1995.07.22 / Barry Merriman / Re: The dodo replies Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The dodo replies Date: 22 Jul 1995 22:18:55 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <9507211413.AA19630@pilot08.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes: > > Now in return let me say that your "I-DON'T-CARE-WHAT-MAKES-THEM- > GO" attitude puts you in a special class, too. Your one of > those classic "suckers" that get born every minute. You will buy > every bottle of snake oil offered to cure whatever ails you and > never ask any questions as to how it works. If it makes you > feel good, you will take it as directed - no questions ask. > > Enjoy, > Dick Blue Now, Dick, I think you are too hard on Jed. I mean, after all, he does leg work, does his own investigation of Griggs, etc. Thats all very good. Unfortunately, I fear his standards are not stringent enough, precisely because of the attitude you cite. If I had done Jed's set of experiments on the Griggs device, my conclusion would be that I had overlooked something, and to try harder. That is because I have some sense of how much accumulated physics (theory AND experiment) research backs up modern disciplines like nuclear physics, etc. Jed has no concern for this. In his mind, one thorough---by his standards---set of experiments by himself, plus the word from a few other novice investigators, is enough to overthrough the great bulk of doubts cast by the existing body of physics (which probably represents 100's of millions of man hours of prior investigations on related areas) (not to mention the obvious flaw in his particular steam experiments, i.e. an uncontrolled warm up phase...) But Jed will, undoubtedly learn his lesson, as Scott Little's experience with the Potapov device should suggest.... -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.23 / Tom Potter / Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro, ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Date: 23 Jul 1995 00:38:40 GMT Organization: Netcom In <1995Jul21.173138.20282@schbbs.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes: > >In article <806177135snz@microser.demon.co.uk>, >Ben Newsam wrote: >)bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com "Bronis Vidugiris" writes: >) >)> Tom Potter wrote: >) >)> )GR indicates that time and space are distorted by mass. >)> )I thnk this is wrong, and that time, space and mass >)> )are made of mind stuff, and the only physical reality is cycles. >)> >)> Oh-oh. "mind stuff??????" Not being a mind-body dualist, I don't >)> really belive in mind as a "stuff". This is something that doesn't >)> fit in with your "cycles", either. Where did this pop out of? >) >)I know what he means by "mind stuff". He means like poetry, music, or >)according to some, software. >) >)"We are such stuff >)As dreams are made on, and our little life >)Is rounded with a sleep." >)-The Tempest, Act IV, Scene 1 >) >)I think you know what he means really, don't you? > >Hmmm - OK, he could have meant that space was a human construct, >and that ascribing reality / onotological status to space was an error >of reification. Now that you mention it. (This sounds pretty >logical now that you mention it, didn't follow his meaning before though.) > >I'm not really convinced - I think the idea of nearness and distance has >a lot of merit and works in practice, and I don't see anyway to get these >concepts out of cycles. At least in a useful way. (If cycles are the >fundamental / ontological 'reality' then neighborhood and distance should >be able to be derived from them - possibly with some limitations >or aux. assumptions - IMO.) > >Once you have "neighborhood" you're well on your way to distance and >then to metrics, which is how GR works, of course. Ordinality or "neighborhood" comes about as follows: cycle(X) = the cycle being perceived or measured. cycle(reference) = the cycle used as a reference. cycle(background) = a long term, quasi-stable background cycle. ( ie. The cycle of the universe. ) cycle(reference) >> cycle(X) >> cycle(background) where >> means much greater than. time(X) = cycle(reference) / cycle(X) ordinality = cycle(X) / cycle(background) cudkeys: cuddy23 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.22 / A Siegman / Re: The dodo replies Originally-From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The dodo replies Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 18:10:33 -0800 Organization: Stanford University > But Jed will, undoubtedly learn his lesson, as Scott Little's > experience with the Potapov device should suggest.... Maybe. As someone said to me the other day, the old definition of a fanatic is "Someone who, once he's proved wrong, redoubles his efforts." cudkeys: cuddy22 cudensiegman cudfnA cudlnSiegman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.23 / Barry Merriman / Re: Mr. Richard Schultz - his eighth grade education at work Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Mr. Richard Schultz - his eighth grade education at work Date: 23 Jul 1995 01:03:13 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes: > Child-like individuals like Mr. Schultz -- who hide in wait > as trolls (quite a projection on his part) and post to interrupt > discussion, science, and communications -- > need never concern themselves with the truth apparently. > Hmm...as long as we are making character judgements: I seem to recall several individuals in this forum who repeatedly refer to all DOE scientists as wellfare cheats, stealing the tax payers money, as part of an enormous scam, not competent to even work as garbage collectors, and also that hot fusion is an utter failure, has not even the possibility of success, has made no progress whatsoever, has contributed nothing worthwhile at all, ect, etc. So, what judgment do you render about the progenitors of those statements? The product of rational, reasonable, adult minds? -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.22 / Bill Snyder / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci. stro,sci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics. usion,sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 16:54:30 GMT Organization: Internet America In message <-2107951923340001@ip-salem2-12.teleport.com>, (Charles Cagle) wrote: >Dear (Dr., Mr.) Cook, >You wrote: >In article , A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk wrote: >> science is a religion and truth is knowable, hmmm? >> could you tell us all just which parts of science are true >> and which are just good approximations? >Sure. Experimental facts are true while interpretations of those facts >may not even be a good approximation. Uh, huh. That's why N-Rays are such an important tool of science today, and Blondlot is revered, while the clueless buttheads who interpreted his results as gross experimental error are justly forgotten. Now pull the other one, it's got bells on. -- -- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ] cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.21 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: Hypothesis to explain cold fusion in metals Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Hypothesis to explain cold fusion in metals Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 13:38 -0500 (EST) -> My nuclear physics is not as strong as some, however I think the time scale -> will be very closely related to the inverse of the energy release divided by -> the mass of the partical. In other words the lighter the atom the faster it -> will happen and the more the energy the faster it will happen. This in -> terms of macroscopic groups of particals would be called the enthalpy of the -> system. I agree this seems logical. However it still does not give us a time scale yardstick for events which are claimed to occur in 1E-40 second. -> One thing you said strikes me as a bit silly, -> -> "are wanting to "prove" cold fusion through the existance of gammas and -> neutrons, or you want to provide CF to the masses without deadly radiation." -> -> I am a working engineer. (mechanical, consulting, mainly in the -> petrochemical and offshore/marine industry.) I regulerly have to deal with -> murphys law as it relates to human enterprises. Marshall, the universe (or -> god take your pick) doesn't give a rats behind whether or not physical laws -> are convenient to an engineer, scientist, inventor or designer. They are as -> complex or simple as they are. If the universe has an attitude with respect -> to us it is; 1)the rules are the rules, 2) you have to figure them out for -> yourself. You misunderstood my statement. I said that it appears that the claimed fusions do not seem to produce gammas (and maybe not neutrons). One person may say this is unfortunate, if he is wanting to use these particles to prove the existance of fusion, while another may say it is fortunate since it would mean that energy can be produced without deadly levels of radiation. All I was saying is that whether a person views this a fortunate or unfortunate depends on what they are looking for. This is true of other energy generation methods as well. Hydroelectric could be viewed as unfortunate it covers so much good farmland, but others, like me, consider it fortunate it makes dandy lakes for me to boat and ski on. Burning coal unfortunately produces sulfur pollution, unless of course you are buring coal specifically to make sulfuric acid. -> I truly do hope that you can figure out a workable, correct theory that will -> allow people to have cheap, clean energy. That is why I made the two posts -> regarding your theory. I was trying to give you constructive criticisam. I -> think that you may note that I do not belittle you or your theory. It is my -> experiance that all theorists can have difficulty with understanding the -> above concept. Even full professors, deans and chairmen of departments. -> I was in graduate school during the summer of 1990, and spent it at UU. I -> met several people who conviced me that He4 was seen in some of the -> experiments. I'm less sure now that several experimenters have retracted -> their claims of He4 production. Calorimitry is a kind of mesurement that is -> easy to screw up. But being able to show traces of an element in a mass -> spectrometer is much less ambiguious. I did a lot of experimental work in -> graduate school mainly associated with heat and mass transfer. So I think I -> have some right to my opinions. Thank you for your messages. If there are some holes in the theory that make it unworkable I certainly would want to know it now instead after spending more time on it. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy21 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.22 / Paul Koloc / Re: New Gravitational force Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: New Gravitational force Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 07:14:54 GMT Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article <3ua60k$ckd@otis.netspace.net.au> rvanspaa@pop.netspace.net.a (Robin van Spaandonk) writes: >On Thu, 13 Jul 1995 06:46:02 GMT, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) >wrote: > >>In article <3tunsr$dcu@martha.utk.edu> mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) writes: >>>(Charles Cagle) (singtech@teleport.com) wrote: >>>: Define gravity. Define gravitational dipole. Define gravitational dipole >>>: moment. >>>In analogy with electromagnetics I don't see any reasonable definition >>>of a gravitational dipole as there isn't negative "gravitational charge". >>Your right Matt, there is not use in defining grav hanky panky until >>we define charge. >>So what is charge, and why does it have the special characteristics it >>seems to have? I've never seen a definition, not even in Jackson. > >>special ? 1. the absolute value of the plus minus the absolute >>value of the minus certainly looks like a number crowding zero. >> 2. It's time tied, since a positron and electron seem >>to be time displaced by a tad. (a tad is just half a time frame, if >>time is quantized). Positron is advanced and the electron is retarded. >Are you implying that a positron is an electron that is PI/2 out of >phase? And herewith, a general definition of charge? No, although it is a characteristic of charge. My conjecture is that particles have both "imaginary" and "real" grainy distributions, where the "imaginary" distribution is in operator like. The conjugation of the two distributions produce a quantized time existence for the particles. In the case of electron or positron, such particles are not capable of existing (certainly not electrons) in any universe without its opposite sign particle. If we put all of the universe in a black box, and attemped to remove just one electron or postitron from that box, it could not be done. The reason is that the role of and electron for example is to be a sort of pack-man which must gobble up the information stream coming from the nucleus, in a precise count of grains for each and every one of its quantized time frames of existence over its lifetime, thus neutralizing the lifetime info output (electric field flux) of one positive charge) of a proton, for example. So if one electron comes out of the box, then the box is net positive, which simple means that there is not a sufficient number of electrons to neutralize the information being generated within the matter therein contained. Consequently, this information, by logic law of physics, must follow this "removed" electron so as to be annihilated, and thus the electron remains connected. (Okay, todays yokels call this an electric field (Partial_A_/t) So an electron (or a positron) is an operator array which either creates or annihilates a precise number of grains of information depending on its sign. Franklin has it correctly specified. Creation postive ... Annihilation negative. The absolute number of grains which are generated per time frame per operator is the number "charge". So when you look at the hand you position in front of your face and then put the same hand behind your back, the reason it no longer lingers in the front, has a lot to do with the little scrubbers (electrons) that whiz around nuclei picking up all that excess stuff generated, frame after frame by the protons. It keeps things neat, and it helps keeping you from running into yourself! >> If it's not in a text book, >> nobody knows. And if you merely tell them? It's not believable. >Regards, >Robin van Spaandonk >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* >Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, >Learns all his life, >And leaves knowing nothing. >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* -- The speculative "charge's nature" material, Copyright 1995 Paul M. Koloc +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037 | | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu FAX (301) 434-6737 | | VOICE (301) 445-1075 ***** Commercial FUSION in the Nineties ***** | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.22 / Alex Gaal / Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Originally-From: bq904@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alex Gaal) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro, ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Date: 22 Jul 1995 06:01:54 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) In a previous article, doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt) says: >In article <3ucqri$hcl@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes: >>Gary Cruse wrote: >> >>: Correct or incorrect, I have problems >>: with having to earn the right to hold >>: an opinion. Do you have such backing >>: behind every opinion you hold? >> >>Generally it is considered good form to know whereof one speaks when one >>*speaks* one's opinion. > >Since Mark's comment here is not exactly universally popular, let >me point something out: Let's say for a moment that everyone >has a right to their opinion (neglecting the fact that "right" >is quite ill-defined). There is still the question of what happens >next. > >Compare someone who has deep background in (say) american history. >Maybe they're a prof in the subject at a respected university. Now >let's say they're arguing with someone with no background in history >at all (i.e. the average U.S. citizen :-), but who has the firm opinion >that Benjamin Franklin was the first U.S. president. >Now perhaps it's true that this person has the right to their >dimwitted opinion, however it's equally obvious that they're being >a complete jerk on the subject, and that very few would particularly >enjoy them exercising their right to be a jerk. This cracks me up. You all sound like some anthropomorphisized matri- archal anal retentive Geese out of some Disney cartoon, telling this guy he's not entitled to his take without even engaging him on the details. Take that little senario about the Prof from some major university and stick him in a room with Sitting Bull's mother then take an accouting of whose bio would be more accurate? You think you're distinguishing your- selves by looking for whats wrong? Try probing for ways his senario may be right, you may find something ...wonderful. -- cordially, Alex cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenbq904 cudfnAlex cudlnGaal cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.22 / / Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics Date: 22 Jul 1995 13:54:02 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Just a few comments on the Mitchell Swartz posts to this thread: Swartz quoted Miles as follows: :These experiments yield a mean value of 2.0 +/-0.5 x 1011 4He/s*W after :correcting for background levels of helium measured in control :studies (Table II). 2.0 +/- 0.5 ? Doesn't this appear to be a 4-sigma effect? Is the complete text (including tables) available on the net? A 4-sigma effect is the classic borderline result, at least in my exerience in experimental physics. That is to say intriguing but not conclusive. Also, Swartz's comments on the relevance of E = Mc^2 to the question of the concentration units used by Miles are completely misconceived. The point by Schultz that the units atoms/watt-sec are incorrect simply point out that one can't compare the signal and background results since the information concerning the absolute number of watt-seconds of excess heat production was not included in the Miles paper. The only way E = Mc^2 would come in is if the heat actually produced helium atoms from nothing but the heat energy. I don't believe anyone is suggesting this, especially since it doesn't make sense due to the fact that the heat is actually *produced* and not absorbed into creating helium atoms. Mark Richardson cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.22 / A Plutonium / Re: Greatest math since discovery of nonEuclidean geometries Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.math,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.bio,sci.c em,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Greatest math since discovery of nonEuclidean geometries Date: 22 Jul 1995 20:42:37 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article <3up59i$7ke@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: > When it is all done it will be obviously correct and beautiful > because of uniqueness. I had conjectured that there exists one and only > one program for all the requirements and constraints to work out. All > the definitions of operations, what Adics and Doubly Infinites are, > will be satisfied by a unique program. And of course it will be > beautiful because then Numbers or Arithmetic equals Geometry or Space. > That is, a space is a set of numbers. And Riem geom == Adics; Eucl geom > == Reals; and Loba geom == Doubly Infinites Note that the Doubly Infinites (DIs) do not have the finite leftward portion that the Reals have. Nor, do the DIs have the finite rightward portion that the Adics have. This is all good and shows the beauty, magnificent beauty of this program. For it is the finite portion of the Reals which is the Whole Reals and these Whole Reals relate to the finite portion of the Adics. But in the Doubly Infinites no finite portion exists. Notice how the transformation function from Eucl -> Loba geometry is tanh and that tanh is a hyperbolic function. Loba geometry is hyperbolic geometry. A good model is the horse shaped saddle. Notice how the graph of tanh is saddle shaped. Note that DIs have so to speak two things to worry about, one a Real portion that is between -1 and 1 and the Adic portion. Notice that in this fashion, a easy definition of a Doubly Infinite Number is to make each Doubly Infinite as the y of the function y = tanh x, where x is Real. In this way the Adic portion will take care of all y beyond the 1 and -1 domain. And of course the Real portion takes care of all y within the 1 and -1 domain. In this way the Real portion of a Doubly Infinite is a direction component of a vector and the Adic component is the length component of the vector provided we see each Doubly Infinite as a vector itself. This is really neat. And anyone going into this program or thinking about it must drop aside all prejudices or preconceptions for the math itself will educate those of us as to its reality and truth. Really neat because the finite portion of both Reals and Adics have no meaning in Doubly Infinites. I just wonder what the geometrical equivalent statement of that is in Loba geometry? Let me here just make some remarks in general about the year 1993 and now 1995 and math or science journals and the Internet. Of course most every reader of this will disagree, but most every reader amounts to nothing of importance to science or math. So this evaluation will be seen in full by my successors. As of 1993-1995 when I appeared on the Internet, my appearance on the Internet spells the doom, the extinction of science and math journals. The Internet, due to its speed, its speed above all else, and due to its ease of world wide communication is and was the deathknell of the journal system. The world in the next months or years will witness the utter destruction of the childish math offering by some Princeton math-goofball. And the more that that crackpot FLT chicanery is acknowledged, the more violent will be the utter conflagration of all math (and science) journals. Mark my word, the years 1993-1995, because of my "finding" the Internet was the year benchmark of the decline and extinction of the peer-reviewed journal system in the fields of science and math. And, , , Good Riddance, Atom cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.22 / Barry Merriman / Re: NO GR POSTINGS - Says Heeter - What Gall! Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: NO GR POSTINGS - Says Heeter - What Gall! Date: 22 Jul 1995 22:02:37 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <-2007951553350001@ip-salem2-23.teleport.com> (Charles Cagle) writes: > > Back off Heeter, GR *is* related to fusion along with SR, particularly so > if it is a local event which is globally mediated. > Is it? If so, why don't you spell out more precisely what important role GR plays in any fusion reaction? Certainly the local fusion reaction itself involves only the strong and EM forces. About the closest I could imagine is that the sun is a gravitationally contained fusion reactor, but even that has nothing to do with GR and little of interest to do with gravity. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jul 23 04:37:04 EDT 1995 ------------------------------