Church of England (or possibly Conservation of Energy) On 18 June 2012 17:10, Harvey Norris <[email protected]> wrote:
> What does CoE stand for, I guess it means in a closed system? Thy symbols > dont match the words very well, so I cant find the meaning > > Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ > > --- On *Sun, 6/17/12, David Roberson <[email protected]>* wrote: > > > From: David Roberson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, June 17, 2012, 8:15 PM > > > 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 <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[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 > > >
