Kyle, you do cool stuff. Your posts about stuff you've done are always interesting, sometimes fascinating, often extremely entertaining. Don't think nobody's interested, just because there are not a lot of comments! (Politics is easier to comment on than experimental results, by the way.)
But when you mix politics with experiment with theory I, for one, kind of lose interest. And there are some other issues here. Kyle Mcallister wrote: > V, > > Since there's apparently little to no interest in > learning what I found re: the Morton effect, What *you* do with it is interesting, because you do interesting experiments. If you find anything out about it -- even if you just replicate some of his results -- and you post them, I'll certainly read what you post with interest. However, I, personally, find the original Morton effect, as written up on the Web by Morton, not worth a lot of thought, and here's why: Here's the page I found, by Morton himself: http://amasci.com/freenrg/morton1.html And here's a quote: [Morton wrote:] > SO I tried several experiments in which uncharged bodies were > accelerated at low velocity. sure enough, accelerating ball and tops > attract each other while decelerating bodies repel. So Morton says that *his* experiments indicate that for the last 300 years physicists have been totally confused: Newtonian mechanics flat out doesn't work for bodies which are accelerating ... and until Morton came along, nobody noticed. I'm pathologically skeptical about just a few things, but this hits dead center as far as I'm concerned. If Morton's experiments indicate that accelerating bodies violate Newton's laws really badly (and at low velocities, too) then I write it up to Morton having crummy lab technique and I move on. I don't know what caused the effects he observed with spinning tops and I'm not willing to spend the time to find out. On the other hand, if *you* want to test his claims, I'm interested in reading about what you've done; your writeups are nearly always worth reading and you are apparently an honest experimenter, who is not bending the results to fit some theory. But don't expect a lot of comments about proposed experiments or preliminary results, from me at least, because, as I said, I'm convinced Morton's all wet before the gate even opens. > or what > I've done/am doing with Laithwaite's inertial > propulsion work, Inertial propulsion is another instance where for it to be correct, Newton and all who followed must have been wrong, confused, stupid, or dishonest. This is very, very hard to believe. Far easier to believe is that Laithwaite was (fill in the blank) and his results are incorrect. So, if you want to test it, by all means write up the results, they'll be interesting to read. If *you* get a contradictory or impossible result, it'll be very interesting to read the description of the experiment and try to figure out what led to the result, because you are an honest experimenter (or so I believe), and by the way I'd believe you before I'd believe a British eccentric with a batso theory whether or not he's got a PhD. > or discussing faster than light > travel, implications thereof (resistance to in > sci-community/effects and/or testability of > alternatives to SR/evidence supporting/etc.), > constructing a simple LENR heater (still I maintain, > we should try), Yes, for sure, someone should try it; if you can see a way to convert the low grade heat generated by all CF experiments to date into useable energy output that would be *extremely* interesting. If you can't see a way to get a useful result from CF as it stands, though, then more fundamental work is needed. > and so forth, here's a bone to chew > on. I tried getting away from this, but I felt that > since the experiment has apparently died, maybe > something else is wanted. > > You called me crazy when I said, Obama ... Now there you go again, mixing in politics. I have just one thing to say about this: Obama's currently in the "honeymoon" period of his presidency, and seems to be trying to push through all the controversial programs he can before the first blush wears off. And, after all, Great Society-type programs, such as happened under Roosevelt and Johnson, didn't ruin the country or turn it Communist in the past, and I'm sure they won't now, either. So, don't sweat it too much -- the first blush *will* wear off, and what actually turns into law a year or two down the road may or may not match what's intended by Obama today. However, there is something which you *should* find disturbing: The one time Johnson actually ran for president (after Kennedy was assassinated and Johnson's partial term ran out) he ran on an anti-war platform. Think about that. And think about what Johnson actually did in the following 4 years. And think about Afghanistan. Personally I am rather fearful for the future course of events over there. It does not look good, not at all...
