1995.10.09 / Mario Pain /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 9 Oct 1995 14:39:13 GMT
Organization: cea

bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote:
>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>
>>So why are new weapons needed? 
>
>>Who does France intend to attack that requires *new* weapons? 
>
>This was my feeling also.  A deterrent force need only be powerful
>enough to make your attacker's losses so high as to be not worth the
>potential gains of attacking.  In terms of nuclear force this need
>only be a very small capability -- I mean, would the US even consider
>attacking a country that had the potential to destroy (by nuclear
>force) even *one* of their major cities?
>
 The question is what constitutes today "unacceptable losses". I do not
think the American defense establishment would consider a major city
an "unacceptable loss" in all circumstances. Worse still, you can have
a very small nuclear force provided it is VERY RELIABLE and that the
means of delivery are very good in terms of avoiding detection and
neutralisation. To make weapons RELIABLE is one of the official goals
of this tests.

>No, I strongly believe that France has a hidden agenda.  Whether this
>is simply a desire amongst the military leaders to boost their own
>importance and power, or whether it's part of a much greater strategy
>to exact retribution for crimes against France that have occured in
>the past; I don't know.  Or perhaps it is simply that Chirac does not
>have the balls to say "no" to the French military -- over the past
>months I have gotten the feeling that Chirac is really a very weak,
>frightened man who compensates by "talking big" in the world forum.

 There is of course a "hidden" (although not too much) agenda: It is
to renew the attachment of France to De Gaulle's doctrine of "defense
tous azimuts". During Mitterrand years France drifted more and more 
towards NATO. I think Chirac wants to show that France remains as 
distrustful of NATO as ever.

>What I do know is that in my opinion, France has not tendered any
>reasons that are even remotely credible in respect to her continued
>nuclear testing. 

 I do not agree: the reliability programs and the validation of the
"simulation" tools look two very credible goals to me.

>If France is not very careful her predictions of
>being unable to rely on her allies may well become a self-fulfilling
>prophecy as she alienates herself from those nations that would be her
>friends through her arrogant, contemptuous and provocative actions.

 Last time France relied in its allies to help her it costed us four years
of occupation and un uphill fight to get our "allies" not to administer our
country as a beaten enemy. Can you blame us for it ?

Regards


Mario Pain

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.08 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 1995 12:04:00 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-0710951107170001@austin-2-6.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>In article <browe-0310951906230001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
>Rowe) wrote:
>
>> Apparently, you don't feel characterizing someone as a "superficial rote
>> memorizer" as you have done above is an ad hominem attack. While it may
>> not be an ad hominem attack on Martin (you didn't characterize Martin in
>> this fashion), it is an ad hominem attack. Perhaps you should heed your
>> own advice relative to ad hominem attacks.
>
>***{This is totally absurd. The problem with "ad hominem attacks" is that
>they destroy the possibility of dialogue, by insulting the person you are
>talking to. It doesn't constitute an "ad hominem attack," in that sense,
>if you criticize someone other than the person you are talking to! You
>need to wake up, Bill! 

It may not be technically an "ad hominem" attack when you criticize
someone other than the person you are talking to. However when the someone
who is criticized is a member of the same group as the person you are
talking to and the criticism seems directed toward the group rather than a
specific individual, I think the results are essentially the same as an ad
hominem attack.

>I would add that the entire purpose of avoiding ad hominem attacks is to
>broaden the range of permissible discourse.

Agreed. However refering to modern physics as a "con game" which implies
modern physicist are "con artists" when you are talking with a physicist
certainly as much the same effect as a direct ad hominem attack.

>Your interpretation of "ad
>hominem attack," however, would have the opposite effect. By your rule, it
>would be uncivil to discuss anything that might reflect negatively on
>anyone. If, for example, I stated in a discussion with Martin that I
>believe that Adolf Hitler was a mass murderer, that would be an "ad
>hominem attack," by your interpretation, and should not be said!

No, that is not the case. I don't beleive Martin identifies with Adolph
Hittler. I do believe Martin indentifies himself as a physicist. Also,
there is pretty solid evidence for claiming Adolph Hittler was a mass
murderer.

This is getting away from the discussion of physics. I suggest we take any
further discussion to email.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.08 / Robert Eachus /  Re: keeping spammers out
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: keeping spammers out
Date: 08 Oct 1995 23:15:23 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <DG1IGD.B49@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> scott@zorch.sf-bay.org
(Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:

  > The only effective way of preventing irrelevant postings is to
  > have a moderated newsgroup.  That has other disadvantages, and at
  > the time of the last vote, my personal stance was that the traffic
  > did not warrant a split.  Since I'm now near to withdrawing from
  > s.p.f, I might reconsider my position if the moderated/unmoderated
  > split were revoted today.

   Amen.  The noise to signal ratio has risen to the point of
absurdity here.  Killfiles help, but 1) I am loathe to killfile anyone
other than spammers, 2) when processing your killfile removes 90% of
the traffic, you wonder what you are missing, and 3) there are some
people who keep trying to get around other people's killfiles.



--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.09 / David Spain /  Re: How to Get Free Cable Premium TV .. LEGIT
     
Originally-From: spain@flipper.nexen.com (David Spain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to Get Free Cable Premium TV .. LEGIT
Date: 09 Oct 1995 02:21:56 GMT
Organization: ascom Nexion, Acton, MA USA

In article <DG2vnv.6vH@goodnet.com> md@goodnet.com (Mike Denton) writes:

> From: md@goodnet.com (Mike Denton)
> Organization: GoodNet
> Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 12:21:31 GMT
> Lines: 33
> 
>       First I want to say I am sorry that this has nothing
> to do with the topic of this message. [I think you mean newsgroup]

That's for sure...

> ... I just wanted to
> let you people out know there is a way to get Cable TV for
> FREE.

Mr. Denton,

What I have to offer you is something even more AMAZING!
Imagine, just being able to watch your TV, turn all the
lights in your dwelling, and cool it as well, all ABSOLUTELY
FREE. In fact you need NEVER PAY ANOTHER ELECTRIC BILL IN YOUR
LIFE! All you'll need is just some water, batteries,
a jar, some rolled palladium electrodes, mostly common items
around the household.

Think of all the money you could say in just one year of NO
ELECTRIC BILLS WHATSOEVER!  In fact, in many regions of the US
you could get your electric company to PAY YOU for the electricity
you PROVIDE TO THEM!

Want to know more? I suggest you continue to read this newsgroup,
mind you I have not tried this method myself, but others claim
to have been successful, or to have seen others that have been.

Just trying to be helpful!

;-)

-- 
David Spain
ascom Nexion
289 Great Road, Acton MA. USA 01720-4739
Phone: USA (508)266-4551  FAX: (508)266-2300
Internet: spain@nexen.com
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenspain cudfnDavid cudlnSpain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.09 / C Harrison /  Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 03:17:19 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.09 / William Mook /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: "William H. Mook, Jr." <wm0@s1.GANet.NET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m
sc.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: 9 Oct 1995 05:52:57 GMT
Organization: Global Access Network (Ohio Internet provider (614)717-1700)

I don't know what aneutronic fusion is, but I did think a lot about
different paths to nuclear energy relese during the cold fusion flap.

Since then there has been an embarassed silence about this bit of
pseudo science.

But, I did come up with something I thought might be workable:

If you plot the energy per nucleon versus atomic weight, you end up
having a lot of energy at the ends, and a deficit of energy in the 
middle.  Iron, 56, I think, is near the low point in energy per nucleon.

Going down from iron, back through manganese, chromium, vanadium, back to 
hydrogen... things get more energetic per nucleon.  So, when you join 
things like hydrogen to form helium... fuse them, energy is released.

Going up from iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, etc. up through Uranium, 
things get more energetic again, but not so steeply this time.  But, if 
you can break things apart, to make them smaller, you should be able to 
create energy.

Now, fusion proceeds by increasing the temperature of the atoms to the 
point where nuclei collide with sufficient energy to overcome their
mutual repulsion.

Fission proceeds by the capture of a neutron a nucleus that becomes
unstable.  The nucleus breaks apart (fizzes), releasing more neutrons
and forming a self-sustaining chain reaction.

Knowing this, I wondered, could a nuclear reaction be formed between 
two species of matter forming a new type of chain reaction?

There are only a limited number of materials capable of sustaining 
neutron mediated fission reactions.

There are only a limited number of materials capable of sustaining fusion 
at reasonable temperatures.

But, there are hundreds of combinations of isotopes that might be made to 
undergo a complex reaction involving two or more species.

Here's how it would work:

Say species A is lightweight, and it easily captures say a neutron and 
releases an energetic photon (gamma ray).

Say species B is heavyweight, and it easily breaks apart if struck by an 
energetic gamma ray.  In the process, releasing a number of neutrons.


So, here's how it would work:



               n ----> A ----> g ----> B -----> n, n

This binary reaction, and there are other processes that could sustain
this type of thing, K-capture for example, and release of a positron...
could be initiated by the capture of a neutron by a nucleus...

radiative capture of a neutron would release gamma rays, and so on.

All reaction paths, and mutlipliers, would be added up to determine
modes of energy release, and control  

One could imagine a reactor that had a strong flux of gamma rays and 
neutrons and by changing one or another factor, that flux would change to 
positrons and alpha particles...

But, beryllium is easily broken apart by adding a neutron.  It releases
gamma rays in the process and high energy charged particles.  Certain 
heavy nuclei, when exposed to gamma rays and energetic particles, break
down releasing quantities of neutrons... So, one could imagine perhaps,
an experiment involving these materials.

The cool part would be the potential of releasing nuclear energy without
long term actinide series products being created.  instead of 
radioactives perhaps stable nuclei could be produced.

Beyond mere energy, understanding how to sustain new types of self 
sustaining fluxes within unusual nuclear reactors might provide a path to 
the creation of materials on demand.  Converting silica to cobalt on 
demand for example.  This might be part of an ongoing energy production 
process...

But exchanges of energy between opposited ends of the periodic table 
should be able to release energy - perhaps even on a sustained basis
as in a fission reactoin, under laboratory conditions.



cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenwm0 cudfnWilliam cudlnMook cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.09 / Mike Denton /  cmsg cancel <DG2vnv.6vH@goodnet.com>
     
Originally-From: md@goodnet.com (Mike Denton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <DG2vnv.6vH@goodnet.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 06:20:13 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

SPAM Cancelled by MAPS 1.4
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenmd cudfnMike cudlnDenton cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.09 / Ben Commis /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of
     
Originally-From: Ben Commis <commisb@fs4.eng.man.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of
Date: 9 Oct 1995 13:51:46 GMT
Organization: Sirius Cybernetics Corporation

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

> Bottom line: the Griggs device would be "cold fusion," except that "cold
> fusion" itself isn't fusion. What we have here, instead, is a protoneutron
> heat engine: an odd device that burns hydrogen so completely that even the
> nuclear energy is extracted, and yet it produces no pollution and no
> radiation. It is a "soft" energy source, as benign and non-threatening as
> flowers on a sunny day, and what it means is simple: the age of pollution,
> of centralized energy sources, and of centralized political power, is
> over.
> 
> --Mitchell Jones
> 
> ===========================================================

When are you building your first power plant!How much is it going
to produce and cost?
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencommisb cudfnBen cudlnCommis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 95 20:16:35 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

COLD FUSION DEMO AT SOFE '95 WORKED WELL
 
Last week I reported that a cold fusion cell would be demonstrated during a
big hot fusion conference: the 16th biannual Symposium on Fusion Engineering
(SOFE '95) Oct. 1 - 5, which is sponsored by the IEEE, the American Nuclear
Society, and the University of Illinois. I did not attend, but I have spoken
with some of the participants and I am happy to report that the demonstration
was a complete success. It produced steady excess heat from a Clean Energy
Technology Inc. (CETI) light water cold fusion cell. With only 60 milliwatts
input, output ranged from 4 to 5 watts, 80 times input. In a flow calorimeter,
the Delta T temperature rise was 4 to 5 degrees C, because the flow rate was
set at 14.28 ml/min (60 joules = 14.28 calories). Input was 3 volts at 0.02
amps. Calibrations confirmed that this input alone will raise the Delta T
water temperature by less than 0.06 degrees because this is an open cell and
half of the input energy is carried off in free hydrogen and oxygen.
 
The demonstration was performed by Prof. George Miley's group from the
University of Illinois. They constructed, tested and calibrated the flow
calorimeter. They replicated the CETI thin film cathode beads and observed a
cold fusion effect, but the magnitude of the reaction was not as great as with
the beads from CETI. For the purpose of this demonstration they used a cell
and beads on loan from CETI.
 
The demonstration was well received by the conference attendees. The audience
snapped up the literature packs in the conference booth, and many scientists
and engineers had a close "hands-on" look at the instruments. CETI
demonstrated a similar cell at the Fifth International Conference on Cold
Fusion (ICCF5) in April. That cell produced 10 times input. I can testify that
CETI allows close hands-on contact during public demonstrations -- literally
hands-on -- because at ICCF5 I accidentally dropped a spare cell and smashed
it to smithereens. (I expect the U. Illinois people must have been more
careful about handing out spare parts for inspection!) CETI also allows people
to take their own measurements of power and temperature. CETI's patented
cathodes have now been independently replicated and verified by U. Illinois,
and sample beads from CETI have been independently tested by U. Illinois and
other groups.
 
Five watts is a significant, macroscopic power level. When output is 80 times
greater than input, and output is macroscopic, this eliminates any possibility
that the effect is due to instrument error. The CETI glass cell is roughly the
same size as a 4-watt night light bulb. When a night light has been turned on
for a while it is warm to the touch, whereas 60 milliwatts in an object of
that size is not enough to produce palpable heat. You can feel a 5 degree C
temperature rise, but you cannot feel a temperature difference of only 0.03
degrees.
 
The SOFE '95 conference also featured papers on cold fusion and a panel
discussion with three top cold fusion scientists: Storms, Kim and Cravens, and
one member of the 1989 DoE ERAB panel: Bierbaum.
 
I will be reporting this and other news in the next issue of "Infinite Energy"
magazine.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.09 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 18:37:50 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <44vfhl$bn1@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <199510042036.QAA78255@pilot06.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu  
> (Richard A Blue) writes:
> > Mitchell Jones makes certain claims about his way of doing physics
> > as being superior to the way the rest of us do it. 
> 
> Thats fine with me. The proof is in the pudding. When MJ makes
> some new experimentally verified predictions using his physics,
> or provides a simple explanantion of some known phenomena
> (such as discrete spectral lines for Hydrogen, double slit, etc)

***{Been there, done that. --MJ}***

, then I'll 
> pay attention to him. 

***{Come on, Barry, make my day! --MJ}***

As it stands, his physics looks like
> a rather pathetic attempt at classical reasoning about 
> atomic processes. 

***{Yup. It's real sad! --MJ}***

Ho hum....

***{I'm sleepy, too! --MJ}***
> 
> Maybe if we just ignore him, he'll end up in a closed debating 
> loop with Archimedes Plutonium.

***{Aha, the old Barry returns, with both feet in his mouth! He forgets
that he is the one who is in the habit of debating with Archimedes
Plutonium, not I! In fact, the only thing I have said to Arch was a couple
of posts attempting to dissuade him from suing Barry for slander! (Not
that there's anything wrong with talking to Arch, mind you.) --Mitchell
Jones}*** 
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.09 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 19:27:52 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-0610952043030001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-0610951720460001@austin-1-14.i-link.net>,
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> >In my view, "space" is filled with a series of particulate media or
> >"substrates." The substrates are distinguished by their particle sizes,
> >with the largest particles being part of the substrate which I call E1,
> >the next largest being part of E2, the third largest being part of E3,
> >etc. The particles of E1 fill the gaps between atoms of ordinary matter,
> >while the particles of E2 fill the gaps between particles of E1, the
> >particles of E3 fill the gaps between particles of E2, and so on. The
> >collectivity of all of the substrates, taken together, I call the ether.  
> >
> >Now let me fill in some details. 
> >
> >Just as, between the material objects that we see here on earth, there
> >exists an invisible ocean of particles (i.e., air) which influences many
> >physical phenomena (e.g., weather, air resistance, etc.) so between the
> >particles of air and extending out to fill all of space (with a few very
> >important exceptions which I will discuss later), I believe there exists
> >an invisible ocean of even smaller particles. I call this vast ocean of
> >particles E1, and I call the particles "etherons." I believe that they are
> >roughly the same order of size (but somewhat smaller) than electrons, that
> >they are mutually repellent (again like electrons) and repellent of the
> >particles of ordinary matter. I believe that they have spin, and that the
> >spin is purely classical (not quantized)--which means: each etheron has a
> >spin axis that is capable of pointing in any direction whatsoever. I
> >believe that these particles are uncharged, that they are enormously less
> >massive than electrons, that they are influenced by gravitation, and that,
> >as a consequence, each astronomical body carries with it in its motions
> >through space an immense, invisible atmosphere of these particles, filling
> >up the region of space in which its gravitational field is dominant over
> >the fields of other bodies. (In 19th century parlance, this would be
> >termed an "entrained ether theory.") And, between the particles of E1, I
> >believe that there exists yet another vast ocean of even smaller
> >particles, which I call E2, and which I cannot characterize in nearly as
> >much detail as in the case of E1. While the hints of the existence of E2
> >are subtle, it does seem to behave like a fluid: it supports internal
> >eddies and flows and, when such flows impinge on particles of E1 or of
> >ordinary matter, they exert important effects. 
> >
> >Given the above visual model, sketched out in general terms, it is a
> >simple matter to explain the observed stability of electrons in the Bohr
> >orbits and, thus, how atoms can be stable in classical mechanical terms.
> >The first thing to note is the enormous rpm's of orbiting electrons: a
> >typical hydrogen electron, for example, circles its nucleus at roughly 10
> >quadrillion revolutions per second! If it is plowing through a resistive
> >medium such as E1, as sketched out above, what is going to happen? The
> >answer: on its first circuit around the orbit, it is going to knock away
> >(or repel, if you prefer) the various etherons that are in its path.
> >(Remember: electrons are enormously more massive than etherons.) But then,
> >when it has completed one circuit around the nucleus, an interesting
> >possibility arises: since one ten-quadrillionth of a second isn't very
> >long, it may be that the etherons which the electron knocked out of its
> >way on its first pass around the orbit have not had time to rebound back
> >into their original positions. In that case, on its second pass, the
> >electron will be passing through a cavitation channel--an orbit which has
> >been swept clear of obstructions--and it will encounter vastly lessened
> >resistance. Result: we have the possibility of an electron orbiting
> >without resistance and, hence, without losing energy. In that case, it
> >will not radiate. 
> 
> OK, the "etherons" didn't have time to fill the channel on the first
> electron orbit. Surely, at some point they do rebound. When they do, isn't
> there going to be some resistance felt by the electron with consequent
> radiation. Unless there is reason to beleive the "etherons" never fill in
> the created channel, all you have shown is the rate of radiation has been
> reduced not eliminated.

***{There is, in fact, a reason to believe that they don't fill in the
created channel: etherons are mutually repellent particles that are also
repelled by matter. This means that we are dealing with an electronic
cloud, not a gas. Rather than consisting of particles bouncing off of one
another at high average velocities in accordance with the kinetic theory
of gases, we instead have particles that tend to take up equilibrium
positions and hold those positions. This means that if they are to move
back into the channel, they will accelerate toward it from relatively low
starting velocities, and, long before they get there, the electron will
pass by again--over, and over, and over again, in fact. (Remember:
electrons typically circle their nuclei *quadrillions* of times each
second!) In effect, an electron is present at every position in its orbit
at the same time! Its field is, of course, attenuated at any one point due
to its being spread out over the entire orbit. However, that only allows
the etherons to crowd in closely around the orbit before they find
equilibrium positions. It in no way undercuts the validity of the
explanation. 

In addition, I would note that it is not necessary for resistance to be
"eliminated" when the cavitation channel forms. If it is reduced
sufficiently to permit electrons to remain in their orbits for, say, a few
thousands or millions of years, then that's good enough. Why?  Because we
live in a chaotic world. There are lots of things that knock electrons out
of their orbits (e.g., ionizing radiation), and atoms encounter such
things with fair frequency. I would doubt, in fact, that there is a single
electron on this planet that is orbiting the same nucleus today that it
was orbiting, say, a billion years ago. 

The essential point is this: when objects move into cavitation voids,
resistance drops enormously. Rotating boat propellers, for example, lose
their thrust when you stomp the accelerator too hard from a standing stop.
There is a vast amount of literature on this, and it is explainable on the
basis of purely classical assumptions. What happens is the the propeller
scoops out a circular cavitation void and, thereafter, rotates inside of
it. In effect, it is rotating in a vacuum. There is, of course, a tiny bit
of resistance due to the necessity to toss out an occasional vapor
particle, but the energy required to do that is nothing compared to what
would be required if the cavity were filled with water. And the same
considerations obviously apply to the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits: the work
done per orbit when the channel is filled is enormously greater than the
work done per orbit when it is essentially empty. --Mitchell Jones}***    

> -- 
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.09 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 12:03:45 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <199510042036.QAA78255@pilot06.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) wrote:

> Mitchell Jones makes certain claims about his way of doing physics
> as being superior to the way the rest of us do it.  I think we
> may question whether Mitchell can even be true to his own way
> of doing things.  We already know he is not going to do physics
> our way.
> 
> Principle of Continuity.  Mitchell makes this the cornerstone of
> his condemnation of orthodox quantum mechanics.  According to
> him, "The Principle of Continuity states that no entity may come
> into existance out of nothing or vanish into nothing."  If this
> is the basis for his condemnation of quantum mechanics there must
> be some examples from quantum theory that are in violation of
> this principle.  What are they?  Perhaps I have not thought hard
> enough about this, but I can't think of anything in quantum mechanics
> that represents a clear violation.

***{As a theory, "quantum mechanics" started with the alleged
"quantization" of electron orbits, so that's a good place to begin. Here
is the dilemma: since electrons only appeared to utilize the "preferred"
orbits and not the transitional or "classical" orbits, Bohr concluded that
some deep seated, hidden law of physics decreed that they could only
*exist* in the "preferred" orbits--i.e., that when they transited from one
preferred orbit to another, they simply vanished from their position in
the first orbit and reappeared in the second, without passing through the
intervening space! This is what is known as a "quantum leap," Dick! The
"quantum postulate," in Bohr's words, attributes an "essential
discontinuity" to microcosmic phenomena. Referring to "the classical mode
of description," on the other hand, he said that it "presupposes the
unrestricted divisibility of the course of the phenomena in space and time
and the linking of all steps in an unbroken chain in terms of cause and
effect." [*Niels Bohr: His Heritage and Legacy*, by Jan Faye, pg. 129]

What this means is that if, as you say, you can't think of anything in
quantum mechanics that represents a clear violation of the principle of
continuity, *then you are interpreting the mathematics classically*, as am
I. I'll bet that's a shock! Dick Blue, agreeing with Mitchell Jones--and
you didn't even know it! (A state of affairs which, no doubt, you will
swiftly rectify!) The fact is, as I have been saying from the beginning:
the mathematical constructs falsely claimed by "quantum mechanics" are, in
fact, philosophically neutral. They can be interpreted classically or
"quantum mechanically," and in point of fact most physicists, in spite of
their verbal allegiance to "quantum mechanics," tend to interpret the math
in the classical way. Why do they do it? There are at least two reasons:

(1) The main reason is ignorance: they do not understand the nature of the
purely evil, anti-rational philosophy underlying "quantum mechanics." To
them as, apparently, to you, "quantum mechanics" is just a string of words
denoting a group of mathematical constructs that, today, is taught to
physics students.

(2) Because, as I have noted repeatedly, the principle of continuity is
foundational to the entire structure of human knowledge, it follows that
any sustained attempt to conceive of the world without it leads to total
epistemological destruction--i.e., to nihilism. Everything that you
thought you understood about yourself or the world swiftly turns to
gibberish, if you spend much time attempting to incorporate the "quantum
postulate" into your thinking. --Mitchell Jones}***    
> 
> When it comes to specific examples Mitchell suggests that quantum
> mechanics dictates discontinuous changes in velocity.  Firstly, I
> question whether that is the case.  Does the existance of a stationary
> state or a spectrum of stationary states represent a violation
> of the priciple of continuity?  I don't think so.  

***{You are absolutely correct about this latter point, and I never denied
it. I have said repeatedly that all of the experimental evidence of
physics can be interpreted classically. That explicitly includes
stationary states and line spectra. You are not disagreeing with me on
this point, but with Bohr and his intellectual descendants. --Mitchell
Jones}***

They are rather
> the epitome of continuity.  How can you get more continuous than a
> constant?  Of course I also wonder how it is that velocity gets to
> be an "entity", but that is another question.

***{I never said that velocity is an entity. If you think I did, please
cite a reference.

If, on the other hand, you are referring to the fact that the principle of
continuity is stated in terms of entities, and yet I am applying it to
velocities, the explanation is straightforward: velocity changes involve
changes in kinetic energy, and changes in energy involve changes in mass.
Thus when a body is accelerated, other things equal, tiny increments to
its mass occur. This may involve the absorption of photons (if the body is
accelerating due to inputs of radiant energy), or the absorption of
LeSage's "ultramundane corpuscles" if the body is accelerating in a
gravitational field, etc. Moreover, the absorption of each indidual
particle, whether a photon or an ultramundane corpuscle or whatever, is
itself a time dependent, continuous process. There is a time interval,
however brief, in which the particle being absorbed slows down, while the
absorbing particle speeds up. Even if these velocity rise and fall times
are extraordinarily brief, they must be continuous, because this picture
of absorption applies at all levels of magnification. By this I explicity
mean that "fundamental particles" do not exist: *there are particles
within particles, forever and ever.* Matter, like space and time, is
infinitely subdivisible. It is this fact, ultimately, that ensures that
velocity changes must be continuous rather than discrete. --Mitchell
Jones}***
> 
> If Mitchell is to object to there being physical observables that take
> on only discrete values on purely philosophic grounds should he not
> throw everything that bears the taint of quantization?  Yet we see him
> using the concepts of particles and of photons even!

***{Again, you misunderstand. To repeat: all the phenomena of physics that
exhibit separation or discreteness of values, can be interpreted
classically. I have, for example, posted an analysis of the "preferred"
electron orbits that explains them in terms of purely classical
assumptions. The essence of the difference between my interpretation and
Bohr's is that I regard the non-preferred orbits as unstable rather than
as never occupied. Because they are unstable, they are occupied only
fleetingly, and virtually all of the energy emissions that we observe are
due to jumps from one stable orbit to another. This is why, for chemical
elements, we see line spectra rather than continuous spectra. --Mitchell
Jones}***  
> 
> When it comes to photons Mitchell does appear to admit to there being
> photons that travel at the speed of light (or something approaching that
> at least).  He, however, makes a subtle addition of something akin
> to a photon in the process of becoming.  I take it that is to satisfy
> his need for something that shares some properties with our kind of
> photon but is yet free to be different with regard to its interactions
> with matter.  That is, I think, a form of "tweaking" in the crudest
> sense.
> 
> What excuse does Mitchell have for assuming that his photons start
> out with zero velocity and accelerate?  If it is continuity he wants
> why is he not disturbed by the entire concept of the creation and
> annihilation of photons?  If they are to be created why not create
> them with the proper velocity?

***{Here you seem to be forgetting (a) that things can be created out of
something--i.e., by the assembly of parts--rather than out of nothing, and
(b) that velocities can be attained by a process of acceleration (or
deceleration) in which the object passes through all of the intervening
states of motion from some other velocity. I simply interpret the creation
of photons as creation from something rather than as creation from
nothing, and I interpret the attainment of a velocity as being the result
of acceleration (or deceleration) from some other state of motion. (Why
make ridiculous assumptions, when perfectly sensible assumptions will do?)
--Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> At this point I begin to wonder whether Mitchell is aware of where
> the concept that electromagnetic radiation travels at velocity c
> first appears?  You can't blame that on quantum theory or even on
> relativity.

***{There is nothing in Maxwell's equations that conflicts with the
classical mode of description. (They were part of classical mechanics, if
you recall.) If you want, you can say that photons move at lightspeed *by
definition,* but that will do you no good. In that case, I will simply say
that protophotons exist, that they travel at less than lightspeed, and
that they become photons when lightspeed is attained. The words are then
different, but the point remains the same: that velocities are attained
when forces act to change other states of motion, or when they cease to
act. Velocities do not appear full blown, out of nothing. --Mitchell
Jones}*** 
> 
> Curve Fitting and Tweaking.  Of course Mitchell has an advantage in
> this area.  His theory fits no data.  

***{A baseless and utterly false assertion, typical of you. In fact, my
theory fits all of the data, whereas "quantum mechanics" (which, remember,
has nothing to do with the math) fits nothing and predicts nothing,
because it is a wrecking bar directed at the base of the structure of
knowledge. --Mitchell Jones}***

It has no numerical values to
> tweak.  

***{To repeat: my approach to physics has all the numerical values claimed
by any other school of physics, because the curve fitted mathematical
constructs of physics cannot be exclusively claimed by the proponents of
"quantum mechanics" or "relativity" or anything else. --Mitchell Jones}***

If you like his kind of theory maybe we have a winner here.
> However, most of us doing physics expect to make a connection between
> theory and real observations.  Unless you have done it yourself it may
> be difficult to appreciate the differences between fitting a curve to
> data when there are fewer free parameters than data points and when
> there are more free parameters than data points.  I would suggest
> that Mitchell has not learned the significance of constraints and degrees
> of freedom.

***{And I would suggest that you need to be more self-critical in your
thinking. It is a fact that mathematical physicists create their
constructs by means of a lengthy and difficult struggle to fit
experimentally determined data points, and it is a fact that, when newly
measured data points conflict with the previously identified mathematical
constructs, they are then either modified or tossed out. Thus no rational
basis can be given for denying my description of the process as "curve
fitting and tweaking." The truth of the matter, which you guys are afraid
to admit, is simply this: you don't like the implications of my
description. What implications? The biggies are as follows: 

(1) The ridiculous philosophical interpretaitons promulgated by Bohr and
Einstein were *not* instrumental in the process by which their
mathematical constructs were arrived at, and, thus, that the calculational
validity of those constructs *in no way* serves as a justification for
those interpretations. The truth is that the math, in both cases, can be
interpreted classically. *Nothing whatsoever in the curve fitted
mathematical constructs falsely claimed by "relativity" or "quantum
mechanics" provides one whit of justification for the philosophies of
Einstein or of Bohr.* That is simply a fact.

(2) The mathematical constructs themselves did not arise from physical
understanding, but rather from mathematical curve fitting. As such, they
lack physical sophistication, and contain no deep physical truths about
the world. They are, instead, merely a method of expressing experimental
data points in a compact form which permits some interpolations and, with
luck, some nearby extrapolations. No one should be surprised when distant
extrapolations are incorrect, and no one should be surprised when even the
interpolations and the nearby extrapolations are rendered incorrect by
improved measuring techniques. What is happening here, from the standpoint
of physical understanding, is little different from plotting the points on
a graph and drawing a smooth curve to connect them. In neither case is
physical understanding required.  

(3) The real business of physics is understanding the physical world. That
business is done by theoretical physicists of the old school--i.e., by
physicists who study the curve fitted mathematical constructs and perform
the hard mental work that is required to construct visualizable models
which explain them. Unfortunately, the people who are best qualified to do
this kind of work are visual thinkers, people who are intensely concerned
with the meaning of verbal and mathematical statements. Such people are
unpopular as students because most professors are merely airheads who
remember without understanding. The typical professor would rather run
naked through a bramble patch and then jump into a pool of pirahnas than
deal with the kinds of questions that such students are prone to ask, and
so professors structure their classes deliberately and specifically to
deal with them: they bury their classes in a flood tide of material, so
that it becomes literally impossible for *anyone* to remember it with
understanding; and, as a result, they give theselves a built-in
excuse--lack of time--to justify not attempting to answer questions about
what the formulations mean. Result: visual thinkers have a hard time of it
in most college environments. They either cannot, or will not, remember
without understanding, and so they seldom earn "top marks." Since
acceptance into graduate schools and, later, faculty appointments, are
strongly influenced by grades, the tendency of the system is to "weed out"
those who are capable of doing theoretical physics. The result is "modern"
physics, the vast wasteland of contentless formulations rattling around in
empty heads, which we see today. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> Visual Thinking.  I get the uneasy feeling that what Mitchell is really
> saying here is that everything must be closely analogous to things
> we can see in the macroscopic world.  You know - electrons are tiny
> baseballs with the neatest little horsehide covers and stitching.
> 
> Dick Blue

***{Physics should be intelligible, Dick. People need to know what the
math *means.*  Moreover, physics *can* be intelligible, if the day should
ever come when people begin to do *real* theoretical physics again!
--Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.09 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Griggs simplicity incarnate
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs simplicity incarnate
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 11:10:48 -0900
Organization: none

In article <21cenlogic-0110951249530001@austin-1-1.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

> In article <199509291435.KAA59577@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
> (Richard A Blue) wrote:
> 
> > Since the question of water purity has come into the debate over
> > measurements of the performance of the Griggs device I thought
> > I would remind everyone that a portion of the evidence put forth
> > by Jed Rothwell involves operations of the Griggs device in
> > carpet mills where the water is certainly not potable.
> 
> ***{Why do you say so? Most carpet mills use city water, just like
> everyone else. --Mitchell Jones}***
> > 
> > Indeed one of the claimed advantages of the Griggs device over
> > conventional steam generators is that it runs well on trashy
> > water.
> 
> ***{Irrelevant, since there is no reason to believe that Griggs was using
> "trashy water" in his experimental runs. --Mitchell Jones}***

The burden of proof lies with the claimant.  "No reason to believe" is not
affirmative proof.  Neither can debate confirm a theory or claim, only
reproducible experimental data. Confirmation requires proof trashy water
was not used, or at least proof specific heat is adequately considered,
plus reproduction of the results independently elsewhere. Since you are an
objectivist I must be preaching to the choir on this, though.  Do you know
where things are moving with this device?  Is any further independent
evaluation planned?

Regards,                          <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820

cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.09 /  Kennel /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m
sc.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: 9 Oct 1995 21:55:49 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

William H. Mook, Jr. (wm0@s1.GANet.NET) wrote:
> Here's how it would work:

> Say species A is lightweight, and it easily captures say a neutron and 
> releases an energetic photon (gamma ray).
> Say species B is heavyweight, and it easily breaks apart if struck by an 
> energetic gamma ray.  In the process, releasing a number of neutrons.
> So, here's how it would work:
>                n ----> A ----> g ----> B -----> n, n

> This binary reaction, and there are other processes that could sustain
> this type of thing, K-capture for example, and release of a positron...
> could be initiated by the capture of a neutron by a nucleus...

One problem that I see is that photons, unlike neutrons, will couple
to the abundant electrons, so that most of them will not cause new
nuclear reactions, but would be scattered away.  I.e. the critical mass 
might be enormous.


> radiative capture of a neutron would release gamma rays, and so on.

> All reaction paths, and mutlipliers, would be added up to determine
> modes of energy release, and control  

> One could imagine a reactor that had a strong flux of gamma rays and 
> neutrons and by changing one or another factor, that flux would change to 
> positrons and alpha particles...



cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.09 / Paul Koloc /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m
sc.industry.utilities.electric
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 20:33:54 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <45adbp$20m@s1.GANet.NET> "William H. Mook, Jr." <wm0@s1.GANet.NET> writes:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit)
>To: jabowery@netcom.com
>
>I don't know what aneutronic fusion is, but I did think a lot about
>different paths to nuclear energy release during the cold fusion flap.

It's a fusion like reaction which produces no neutrons, although some
aneutronic fuels have side reactions producing a few neutrons (less
than 5%) of the total number.   

>If you plot the energy per nucleon versus atomic weight, you end up
>having a lot of energy at the ends, and a deficit of energy in the 
>middle.  Iron, 56, I think, is near the low point in energy per nucleon.

So far so good, iron is indeed the ash of the elements. 

>Going down from iron, back through manganese, chromium, vanadium, back to 
>hydrogen... things get more energetic per nucleon.  So, when you join 
>things like hydrogen to form helium... fuse them, energy is released.

Both Fusion and Fission are likely to produce neutrons.  Fission and
Fusion, generally, end up with neutrons and elements, or isotopes 
thereof.  
Aneutronic energy produces no neutrons, only elements.  Furthermore, 
In this reaction elements do not just due not simply "fuse together", 
rather they then subsequently "fission apart".  Bob Heeter doesn't 
appreciate such subtleties, and consideres aneutronic fusion.   I guess
because it is listed as the first step.   

This is important, since he is the keeper of what's controversial and 
what's not, as usually is respresented in the mag fusion FAQ,   

>Going up from iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, etc. up through Uranium, 
>things get more energetic again, but not so steeply this time.  But, if 
>you can break things apart, to make them smaller, you should be able to 
>create energy.

Yes,  fissionish side. 

>Now, fusion proceeds by increasing the temperature of the atoms to the 
>point where nuclei collide with sufficient energy to overcome their
>mutual repulsion.

Yes, except that it's mostly "tunneling" that works to allow such low 
temperature fusions.  


As for the snipped portion that followed this speculation, I will 
leave that material to the reaction of "others" to whack at.  

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, BX 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037|
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.09 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis)
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 19:30:54 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4570uu$qmq@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU
(Martin Gelfand) wrote:

> In response to Mitchell's dislike of my use of
> "into the breach again":  I can only say that this
> discussion *is* an unpleasant task in many ways,
> but one that I found myself fascinated by.
> By now, though, the unpleasantness is beginning
> to exceed the fascination.
> 
> In the post preceeding this MJ revealed a
> bizarre "classical" atomic theory (which still fails to
> explain why atomic "orbits" are _completely_ stable, as
> Bill Rowe pointed out in another message).

***{As I noted in my response to Bill, we don't need to demonstrate that
the preferred orbits are stable "forever." What we do need, and what we
have, is a purely classical mechanism which explains why they are markedly
more stable than the non-preferred orbits and which quite reasonably
accounts for what we know about the world. It is simply a fact, well known
and explained by classical mechanics, that resistance to the motion of a
rotating body drops enormously when a cavitation channel forms. If you
doubt this, I suggest that you look at the extensive experimental work
that has been done in this area, or else, if you prefer, I suggest that
you rent a power boat and see what happens when you stomp on the
accelerator a bit too hard. What you will discover is that if you permit
the prop to form a cavitation channel, you will experience a huge loss of
thrust. You will be sitting in the water, going nowhere, with your engine
redlining. Why? Because the prop is turning in a cavitation void. All it
has to do to maintain that void is the trivial work necessary to knock
back a few vapor particles that cross its periphery, rather than the much
greater work required when the channel is filled with water. A similar
reduction in energy expenditure would obviously occur when an electron is
orbiting in a stable cavitation channel, and, clearly, if the reduction is
great enough it can account for the observed stability of atomic systems.
And that is the whole point: "quantum mechanics" has no basis in fact.
Bohr simply made a mistake, and then piled a towering accumulation of
nihilistic philosophical gibberish on top of that mistake. The result is
"quantum mechanics" as it stands today. --Mitchell Jones}***    
> 
> This time, he reveals ...
> 
> In article <21cenlogic-0610951933080001@austin-1-14.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> >
> >(2) If he had revealed his assumption, he would have focused the attention
> >of his students on one of the oozing canker sores on the body of "modern"
> >physics: the fact that gravitational force, by whatever theory, *must
> >propagate through space at velocities millions of times that of light.*
> >You see, Martin, LaPlace's reasoning doesn't just apply to the LeSage
> >theory: it applies to all intelligible theories of gravitation. Regardless
> >of whether you endorse push theories of gravitation such as that of
> >LeSage, or pull theories such as that endorsed by many of those who are
> >busy looking for "gravity waves" that supposedly accompany supernova
> >explosions, it is an inescapable mathematical fact that the force must
> >propagate through space at velocities millions of times that of light. The
> >reason: at lightspeed, gravitational aberration would either cause the
> >earth, in a paltry few hundred years, to spiral into the sun (for the push
> >theories) or else to accelerate out of its orbit (for the pull theories).
> >Since the earth, by all measures, has persisted in its orbit for more than
> >four billion years, it follows that gravitational force must propagagte at
> >millions of times the speed of light. (And this result, of course, rends
> >Einstein's "universal speed limit" to shreds.)
> >
> >Why do most "modern" physicists such as Feynmann skate past such issues?
> >The answer: for the same reason that con men do not focus on weaknesses in
> >their own presentations--i.e., because they don't want to scare away the
> >"mark." That is what the student is, Martin: the mark. He is the sucker in
> >the fraud of "modern" physics. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> The only problem with this dramatic demonstration that modern physics
> is rotten at the core is that it is based on a demonstrably incorrect
> assumption.
> 
> General relativity does not require forces to "propagate" at 
> speeds greater than the speed of light.  Yet at the same time,
> it does _not_ imply orbit-destabilizing aberrations.
> You may not believe it, Mitchell, but it's true.

***{Oh, I believe it, Martin. That's why I explicitly qualified my
statement by using the word "intelligible." Here is what I said: "You see,
Martin, LaPlace's reasoning doesn't just apply to the LeSage theory: it
applies to all intelligible theories of gravitation." General relativity,
you see, is *not* an intelligible theory of gravitation. 

Why not? Because force is rate of change in momentum, Martin! This means
that, when an orbiting object changes its direction of motion, it is
experiencing a force, by definition! But, in the GR treatment of
gravitation, space is treated as "empty." There ain't nothing there to
exert the force, Martin! The force is leaping into existence out of
nothing! That's all "curved space" is, in fact: a gobbledygook notion of
forces leaping into existence out of nothing. The problem is simple: we
either accept the principle that attributes (e.g., force) are carried by
entities, or we deny it. GR denies it. Result: we have no basis for
inferring from sensation to source. Result: we can't infer the existence
of any entity from sensory evidence, because GR explicitly repudiates the
premise that attributes are carried by entities! Result: the entire
structure of human knowledge instantly collapses. Result: where, before,
we had knowledge, now we have unintelligible gobbledygook! (Ain't
"science" grand!) 

Bottom line: Einstein's theory of "General Relativity" (again, the
philosophical interpretation, not the math) is a joke. What we have to do
here is enjoy a belly laugh at Einstein's expense and then toss out his
philosophical interpretation, while keeping his curve fitted mathematical
formulations. And, of course, once we have done that we find ourselves in
the market for a visual model to explain what the mathematical constructs
*mean.* And, at that point, we notice the LeSage model, and we are in
business!

See how simple it all was?

By the way, do you remember the famous "debate" between Bohr and Einstein?
Do you know why Einstein "lost?" Here is the answer: Einstein lost because
he couldn't use Bohr's continuity violations against him. Why couldn't he
use them? Because Einstein, in the heart of his sacred "theory of general
relativity" posited continuity violations himself, as we have just seen.
Since Bohr did not hesitate to point that fact out to him, he "won" the
"debate!"  --Mitchell Jones}***  

> The reason Feynman "skates past such issues" is presumably for
> pedagogical reasons:  he was trying to explain Newtonian physics
> in that section of his lectures, and indeed he never discusses
> general relativity in detail in the lectures because there's no
> way to give a proper treatment at a level that first-year students
> could understand.

***{Nope. He skated past those issues for exactly the reason that I
described. The "general relativity defense" doesn't work here, old buddy!
--Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> As I said at the start, I'm grown rather sick of this thread, so
> good-bye, and good wishes.
> 
> Martin Gelfand
> Dept of Physics, Colorado State University

***{And goodbye to you, Martin, and good wishes to you, as well.
--Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Oct 10 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
