--- "Stephen A. Lawrence" <sa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> 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.)
Why?
> But when you mix politics with experiment with
> theory I, for one, kind
> of lose interest.
If politics makes interest be lost, why is Vortex the
slum of political and religious postings now?
> 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.
Nobody noticed what you could do with certain rocks,
either, if you put them together the right way.
Where'd that heat come from? Can't be right, all of
chemistry would be wrong. No, it was just something
else going on.
I don't think we're exactly talking about the same
Morton effect. I am not investigating his other
claims, which I myself, in a post that was probably
either misread or skimmed over, said were kind of
kooky. In my mind, the Morton effect is simply *the
report of a beam of some unknown force emanating from
the configured Van de Graff generator.* That is all I
tested. I don't know about anything else he did.
> 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.
Great. Fine. If you don't want to spend the time,
don't. But don't confuse what I'm doing. I am not
testing these parts of his claims, simply the 'effect'
itself, whatever it is, from the VdG. That's all I
ever claimed to be working on, period. I qualified
that quite a while back.
...You do know that pathological skepticism is
somewhat frowned on here, yes? WVORT.HTML and all
that?
> 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.
I try not to be biased. It is easy to do when looking
for something unusual, that would be good, when you
are a person who has so little hope any more that
whenever I do feel it, I try to grab ahold of it. It
isn't possible, it is a chasing after the wind.
> 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.
They need not have been wrong. Newtonian mechanics
still works until you reach velocities where
relativistic effects come into play. Then there are
modifications needed. Again, the Ohm's Law analogy.
Newton, et al., did experiments and saw things that
happened, so they built a theoretical framework around
it that works pretty well. That is not to say there is
not a hidden addition to the home's basic frame.
Just because something is hard to believe, does not
make it wrong. And from where I am sitting, the risk
to reward ratio is worthy of the pursuit.
> 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.
He didn't exactly have a theory. He based most of what
he did on experimentation, which admittedly could have
been misinterpreted. That is mostly what I'm trying to
do. And I'm not going to let any theory, new batso or
old batso, stand in the way of steel, bronze, copper,
and a heaping helping of angular momentum.
> 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.
Kay... for starters, can anyone say how much was the
best amount of heat produced, what the experiment was,
what is needed to do it, and so on?
> > You called me crazy when I said, Obama ...
>
> Now there you go again, mixing in politics.
Bad excuse, I know, but... everyone is doing it. Why
should I not?
> 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.
Someone has to be there to do a little damage control
during the feeding frenzy. Otherwise we end up with an
urchin barren after the blush wears off.
Some of this stuff is turning into law right now.
Within the past few days. So we can wait for this, and
let God knows what happen to the people themselves,
but we have to do something about possible
artificially induced global warming right now? When
faced with potential crises, one does not say, let's
see what happens. The new kid is wielding a blow torch
wildly. Do you take it? Not necessarily. But you might
want to say, "Gee Billy, kinda be careful with that,
huh?"
> Think about that. And think about what Johnson
> actually did in the
> following 4 years. And think about Afghanistan.
I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this, but
AFAICT, Obama is not anti-war. He says a lot. What he
may or may not do, is something else entirely. What he
says changes from day to day. And to be honest, it
isn't so much Obama I am worried about. It is the
three-ring-circus that is Congress. Both sides. There
was a ton of red behind the latest crap that has been
passed. This really is not democrat vs. republican. It
is far more basic than that. Live and let live, vs.,
those who wish to control all.
--Kyle
