Fran, I think this would require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Harry On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com > wrote: > Harry,**** > > I am ok with COE remaining a law but the “convention” that > HUP can never be tapped needs to be stricken. My point is that the random > forces normally cancelled in the macro world become organized by casimir > geometry and can provide an exploitable bias from zero point energy.**** > > Fran **** > > ** ** > > *From:* Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 2:48 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now! > **** > > ** ** > > It might be possible to develop "realistic" models which explain these > things if CoE is demoted from a law to a convention**** > > or should a law always take precedence over intelligibility > and experience? **** > > **** > > Harry **** > > ** ** > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> > wrote:**** > > So, out of all the erudite Vorts, no one can answer the following simple > questions: > > Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the proton from the > DOWN-spin quarks??? > > Why do... > "All spin directions collapse on one or the OPPOSITE direction depending > on > the measured photon polarization." ??? > > Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in > OPPOSITE > directions??? > > Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic > observations??? > > Why is the magnetic field PERPENDICULAR to the E-field??? > It's all related... > > -Mark (the reluctant hijackee) Iverson > >
