell experiments in which the H and O
are just vented to the atmosphere are the exception; among other things
it makes it very hard to figure out what the net energy balance really was.
There's a lot of platinum in a typical CF experiment...
It's worth pointing out that CF is _not_ "crank science" in any sense of
the term. It's still hard to reproduce it on demand and it still hasn't
been accepted by a lot of the mainstream but it's nowhere near the
category of orgone accumulators and permanent-magnet "free energy" motors.
John, anything else to add here please?
I will say this in closing, John is a very smart guy and he knows his
stuff...anyone who has actually spoken with him for any length of
time will appreciate this. Don't dismiss him so readily, he has
important things to say. Granted, maybe his method of posting is a
little at right angles to the way we normally post, but as Maxwell
might well remind us, sometimes right angles are pretty damned
important.
Regards, --Kyle
