I’m probably sitting between 3 to 4, and here is why…
Empirical evidence for the existence of the zero-point field (ZPF) is now well established… what that means is that there is something present that we are only recently beginning to understand. The only important question relevant to this thread is then, can the ZPF interact with ‘normal matter’ (subatomic particles, atoms, molecules) and take part in transforming into a more common form of energy. If so, then any experiment that encounters anomalous energy balance (+ or -) would need to ask the question, could the experiment be triggering a conversion of ZPF energy to one of the ‘regular’ forms of energy (or vice-a-versa)? Last I checked, I couldn’t buy a ZPF meter from Fluke Instruments, so how does one know if the ZPF is being tapped? Also as far as I know, you can’t exclude all the ZPF from a region…. So you cannot say definitively that it isn’t a ZPF/matter interaction. Granted, given experiments which are within the normal range of things, anomalies are almost always error. But if the conditions of the experimental system are rare or extreme in some manner, and you get anomalous results, you have to take a serious look at the possibility of new physics; new interactions. I asked this all important question of Dr. Rueda (recently mentioned here) many years ago when we had lunch at Cal State Long Beach, “can the ZPF be converted into one of the ‘known’ forms of energy?”. His answer was, “A way to do that has not yet popped out from all my derivations and calculations, however, I also haven’t come across anything that would prevent it.” So basically he said that it is a possibility… however remote that might be. That is the cautious and non-scientifically dogmatic answer I would expect from a true scientist. I’d like to ask him that same question now that a decade has passed… For those not familiar with Haisch and Rueda, Bernie Haisch had a conceptual idea which he began discussing with Dr. Rueda, regarding inertia. Dr. Rueda calls him one night, like 2am, and says to Dr. Haisch, “I’ve just derived f=ma”… that became the 1994 paper which almost didn’t get published because one of the peer reviewers said, “I can’t find any errors in your mathematics, and the physics looks good, but it just can’t be!” How’s that for a scientific review… As long as humans are doing science, cognitive dissonance will slow our discovery of the unknown… -Mark From: David Roberson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 5:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... Mark, you ask the tough questions. When I consider the possibility of a new energy form I have to think of the historic past. We are notoriously incapable of imagining things such as this unless some well observed phenomenon is unknown and accepted as true. Anything our senses can not detect on demand generally gets put into the category of 'I will believe it when I see it'. This is true until these new things are well published and accepted within the scientific community. There are still many things being observed by ourselves and others on rare occasions that have not been explained. The UFO observations suggest some very strange physics and the same can be mentioned when spirit type issues arise. A strange new energy form might well be lurking within these subjects. I would have to say that I suspect that your number 2 would apply in my open mind state. It is not necessary to invoke a new energy form to explain LENR as far as I have seen at this point, but who knows what might arise. There are some very strange things still going on in our research results. The unknown variables are the things that make this field most interesting to creative folks like us. Dave -----Original Message----- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> To: vortex-l < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 7:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... I’m curious as to how fellow Vorts would answer this question… What are the chances that there is at least one undiscovered form of energy yet to be discovered? 0=No F*in Way 1=slight chance 2=reasonable chance 3=very good chance 4=I’m certain there are undiscovered forms of energy I had the opportunity to work with some competent scientists during grad school at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the Desert Research Institute… it was a wonderful experience, and I would occasionally drop in and chat with a few of the chemists and physicists. Often our conversations drifted to ‘fringe’ topics like LENR; most were quite open to the possibility, actually. One of the research chemists, Bill Finnegan, had a major gripe with the way they teach science… he asked me to grab a book off his shelf (it was a college text on Thermodynamics), asked me to open it to the Preface, and read it out loud (it was only two paragraphs)… I don’t remember the section verbatim, but the whole point he wanted me to learn was that there is a qualifying phrase which all the Laws of Thermodynamics BEGIN with… especially, the first and second (CoE and increasing Entropy)… that phrase is, “IN A CLOSED SYSTEM…” <you know the rest> Dr. Finnegan’s gripe was that all too often that simple, but all important, phrase was not emphasized enough to make it stick in students’ minds… it makes a big difference in their mentality once they get into actual research. And I will continue to remind this Collective of that all important fact… we know about and can easily measure various kinds of energy, but that does not mean that we are aware of and can measure ALL forms of energy. Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. The good scientists are always very careful with the wording they use, and ‘always’ and ‘never’ and ‘impossible’ are seldom if ever used by them; instead, they use phrases like ‘very unlikely’, or ‘highly improbable’. Those are the minds that were taught proper thermodynamics… improperly taught science slowly results in scientific dogma. -Mark
