1995.05.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  HMICRO comments on Patterson
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HMICRO comments on Patterson
Date: Fri, 12 May 95 22:46:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

hmicro@aol.com (HMICRO) writes:
 
    "Concerning Jed Rothwell's comments about Patterson cells producing excess
    power, my analysis of the Patterson patent itself (U.S. 5,318,675) shows
    that the ratio of power out to power in is on average 52%, with the
    maximum being 74%."
 
That is correct. The patents do not show significant excess heat, unless you
estimate losses from the cell (which was not insulated). It is good thing
too, or the Patent Office would have sat on them just like they sit on other
CF patents.
 
 
     "This is a far cry from the touted 1000% power ratios we hear about."
 
Those power ratios were not "touted." They were measured by Cravens, reported
by him the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion, demonstrated in a
live cell, and verified by many of the participants. That is not "touting"
that's called "proving" it. Touting is what hot fusion people do.
 
 
     "Furthermore, the calculations do not take into account the
     288 joules of energy used to "load" the cells before they function."
 
So what? The 288 joules (more like 600, actually) get used up 20 minutes
after the reaction starts, and the reaction continues for as many weeks
as you leave it running. That's weeks versus minutes, and megajoules versus
joules. Those are different orders of magnitude. Weeks are MUCH longer than
minutes. Okay?
 
 
    "I will be happy to send via U.S. Mail a copy of the analysis to anyone
    interested."
 
Whereas I will post my analysis right here, by and by. May take a couple
of months. Kinda busy. . .
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.13 / 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: Sat, 13 May 1995 01:31:21 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:
cuddy13 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.13 / Paul Hanchett /  Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: paulha@teleport.com (Paul Hanchett)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
Date: Sat, 13 May 95 03:30:29 GMT
Organization: Computer Network Services

In article <3p0372$l7m@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
   rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade) wrote:
>It is not a pretty picture... the nuclear physics profession being
>outsmarted by a kernal of corn.

I suspect that what's happening is that the growth process takes CO2 from the 
air, binds the carbon to materials already in the (sprouting) seed, and 
releases the O2.  Sort of Nature's slight of hand, ya know.

paulha@teleport.com
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpaulha cudfnPaul cudlnHanchett cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.13 / Doug Merritt /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
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, 13 May 1995 04:19:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <conrad.800297338@skid.ps.uci.edu> conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu (Conrad) writes:
>wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes:
>
>>   Most physicists agree that there is a wave particle problem with 
>>regard to light.
>
>What do you mean?  Real subatomic particles have measured point-like and
>wave-like properties that are well described by quantum mechanics.  This
>is often referred to as the wave/particle duality, but I do not know of
>any physicist who considers this to be a "problem".

Correct. The wave/particle duality follows from the The General
Uncertainty Principle, which is a purely mathematical lemma in
abstract algebra that requires no physical assumptions nor
observations, other than simple things like definitions of e.g.
momentum and position, to see how it relates to physics.

Less generally, it trivially follows from Fourier Analysis that
a function of e.g. position, if infinitely accurate and therefore
"bandlimited" in possible range of positions, is necessarily
unlimited -- requires an infinite number of spatial-frequency
series terms. This translates for a non-zero mass body into
requiring an infinite number of contributing phase velocities --
there is no unambiguous momentum.

Similarly the other way around, if one assumes infinite precision
of momentum (e.g. of velocity for a non-zero mass body), then that
requires in the Fourier domain an infinite number of contributing
non-zero position terms, so the uncertainty in position is complete.

None of this requires any quantum mechanics, special relativity, etc.
It follows directly, even in classical physics, from considerations
of Fourier analysis. It is generally analysed in terms of QM
theory, where the consideration is of commuting vs. non-commuting
operators, but it holds true even without that QM background,
for purely mathematical reasons.

Phrasing this purely intuitively and tying it back to the wave/particle
duality: a wave is a body which is not very localized in space...
it has a relatively distributed position, which causes it to
do wave-like things, such as diffracting in smooth curves. A particle
is relatively localized in space, and that alone gives it the properties
we consider particle-like...both having a definite position, and
also that it doesn't tend to diffract like a wave, but instead
collides and rebounds via linear paths.

The difference, however, is purely a matter of whether the
Fourier Transform of the body is relatively bandlimited or not...
that's all. Bodies that are completely bandlimited in position
(zero outside of a single point) behave as perfect particles; bodies
that are infinite in position bandwidth (nonzero across an infinite range
of possible positions) behave as perfect waves. Bodies typically observed
in experiment may approximate either extreme, or they may fall somewhere in
between, behaving somewhat like a wave and somewhat like a particle.

There is no mystery to this, no unwarranted assumptions, and most
of all, it is *not* controversial. Any competent physicist is
aware of this; it is most certainly not some kind of hot research
issue in physics (I am not a competent physicist myself, and therefore
may have made errors in the above; but I think the general concepts
are correct.)

So in short, the wave/particle duality is here to stay for mathematical
reasons, regardless of changes in current paradigms of physics.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife HC_III
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.13 / 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: 13 May 1995 04:06:31 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <1995May9.160903.23888@schbbs.mot.com>
bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

> Has this actually made it on the air yet? Did anyone see it?  The networks
> don't spend an hour of actual air time on wars, so somehow I doubt they will
> spend that long on Ludwig, even though they may have shot that much footage.

What you will see in my 5 minutes of air time is this. Of course I
delete the best in order that you will watch it Bronis , of course, but
in overview form here is what you see in 5 minutes, . .

crucify me upside down onto the elm tree on Wheelock street

two maidens here from Dartmouth who were rejected by Playboy "Ivy
League women in the buff crucified on same tree to right and left of
me. They in the buff naturally (naturlich in German with translators)

TV commercial break time , GE sponsor, WE BRING GOOD THINGS TO LIVING;
WE BRING GOOD THINGS TO LIFE

Now back to me

girl to left of me must say the words she had been rehearsing in order
to get her part " see you and your PU cannot get you off this tree.
girl on right says "plutonium can I come into your heaven?

I say to her "Baby, (Liebe Freulein in German, translator wanting every
word correct) Baby, tonight, you and I will see Dis, PLuto, Zeus,
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Persephone, Demeter,
Hera, Apollo, 

Ouch as the blood is spurting out of my hands and feet

and all the 94 Protons, . . better than anything here on Earth, weep
not

TV commercial break selling stainless steel nails  and Ban underarm
deodorant stick and roll-on

TV camera watches us die slowly. This program is carried by satellite
and all major international TV stations for people are tired of
wife-lover murderings, and building bombers. Hello mom " I just nuked
NYC, do I get to go on TV now, huh mom huh, . .  . . Oh son, you
darling, you made it on TV. . 

TV commercial break, Johnson and Johnson ouchless bandage spots. Then
Motrin headache when your head feels upside down, . ..

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.13 / Richard Blue /  Re: Dick Blue's imaginary problems
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dick Blue's imaginary problems
Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 15:03:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I got started on this, in part, as a response to Jed Rothwell's
assertion that the evidence for cold fusion is so robust that
we need not concern ourselves with error bars.  I was trying
to point out that the signals that are being interpreted are
not always as robust as Jed would have us believe.

In the case of the Griggs measurements, my assertion is that
we are dealing with an electrical environment that is most
likely electrically noisey.  Given that information about the
experiments is sadly lacking, I don't believe that we can
assume that every instrument reading can be taken at face value.
Jed asserts that the operation of the thermocouple readouts
was crosschecked against nonelectronic thermometers such that
electrical interference could not have screwed up the temperature
measurements.  But here is where the question of data books
comes into play.  Who knows what tests were run and under what
conditions if nothing was ever written down in a systematic way?
Jed recalls that at some point the thermocouple readings were
compared with other thermometers, and that was sufficient to
convince him the thermocouples were reading correctly.  However,
we don't know that to be the case throughout the course of
a series of measurements.  In fact Jed has described his experiments
as being a rather busy time.  And don't forget that Griggs is
doing experiments that are not under Jed's watchful eye.

Then we come to the questions relating to whether the electrical
noise situation changes significantly during the transistion from
hot water to steam production.  I won't simply assume that
nothing happens when those who have witnessed the operation
of the Griggs device indicate that there is an audible change in
the way things run and thesre is a change in the electrical
load on the drive motor.  Might I suggest that ultrasound generation
and electrical noise may be linked directly or indirectly.

Finally, there is the common misconception that commercial instruments
are all protected sufficiently against the effects of electrical
noise.  Generally they do operate properly under "normal" conditions,
but the degree of noise filtering is neccessarily limited with respect
to the amplitude and frequency range.  The thermocouple signals may
be adequately isolated for signals at 60 Hz or 120 Hz, but 1000 Hz
may present problems.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.13 / Richard Blue /  Re: What's wrong with H2O usion
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O usion
Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 15:43:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Elliot, To continue on my line of questioning whether there is any
hope for a single explanation of both the D2O and H2O forms of
cold fusion, I am still puzzled as to what role H2O can possibly
play in a Hagelstein neutron transfer process.  Certainly the
deuteron has a loosely bound neutron that just isn't there in
ordinary hydrogen.

Before this discussion goes much further, I would like to see a clear
statement as to what nuclear transformations are thought to be
responsible for the energy release in each of the two cases.  If
Peter Hagelstein has presented a theory that must be part of the
theory, right?

Anticipating that the reactions involve neutron transfer from a
nucleus with relatively low neutron binding to a nucleus where the
added neutron can be more tightly bound, I would ask for some
justification for the notion that there is a process that may be
described as "neutron-in phonons-out" be given.  I have been going
around and around with Scott Chubb on just this sort of thing.
My assertion is that you must make a choice as to the degree to
which nuclear and atomic degrees of freedom are coupled.

If you assert that nuclear excitation energy can be transfered
directly to phonons is that not an assertion that a coupling
exists between internal nuclear degrees of freedom and the center
of mass coordinates of the nucleus?  In that case any theoretical
model has to solve the problem with all those degrees of freedom
in play.  Alternatively you can stay with the orthodox picture
which says the internal nuclear wavefuction is not influenced
in any way by what happens in the realm of phonons.  Then you
have to tell us why the nucleus does not deexcite in the good
old familiar ways that are oh so easy to detect.

It seems to me that Hagelstein has nothing to offer that relates
to anything beyond some rather vague descriptive connections
to experimental evidence that is also very shakey.  If the theory
picture is not already cloudy enough, we are then invited to
believe that the Patterson cell offers somekind of breakthrough
to a higher level of certainty on the experimental side.  While
it may do whatever it is doing with better reproducibility than
is common for cold fusion, it doesn't seem to do very much.
One watt does not clearly put us out of the range of ordinary
experimental errors.

How much power does the circulating pump in the Cravens demo
consume and where does that power end up?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.12 /  law007@kbbs.co /  Income Tax is Big Consp!! SPAM CANCEL
     
Originally-From: law007@kbbs.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Income Tax is Big Consp!! SPAM CANCEL
Date: Fri, 12 May 95 12:52:22 PST

This spam cancel brought to you by the CancelCow(tm), which is nothing
but a cheezy imitation of the CancelMoose(tm).

Comments to an54301@anon.penet.fi. The streets will flow with the
blood of the spam-believers.

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlaw007 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.13 / 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: 13 May 1995 11:36:07 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Wolfgang Ratzka (wolfgang.ratzka@physik.uni-regensburg.de) wrote:
: >>>>> On 12 May 1995 08:30:38 -0400, wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan
: >>>>> Wallace) said:

: BW> How about calling it "successful".  I started by only posting to 
: BW> sci.physics and got only a limited response from my thread regarding 
: BW> discussion of my  book "The Farce of Physics" and the problems with 
: BW> modern physics.  Since I added the other newsgroups I've a much greater 
: BW> cross cultural response.  Nothing succeeds like success!
:     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

: Since when has "cross cultural" become PC speak for crackpot?
: --
: |  | )                     Wolfgang.Ratzka@Physik.Uni-Regensburg.de
: |/\| \                   Tel:+49 941 943 2010, FAX +49 941 943 3887

Since the biggest crackpots now come from the largest mental 
institutions such as Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley, etc.

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.13 / 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: 13 May 1995 11:48:42 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Alan M. Dunsmuir (Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article: <3ovkde$11u@xcalibur.IntNet.net>  wallaceb@news.IntNet.net
(Bryan Wallace) writes:

: > How about calling it "successful".  I started by only posting to 
: > sci.physics and got only a limited response from my thread regarding 
: > discussion of my  book "The Farce of Physics" and the problems with 
: > modern physics.  Since I added the other newsgroups I've a much greater 
: > cross cultural response.  Nothing succeeds like success!
: > 

: Well. If you've now got the responses you want from the kook groups you've
: added, perhaps you could drop sci.physics and sci.physics.fusion, where
: we all seem too stupid to recognize the value of your arguments.

: Alternatively, we could have a word with your new service provider about your
: misuse of the facilities of the 'Net.

: -- 
: Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

:          I am his Highness' dog at Kew
:          Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
: 			      [Alexander Pope]

: PGP Public Key available on request.

I don't think all the people that post in sci.physics and 
sci.physics.fusion are as stupid as you.  I suspect most of them also 
believe in freedom of speech, and you don't.

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.13 /  Conrad /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu (Conrad)
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: 13 May 95 16:00:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

Van (vanjac@netcom.com) wrote:
>Isn't there a name for this kind of posting?

>Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.      -( )--(1)--(1)+-(1)+-(1)--(1)
>+           ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivism,                    |    \-[1]--(1)
>+           alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.                 \-(1)--(1)--(1)
>+           books.technical,sci.astro,sci.       -(1)
>+           energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.
>+           physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,sci.
>+           research,sci.skeptic

Yes, extensive crossposting is referred to as velveeta.  It is not a
violation of netiquette like a spam.  If the post is off topic for
some of the groups it appears in, you should complain to the author.
I have publicly suggested the Mr. Wallace limit his crossposts to no
avail.  He claims to be on a crusade that needs to reach a wide
audience, and that his posts are on topic for all 14 of these groups.

(A spam is independently posting the same article to many groups.
 This results in multiple copies of the same file on the newsservers.)
--
 //===============================\\
||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
||   You have to decide to live.   ||
 \\===============================//
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenconrad cudlnConrad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.13 / 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: 13 May 1995 12:17:21 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Conrad (conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu) wrote:
: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes:

: [snip]
: >   Most physicists agree that there is a wave particle problem with 
: >regard to light.

: What do you mean?  Real subatomic particles have measured point-like and
: wave-like properties that are well described by quantum mechanics.  This
: is often referred to as the wave/particle duality, but I do not know of
: any physicist who considers this to be a "problem".

Feynman states we don't have a good model of this on page 37 of his 1985 
book QED.  This is one example of a prominent physicist that has the 
intelligence to know what we do not know!

: >To date my 1969 Venus radar paper is the only published 
: >objective comparative analysis of the data regarding both models.  I was 
: >forced to use the sparse published 1961 Venus radar data and as my book 
: >shows, I was never able to get a more complete set of data from Shapiro 
: >or anyone else.  The early data was reported to be accurate to around 1.5 
: >km while the current one way signal transit time data from orbiting 
: >spacecraft is reported to be accurate to around 1.5 m and the velocities 
: >involved are much higher and in the case of the Venus Magellan graft have 
: >periods of around 90 min. as opposed to 24 hrs.  In the case of the 
: >early radar data the differences in the 2 theories was around 200 km 
: >while in the case of the Magellan craft it would be about 3500 km.  The 
: >wrong model would show the craft to be in an impossible elliptical orbit 
: >while the correct one would show it in its proper nearly circular orbit 
: >as determined by its surface radar data.  The one way signal transit 
: >times would also make it possible to determine the Earth's motion through 
: >the solid vacuum/space/ether if it existed.  

: JPL does the navigation for all interplanetary spacecraft including
: Magellan.  They use algorithms based on general relativity, they have
: reported no discrepancies, and they are generating beautiful maps of
: Venus with the Magellan data.  How could they possibly achieve this,
: if their determination of Magellan's position was 3500 km in error?!?

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.  This is not politically acceptable 
at this time.  What we need is a dramatic demonstation of this fact 
based on an objective analysis of both the wave and particle models!

: >I have a simple test to 
: >determine if a physicist is a legitimate scientist.  If they call for NASA 
: >to make a complete objective analysis with regard to both models, I 
: >consider them to be true scientists.  If they don't they are  
: >pathological scientists or politicians.  Until this test is done, modern 
: >physics will remain a farce and does not deserve to be funded by the 
: >Federal Government!

: I have not been able to find your 1969 paper, but I suspect that your
: calculation of the "standard" interpretation of the data does not rely
: on GR.  If your interpretation of "standard" physics is incorrect, why
: should I support your call to compare your two models?

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!

: -- :  
//===============================\\
: ||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
: ||   You have to decide to live.   ||
:  \\===============================//

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun May 14 04:37:02 EDT 1995
------------------------------
