1995.05.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 23:38:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
>I don't know. If it is, that might be a way out. Anything to get away 
>from this nuthouse and still have a place for discussing fusion, hot & cold. 
 
People set up WWW pages and these private automatic mailing list things
all the time. I am a member of several of them. I honestly do not know
how you go about doing it, but I gather it just takes a few unix commands
and bingo! -- you have a private, closed discussion group. Completely
moderated. I strongly encourage you to do that. Stop posting these inane
insults here about what a nuthouse this is. Just go! If it is such a
nuthouse, then why do you bother to read it at all? There are already
several private WWW discussion groups, including Logajan's. That's one of
these things that anyone can read but only he can post to, so he puts
contributions that come to him via ordinary e-mail.
 
I strongly encourage all "skeptics" to shut up. Go start your own private
moderated group, and write all the insults you like. This one should be
left open. Perhaps, if the insults and the inane attacks from people like
Blue stop, some real scientists will come here and post real results. The
problem now is that when anyone says anything, idiots like you and Blue
come along and say things like "I'll bet that Cravens never even considered
water friction until he got together with Hagelstein at ICCF5." That kind
of crap adds absolutely nothing to the conversation, and besides, anyone
who knows Cravens knows that he takes care of problems like that six ways
from seven. It is not for nothing that Martin F. nominated Cravens "Best
In Conference" at ICCF4. He knows more calorimetry than all of you
so-called "skeptics" combined.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 / A Plutonium /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math
Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
Date: 20 May 1995 03:30:33 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article
<Pine.SGI.3.91.950518162822.9181B-100000@cv4.chem.purdue.edu>
Lev Gorenstein <lev@chem.purdue.edu> writes:

> >   And, the Dartmouth College newspaper has a pretty front page photo of
> > me celebrating Plutonium Day, 7Nov a few years ago. 
> 
> Oh, no, not that date!  This date is spoiled...  This was one of 2 major
> political hollidays in Communist Russia - the Revolution day back in
> 1917...  Nice neighbourhood.

 From the Internet I learned this also. A Russian background person
posted this fact. And since the PU Atom Whole and the Bell Inequality
dictate that superdeterminism is the modus operandi, there must be more
meaning and significance as to why 7Nov. Why for Earth did it have to
be 7Nov and 1990. Superdeterminism if you understand it means there are
no coincidences, no randomness, no chaos, everything is done exactly
and precisely. To picture superdeterminism, my favorite example is the
log spiral because it is perfect, perfect in constant angularity and
size. 
   And this is what I think our Maker 231PU the electron observable sky
looks like if we could get out of the universe and look back. Clearly,
the conservation of energy/mass if violated because a log spiral is
open ended and thus growing.
    But, not to stray too far afield, I beleive there will be more
connection to the PU Atom Totality Whole theory in the future. Perhaps
Russia will be the first to discover and confirm the existence or
nonexistence of 231Pu isotope say at Dubna. I say nonexistence because
even though 231Pu is boxed in by 230Pu and 232Pu, since the Atom Whole
is 231Pu, it may be that because of this specialness over all other
atoms, that we are prevented from ever making or discovering 231Pu.
Perhaps all other isotopes will be capable of being manufactured except
for 231Pu. And perhaps Russia will be the key player in this discovery.
Russia already was the key player in discovering Spontaneous Fission,
and it is the spontaneous fission rate of 231Pu that I had speculated
matches exactly the age of our observable universe and will determine
when the next Atom Totality of element 95 comes into existence with
their 95th electron observable universe. Perhaps it is the most
advanced life form which nucleosynthesis element 180 to make Atom
Totality 95 that as a benefit gets to be carried over into that next
Atom Whole? I do not know and all of that is just mostly my
imagination. But this much I am certain. If our observable night sky is
just the 93rd and 94th electron, then I know the 94 Protons in the
Nucleus of 231PU most be far more advanced in detail that is
exponentially beyond our imagination and the strong force of Protons
must be something which our science conceived from inside an electron
is at a disadvantage.  To put it in street language, heaven is the 94
Protons, something we can only imagine and dream about, knowing that we
are stuck inside the 93rd and 94th electrons.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 / Sandra Russell /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: srussell@ix.netcom.com (Sandra Russell)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 20 May 1995 04:20:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <jkondis.800866797@orion.oac.uci.edu> jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John 
Kondis) writes: 

>
>srussell@ix.netcom.com (Sandra Russell) writes:
>[...]
>>Of course a photon's mass depends on the observer.  That is why the 
mass 
>>of one photon is undefined.  The mass of any TWO photons (traveling in 
>>different directions) is invarient.  That's what the standard model of 
>>physics holds, at any rate.
>
>Steve (or Sandra), shouldn't you have said "opposite" directions?
>
>...John [nitpicking again]
>  _____    
> |     |    _____    "Come on!  Jesus needs a new pair of shoes!!!"
> |  O  |   |O   O|                  -- God (playing dice with the 
Universe)
> |     |   |O   O|   
>  ~~~~~    |O   O|   John P. Kondis        UC Irvine        
jkondis@uci.edu
>            ~~~~~
>
>
>

Nope, just any two different directions.  The invarient formula for 
their mass is a function of the sine of the angle between them (wish I 
could quote the thing at the moment, but don't have it.  Can get it if 
important to you).

                                  STeve Harris


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensrussell cudfnSandra cudlnRussell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 / Larry Adams /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: Larry Adams <laradex@cruzio.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 06:27:10 GMT
Organization: Cruzio Community Networking System, Santa Cruz, CA

vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) wrote:
>
> ** If you consider a photon under doppler conditions, it changes frequency.
> 
> Since each element of frequency is a quantum that has mass (7 x 10^-48 gr)
> the mass of the photon changes, i.e., is variable because the size of the 
> aggregate changes. THE MASS OF THE QUANTUM (singular) IS INVARIANT.
> 
> Now let's say you have changed the mass of a photon several times by
> varying the relative velocity of the observer, and let's say that for
> the last few seconds that relative velocity has not changed. The photon
> then has a certain frequency and mass -- its moving mass.
> 
> Should the photon then be absorbed, its moving mass and its rest mass
> are the same.

Is this right? A single quantum has an invariant mass. As quanta
multiply, the mass multiplies. The frequency of a photon corresponds
to its mass, which is variable. The mass that a photon "sees" in its
proper frame (at rest with respect to itself) is its rest mass. In
our frame, this is its moving mass. The two are the same.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlaradex cudfnLarry cudlnAdams cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
Date: 20 May 1995 15:40:45 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: There are already several private WWW discussion groups, including Logajan's.
: That's one of these things that anyone can read but only he can post to, so
: he puts contributions that come to him via ordinary e-mail.

Bill Page has the ICCF5 discussion group.  I just put up odds and ends
at my www home page that I find interesting or amusing.  As an "editor"
of my own www page, I am a totalitarian dictator.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 / A Plutonium /  THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE, review of episode 13 and 14
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE, review of episode 13 and 14
Date: 20 May 1995 16:28:01 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

Saw episode 13 Conservation of Energy and 14 Potential Energy on 19May.
The Plutonium Atom Foundation owns laser discs of this series. And even
with all the flaws in these series, it is still the best movie or work
of art ever produced. If you were stranded on say the moon or another
planet and could only have only one movie for entertainment, this
series is it.

One of the flaws of The Mechanical Universe is that it spends far too
much time on Einstein, knowing that Einstein was a mere lightweight
compared to say Bohr or Dirac. Another mistake is when the professor
says that Evolution theory is a fact, a science fact. Another chain of
mistakes are the utter worship of the conservation laws of energy/mass
and momentum and angular momentum. With the Atom Totality Whole theory
all the conservation laws are fakery, just phony baloney. Cold fusion
experimentation and cosmic gamma-rays are first proofs that the
universe creates energy from out of nowhere. That is how the universe
grows. 

No, the conservation laws are mere algorithms and the old fogey physics
professors spend far far too much time worshipping and praying to these
juju totems. And they spend alot of time brainwashing young students to
make future totem worshippers.


 The episode on Potential Energy started out with a discussion on Roger
Boscovich.  I wonder how Roger's idea fits into a Plutonium Atom
Totality Whole where our night sky is the space and mass of the 93rd
and 94th electron?
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 / R R /  Re: s.p.f. caught in cross-posting anomaly???
     
Originally-From: "R.R. Butte" <rrb@locus.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: s.p.f. caught in cross-posting anomaly???
Date: 20 May 1995 19:34:24 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation

little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote:
>Look at the latest several "Farce of Physics" posts in s.p.f.
>
>Do you see s.p.f listed among the newsgroups at the top?
>
>I don't.
>
>What's going on?
Scott,
	I see it in my newsreader...

	-Raymond

-	Less heat, more light.		
--
rrb@locus.com

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrrb cudfnR cudlnR cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 / A Plutonium /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math
Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
Date: 20 May 1995 19:26:03 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3pjnop$9ui@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>  Perhaps it is the most
> advanced life form which nucleosynthesis element 180 to make Atom
> Totality 95 that as a benefit gets to be carried over into that next
> Atom Whole?

  I made a mistake above. Not element 180 for that in spontaneous
fission would yield only two atoms of element 90. I meant to say
element 190 because in spontaneous fission that would create two atoms
of element 95, one being the next Atom Totality Whole and the other
atom inside the newer Atom Totality Whole.
   	The PU theory predicts the following. THE TOTALITY IS ONE ATOM OF
PLUTONIUM, ISOTOPE 231@94. EXISTING WITH TOTALITY-PARTS DUALITY. 
MAKING NEWER ATOM PARTS MOSTLY VIA RADIOACTIVITIES OF SPONTANEOUS
NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION. WHEN AT A SUCCESSIVE QUANTUM DEVELOPMENT most
likely an advanced life form for that is the purpose of all life, to
make the elements beyond Pu. WHERE THE MATERIALIZATION OF AN ATOM 
468@190 OCCURS, THEN THE TOTALITY WILL SPONTANEOUSLY FISSION INTO THE
NEXT ATOM TOTALITY OF Element 95 Atom Totality Whole. 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 20 May 1995 16:57:29 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

The "The Farce of Physics" thread that I started November 1994 plus several
short related threads has now reached a total of 424 posts by 173 people in 14
newsgroups that have shown an interest in it by postings, correspondence, book
requests, etc.  The thread is devoted to the topics, information, and
arguments in my free general interest electronic book by the same name, as
well as related current information and arguments discussing the problems in
modern physics.
   My book is now archived in many Internet libraries and can be found by
using Gopher and World Wide Web and will be available from Project Gutenberg
archives and on their CDROM's.  The free standard 311KB ASCII version can be
obtained by anonymous ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory
/pub/books/wallace by using "get farce.txt".  The file in the directory is in
a compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the
system will send you the uncompressed text.  If you use a graphics interface
to ftp the book, like that used by America Online, you may get a file called
farce.txt that is still in a compressed form.  You can ftp a software package
for the PC called gzip124.zip from ftp.aol.com in the directory
/pub/compress/ibmpc that will uncompress the book after you rename it
farce.gz.  Unix computer systems have a command called "gunzip" that will also
uncompress the .gz format.  You can also ftp the book in an uncompressed form
from my Internet service provider at ftp.intnet.net in the directory
/pub/BOOKS/Wallace in which I plan to add GIF picture files of events and
people in the book as well as WordPerfect 5.1 computer files with enclosed
graphics of reprints of papers I've published over the years.  If you have
email but not ftp I can send a copy of the book by email and if there is a
size limit on your system, I can send it in segments with the largest being
55KB for Chapter 3.  If you don't have access to the Internet but have a
computer with a modem, you can download the book from the Bulletin Board
"SIRIUS CONNECTION" in Ontario Canada.  The V.32 bis to 14.4K baud data phone
lines are 705-737-0728 and 705-737-3030 and you log in as a new user using
ANSI or RIP graphics, then log to the BROWSE file library and download the
file FARCE.TXT.  The stats from EU Net show a peek of 2013 copies sent by ftp
November 1994 and I've sent out at least 6000 copies of the book by email over
the past few years.  There are no restrictions on anyone making electronic or
paper copies of my book, and there are thousands of people who have copies, so
if you can't get the book by modem or the Internet, you should be able to find
someone who will make a computer disk copy or a paper printout of the book.  A
paperback non-profit version of the book for about $5.95 plus postage and
handling should soon be available from the publisher and I will post
information on it on this thread when I have it.  The current plan is to
publish up to one million copies of the first edition if there is enough
demand for it.  The HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the book is
available via:

URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html

   Chapter 6 of my book is titled "Relativity Revolution" and is devoted in
large measure to my participation in the March 1989 First International
Conference "Problem of Space and Time in Natural Science", and the Second
Conference in September 1991 in St. Petersburg Russia.  Neil Munch was a
participant in the Third Conference held May 1994 and is the Western contact
for information and application forms for the Forth Conference to be held in
the Fall of 1996.  You can reach Neil at his email address:

70047.2123@compuserve.com

Bryan

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 20 May 1995 17:20:09 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.


Karl Krieger (kak@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes:

: >Mathematics is a language.  It can't form the foundation of a legitimate 
: >scientific theory.  I find your arguments a pompous pretentious array of 
: >pathological arguments.

: >Bryan

: And what else should we use as a foundation of scientific theories?
: We haven't yet developed a means of communicating to each other without
: a language. Do you mean telepathy?
: Any language exact enough for describing natural pheonmena will have
: a corresponding mathematical formulation.

: Karl Krieger
: -- 
: IPP, PO Box 1533 | Phone: +49-89-3299-1655 | E-Mail:
: D-85740 Garching | FAX  : +49-89-3299-2591 | kak@ipp-garching.mpg.de

Werner Heisenberg on page 39 of the March 1976 issue of Physics Today 
presents the argument that without mass dynamics all you have is "a 
verbal description of the table of data".

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 20 May 1995 17:28:22 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.


David Tyler (tyler@ug1.plk.af.mil) wrote:
: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes:

: >Eleaticus (ThnkTank@cris.com) wrote:
: >: In article <conrad.800465657@skid.ps.uci.edu>,
: >: conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu (Conrad) wrote:
: >: > wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes:
: >: > >As I've pointed out in my book and in posts to this thread they actually 
: >: > >are basing their work on "Newtonian light time" and extinction caused by 
: >: > >electron interaction with photons.  

: >: > Your claim is simply not true.  I do not accept your conspiracy theory
: >: > that implies that JPL scientists and engineers lie about their work.

: >: Please elaborate.  One would rather not be subject to 
: >: outright lies by anyone, especially someone like Bryan
: >: Wallace, so - for the benefit of all of us who have 
: >: been subject to that disinformation - how was it you
: >: have proved his claim is not true?

: >: I assume that either JPL personnel told you so, or
: >: maybe God told you so.

: >: Whichever, if it wasn't God - who isn't saying much
: >: these days to individuals or particular newsgroups -
: >: please give us at least a good paraphrase of the
: >: communication(s) and the source.

: >: And tell us their excuse^H^H^H^H^H^Hreasons for not
: >: taking the 30 seconds required to tell us differently,
: >: here on the net.

: >: We are all fortunate to have you on the net as an
: >: intermediary for the JPL.

: >: Thanking you in advance,

: >: I am yours as least as truly as you were ours
: >: when posting your resounding rebuttal of Wallace's
: >: lies.

: >JPL won't touch this with a 10 foot pole, that's why modern physics is a 
: >farce!

: isn't it a bit inconsistent that jpl would have no qualms about lying to
: people concerning their method and suddenly have an attack of morality
: about *denying* their lies..?

: dave

   In Chapter 4 of my book "The Farce of Physics" I explain that Theodore D.
Moyer of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory has published a paper that used c+v
calculations for the transit time of light in space.[36]  The key sentence is
on page 46 of his paper where he states:

     The "time tag" associated with each range observable is the known
  reception time t3(TAI).

The +v and -v relative velocity terms cancel for the distance to the planet in
the Newtonian c+v particle theory of light in space when the radar or radio
signal are received by the observing station.  This allows the radio
astronomers to use the Newtonian model to calculate the distance at the known
reception time, and yet present the illusion that they are using the Einstein
relativity theory c constant speed of light model.  Moyer states in the
referenced paper:

  The first term on the right-hand side is the Newtonian light time.

In my current edition of the 1993-1994 DIRECTORY OF PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY
STAFF that I receive free every two years as a member of The American Physical
Society, Moyer is no longer listed as a member of JPL.  I wonder if his no
longer being at JPL had anything to do with his use of the term "Newtonian
light time"!  E. M. Standish Jr., who I also mentioned in my book, is still
listed as a member of JPL.  I sent him a copy of my book by email in 1993, and
he has yet to comment on it!  Irwin I. Shapiro was also sent a copy of the
book and has had no comment on it to date!  On page 34 of his paper Moyer
wrote:

     The following describes briefly the range and Doppler observables of the
  Deep Space Network (DSN) of the National Aeronautics and Space
  Administration.  An electromagnetic signal is transmitted at a tracking
  station on Earth, received at the spacecraft and retransmitted, and
  received at the same or different tracking station on Earth.

In the case of a radar reflection from a planet we have a two-way range
observable experiment.  In the above case, we can have the transmission of a
radio signal to a spacecraft and then its retransmission by the craft, for two
one-way range observable experiments.  This would allow the evaluation of the
Earth's motion through the ether/space/vacuum if the wave model of light is
correct!  The spacecraft can even transmit back at two or more frequencies,
allowing evaluation of the extinction of the primary radiation and its
replacement by secondary radiation scattered in the forward direction by the
electrons of the medium.  The one-way transmissions from the craft can even be
directed by the on-board clock and computer for even more elaborate
experiments.  The original Venus radar data was supposed to be accurate to
within 1.5 km and the current radio to spacecraft data is reported to be
accurate to within 1.5 m, an increase in accuracy by a factor of 1000 times. 
The Earth's rotation would cause a maximum difference in calculated distance
between the two theories of 260 km for the radar observations when Venus is at
its closest point, while a spacecraft orbiting Venus in a low circular orbit
as indicated by its radar altimeter would have a maximum difference in
calculated distance of about 4680 km. This would provide a dramatic
demonstration of whether the c constant velocity or the c+v variable velocity
of light model, or a variation of either model, is the correct theory.  The
wrong theory would show the craft was in a highly elliptical orbit, while the
correct theory would show it to be in its proper circular orbit.  The data
already exists, our Magellan spacecraft has orbited Venus in a low nearly
circular orbit and the data is being used for measurement of a high-resolution
global gravity field of the planet.  The major reason for writing my book and
distributing it free on the Internet as well continuing this thread, is to try
and force an investigation of the speed of light in space coverup so physics
can advance from being a farce, to becoming a legitimate scientific
discipline!

Bryan

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 20 May 1995 17:33:55 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.


Kennel (mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov) wrote:
: Bryan Wallace (wallaceb@news.IntNet.net) wrote:

: > As I pointed out in my book, the Council of the APS argued the 
: > Creationism is not a scientific theory because it can not be tested.  If 
: > the people that *believe* in GR take the position that it can not be 
: > tested by an objective comparison of alternative theories, they are no 
: > more legitimates scientists than the Creationist!

: People who *believe* in GR take the position that it can be tested
: experimentally, and it has been, and it has passed the tests.

: The fact that it was the first Lorentz invariant gravitation theory with
: a totally unexpected  beautiful mathematical structure, developed by one 
: person before any experimental evidence was in makes it an exceedingly 
: rare and astonishing accomplishment.  

: Experimental evidence for GR:

: 	1) Anomalous precession of Mercury
: 	2) Anomalous aberration of starlight during that famous eclipse
: 	3) Expanding universe
: 	4) Gravitational redshift detected by Mossbauer experiments (on
: 	   Earth!) 
: 	5) Observation of astronomical gravitational lensing
: 	6) Prediction and observation of pulsar spindown due to 
: 	   graviational radiation.  (A recent Nobel, btw).
: 	7) Commercial success of GPS system which uses GR corrections.

: If you ask people who really do know something about gravitation I'm
: sure you'd get a whole lot more.
: 	
: > Bryan

: cheers
: matt

   I would like to quote from a recent article on the subject.  The article
was by Ivars Peterson and was titled "A New Gravity?  Challenging Einstein's
general theory of relativity."  The article was published in the December 3,
1994 Volume 146 issue of SCIENCE NEWS and starts on page 146.  The following
material was taken from the article:

  ...
     Einstein rejected the Newtonian view that masses somehow produce a force
  that permeates the surrounding space and influences the motion of any
  bodies within range.  He interpreted gravity as the curvature of space and
  time itself, with bodies traveling along the "straightest" possible paths
  through the dimpled spacetime continuum associated with the presence of
  masses and energy.  Heavier bodies would simply create larger dimples and
  greater curvatures.

     Now, the Cavendish experiment has a new role in elucidating a possible
  shortcoming of general relativity as formulated by Einstein.
     Einstein's theory fails the Cavendish experiment, insists Huseyin Yilmaz
  of the Electro-Optics Technology Center at Tufts University in Medford,
  Mass., and Hamamatsu Photonics in Hamamatsu City, Japan.  In other words,
  the equations of general relativity have no solutions in which two bodies
  of finite size actually attract each other.
     "Thus, strictly speaking, according to general relativity, and apple
  detached from its branch would not fall to the ground," Yilmaz declares.
     It's a startling and highly controversial assertion.
     "Many people realize that there's something wrong--that general
  relativity doesn't have the physics in it that one thinks," says physicist
  Carroll O. Alley of the University of Maryland at College Park, who has
  been working with Yilmaz. ...
     They have also been trying to get the attention of their colleagues,
  with limited success so far.  Yilmaz and Alley presented papers describing
  their ideas at a meeting on fundamental problems in quantum theory,
  organized by the New York Academy of Sciences and held last June at the
  University of Maryland, Baltimore County.  Additional papers will appear in
  "Frontiers of Fundamental Physics (Plenum, 1994).
     A few people have been sympathetic.  "General relativity has many
  mysteries," says Willis E. Lamb of the University of Arizona in Tucson. 
  "Einstein certainly could have done things differently.  What Yilmaz is
  trying to do seems quite plausible."
     "These are not matters that can just be brushed away," Alley contends. 
  "These are serious considerations." ...


     The Einstein equations are notoriously difficult to solve, not only
  because there are 10 of them, in contrast to the single equation of
  Newtonian gravitation, but also because they are nonlinear.  In other
  words, the gravitational effect, or potential, of a pair of masses isn't
  simply the sum of the individual gravitational potentials.
     Moreover, these potentials depend on energy and momentum flow.  This
  flow, in turn, is determined by the spacetime curvature, which is set by
  the potentials.  "Spacetime grips mass, telling it how to move; and mass
  grips spacetime, telling it how to curve," says John A. Wheeler of
  Princeton University.
     The circularity embedded in general relativity adds to the formidable
  challenge of solving the Einstein equations.  Where they can't solve the
  equations directly, theorists often resort to special mathematical
  strategies to approximate the equations and obtain particular solutions.
     Introduced in 1915 by Einstein, general relativity proved immensely
  appealing to physicists, despite its complexities and the horrendous
  difficulties of solving the equations for realistic situations involving
  more than one body. ... For example, it's clear that general relativity, in
  its present form, is incompatible with quantum mechanics. ...
     As a challenge to the relativity community, Yilmaz and Alley have
  proposed a setting in which they claim general relativity fails to show
  attraction between two bodies.  The problem they consider is the
  gravitational interaction between two nearby slabs of matter -- two
  parallel plates, each with an area much greater than its thickness --
  separated by a vacuum.
     In this case, the geometry is simple enough to allow a solution in
  general relativity.  Calculations by Yilmaz and Alley indicate that the
  slabs don't attract each other.  They remain stationary, staying right
  where they started. ...

  ... Alley and Yilmaz contend that general relativity seems to work because
  researchers must use approximations to solve the Einstein equations, and
  they incorporate within these approximations extra information not
  contained in the theory itself. ...
     General relativity plays a key role in the operation of the Global
  Positioning System (GPS), the array of satellites operated by the U.S. Air
  Force for military and civilian navigation. ... Indeed, small unexpected
  discrepancies continue to plague the operation of the GPS. ...

     But general relativity is an awesome, gigantic beast.
     Although students now routinely encounter general relativity in college
  courses, many issues remain in the domain of specialists.  Understanding
  the subtleties and intricacies of particular aspects of general relativity
  requires extensive study and attention to detail.  Extracting physical
  meaning out of the tangled mathematics is also a tricky proposition.
     Thus, it isn't easy for any one person to grasp the full theory in all
  its details.  Relativists often specialize, developing a distinctive
  viewpoint and becoming the leading authority on a particular aspect of the
  theory. ...
     "The predictions of [general relativity] are fixed; the theory contains
  no adjustable constants, so nothing can be changed," Will wrote in a Nov.
  9, 1990 SCIENCE article marking the 75th anniversary of general relativity. 
  "Thus every test of the theory is potentially a deadly test.  A verified
  discrepancy between observations and prediction would kill the theory, and
  another would have to be substituted in its place."

   In S. Chandrasekhar's article titled "Einstein and general relativity:
Historical perspectives"(Am.J.Phys.,47(3),212-1979) wrote:

  ... On this account, it would have been entirely sufficient to generalize
  the Newtonian theory to allow for such small departures which may arise
  from the finiteness of the velocity of light since we expect the Newtonian
  theory to be exact if the velocity of light could be considered as
  infinite. ...

Bryan

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 20 May 1995 17:39:04 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Sandra Russell (srussell@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <3pah2l$cgg@xcalibur.IntNet.net> wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan 
: Wallace) writes: 

:  Among papers at Norman
: >advocating the steady-state alternative to BB is one by Grote Reber, 
: the chief founder of radio astronomy.  (In 1937, Grote built the world's 
: first radio telescope, and then prepared the first map of cosmic radio 
: sources.)  A native of US, Reber will journey to Norman from his present 
: home in Tasmania, Australia.<<

:    How old IS this guy now?? He must be about ready for the big bang 
: himself...

: >   Although weaknesses in BB theory have been discussed in various 
: books and
: >journals (e.g., "Discover",Mar,'95), special relativity has been much 
: more
: >protected by editors and others from fundamental criticism.


: Give us a break!  It's probably the second best tested physical theory 
: on Earth.  Everytime they run the big accelerator at Fermilab, SR is 
: tested to within a gnat's posterior, otherwise the thing just would not 
: work.

: >>  Several speakers
: >at Norman will present arguments of its logical flaws and against 
: claims of
: >empirical support for it which involve faulty reasoning from the raw 
: data to
: >announced results.  For example, a common 'proof' of time dilation 
: (involving
: >lifetimes of mesons and pions) depends on the relativistic formula for 
: mass
: >variation, which in turn has never been unequivocally proven.  


: Again, if that change in momentum with velocity didn't happen, and 
: happen exactly according to Einstein, accelerators would not work. 

: An even more simple "proof" of time dilation observes that mu mesons 
: from cosmic rays interacting in the upper atmosphere cannot make it to 
: the surface of the Earth even at lightspeed, unless their natural 
: lifetime of 2.2 microseconds has been lengthened by some weird process. 
:  Any suggestions?

:    >>Two other speakers will show why atomic energy does not necessarily 
: depend on special relativity.<<

:    The energy E released is equal to deltaM * c^2 though, no matter what 
: theory you like (this is measured and known fact).  Relativity gives E = 
: mc^2 quite naturally.  You got another theory that does?

:                                    Steve Harris

   In Chapter 6 of my book "The Farce of Physics", I give the following
details of my talk before the March 1989 conference "The Problem of Space and
Time in Natural Science" held at Pulkovo Observatory near Leningrad in the
USSR:

     The following day was Wednesday, and my talk was the last one of the
  morning session and Svetlana served as the translator.  I used overhead
  projector slides for illustration and to help prompt me, since I did not
  have a prepared text, and the title of the talk was "The Problem of Space
  and Time in Modern Physics."  Robert's log with his notes on the lecture
  allowed me to create a written version which was to be published in the
  conference proceedings.  The talk was based on the arguments and
  information in my paper[71] "THE GREAT SPEED OF LIGHT IN SPACE COVERUP" and
  the followup paper[32] "SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM" which was in part a reply to
  I.Shapiro's reply[72] to the first paper.  One of the many interesting
  comments and questions that followed the talk, was where a participant
  asked me to summarize my opinions with regard to relativity theory.  I
  stated that the special relativity first postulate with regard to detection
  of translatory motion, was obviously false, and referenced Einstein's
  former research associate's argument in this regard.[73]  I went on to
  state that any reasonably objective physicist should realize that the
  ultimate test of the second postulate that the speed of light in space is
  constant, is to analyze the modern data on the transit times of light
  signals in the solar system, and this evidence shows beyond a shadow of a
  reasonable doubt that the postulate is also obviously false, and I cited my
  above arguments in this regard.  I also mentioned that the prominent
  British astronomer Dr. G. C. McVittie in both publication and
  correspondence has indicated that he has had the same sort of problem in
  trying to obtain meaningful information from Shapiro, and in a 1970 letter
  writes that the secrecy with which Shapiro surrounds his methods and his
  observational results makes him wonder whether there is something to be
  concealed.  In McVittie's paper, he points out the fact that:

    in the Einsteinian theory of gravitation, an exact solution for the
    gravitational field of a set of discrete bodies is possible only when one
    of the bodies is of finite mass whereas the rest are of infinitesimally
    small mass.  This is in contrast to the Newtonian theory of gravitation
    in which an exact solution for the field of two massive bodies is
    possible, complications arising only when three or more bodies are in
    question...[81]

  The fact that Moyer's equation (3) is the "Newtonian" approximation to the
  n-body metric, should be considered as evidence against Einstein's general
  relativity equivalence principle.[36]  On the other hand, Dr. J. C. Hafele
  and Dr. R. E. Keating have used commercial jet flights and atomic clocks to
  present convincing empirical evidence that tends to resolve the
  relativistic clock "paradox", and they found that the relativistic dilation
  of time was a function of the clock's speed relative to an absolute
  coordinate system at rest relative to the distant galaxies.[74]  I
  certainly have no problem with E=mc^2 since the atomic bomb is ample
  evidence that it is true.  So in general, much of relativity theory is
  true, but many of the original arguments are not.  The real problem with
  modern science is the lack of scientific objectivity and integrity on the
  part of many prominent scientists, they are little more than politicians,
  and are far more concerned with the advancement of their careers and
  status, then the advancement of science.  What is needed are true
  scientific journals that publish all arguments and evidence in a reasonable
  period of time and at a modest cost.  The peer review should take place
  after publication, and should involve all scientists, and not just a
  privileged few.  The key to the more rapid advancement of scientific
  knowledge, is a more efficient and democratic forum for communication.

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 / Sandra Russell /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: srussell@ix.netcom.com (Sandra Russell)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 20 May 1995 22:47:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom

Sorry, but I could not find much in your letter which was relevent to 
the question we were discussion, except that you said you had no problem 
with E = mc^2 (which is nice).  You also reject the idea that the speed 
of light is constant, but don't offer any reason for why we always 
measure it to be the the same value.  Do you think that light from a 
moving flashlight goes faster than light from a stopped one?  So how do 
you tell which is the moving one?  Do you think that particles 
accelerated to nearly lightspeed should behave differently in an 
accelerator which is moving in one direction (along the ring orthogonal 
axis) vs moving another direction (along a line in the ring plane)?  And 
so on?  How do you explain the Michaelson-Morely results?

                                                  Steve Harris
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensrussell cudfnSandra cudlnRussell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
Date: Sat, 20 May 95 18:57:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Steven Piet <RXFN56A@prodigy.com> writes:
 
>but I try to understand the broader range of possibilities.  My basic 
>judgment is that mother nature is a bitch and that fusion does not happen 
>easily or magically as P-F would have had us believe.
 
Your judgement is not based upon the experiments then, because they show
undeniable, replicated nuclear effects. See Amoco, SRI or KEK. Amoco did not
say "we think we might have something but we are not sure." They stated
boldly and unequivically that they have heat beyond the limits of chemistry
and tritium generated by the reaction.
 
You must not know about these experiments. You have wildly mischaractorized
them by saying they are "easy" and "magical." They are anything but easy!
They are terribly difficult. They do work, however. Your "judgement" as you
call it cannot change facts. People who measure 200 megajoules from 16 grams
of matter and helium-4 generation thousands of times above background know
for certain that they are seeing a nuclear effect (perhpas combined with
something even more exotic). Those are facts, your judgements and opinions
cannot alter them one iota.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: Sat, 20 May 95 22:04:57 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> writes:
 
>  The motors may typically have efficiencies (for their input power) of 
>about 93 +/- 5 % for some types.
 
The motor + pump used by Cravens in the travelling demo was extremely
innefficient. It was more 5% efficient than 95%. There is a reason for that,
which is rather complicated, involved, and not terribly important so I will
not describe it. What it boils down to is that this motor was easy to use
in the European power supplies and it is extremely precise. It got plenty
hot though; almost all the power going in came out as waste heat at the motor
(not the pump, which was several centimeters away from the motor.)
 
>Therefore you must include at least a few % thermal inefficiency and possible
>input unless the heat can exit out another port, or there other than direct
>coupling (e.g.. magnetic stirrer).  Was that the case here, John?
 
There can be no possible input from the pump or pump motor that could affect
the flow calorimetry. The motor and pump are well outside the cell section
of the loop. Any heat they add to the flow will be downstream, and constant.
That will be no different than the heat added by the overhead lights. There
was no magnetic stirrer or any other significant source of energy anywhere
near the cell. That was easily confirmed in the calibrations and start-up
procedures. The heat would not have turned on gradually if it was being
added by some other device like a stirrer. It would have been there the whole
time.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.21 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 04:41:27 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <D8v5xB.L5y@cruzio.com>, Larry Adams  <laradex@cruzio.com> wrote:
>vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) wrote:
>>
>> ** If you consider a photon under doppler conditions, it changes frequency.
>> 
>> Since each element of frequency is a quantum that has mass (7 x 10^-48 gr)
>> the mass of the photon changes, i.e., is variable because the size of the 
>> aggregate changes. THE MASS OF THE QUANTUM (singular) IS INVARIANT.
>> 
>> Now let's say you have changed the mass of a photon several times by
>> varying the relative velocity of the observer, and let's say that for
>> the last few seconds that relative velocity has not changed. The photon
>> then has a certain frequency and mass -- its moving mass.
>> 
>> Should the photon then be absorbed, its moving mass and its rest mass
>> are the same.
>
>Is this right? A single quantum has an invariant mass. As quanta
>multiply, the mass multiplies. The frequency of a photon corresponds
>to its mass, which is variable. The mass that a photon "sees" in its
>proper frame (at rest with respect to itself) is its rest mass. In
>our frame, this is its moving mass. The two are the same.

Hi Larry,

I'm not sure what your point or question is.

You speak of a photon's mass with respect to its own frame. Let's say it's
a green photon -- *emitted* as a green photon. That is a freq. of 
6 x 10^14. That is it has that many quanta.(call that number n)
The photon will have a mass n * m_q, i.e., 4.42 x 10^ -33 gr.

The mass of the photon * c^2 = 3.97 x 10^-12 erg (This is of the form mc^2.

This energy is also equal to h nu (or h n).

Now if the photon were sentient, it would observe its n to be invariable. 
But each and every observer having differing relative velocities w.r.t. 
the emitter, will observe a different n (i.e., freq.). That means a different
mass.

Whatever the mass is to a given observer, that will be its 'rest' mass if
adsorbed. 

I use 'rest' in single quotes because if speaking strictly we must say 
the mass of the photon added to the absorbing body.

Hope this helps.

Regards

V.V.     The Ugly Duckling

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun May 21 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
