1995.07.15 / Jim Carr /  Re: extrapolation
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: extrapolation
Date: 15 Jul 1995 21:49:31 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

|mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) wrote:
|..
|>
|>The point is that the initial kinetic energy of the reacting nuclei,
|>whether in a 'beam' or in solid state, is infinitesimally small
|>compared to the energy gained from the initial fusion.  This means
|>that the 'wave functions of the particles in the excited state' will
|>be nearly identical whether or not the initial reacting nuclei
|>came in with zero or nonzero relative kinetic energies.  

In article <3tq3f1$ilf@manuel.anu.edu.au> 
Dave Davies <dave.davies@anu.edu.au> writes:
>
>Variations of this argument have been posted here for years. That doesn't
>make them right. 

It also does not make them wrong.  The more important of these variations
takes note of the fact that those extrapolations proved reasonably correct 
when they were used to predict muon-catalyzed fusion rates.  This variation 
was then used to predict piezo-nuclear fusion in a refereed publication 
by van Siclen and Jones, a result that led to the CF experiments by Jones. 

>                 They may be an attractive intuitive extrapolation but,
>as has been pointed out many times they are only extrapolations and not
>strong ones at that. 

This claim has been made many times on the net without any numerical 
results to back it up.  The rates are within a few orders of magnitude 
and the brancing ratios do not change when you get down to muCF energies. 

>To repeat my response in short: Two critical factors in the Quantum Mechanics
>of a reaction between two systems are energy AND time. High kinetic energy in
>a particle beam collision can mean a stronger interaction but the high speed

Not always.  The interaction does not vary in a simple way with energy. 
But this is a bogus argument since you use 'high energy' with any 
definition.  Do you mean eV, keV, MeV, or GeV?  

>      ...         A low inergy incident particle could spend more time in 
>the vicinity of the target but will be repelled by the coulomb repulsion at
>a greater distance than the high energy, faster particle was. 

There may be no coulomb barrier at all at "high energy".   

>                                                              This relates
>only to the standard nuclear physics collision processes. 

This is simply not true.  It applies to any analysis that employs 
non-relativistic quantum mechanics, either for scattering or bound 
states.  Only your over-simplified statements, which apply to specific 
results rather then the general properties of reactions, have this 
limitation.  I suggest you examine the calculations of Jackson back 
in the 50s and the modern version by Koonin. 

>Quantitatively, the energies of D atoms/nuclei trapped in interstitial
>location in a metal lattice are lower than can be used for beam collisions
>other than for very low energy surface collisions. 

I would say they are lower than those as well.  They are even lower 
than the effective energy in muCF, but not by as many orders of magnitude 
as muCF is relative to scattering or thermal measurements. 

>                                                 The qualitative distinction
>comes from the observation that with CF we are probably not looking at 
>anything that resembles a conventional beam collision because both Ds are
>trapped in/on the solid. 

But there is no such qualitative distinction between CF and muon catalyzed 
CF.  Even the most rudimentary understanding of Quantum Mechanics will 
allow you to follow and repeat the calculations of Jackson and/or of 
Zel'dovich and Gershtein -- or of Steve Jones and his collaborators. 

>My key point here, as usual, is not to claim that CF is proven or understood
>but that it is not rational to totally dismiss it because it is strange.

No one did that.  Those that rejected it out of hand did so because the 
rates were implausibly large to be consistent with experimental results 
such as Jones had reported in the past, and many of those who doubted 
on day-zero were at most skeptical when Jones reported his neutron 
measurements a day later.  The doubts came as results were retracted. 

The lack of a specific phenomenon that can be identified as CF (is 
it plain water with Nickel or deuterated water with Palladium or ...) 
is an added difficulty.  As you note, not all of the theories can be 
right because they contradict one another.  

-- 
 James A. Carr   <carr@scri.fsu.edu>    |  "My pet light bulb is a year old  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  today.  That is 5.9 trillion miles 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  in light years.  Your mileage may 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  vary."   -- Heywood Banks 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 04:29:47 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <JTLC4h1.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>Of course the Cravens cell is CF. It is very similar to the work with Pd and
>Ti. Heck, ask Morrison or Blue and they will tell it is exactly the same! They
>don't even realize that nickel and palladium are different elements, they are
>such dodo-brains.

Huh? You think that Cravens mistakes are Cold Fusion, but that Morrison and
blue are "dodo-brains" for agreeing with you? Obviously.

>I DON'T CARE WHAT MAKES THEM GO. Maybe it is CF, maybe it isn't. I
>don't give a damn.

Then why are you bothering to post here insisting that this "science"
which hasn't produced a reproducible effect yet is "real"?

If it is so real, where's the beef? Where are the products of this
incredable free energy?

 The only thing I care about is finding a practical,
>profitable source of clean energy.

OK! Where is it?


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Richard Blue /  Atomic autoradiographs?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Atomic autoradiographs?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 14:30:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I let this one pass the first time, but since John Vetrano
quoted it recently I will point out an obvious error in
Mitchell Swartz's thinking.

The quote from MS is:

"Despite the attacks of the TB-skeptics against autoradiographs,
it too is another means to examine a direct view of the lattice."

Since this was said in the context of a discussion of SEM photos,
it would seem that Mitchell is asserting that an autoradiograph
provides a picture of the lattice with resolution on a microscopic
scale.  I think we need to review what an autoradiograph is within
the context of CF investigations before we swallow that one.
It is basically nothing more than the exposure of film placed
in contact with the sample.  I use the word "contact" loosely since
there are likely some interposing layers of material.  Now, Mitchell,
is it your assertion that this "image" obtained without benefit
of any optical system provides "a direct view of the lattice?"
Please explain.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Richard Blue /  Re: Marshall Dudley theory
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley theory
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 15:00:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Marshall,

I threw out the 10^-40 sec time scale to see if you have given such
matters any thought as you construct your hypothesis.  I am still
not sure that you have, but at least you have checked up on my number.

I agree that the realm of direct experimental measurements of time
intervals for nuclear decay events cuts off well above 10^-40 sec.
Let us take your 10^-20 seconds as being at least one limit to be
considered.  There is a way to extend that to small time scales by
inference, but you might consider that "theory" I suppose.  Still it
is pretty basic stuff so I think you should give it some consideration.

In the observation of the decay of shortlived nuclear states it is
often possible to measure the "width" of a state.  That is to say
the energy distribution of particles emitted from the state may
exceed the experimental resolution sufficiently to make it possible
to determine the energy width of the decaying state.  The energy-time
uncertainty relationship then allows one to deduce the lifetime of
the decaying state.  Shortlived states have large widths such that
lifetimes too short to be determined directly can be inferred from
the width.  If we are to consider the decay of excited states in
4He the observed widths may well put the time scale into the
10^-23 second range.  OK?  Too theoretical?

Now you went further than this, however, when you suggested that the
absence of particle decays from the excited 4He was due to the
introduction of competing processes - processes that are so much faster
that the normal decays become unobservable.  Well, just how much faster
is that?

Off the top of my head I seem to recall that one watt of fusion power requires
something like 10^13 fusions per second.  Normally that would result in the
emission of almost 10^13 particles per second, but within the limits of
experimental sensitivity there are essentially none.  What should we take
as a the experimental number for sensitivity to neutrons?  Steve Jones
can certainly put the limit down in the few per hour range, but let's not
push the point.  I would say that 1 per second is a piece of cake
experimentally.

So you are claiming that the neutron emission rate goes down by thirteen
orders of magnitude.  Hence I would conclude that the competing process
has to reduce the lifetime of excited 4He to something less than

         10^-36 seconds.

There, does that make you happier?  Sorry if my original number was off
by 10^4.

Next I would invite you to considered the length scales in our model with
equal care.  So far you have written about charge neutralization as if
all you have to do is count up the number of plus and minus charges.  I
don't think that is sufficient detail to address the problem.  You really
need to calculate charge densities with resolution appropriate to the
scale of nuclear interactions.  Now several others have done this, and not
gotten the results you seek so what are you going to do that is different?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Richard Blue /  Recoilless decays
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Recoilless decays
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 16:36:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The discussions concerning the decay of excited nuclei in a lattice
all seem to be missing some very simple physics.  I would, once
again, like to drag this out into the light.

The assertion from the CF camp is that two deuterons fuse to form
a single 4He that then delivers some 25 MeV to the lattice in the
form of phonons.  I think something gets lost through the use of
the word "phonon".  It is important, I think, to keep in mind that
a "phonon" is a way of refering to a quantum of excitation in the
lattice.  It is not a particle in the same sense that the 4He is
a particle.

In order to discusses phonons intelligently one should specify
what degrees of freedom are involved.  I believe, in the case
of a PdD, lattice the phonons involve the spatial coordinates of
the centers of mass for each nucleus in the lattice.  Thus, the
energy content of the phonons in that lattice is, in a more
fundamental sense, a combination of the potential energy and the
kinetic energy of vibration as each nucleus oscillates about
its equillibrium position in the lattice.  Is there anything
wrong with this statement?

The excitation energy of the 4He nucleus is something completely
different.  The coordinates of the center of mass of that excited
nucleus are not involved in any way.  In order for the excitation
energy to become phonons there must be a coupling between the
internal coordinates of the nucleus and the coordinates that
describe the motion of the center of mass.  Normally, for a free
nucleus that coupling is totally lacking.  Hence it is not possible
for a nucleus in isolation to deexcite by speeding up, i.e. to transfer
energy from the internal degrees of freedom to the kinetic energy of
translation unless something is emitted.  That is to say you can't
have a recoil without something to recoil from.

If you are following this you now should see that the CF assertion
that the emission does not occur because lattice absorbs the recoil
is asking for the impossible.  There is no recoil to be absorbed by
the lattice unless something is emitted.

In order for the 4He to deexcite without emission there must be a coupling
between the internal degrees of freedom of the nucleus and the lattice
coordinates.  My assertion is that NO ONE, NO WHERE has ever made any
presentation that describes in a rational way any such coupling between
the internal degrees of freedom of 4He and a lattice of any description
with no accompanying particle emission.  There is no theory for the
process because it is patently absurd!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Edward Lewis /  Plasmoids
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmoids
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 23:10:40 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago



			Copyright 1995 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

Posted March 30, 1995.

Edward Lewis						March 8, 1995
P. O. Box 13060						Revised, May 8, 1995
Chicago, Illinois  60613

PLASMOID PHENOMENA
	
	Fundamental anomalous phenomena are the contradictions of the
postulates of the premises of people's theories, and the environment.
Those who apprehend a theory and experience according to the theory
may experience the contradictions.  It seems that since the
fundamental postulates of people's premises are few, the kinds of
fundamental anomalies are few.  During the last 20 years, the number
of people who have been experiencing and reporting about the anomalies
of the Q.M. and Relativity theories has been rapidly increasing.  The
last 20 years is that which Thomas Kuhn called a "crisis period," and
there have been crisis periods at about every 80 year interval since
1500(1).  It seems to me that a group of fundamental phenomena of the
current set of phenomena is that of "plasmoid" phenomena.

	In earlier articles, I've written that atoms are plasmoid
phenomena.  Plasmoids seem to be basically an electrical-magnetic
phenomena -- plasmoids have converted to electricity.  The magnetism
is an aspect of the electricity.  I suspect that atoms are like ball
lightning -- if this is so then atoms may often be toroidally shaped,
and may usually not contain inner clumps in the middle.  The magnetism
of atoms is an electrical phenomena similar to the magnetism of the
earth.  People have experienced that the magnetism (people have used
the term "magnetic lines of force") of the earth is electrical
currents.  Light is the same as electricity since it interconverts(2).
Inertia, accretion, and separation of plasmoids is also an
electrical-magnetic phenomena -- as relative motion of plasmoids also
seems to be.

	Almost all or all the phenomena that I know about seem to be
plasmoid phenomena.  Substance seems to be a plasmoid phenomena
because galaxies are plasmoids and substance converts to other kinds
of plasmoid phenomena, light, and electricity(3).  Micrometer-sized
plasmoid phenomena has been reported to be the locus of neutron
emission(45), and ball lightning-like phenomena(6) has been associated
with neutron production also.  Matsumoto has shown traces of plasmoids
that moved on the surface of emulsions while emitting little plasmoids
people might call particles (like the "Superstar" trace in FUS. TECH.,
22, 165 (August, 1992), Fig. 8).  Like other plasmoids, atoms may
clump and divide and dissipate so that new substances, elements and
isotopes, and electricity and light are produced.  It seems that
plasmoid phenomena are the same though the size varies.  For example,
galaxies seem to convert to jets, beams, and electrical currents in
the middle,in that which seems to be a vortex, such as in the galaxies
M87, Cygnus A, and NGC4258, and this seems to be similar to the jets,
beams, and electrical discharges from ball lightning, the beams and
electrical discharges from micrometer-sized plasmoids, the beams from
discharge devices reported by Savvatimova and Karabut et al., and the
beam or jet that a plasmoid emitted on nuclear emulsion that Matsumoto
showed(7).  I think that EVs(5), ball lightning, plasmoids, tornadoes
and galaxies are similar phenomena since they behave similarly(8).

	People have produced plasmoid and BL-like phenomena for a long
time.  W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes(9), and according to A. Peratt(10), he
coined the term.  In this paper, Bostick had already begun to tell
others about his speculation that galaxies and the phenomena he
produced were similar.  He compared the shapes and the travel of these
things.  He also speculated a little about the identity of
"particles."  According to experimental results, many people including
Bostick, Alfven (Nobel Prize, Magneto-hydrodynamics), Peratt(11) and
Lerner(12) have developed similar extensive astrophysical theories
that model the universe as plasmoids; while others, such as
Bostick(13,14,15) developed models of particles as plasmoids.  For
decades, many people have tried to use plasmoids for weapons(16,17)
and for fusion, and it is well known that plasmoids are associated
with element, isotope, and neutron production.

	In the latter part of the 1700s, people were producing ball
lighting-like phenomena by using Leyden jars, a kind of condensor, and
in the late 1800s, Plante and others studied BL-like phenomena
produced by discharge through wires and in plate condensors.  Tesla
also produced such phenomena.  There have been about 8 international
conferences about ball lightning and luminous atmospheric phenomena
during the last 8 years.  In 1992, after reading literature about ball
lightning and reading cold fusion articles, I began to tell(18)
Matsumoto and other people about my idea that tiny ball-lightning
phenomena were produced in "cold fusion" apparatus, and about how the
ball lightning phenomena that were produced by electrolysis "cold
fusion" apparatus produced the many kinds of micrometer sized
anomalous traces in nuclear emulsions that Matsumoto had shown in
several articles in THE JOURNAL OF FUSION TECHNOLOGY.  Since then,
Matsumoto has reported about the observation of tiny ball
lightning-like phenomena in some cold fusion apparatus(19,20,21), and
he has produced many more traces that are better evidence of the
production of things that can be called tiny ball lightning or
plasmoids.  I use the term plasmoid as a general term.
	
	Most if not all other anomalous phenomena that I know about
can be described as plasmoid phenomena.  For example,
superconductivity seems to be similar to the phenomena of ball
lightning traveling though materials such as ceramics and glass
without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball lightning may
convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or it may convert
to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence and "cavitation" seems
to be a phenomena of the water and other substances converting to
light and perhaps electricity, and to other atoms and bigger
micrometer-sized plasmoids.  The pits and the localized melting seem
to be plasmoid and discharge effects.  The vortex phenomena
photographed by Stringham and George are plasmoid phenomena.

	I suggest that people use nuclear emulsions and check their
apparatus microscopically to find plasmoids or their effects. Also,
check the electrical grounding of the apparatus and see whether there
are electrical surges.  I suspect that in many apparatus much
substance may convert and leave as plasmoids and/or electricity.
Also, I suggest that people try to check whether things like time
(maybe use atomic clocks(22)), accretion (the clumping of plasmoids,
even very large ones), and magnetism change around their cold fusion
and plasmoid apparatus.  There is much evidence of anomalous changes
of these things around and in plasmoid phenomena such as discharge
phenomena, ball lightning, solar flares, volcanoes and earthquakes.
The changes of the accretion of plasmoid phenomena associated with
plasmoid phenomena is the production of new elements and substances.
For example, a BL-like phenomena landed on a hill near Vladivostok in
Russia called Height 611.  It left residues of rare earths, strange
alloys, and filaments of quartz with filaments of gold 7 micrometers
wide inside(23).  Check for superconductivity, since this is a
plasmoid phenomena.  Also, I suspect that storms on earth greatly
affect at least some CF apparatus.  Hawkins(24) and others(25)
reported that a electrolysis apparatus exhibited heat and gamma-ray
excursions at the times of electrical storms, but not otherwise.  In
this vein, it is interesting that V. A.  Filimonov reports that a
neutron source greatly stimulates CF phenomena(26).  Lightning is
associated with neutron production(27).  I'm speculating that neutrons
are a plasmoid environment, like larger plasmoids.
	
	On one weekly T.V. show(28) about unusual phenomena that is shown
in Chicago, there was a report about people who were in Gulf Breeze,
Florida in the U.S.A. who reported seeing a small light orbiting a
larger luminous orb.  I have read the reports of people who have seen
two BL revolve about a common center and of people who have seen
several BL revolving together.  I suspect that according to the new
set of phenomena, the reason the small BL-like phenomena was orbiting
the bigger orb is the same reason that the planets orbit the Sun.
	
	If I could suggest some experiments, as I suggested in 1992(29),
look for the emission of neutrons and other kinds of plasmoids during
stress of substances other than hydrogen and during stresses other
than electrical discharge, such as by thermal cycling or fracture.
When I was 5 or 6, I produced tiny, unusual BL-like phenomena (sparks)
that flew around, changed colors, and made a noise by fracturing a
certain kind of rock.  Composites or combinations of elements with big
differences of "oxidation state"(29) or electronegativity may prove
useful; this seems superficially similar to Hora, Miley et al.'s(30) idea
of using differences in Fermi level.

-------Footnotes

1) E. Lewis, "The Periodic Production of Rationalized Phenomena and
the Past Periodic Depressions," manuscript article, 1992, 1994, 1995.
2)For example, electron holography provides a means of converting
electrons to light.
3)E. Lewis, "Plasmoids and Cold Fusion," Cold Fusion Times, 2 (no. 1),
4 (Summer, 1994).
4)W. H. Bostick, W. Prior, L. Grunberger, and G. Emmert, "Pair
Production of Plasma Vortices," Physics of Fluids, 9, 2078 (1966).
5)K. Shoulders, "Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density," Patent
Number 5,123,039.
6)G. Dijkhuis and J. Pijpelink, "Performance of a High-Voltage Test
Facility Designed for Investigation of Ball Lightning," Proc. First
International Symposium on Ball Lightning (Fire Ball) -- The Science
of Ball Lightning (Fire Ball) Tokyo, Japan, July 4-6, 1988, World
Scientific Company, Singapore, p. 336.
7)T. Matsumoto, "Searching for Tiny Black Holes During Cold Fusion,"
Fusion Technology, 22, 281 (Sept. 1992); Fig. 2b.
8)E. Lewis, "Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids," Cold Fusion
Times, 1 (no. 4), 4 (Winter, 1994).
9)W. Bostick, "Plasmoids," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 197, 87 (October 1957).
10)A. Peratt, email note, January 27,  1995.
11)A. Peratt, "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I.  Double Radio
Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets," IEEE Trans. Plasma
Science., vol. PS-14, 385 (1986).  Many other articles as well.
12)Eric Lerner, THE BIG BANG NEVER HAPPENED, New York, 1991.
13)W. Bostick, "The Plasmoid Construction of the Superstring," 21st
Century Science & Technology, p. 58, Winter 1990.
14)W. Bostick, "How Superstrings Form the Basis of Nuclear Matter,"
21st Century Science & Technology, p. 66, Winter 1990.
15)W. Bostick, "Mass, Charge, and Current: The Essence and
Morphology," Physics Essays, 4 (no.5), 45 (1991).  Millenium Twain
sent me this reference in January or Feb. of 1994.
16)J. Tennenbaum, "Behind the Russian SDI Offer: A Scientific,
Technological, and Strategic Revolution," 21st Century Science &
Technology, p. 36, Summer 1993.
17)"USAF Conducts Experiments with Compact Toroids for Future Space
Weapons," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 130, 60 (May 15, 1989).
18)E. Lewis, "A Proposal for the Performance of Four Kinds of
Experiments to Test My Own Hypotheses and a Statement of a Deduction
about Phenomena," manuscript article, October 19, 1992.
19)T. Matsumoto, "Cold Fusion Experiments by Using Electrical
Discharge in Water," distributed at the ICCF4.
20)T. Matsumoto, "Observation of Tiny Ball Lightning During Electrical
Discharge in Water," sub. to FT, Jan. 23, 1994.
21)T. Matsumoto, "Two Proposals Concerning Cold Fusion," Fusion
Technology, 26, 1337 (December 1994).
22)E. Lewis.  There is an abstract in the back of the ICCF3 abstract
booklet about two experiments.
23)SIGHTINGS, Saturday, April 1, 1995, 11:30 P.M.
24)N. Hawkins, "Possible Natural Cold Fusion in the Atmosphere,"
Fusion Technology, 19, 2212 (July, 1991).
25)N. Hawkins, S.-Sh. Yi, X.-Zh. Qi, S. Li, L. Wang, and Q. X. Zu,
"Investigations of Mechanisms and Occurrence of Meteorologically
Triggered Cold Fusion at the Chinese Academy of Sciences," Proc. Conf.
Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, Provo, Utah,
October 22-24, 1990.
26) V. A. Filimonov, "A New Cold Fusion Phenomenon,"
sci.physics.fusion newsgroup (article #16526, from profusion@aol.com),
January 21, 1995.
27) S. Shah, H. Razdan, C. Bhat, and Q. Ali, "Neutron Generation in
Lightning Bolts," NATURE, 313, 773 (1985).
28)SIGHTINGS, Saturday, December 3, 1994, 6:00 P.M.
29)E. Lewis, "A Description of Phenomena According to My Theory and
Experiments to Test My Theory," manuscript article, submitted to
FUSION TECHNOLOGY, December 1992.
30)G. Miley, H. Hora, E. G. Batyrbekov, R. Zich, "Electrolytic Cell
With Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes," Transactions of Fusion
Technology, 26, 313 (December 1994).







cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / M D /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary)
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: 21 Jul 1995 11:52:14 +0100
Organization: University of Leicester, UK

In article <-1607950120230001@ip-salem2-05.teleport.com>,
 <singtech@teleport.com> wrote:

>In article <805190629snz@galacta.demon.co.uk>, rich@galacta.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> As scientists we should be careful to keep both feet on the firm ground
>> of the scientific method and not try claiming knowledge of some greater
>> truth regarding reality.  Leave that to philosophy and religion. 

>Rich, you may be a doctor or a Ph.D. but I think you missed a class or two.

Thats a good start to a well reasoned article.

>Like modern science isn't a religion?  

No, it isn't. The only other person I've seen quoting this misconception is
Bill Conner. The reasons why it isn't have been put forward to him at great
length (though he has ignored them).

>And philosophy?  

This is a harder question than it appears on the surface, it _is_ a philosophy,
but it draws no conclusions without evidence... "I think therefore I am" is not
a rigorous scientific statement...

>Goodness, physics
>used to be called 'natural philosophy'.  

It also used to be called 'magick' and 'alchemy'. Your point is..?

>Physics has never made a
>significant advance without philosophy first encouraging it and
>authorizing it to do so.

How about three examples of this?

Perhaps you'd like to start with the philosophical conviction that earth was
the centre of the universe around which the sun and stars revolved that lead
inexorably to ...

>(Thomas Mann)  When there was a split a little
>after the turn of the century where philosophy was no longer the guiding
>instrument, its been downhill for physics ever since.

Another claim that needs backing up. Another three examples please.

>> This may be "obvious" to most, but it bears repeating, especially in
>> education where we want to stimulate insight, not create converts.

>You are very wrong.  

Thats your opinion. I think you are in a very small minority.

>We need to create converts to the idea that truth is
>knowable 

Who is this 'we' that has a vested interest in converting anyone? And what are
you converting them to?

It is a fundamental axiom of science that there is an external universe there
to be studied, i.e. "the truth is knowable"

>and that academia generally doesn't have the answers either to
>the creative process or the process of gaining insight.  

This is a null-content sentence. If academia 'generally' doesnt know something,
does that mean some part of 'academia' does know it? Or does it know some small
part of it? And what is "insight" - the kind of thought that leads to
understanding how gravity works, or the kind of thought that clues you to the
nature of god? Whats the 'creative process' - the manufacture of circuits, or
the composition of music?

>What it can do is
>regurgitate facts and concepts and has little taste for differentiating
>between the two.

Science doesn't generate 'facts'.
Science does generate 'concepts', loosely speaking.

You seem to be hankering after The Truth, adn you are looking in the wrong
place for it. Science _isnt_ a religion...

>Best Regards,
>
>-- 
>Charles Cagle
>Chief Technical Officer
>Singularity Technologies, Inc,
>1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
>Salem, OR 97304

Singularity technologies?

M.
-- 
.sig test: nearing completion.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmdo4 cudfnM cudlnD cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Refs. on CF, refs. on Wright Bros.
Date: 21 Jul 1995 11:27:04 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <J5NDIl1.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>As for the press
>versus the Wrights, here is one of my canned quotes showing how things stood
>until the morning of September 3, 1908. This quote appears in most books about
>them:

You like to go on and on about how any theory has to be thrown out if 
experiment disagrees with it.  You might try applying the same philosophy
to your own postings.  I posted quotes from the New York Times dating
from 1903.  One reported without comment the Wright Brothers' intial
flight.  One was an editorial criticizing Langley, not because heavier
than air flight was a priori impossible, but because his deficiencies as
an engineer were endangering the lives of the people trying to fly his
planes.  To paraphrase a certain J. Rothwell, I don't know why these
historians ignore those New York Times articles and editorials, and I
don't much care.  The simple fact is that the Wright Brothers' flight
was reported at the time it happened, and the fact is that the "media"
(at least as represented by the New York Times) did not reject the
idea that manned heavier-than-air flight was possible.  There's an
interesting lesson to be learned here, but alas, I doubt that you will
ever see it.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
Date: 21 Jul 1995 12:29:28 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, and its limited
relevance to the subject of cold fusion; although, I suppose, it is
related to the meta-issue of the ethics (or lack thereof) of certain
cold fusion advocates.  I hope I can be forgiven this post, but I
feel that I am within my rights that when someone tells lies (as
in deliberate untruths) about me in s.p.f., I have a right to respond
to them here.  Normally, I can ignore, or at least be amused by,
Swartz's childishness, his refusal to discuss science when it looks
like he's wrong, and his general hypocrisy of demanding one standard
of behavior from everyone else but exempting himself from that behavior.
But this time he has gone just that little bit too far.

In article <DC15Fq.LpI@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>--->  Fact [sic] #3
>It was Mr. Schultz who demanded others' credentials, and Mr. Schultz 
>who demanded answer's [sic] from others about their publications, and 
>poor-"handicapped" Mr. Schultz who demanded evermore "precise" references 
>so he could pen them for his "secretary".  
>How special.   
>And of course it was Mr. Schultz, who -- when asked to "put up or shut up" 
>a post [sic] HIS publications list and CV first and then others would 
>consider following his lead  --  apparently was dumbstruck.  
>This oblivion and/or fear was heralded by the fact that when such "light" 
>was irradiated upon his troll-like behavior , he promptly stuck his tail -- 
>? already smoking from numerous trips between Princeton and Berkeley --
>between his lower extremities and slithered towards the keyboard
>to dispatch more of his silly little libels and woozy bleats [for
>better, and much more formal, references, and  in such-and-such
>a format].   What a woos (excuse spelling).

The above statement (which I have reformatted for clarity -- really, Mr.
Swartz, you ought to get a terminal with 80 columns) is completely false.

(1) I have not demanded "others'" (plural) credentials, only Mitchell
Swartz's.  And as he well knows, this request followed an exchange
in which I pointed out a mistake Swartz made in his understanding of
hemoglobin dynamics.  His response was to ask how many publications
I had in that field, and I answered, truthfully, that I have none, as
the project on which I am currently working is not yet at the point of
being written up.  I then asked him how many he had.  He replied "many",
but when asked what they were, or even where he worked (so I could
search CA or Current Contents for them and separate him from the numerous
other M Swartzes out there), he refused to respond.

The other case in which I demanded Swartz's credentials was when he 
invented this fantasy world version of how the Cold Fusion people were
"censored" by the ACS.  When I gave him an explanation of a more likely
reason for the program chairman's decision, *told him about my own 
experience in the programming of science conferences*, and asked for what
credentials he has to dispute my interpretation of events -- guess what.
Obfuscation, hysteria, lies, but no answer to my question.

(2) I have not demanded "evermore 'precise' references."  From the start,
I asked for *specific* reference to an experimental result that Swartz
mentioned.  Swartz conveniently deleted my explanation of what a proper
scientific citation consists of in a pathetic attempt to make it look 
like he had given one.  But from the start, I asked for the same information
that I am asking for now.  It apparently never occurred to Swartz that
there is a reason why scientists usually expect explicit references --
namely, so that scientist #2 doesn't end up looking at a similar paper
and have scientist #1 say "oh no, that's not the paper I was talking about."

(3) I never made *any* request that had anything to do with a secretary
(which Swartz puts in quotes as if I had).  I don't even have a secretary.

(4) His statement about my being requested to "put up or shut up"
and consequent refusal to do so is another lie.  As I have made 
abundantly clear, I will be happy to send my CV and publication
list to anyone who asks for them *exccept Mitchell Swartz*.  Indeed,
I have gotten the occasional email request for information about my
scientific background, and I have responded to all such requests.
I have stated any number of times that my condition for giving this
information to Mitchell Swartz is that he has to ask for my publication
list as many times as I have asked for his.  As I had already asked for
his publication list three times before he asked me once (see above), and 
as I ask for it again every time he repeats his request, it shouldn't 
take a rocket scientist to figure out what Swartz has to do in order to see 
my publication list.  In fact, there is an obvious way for him to see it
without even having to divulge his.  In any case, his demand that I
post my CV and publication list so that "others may follow my lead" is
at best a fanciful reconstruction of events.  And given his history of
refusing to respond to such requests after he has been provided with 
the information he requested, his implication that he would post his
CV after I posted mine appears to be just another lie, at least based
on his past performance.

(5) I have in my life only made two trips between Princeton and Berkeley,
and both of them were made before I had a computer account at Princeton.
I know the idea of someone who posts from two different places confuses
Swartz mightily, and, being paranoid, he refuses to consider the possibility
of a benign interpretation.  And, being ignorant, he appears never to
have heard of telnet.

(6) Swartz repeats his claim that I want ever more precise references,
i.e. repeats his lie.  He then accuses me of libelling him.  I challenge
him to produce one example of anything that I have posted here or 
elsewhere that might reasonably be considered a libel.  He might consider
that he has already accused me of refusing to retract "sophomoric errors"
(quote) that I posted "all over the net" (quote), and when ask to provide
even one example of such, refused to do so.  On the other hand, he has
consistently impugned my motives, told obvious and blatant untruths in
an effort to destroy my credibility, edited my posts so as to completely
distort the meaning of what I said, and quoted them out of context to
similar effect.  To my knowledge, no one has actually determined if 
Usenet falls under the rules of "libel" or those of "slander."  But there
is no doubt in my mind that if it were in the power of Mitchell Swartz, or
anyone like him, to affect my reputation, then he has committed whichever
of these offenses is relevant to Usenet, not once, but many times over.

(7) BTW, it looks like another vocabulary word that Swartz needs to look
up is "troll."  I don't think it means what you appear to think it means.
--
					Richard Schultz

"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Richard Blue /  The dodo replies
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The dodo replies
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 14:15:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed, You are at your finest (for a 10-year old) when you resort
to name calling.  I haven't heard such biting commentary since
I completed the third grade.  The fact that you would take
time and effort to come up with "dodo brain" for my benefit
would seem to place me well up on your list of bad guys.  I
accept your compliment!

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

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Follow Up
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow Up
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 09:38:01 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, MARSHALL DUDLEY wrote:

> Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>  
> -> In any case, Marshall, say the d can get into the electron region; what
> -> do you think will happen there? Nothing nuclear, certainly, but what?
>  
> Shielding.  The positive charge on the d ion would be shielded, making it
> possible for another d ion to approach within tunneling distance which would
> not be possible if coulomb repulsion were present.
>  
>                                                            Marshall

Ah. I'm a rank amateur where this sort of stuff is concerned, but there are
a fair few theory papers in the bibliography on this very point. I recall
reading one, for example, that takes the electrons between two deuterons to
be a continuous dielectric medium, effectively shielding the deuterons from
each other. This may be close to the truth at large d-d distances, but as two
d's approach one another, the dielectric would become a set of discrete
particles (electrons); closer still, you have maybe one electron in between
the two d's. At this point, effective electron mass arguments come in, but
fail to provide evidence of sufficiently close approach for appreciable
fusion rates, unless one wants to invoke "somehow" high effective mass (I
recall that a factor of about 8 is needed). So people have speculated on the
existence of heavy muon-like particles (erzions, X-particles), etc. Anyway,
all of this would, I'd say, apply to two deuterons located in the outer
electron shells of a Pd atom.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Richard Blue /  Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 17:32:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Richard Schultz has been carrying the ball quite well on this, but I
can't resist throwing in my two cents worth.  There just are lots of
points to be made about the deficiencies of the Miles experiments and
their interpretation.

I believe that the data refered to by Mitchell Swartz includes the
initial results that employed the glass sample flasks, not the later
metal ones.  For those measurements there were no credible background
measurements to be debated so those results should be flushed and
forgotten.

The question is whether Miles' later work has addressed all the problems
that were apparent in those first experiments.  A key point is deciding
what "backgrounds" have been considered and subtracted.  Then one can
assess whether the precision claimed from the net helium production
has any validity.

Discussions of these experiments is often complicated by confusion over
the meaning of the word "background."  In an ideal sense the background
is any portion of the signal that is not associated with the effect under
investigation.  However, we don't have an independent means to determine
what is effect and what is artifact.  Unless you have a complete model
of all the processes that may contribute to the signal, i.e. all the
various backgrounds, you can not do a background subtraction that is
certainly "correct."

Let me illustrate this point with one issue that Richard Schultz has
touched on.  There are an number of gas samples taken and subsequently
analyzed for helium content.  The summary of results provided by
Mitchell Swartz gives a number for the limit of sensitivity for the
helium detection ( 10^13 helium per 500 ml sample as I recall).
This is, in some sense, one of the backgrounds to be considered.  That
is to say, a scan of the portion of the mass spectrum that is of interest
will always show the presence of a signal.  You never have a perfectly
clean slate to work with.  The data signals are said to be 5 times higher
with a sigma of roughly 1 on that.

I think we need to step through the entire measurement process to see what
must be considered in the determination of the net helium signal and its
precision.  In its simplest possible form a "measurement" for net helium
production must involve the collection and analysis of two gas samples.
The measurement for effect is fairly obvious.  The evolving gas stream
is sampled for a experiment that is producing excess heat at an experimentally
determined rate.  However, there is a hitch to be considered.  Most of the
gas evolved is D2 and O2 with only a trace of helium.  The bulk of the gas
being sampled has nothing to do with cold fusion.  In fact the quantity of
gas evolved scales with that portion of the input power that does not
produce heat.  Still the net helium content is specified in proportion
to excess heat production.  The numbers we have been given involve some
computations that need to be spelled out in detail.

A measurement for background would, it seems require that the electrolysis
be run in a manner that is identical in all respects to the run for effect
except that the CF process be turned off.  I do wonder how that is
accomplished, but assuming it can be done I think we still are left to
wonder how this sample is quantified in a way that is consistent with
the run for effect.  Eventially the net helium is to be determined by taking
the difference between two numbers, but what are those two numbers scaled
before the subration?  Do the two gas samples represent the same fraction
of the evolved gas for a fixed number of coulombs of electrolysis?
Alternatively the two samples could be just collected for the same time
of electrolysis.  Or perhaps neither time nor coulombs are considered and
just the same quantity of gas is collected.

Now do you see the emerging problem?  If the background to be subtracted
is due to atmospheric helium diffusing into the system the collection
time becomes relatively more important.  If the background is coming from
gas dissolved in the starting electrolyte, time has less to do with howmuch
helium gets into the system.  If the background helium is coming from
the Pd sample temperature and the condition fo the crystal lattice of
the Pd become more important.  Of course if the background is run without
Pd that source cannot be contributing to the background at all.

In summary there is not just one background to be determined and there is
not just one proper way to normalize the two numbers before subtraction.
There are several backgrounds to be considered and the appropriate way
to quantify each measurement before sutracting the background needs to
be considered with great care.  It is just a matter of analyzing two
samples, reading out the helium numbers and then doing a subtraction.

While I am at this, I would ask once again why the experiment is done
just this way?  If the helium is produced in the Pd lattice, why not
do an analysis for helium on the Pd sample?  If the helium escapes in
a regular and predictable way into the surrounding electrolyte, why not
do the analysis for helium on the electrolyte?

A second question has to do with the method selected for the determination
of the helium content of the samples.  There are other analytical techniques
to be considered, are there not?  We know that mass spectrometry to determine
helium content is made more difficult (and less precise) by the interference
provided by D2 molecules so it seems somewhat strange that no other tecniques
have been considered.

Of course, the glaring weakness of the Miles results is the lack of supporting
evidence from other experiments.  If Miles can crank out a signal at the
12-sigmal level why have all those other attempts come up with a big fat
nothing?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Follow Up
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow Up
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 10:02:18 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, MARSHALL DUDLEY wrote:

[...]
> All charge within a sphere or a shell can be mathmetically reduced to that
> charge located at the center of the sphere or shell (when viewed from outside
> of the shpere or shell). You are making it more complicated than it really is.
> The equations are the same as for gravity, ie. you can compute the
> gravitational attraction of a planet by assuming all the mass is at the
> center, and there is no gravitational attraction if you are within a hollow
> shell of a planet.  The sizes are a little smaller, but the equations are the
> same.

I'm just a humble electrochemist, but I find this hard to accept; in fact I
know it is a simplification, even for gravity. But let's keep to the point.
The reason I know it is not right is the case of two deuterium atoms 
approaching one another; let them both be neutral. At a large distance
from one another, there is no electrical attraction or repulsion; here the
center-of-mass argument holds. As they happen to get close, there comes a 
point when their two nuclei repel one another, and the electrons no longer
cancel out the nuclear charge. By your argument, they could just come right
up to one another because they have a zero charge located at each of their
exact centres. Deuterium molecules would not have that 0.72 A d-d distance,
we'd have fusion going on everywhere. In fact, we wouldn't be here.

One must not confuse simple mathematical models with reality.

Now, it could be that you have something with your idea of the outer-shell
environment of the lattice Pd sites promoting d-d fusion; this needs now
to be developed into something more than an idea, i.e. you need to go into
the QM of it. Maybe the Koonin type of argument (single electron between
two d's) changes in this outer-shell region, and it may indeed be slightly
more favourable. It all falls down, however, on the lack of nuclear products
such as neutrons, gammas, protons, x-rays as well as convincing 3He, 4He and 
tritium. Not to mention the fabled excess heat, found only in far-away places
or irreproducibly under secret conditions, unconfirmed elsewhere. Sorry, I
don't go for it.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Ian Batten /  Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
     
Originally-From: I.G.Batten@ftel.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 17:02:44 GMT
Organization: Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Ltd

In article <JTLC4h1.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> of energy. They are cheap, clean, reliable, and they have already produced
> millions of time more saleable energy than hot fusion ever will. Any good
> desktop CF experiment will produce more energy than the best experiment
> Heeter's billion dollar hot fusion PPPL Tokamak ever will. He knows that, and
> he is consumed with jealously and fear. He knows that eventually the taxpayers
> will shut down his scam operation. We produce hundreds of times more energy
> than he does, and our gadgets cost a hundred million times less than his. He

Fine.  Maybe you're right.  Venture Capitalists will fund things that
are far more speculative than you claim your energy sources are.  Borrow
some money, build some reproducible equipment and sit back and watch the
money flow in.  You surely won't care what Government money the Hot
Fusion community is getting when you're as rich as Bill Gates?

However, unless you're claiming that VC companies are in on the Hot
Fusion Conspiracy (TM), in between their time spent suppressing the
1000mpg car, you're going to have to explain quite what why you're not
stinking rich from RothwellCo Magic Room Heaters selling like hot cakes.
If it's as good as you say, shut up and come back when you own half of
America (as you surely will if you're right).  If the best you can do is
squeal ``but it's all true'' then what you say is of no value.

Reproducible, peer-reviewed papers would impress me.  Jed Rothwell, very
rich man indeed would impress me.  And that's playing on your territory:
you're claiming that the market will see what is true, and I'm allowing
you to claim victory if the market agrees with you.  I think that's
rather generous.

But the reality, of course, is that no matter how much you squeal very
few people are buying.  No major company is marketing a magical cold
fusion whatsit, and it seems impossible to find any real installations
of the magical Griggs Device.  If he has customers, I'm sure one of them
must be referenceable.  After all, why would a satisfied customer not be
prepared to be referenced?

Stop whining about the nasty government funding things you don't like,
stand on your own two feet and get stinking rich.

ian

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBatten cudfnIan cudlnBatten cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / B Vidugiris /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
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: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 17:31:38 GMT
Organization: Motorola CCRD

In article <806177135snz@microser.demon.co.uk>,
Ben Newsam  <Ben@microser.demon.co.uk> wrote:
)bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com "Bronis Vidugiris" writes:
)
)> Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> 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.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbhv cudfnBronis cudlnVidugiris cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Dani Eder /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: ederd@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 16:19:52 GMT
Organization: The Boeing Company

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

>[ sci.physics removed from the newsgroups list to eliminate
>unnecessary crossposting. ]

>In article <3ue2dl$crm@mtnmath.mtnmath.com> Paul Budnik,
>paul@mtnmath.mtnmath.com writes:
>>Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
>>
>I share your sentiments about the sun, but if you take the time
>to do the math you'll discover that it's going to be pretty damned
>difficult to harness the sun's energy without doing incredible
>environmental damage due to the land-use and materials requirements 
>of solar-based energy sources.  Furthermore, solar energy is very
>unevenly distributed around the world.  From a purely 
>environmental standpoint fusion is a better bet, especially if you
>would like to actually get out into space.

In the US we have 24,000 square kilometers of surface area tied up
in roads.  With photovoltaics averaging 18 MW/square km, you could
generate 432,000 MW by roofing over roads with solar panels.  Since
roads are already black, mostly, the absorbtion wouldn't be any
higher than it is now, and you can power the microwave transmitters
to feed power to electric autos conveniently.

Then there is the roof area of houses and buildings and parking lots
to consider.  I suspect you could supply all the power you want
for the US just by re-using surface area already covered in asphalt.

Dani Eder

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenederd cudfnDani cudlnEder cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Lawson English /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: english@primenet.com (Lawson English)
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: 21 Jul 1995 18:06:55 GMT
Organization: Primenet (602)395-1010

Bronis Vidugiris (bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com) wrote:
: In article <806177135snz@microser.demon.co.uk>,
: Ben Newsam  <Ben@microser.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: )bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com "Bronis Vidugiris" writes:
: )
: )> Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> 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.



"Mind-stuff" could be seen as the neural network-like interactions of the 
SuperString Field (assuming that such interractios exist, which they 
probably do since the current mathematical basis of Connectionism is 
derrived from Spin Glasses and thermodynamics). "Cycles" could be seen as 
the fundamental "vibratory modes" of the Superstring.


The thing to recall is that the Superstring field is neither matter nor 
energy but the interractions of the field give rise to both.

So, if the iterractions are ANN-like, then they are "mind-stuff" and 
hence "mind-stuff" gives rise to the universe.

What that "mind" is like is another question entirely...

--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English                            __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____
english@primenet.com                     /__)/__) / / / / /_  /\  / /_    /
                                        /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenenglish cudfnLawson cudlnEnglish cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Richard Schultz /  More lies from Swartz
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More lies from Swartz
Date: 21 Jul 1995 18:25:14 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DC2snB.n56@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>>   "And as he well knows, this request followed an exchange
>>  in which I pointed out a mistake Swartz made in his understanding of
>>  hemoglobin dynamics."
>
>  Mr. Schultz remains a woos, unable to present his oft-referred to 
>hemoglobin story here instead ofexactly stating what it is.
>This began because Mr. Schultz said there were only T + D states for
>hemoglobin.  

I didn't say that there were *only* T and R (not D) states of hemoglobin.
I discussed the T and R states, and when it became clear that you
hadn't a clue about what they were, asked you what you thought they were
(since you seemed to have such a high opinion of your knowledge of
hemoglobin dynamics).  Unsurprisingly, you bobbled that one pretty
severely.

>[When simply asked what he meant exactly by T+D, unfortunately
>Mr. Schultz became confused, aggressive, and well, like the
>Richard Schultz we all know.]
>He never did answer the simple question, of course.

I know that I provided an answer, because I told you to go look at an
article by Max Perutz, and you told me about what a great guy Perutz
is.  In fact, by your own admission, having provided you with a reference,
even a vague one, I am relieved of any further responsibility for 
telling you anything else.  As it happens, the idea of "R" and "T" 
quarternary states of hemoglobin is a fundamental concept of the 
"allosteric" model of hemoglobin, which is interesting, but even less
relevant to fusion than most of what goes on here.  So once again, you
are lying -- I did give you an answer to your question.

>Perhaps, he will try to define his terms and variables of his 
>putative hemoglobin dynamics.        Doubt it though.

They aren't "my" terms of "putative" hemoglobin dynamics.  They are the
terms universally used in the field.

>  More libel from little Mr. Schultz who writes without reading,
>without checking and without corroborating his "beliefs".

This is not libel.  I asked you a question -- with how many conferences
have you been involved with the programming.  I then pointed out that 
my experience gives me some insight into why I thought that the 
final decision the program chairperson made was the best one possible 
under the circumstances.  Of course, I could take the Swartzian fantasy
world point of view and insist that 9 half-hour CF papers should have been 
given in a four hour long session.  Which you did, although you'll
probably deny it.  (Which I wouldn't recommend.)

>How many of the CF applicants to the symposium
>did Mr. Schultz actually speak with?  And who?

None.  Nor have I spoken to anyone involved in the programming.

>  Will we hear an answer to that question?   doubt it.

Apology accepted.  But. . .

Will we hear an answer to my question above?  Doubt it.
Will we hear an answer to my request that you either document or
retract your claim that I have posted errors "all over the net" that
I refused to retract?  Doubt it.
Will we hear an answer to my initial question about who performed
the experiment that correlated Pd impurities with CF products? Doubt it.
Will we hear an answer to my question that Swartz either list his 
publications about hemoglobin dynamics or his employer so that we can
find them ourselves?  Doubt it.
Will we hear an answer to my request that you calculate the delta-E
for the Moessbauer experiment I described in my previous post?  Doubt it.

Etc.
--
					Richard Schultz

"A fly, sir, may sting a stately horse, and make him wince; but one is but an
insect, and the other is a horse still." -- Samuel Johnson
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Atomic autoradiographs?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Atomic autoradiographs?
Date: 21 Jul 1995 18:30:03 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DC2sGz.KCG@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>>> "Despite the attacks of the TB-skeptics against autoradiographs,
>>>  it too is another means to examine a direct view of the lattice."

>> Since this was said in the context of a discussion of SEM photos,
>> it would seem that Mitchell is asserting that an autoradiograph
>> provides a picture of the lattice with resolution on a microscopic
>> scale."

>  Dick, the quote does not explicitly say "with resolution on a 
>microscopic scale", does it?   

ROTFL.  Suddenly Swartz cares about exactitude in quotation?
Bwahahaha.

But wait -- you can just look at the electrode, can't you?  Doesn't that
give you a direct view of the lattice?  Okay, the resolution is pretty
bad, but it's still a direct view isn't it?
--
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Doug Merritt /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
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: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 19:08:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <806253651snz@galacta.demon.co.uk> rich@galacta.demon.co.uk writes:
>You'd better drop modems from your analogy as there is no carrier
>frequency as such in most modems.

Untrue. In fact modern high speed modems usea whole bunch of parallel
carrier frequencies. And any modem that communicates over an analog
line is going to need to modulate an analog signal. That process can,
by implications of the Nyquist theorem for instance, always be considered
as a single carrier sine wave modulated by one or more lower frequency
sine waves.

>carrier frequency, but the correspondance between that and modulation
>bandwidth is far too messy to help you as an analogy. 

I agree that this analogy is unhelpful with the uncertainty principle;
a more correct statement is that the similarity implies a bandwidth
issue in using e.g. momentum to encode position information. But this
probably obscures things more than it clarifies. The original analogy
was simply incorrect, because in fact we can have as high a Nyquist
frequency as we like.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Edward Lewis /  tornadoes
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: tornadoes
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 23:16:05 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


Dec. 7, 1993
posted on Oct. 28, 1994

Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids

	During the past 1 3/4 years I've been posting articles about
ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on sci.physics.fusion
newsgroup. This is a version of one that I posted last winter.  Does
anyone have any reports about anomalous atmospheric phenomena?

        People have often seen bright or luminous tornadoes.
According to prior research, a large percentage of tornadoes are
bright or glowing, and people have experienced that some are quite hot.
(see B. Vonnegut and J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena Accompanying
Tornadoes," WEATHERWISE, 19-2 (Apr. 1966), 66-68. and B. Vonnegut and
J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes, SCIENCE,
(1966), 1213-1220.)

        Storms on the Earth are probably an atmospheric manifestation
of earth plasmoid activity, according to Tesla's experience of
electricity in the ground that accompanied a storm.  Even clouds may
be such a manifestation.  Clouds seem to be plasmoid phenomena.  And
clouds may convert to ball lightning.  People have seen clouds which
contained a glowing spot, and in one case it is fairly documented that
a cloud with a glowing spot produced a tornado.

        Tornadoes are a locus for the conversion of substance
to light and electricity.  The power of tornadoes is anomalously high.
People have seen lightning from a large area converge to the area of a
cyclone, but this seems to only be part of the reason for the power.
People have seen tornadoes that had parts that were so bright that
they described the phenomena as being too bright to look at though the
tornadoes were quite a ways away; one person described tornadoes that
lit up the surroundings so that it was as if the direct sun was
shining during a period of time.  In one case, a thermometer measured
that the temperature of the air increased by about 20 degrees during
the passage of a tornado.

        I would say that tornadoes and ball lightning are the same
type of phenomena, though ball lightning is smaller.  I classify both
ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, and other phenomena as
kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid phenomena.  Galaxies and
atoms are other types of this kind of phenomena, according to my
theory.

        I would say that the cold fusion phenomena is a plasmoid
phenomena.  People have produced many types of phenomena including
traces and holes and tunnels that are similar to those produced by
plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that tiny plasmoids like ball
lightning are being produced. At the ICCF4, Matsumoto reported about
tiny ball lightning in his CF apparatus.  I suggest that people read
his articles in FUSION TECHNOLOGY.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Ira Blum /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum)
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: 21 Jul 1995 19:25:09 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas, ACC

In article <3unquh$h8h@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:

|> I am not here to convince you of anything.
|> I just thought I'd share a couple of ideas with you.
|> Perhaps, you'd rather hear my views on how to get laid?
|> 

Only if they're effective.

|> I am trying to have fun with science. 
|> What are you trying to do with it?
|> 

Make a living from it.

-- 
Ira
iblum@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
'Any fan of the game with any intelligence at all can define
most things that are and are not "in the best interest of baseball"'
Scott R. Susor
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudeniblum cudfnIra cudlnBlum cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Barry Merriman /  Scientist proves bumblebees CAN fly (was: Re: Implications of Miles results)
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scientist proves bumblebees CAN fly (was: Re: Implications of Miles results)
Date: 21 Jul 1995 21:25:03 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <DBxs5r.6G3@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)  
writes:
> 
> 
> A corollary:
>   Mr Schultz's pseudocriticism joins the circular
> file of pathologic calculations such as those that 
> "proved" bumblebees and airplanes can't fly.
> 
>       -    Mitchell Swartz
>    ====================================


Ah, you're conjuring up the old folk history again, eh? I
suppose this comes from wherever you got your semmelweiss
mythology.

Just for your future enlightenment: no scientist ever ``proved''
that bumblebees can't fly, which would obviously be a ridiculous 
thing to prove. Instead, a german aerodynamacist, circa 1930
(I think it may have been Von Karmen, but I'm not sure), studied
a model of insect flight in which he assumed the insects wings 
were rigid plates. His analysis showed these would not allow 
flight, and thus he concluded INSECTS DON'T HAVE RIGID WINGS.
(or, more precisely, their flexibility plays a critical role in their
function).

What the ``scientists proved bees can't fly'' story demonstrates is
not the myopia of scientists, but rather the tendency of
anti-science factions to distort scientific research to serve their
own political agenda. Obviously, braying ``scientists proved bees
have flexible wings'' doesn't carry the same rhetorical impact.

In any case: WHO CARES about bees, airplanes, puerile fever, 
the mossbauer effect, etc, etc. the only question of relevance
here is "IF CF WORKS, WHY HAVEN'T P&F MADE ANY CLEAR DEMONSTRATION,
AND WHY IS THERE NO REPLICATION GOING ON?"







--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / mitchell swartz /  Richard Schultz continuess bold-faced misstatements
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Richard Schultz continuess bold-faced misstatements
Subject: More lies from Swartz
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 22:00:11 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3uorea$g6u@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: More lies from Swartz
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes

       >  Mr. Schultz remains a woos, unable to present his oft-referred to 
       >hemoglobin story here instead ofexactly stating what it is.
       >This began because Mr. Schultz said there were only T + D states for
      >hemoglobin.  
-rs "I didn't say that there were *only* T and R (not D) states of hemoglobin.
-rs    I discussed the T and R states, and when it became clear that you
-rs    hadn't a clue about what they were, asked you what you thought they were
-rs    (since you seemed to have such a high opinion of your knowledge of
-rs    hemoglobin dynamics).  Unsurprisingly, you bobbled that one pretty
-rs    severely.  ....    .  As it happens, the idea of "R" and "T" 
-rs    quarternary states of hemoglobin is a fundamental concept of the 
-rs    "allosteric" model of hemoglobin, which is interesting, but even less
-rs    relevant to fusion than most of what goes on here.  So once again, you
-rs    are lying -- I did give you an answer to your question.

  Au contraire.  The "R" and "T" refer to "relaxed" and "taut" and
are a great simplification dealing with tertiary structure.
  Apparently, Mr. Schultz could not answer.

  Perhaps, he would care to comment on the other states of hemoglobin and
as to why this is a gross and erroneous approximation.  

    Eh, Mr. Schultz? 
 It was to this gross approximation which was referred it a futile attempt to
see what you meant.   Since you were unable to explain exactly 
what the Perutz "T" and "R" refer to as has now been done above,
 and apparently remain unable to really explain the hemoglobin
states and why this is an approximation, perhaps this explains your
 inability to respond scientifically in this case too.

     =======================================

    >How many of the CF applicants to the symposium
     >did Mr. Schultz actually speak with?  And who?
 -rpes  "None. 
  -rs   "Nor have I spoken to anyone involved in the programming."

   QED


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Edward Lewis /  tornadoes
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: tornadoes
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 22:33:23 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


Dec. 7, 1993
posted on Oct. 28, 1994

Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids

	During the past 1 3/4 years I've been posting articles about
ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on sci.physics.fusion
newsgroup. This is a version of one that I posted last winter.  Does
anyone have any reports about anomalous atmospheric phenomena?

        People have often seen bright or luminous tornadoes.
According to prior research, a large percentage of tornadoes are
bright or glowing, and people have experienced that some are quite hot.
(see B. Vonnegut and J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena Accompanying
Tornadoes," WEATHERWISE, 19-2 (Apr. 1966), 66-68. and B. Vonnegut and
J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes, SCIENCE,
(1966), 1213-1220.)

        Storms on the Earth are probably an atmospheric manifestation
of earth plasmoid activity, according to Tesla's experience of
electricity in the ground that accompanied a storm.  Even clouds may
be such a manifestation.  Clouds seem to be plasmoid phenomena.  And
clouds may convert to ball lightning.  People have seen clouds which
contained a glowing spot, and in one case it is fairly documented that
a cloud with a glowing spot produced a tornado.

        Tornadoes are a locus for the conversion of substance
to light and electricity.  The power of tornadoes is anomalously high.
People have seen lightning from a large area converge to the area of a
cyclone, but this seems to only be part of the reason for the power.
People have seen tornadoes that had parts that were so bright that
they described the phenomena as being too bright to look at though the
tornadoes were quite a ways away; one person described tornadoes that
lit up the surroundings so that it was as if the direct sun was
shining during a period of time.  In one case, a thermometer measured
that the temperature of the air increased by about 20 degrees during
the passage of a tornado.

        I would say that tornadoes and ball lightning are the same
type of phenomena, though ball lightning is smaller.  I classify both
ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, and other phenomena as
kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid phenomena.  Galaxies and
atoms are other types of this kind of phenomena, according to my
theory.

        I would say that the cold fusion phenomena is a plasmoid
phenomena.  People have produced many types of phenomena including
traces and holes and tunnels that are similar to those produced by
plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that tiny plasmoids like ball
lightning are being produced. At the ICCF4, Matsumoto reported about
tiny ball lightning in his CF apparatus.  I suggest that people read
his articles in FUSION TECHNOLOGY.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Edward Lewis /  plasmoids...
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: plasmoids...
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 23:22:39 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago



			Copyright 1995 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

Posted March 30, 1995.

Edward Lewis						March 8, 1995
P. O. Box 13060						Revised, May 8, 1995
Chicago, Illinois  60613

PLASMOID PHENOMENA
	
	Fundamental anomalous phenomena are the contradictions of the
postulates of the premises of people's theories, and the environment.
Those who apprehend a theory and experience according to the theory
may experience the contradictions.  It seems that since the
fundamental postulates of people's premises are few, the kinds of
fundamental anomalies are few.  During the last 20 years, the number
of people who have been experiencing and reporting about the anomalies
of the Q.M. and Relativity theories has been rapidly increasing.  The
last 20 years is that which Thomas Kuhn called a "crisis period," and
there have been crisis periods at about every 80 year interval since
1500(1).  It seems to me that a group of fundamental phenomena of the
current set of phenomena is that of "plasmoid" phenomena.

	In earlier articles, I've written that atoms are plasmoid
phenomena.  Plasmoids seem to be basically an electrical-magnetic
phenomena -- plasmoids have converted to electricity.  The magnetism
is an aspect of the electricity.  I suspect that atoms are like ball
lightning -- if this is so then atoms may often be toroidally shaped,
and may usually not contain inner clumps in the middle.  The magnetism
of atoms is an electrical phenomena similar to the magnetism of the
earth.  People have experienced that the magnetism (people have used
the term "magnetic lines of force") of the earth is electrical
currents.  Light is the same as electricity since it interconverts(2).
Inertia, accretion, and separation of plasmoids is also an
electrical-magnetic phenomena -- as relative motion of plasmoids also
seems to be.

	Almost all or all the phenomena that I know about seem to be
plasmoid phenomena.  Substance seems to be a plasmoid phenomena
because galaxies are plasmoids and substance converts to other kinds
of plasmoid phenomena, light, and electricity(3).  Micrometer-sized
plasmoid phenomena has been reported to be the locus of neutron
emission(45), and ball lightning-like phenomena(6) has been associated
with neutron production also.  Matsumoto has shown traces of plasmoids
that moved on the surface of emulsions while emitting little plasmoids
people might call particles (like the "Superstar" trace in FUS. TECH.,
22, 165 (August, 1992), Fig. 8).  Like other plasmoids, atoms may
clump and divide and dissipate so that new substances, elements and
isotopes, and electricity and light are produced.  It seems that
plasmoid phenomena are the same though the size varies.  For example,
galaxies seem to convert to jets, beams, and electrical currents in
the middle,in that which seems to be a vortex, such as in the galaxies
M87, Cygnus A, and NGC4258, and this seems to be similar to the jets,
beams, and electrical discharges from ball lightning, the beams and
electrical discharges from micrometer-sized plasmoids, the beams from
discharge devices reported by Savvatimova and Karabut et al., and the
beam or jet that a plasmoid emitted on nuclear emulsion that Matsumoto
showed(7).  I think that EVs(5), ball lightning, plasmoids, tornadoes
and galaxies are similar phenomena since they behave similarly(8).

	People have produced plasmoid and BL-like phenomena for a long
time.  W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes(9), and according to A. Peratt(10), he
coined the term.  In this paper, Bostick had already begun to tell
others about his speculation that galaxies and the phenomena he
produced were similar.  He compared the shapes and the travel of these
things.  He also speculated a little about the identity of
"particles."  According to experimental results, many people including
Bostick, Alfven (Nobel Prize, Magneto-hydrodynamics), Peratt(11) and
Lerner(12) have developed similar extensive astrophysical theories
that model the universe as plasmoids; while others, such as
Bostick(13,14,15) developed models of particles as plasmoids.  For
decades, many people have tried to use plasmoids for weapons(16,17)
and for fusion, and it is well known that plasmoids are associated
with element, isotope, and neutron production.

	In the latter part of the 1700s, people were producing ball
lighting-like phenomena by using Leyden jars, a kind of condensor, and
in the late 1800s, Plante and others studied BL-like phenomena
produced by discharge through wires and in plate condensors.  Tesla
also produced such phenomena.  There have been about 8 international
conferences about ball lightning and luminous atmospheric phenomena
during the last 8 years.  In 1992, after reading literature about ball
lightning and reading cold fusion articles, I began to tell(18)
Matsumoto and other people about my idea that tiny ball-lightning
phenomena were produced in "cold fusion" apparatus, and about how the
ball lightning phenomena that were produced by electrolysis "cold
fusion" apparatus produced the many kinds of micrometer sized
anomalous traces in nuclear emulsions that Matsumoto had shown in
several articles in THE JOURNAL OF FUSION TECHNOLOGY.  Since then,
Matsumoto has reported about the observation of tiny ball
lightning-like phenomena in some cold fusion apparatus(19,20,21), and
he has produced many more traces that are better evidence of the
production of things that can be called tiny ball lightning or
plasmoids.  I use the term plasmoid as a general term.
	
	Most if not all other anomalous phenomena that I know about
can be described as plasmoid phenomena.  For example,
superconductivity seems to be similar to the phenomena of ball
lightning traveling though materials such as ceramics and glass
without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball lightning may
convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or it may convert
to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence and "cavitation" seems
to be a phenomena of the water and other substances converting to
light and perhaps electricity, and to other atoms and bigger
micrometer-sized plasmoids.  The pits and the localized melting seem
to be plasmoid and discharge effects.  The vortex phenomena
photographed by Stringham and George are plasmoid phenomena.

	I suggest that people use nuclear emulsions and check their
apparatus microscopically to find plasmoids or their effects. Also,
check the electrical grounding of the apparatus and see whether there
are electrical surges.  I suspect that in many apparatus much
substance may convert and leave as plasmoids and/or electricity.
Also, I suggest that people try to check whether things like time
(maybe use atomic clocks(22)), accretion (the clumping of plasmoids,
even very large ones), and magnetism change around their cold fusion
and plasmoid apparatus.  There is much evidence of anomalous changes
of these things around and in plasmoid phenomena such as discharge
phenomena, ball lightning, solar flares, volcanoes and earthquakes.
The changes of the accretion of plasmoid phenomena associated with
plasmoid phenomena is the production of new elements and substances.
For example, a BL-like phenomena landed on a hill near Vladivostok in
Russia called Height 611.  It left residues of rare earths, strange
alloys, and filaments of quartz with filaments of gold 7 micrometers
wide inside(23).  Check for superconductivity, since this is a
plasmoid phenomena.  Also, I suspect that storms on earth greatly
affect at least some CF apparatus.  Hawkins(24) and others(25)
reported that a electrolysis apparatus exhibited heat and gamma-ray
excursions at the times of electrical storms, but not otherwise.  In
this vein, it is interesting that V. A.  Filimonov reports that a
neutron source greatly stimulates CF phenomena(26).  Lightning is
associated with neutron production(27).  I'm speculating that neutrons
are a plasmoid environment, like larger plasmoids.
	
	On one weekly T.V. show(28) about unusual phenomena that is shown
in Chicago, there was a report about people who were in Gulf Breeze,
Florida in the U.S.A. who reported seeing a small light orbiting a
larger luminous orb.  I have read the reports of people who have seen
two BL revolve about a common center and of people who have seen
several BL revolving together.  I suspect that according to the new
set of phenomena, the reason the small BL-like phenomena was orbiting
the bigger orb is the same reason that the planets orbit the Sun.
	
	If I could suggest some experiments, as I suggested in 1992(29),
look for the emission of neutrons and other kinds of plasmoids during
stress of substances other than hydrogen and during stresses other
than electrical discharge, such as by thermal cycling or fracture.
When I was 5 or 6, I produced tiny, unusual BL-like phenomena (sparks)
that flew around, changed colors, and made a noise by fracturing a
certain kind of rock.  Composites or combinations of elements with big
differences of "oxidation state"(29) or electronegativity may prove
useful; this seems superficially similar to Hora, Miley et al.'s(30) idea
of using differences in Fermi level.

-------Footnotes

1) E. Lewis, "The Periodic Production of Rationalized Phenomena and
the Past Periodic Depressions," manuscript article, 1992, 1994, 1995.
2)For example, electron holography provides a means of converting
electrons to light.
3)E. Lewis, "Plasmoids and Cold Fusion," Cold Fusion Times, 2 (no. 1),
4 (Summer, 1994).
4)W. H. Bostick, W. Prior, L. Grunberger, and G. Emmert, "Pair
Production of Plasma Vortices," Physics of Fluids, 9, 2078 (1966).
5)K. Shoulders, "Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density," Patent
Number 5,123,039.
6)G. Dijkhuis and J. Pijpelink, "Performance of a High-Voltage Test
Facility Designed for Investigation of Ball Lightning," Proc. First
International Symposium on Ball Lightning (Fire Ball) -- The Science
of Ball Lightning (Fire Ball) Tokyo, Japan, July 4-6, 1988, World
Scientific Company, Singapore, p. 336.
7)T. Matsumoto, "Searching for Tiny Black Holes During Cold Fusion,"
Fusion Technology, 22, 281 (Sept. 1992); Fig. 2b.
8)E. Lewis, "Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids," Cold Fusion
Times, 1 (no. 4), 4 (Winter, 1994).
9)W. Bostick, "Plasmoids," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 197, 87 (October 1957).
10)A. Peratt, email note, January 27,  1995.
11)A. Peratt, "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I.  Double Radio
Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets," IEEE Trans. Plasma
Science., vol. PS-14, 385 (1986).  Many other articles as well.
12)Eric Lerner, THE BIG BANG NEVER HAPPENED, New York, 1991.
13)W. Bostick, "The Plasmoid Construction of the Superstring," 21st
Century Science & Technology, p. 58, Winter 1990.
14)W. Bostick, "How Superstrings Form the Basis of Nuclear Matter,"
21st Century Science & Technology, p. 66, Winter 1990.
15)W. Bostick, "Mass, Charge, and Current: The Essence and
Morphology," Physics Essays, 4 (no.5), 45 (1991).  Millenium Twain
sent me this reference in January or Feb. of 1994.
16)J. Tennenbaum, "Behind the Russian SDI Offer: A Scientific,
Technological, and Strategic Revolution," 21st Century Science &
Technology, p. 36, Summer 1993.
17)"USAF Conducts Experiments with Compact Toroids for Future Space
Weapons," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 130, 60 (May 15, 1989).
18)E. Lewis, "A Proposal for the Performance of Four Kinds of
Experiments to Test My Own Hypotheses and a Statement of a Deduction
about Phenomena," manuscript article, October 19, 1992.
19)T. Matsumoto, "Cold Fusion Experiments by Using Electrical
Discharge in Water," distributed at the ICCF4.
20)T. Matsumoto, "Observation of Tiny Ball Lightning During Electrical
Discharge in Water," sub. to FT, Jan. 23, 1994.
21)T. Matsumoto, "Two Proposals Concerning Cold Fusion," Fusion
Technology, 26, 1337 (December 1994).
22)E. Lewis.  There is an abstract in the back of the ICCF3 abstract
booklet about two experiments.
23)SIGHTINGS, Saturday, April 1, 1995, 11:30 P.M.
24)N. Hawkins, "Possible Natural Cold Fusion in the Atmosphere,"
Fusion Technology, 19, 2212 (July, 1991).
25)N. Hawkins, S.-Sh. Yi, X.-Zh. Qi, S. Li, L. Wang, and Q. X. Zu,
"Investigations of Mechanisms and Occurrence of Meteorologically
Triggered Cold Fusion at the Chinese Academy of Sciences," Proc. Conf.
Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, Provo, Utah,
October 22-24, 1990.
26) V. A. Filimonov, "A New Cold Fusion Phenomenon,"
sci.physics.fusion newsgroup (article #16526, from profusion@aol.com),
January 21, 1995.
27) S. Shah, H. Razdan, C. Bhat, and Q. Ali, "Neutron Generation in
Lightning Bolts," NATURE, 313, 773 (1985).
28)SIGHTINGS, Saturday, December 3, 1994, 6:00 P.M.
29)E. Lewis, "A Description of Phenomena According to My Theory and
Experiments to Test My Theory," manuscript article, submitted to
FUSION TECHNOLOGY, December 1992.
30)G. Miley, H. Hora, E. G. Batyrbekov, R. Zich, "Electrolytic Cell
With Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes," Transactions of Fusion
Technology, 26, 313 (December 1994).







cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
Subject: Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 17:01:59 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3uo6j8$647@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) 
continues his  deliberate untruths.

  --rpes   "And as he well knows, this request followed an exchange
  --rpes  in which I pointed out a mistake Swartz made in his understanding of
  --rpes  hemoglobin dynamics."

  Mr. Schultz remains a woos, unable to present his oft-referred to 
hemoglobin story here instead ofexactly stating what it is.
This began because Mr. Schultz said there were only T + D states for
hemoglobin.  
[When simply asked what he meant exactly by T+D, unfortunately
Mr. Schultz became confused, aggressive, and well, like the
Richard Schultz we all know.]
He never did answer the simple question, of course.

Perhaps, he will try to define his terms and variables of his 
putative hemoglobin dynamics.        Doubt it though.

    ===========================

  --rpes "The other case in which I demanded Swartz's credentials 
  - rpes        was when he 
  --rpes invented this fantasy world version of how the Cold Fusion people were
  --rpes  - "censored" by the ACS. "

  More libel from little Mr. Schultz who writes without reading,
without checking and without corroborating his "beliefs".

--->  Actually, according to the participants
(how many of them have you spoken with, Mr Schultz?),
the participants received a letter and info from the ACS apparently
relegating them to a garage (it is much more complex but not
relevant to fusion).  

 Mr. Schultz's delusions in the present matter come from his speaking
to noone.     I on the other hand called the participants about the issue.
His delusions in cold fusion also come from his reading essentially
no relevant papers in the field.

              Fractals.  Fractals.  Fractals.

How many of the CF applicants to the symposium
did Mr. Schultz actually speak with?  And who?

  Will we hear an answer to that question?   doubt it.

 ===========================
"I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the men are men, 
the women are men, and the sheep are scared."
  [Richard Schultz, Princeton and Berkeley, 22 Jun 1995]









cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / mitchell swartz /  Atomic autoradiographs?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Atomic autoradiographs?
Subject: Atomic autoradiographs?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 16:58:11 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <9507211425.AA13220@pilot08.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Atomic autoradiographs?
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:

   "Despite the attacks of the TB-skeptics against autoradiographs,
    it too is another means to examine a direct view of the lattice."
 - Since this was said in the context of a discussion of SEM photos,
 -  it would seem that Mitchell is asserting that an autoradiograph
 - provides a picture of the lattice with resolution on a microscopic
 - scale."

  Dick, the quote does not explicitly say "with resolution on a 
microscopic scale", does it?   

  ----------------------------------------------------------------

  - Now, Mitchell,
  - is it your assertion that this "image" obtained without benefit
  - of any optical system provides "a direct view of the lattice?"
   - Please explain.

  It the film is very close to the electrode, and if proper 
precautions are taken to mark the location, then there
may be a mapping of output to location thereby
giving spatial information.  Do you disagree?

thanks for directing my attention to the use of the 
word "lattice, and please excuse me if when I said "lattice", 
the word "electrode" should have been used.   OK?

  Thanks, Dick. 
    Best wishes.   Mitchell


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Charles Cagle /  Re: OFF-CHARTER POST: Re: New Gravitational force
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OFF-CHARTER POST: Re: New Gravitational force
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 19:03:51 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3umr54$coc@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

> In article <-1807952244350001@ip-salem2-12.teleport.com> Charles Cagle,
> singtech@teleport.com writes:
> >> >>    The propulsion mechanism of infinitely advanced beings has been
> >> >>    thoroughly studied and explained.
> >> 
> >> >This is our last warning!
> >> >Quit deciminating this information!
> >> Was that decimating, or disseminating?:-)
> >> 
> >> >The Federation
> >
> >
> >Hey, Robin.  How are you?  I enjoy your humor as above.  We haven't
> >connected in months.  What is going on.  Employed yet?
> >
> 
> Charles, why on earth are you flaming me for telling you this thread 
> is off-charter?  Or are personal messages and discussions
> of aliens now considered relevant to fusion too?

I didn't flame you Robert.  And I didn't write the drivel above about
advanced beings etc. I was dropping a line to Robin (who was cracking me
up by his comments - maybe you were in on this too with your comment on
'decimating') in aussie land.

I think you got your threads mixed up.

I did however flame you for another post wherein you suggested that GR was
off topic.  My response being that GR and SR are related to Mach's
Principle and any phenomenon which has global implications (as may the
conversion of mass to energy) is related to fusion.  It is likely that
fusion is a globally mediated locally observed event.  I mentioned
something like specialization is for insects - not scientists.

Best Regards,

-- 
Charles Cagle
Chief Technical Officer
Singularity Technologies, Inc,
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR 97304

Ph/Fx 503/362-7781


I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed,
Hid privily, a measureless resource
For man, and mighty teacher of all arts.  - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound

email> singtech@teleport.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / mitchell swartz /  Re: extrapolation
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: extrapolation
Subject: Re: extrapolation
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 17:05:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


     In Message-ID: <3u9r7b$771@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: extrapolation
 jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:

"The lack of a specific phenomenon that can be identified as CF (is 
it plain water with Nickel or deuterated water with Palladium or ...) 
is an added difficulty."

 Jim,   this is true but consider the following.
    Rochelle salt and 
preformed poled ferroelectrics [generated from 
various waxes] BOTH generate small
electric currents when squeezed.  The electric conversions
are different in origin, are they not? 
 and involve unique materials?
 Neither makes the other wrong.

 The presence of two types of electric power on
pressure does NOT disprove the material/physics
of either one.   

          ============================== 

"As you note, not all of the theories can be 
right because they contradict one another."

  There are a few problems with endorsing 
such a line of "reasoning".  Here are three.

1)  not all contradict
     -----------------------
 There are many theories which relate to 
cold fusion but do not even overlap.  For example
the volumetric theories may be separated 
from the loading theories by a double layer
and a charge transfer event.


2) some involve different materials
    -----------------------------------------
  and regarding the Rochelle salt/wax ferroelectric
example above.

   The existence of the symmetry origin of the first,
and the "speed voltage" [i=d/dt(Q)=d/dt(CV)=CdV/dt+VdC/dt]
in the second are two different theories and explanations.

One uses molecular and atomic viewpoints, and the other
uses continuum electromechanics.
(Rochelle salt -- A.von Hippel "Material Science and Mat. Engineering")
(speed voltage -- J.Melcher "Electromechanical Dynamics").
  [In fact, so different are these that some electromechanical analyses
  can use the Maxwell Stress Tensor which gets the viewpoint
  out of the very material in question {if the material is timeinvariant}]

Note: one analysis uses molecular and atomic science, and the other
uses continuum electromechanics. 
 Two views.  two materials.
One net effect of electric currents result from pressure.  
   --->   Neither makes the other wrong.


3) so what
    -----------
finally, there are many theories of the "mind", and
several appear to disagree, and yet,
we think (we think) anyway.
  The absence of the theory does NOT disprove
 the material/physics(/+?). 

   Do you agree with any of this?

  Best wishes.
      Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
     ============================
   "Professor Goddard  ...  does not know the relation of action to reaction .
  he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in our high schools"
                        [New York Times, January 13, 1920]


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Charles Cagle /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
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: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 19:23:34 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

Dear (Dr., Mr.) Cook,

You wrote:

In article <DBuu0p.1op@festival.ed.ac.uk>, 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.

>         and could you imagine answering the same question around
>         the turn of the century (before physics went downhill!)
>         and compare answers?

You don't get it do you?  Same answer.
 
>         and could you give the number of times an effect has to be
>         observed before a suspected cause is a `true' cause and not
>         just an accident?

There is no absolute relationship at all between an observed effect (fact)
and a suspected cause (theory).  The chinese had gunpowder for a thousand
years and their theory (even though they brought it to a high art in
technological exploitation, fireworks, rockets, etc.) in the light of
present day comprehension of chemical processes would be laughed at. 
Technology frequently (almost always) outstrips theory.  And simply
because someone invents a process, there is no sure guarantee they truly
understand it.  I'm surprised at your lack of comprehension of these
principles.

>         finally, could you argue against the thesis that supermarkets
>         are a religion - after all they have big buildings where lots
>         of people go, and if you don't follow certain behavioural
>         patterns (like paying for example) you are expelled.

No.  Not at all.  For anyone to suggest such a relationship clearly
suggests some serious internal wiring problems.

Really, I know you cannot be an example of how the educational process in
the U.K. went right.

Regards,

-- 
Charles Cagle
Chief Technical Officer
Singularity Technologies, Inc,
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR 97304

Ph/Fx 503/362-7781


I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed,
Hid privily, a measureless resource
For man, and mighty teacher of all arts.  - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound

email> singtech@teleport.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Charles Cagle /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
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: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 19:33:43 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <cas.43.00781D6B@ops1.bwi.wec.com>, cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Bob
Casanova) wrote:

> In article <-1607950120230001@ip-salem2-05.teleport.com>
<singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle) writes:
> >From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
> >Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
> >Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 01:20:23 -0800
> 
> >In article <805190629snz@galacta.demon.co.uk>, rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
wrote:
> 
> 
> >> As scientists we should be careful to keep both feet on the firm ground
> >> of the scientific method and not try claiming knowledge of some greater
> >> truth regarding reality.  Leave that to philosophy and religion. 
> 
> >Rich, you may be a doctor or a Ph.D. but I think you missed a class or two.
> 
> >Like modern science isn't a religion?
> 
> Oh? Please point out the requirements for faith in modern science. With 
> supporting evidence.

It is all around you.  If it has to be explained in detail or pointed out
to you, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
 
>   And philosophy?  Goodness, physics
> >used to be called 'natural philosophy'.  Physics has never made a
> >significant advance without philosophy first encouraging it and
> >authorizing it to do so.(Thomas Mann)  When there was a split a little
> >after the turn of the century where philosophy was no longer the guiding
> >instrument, its been downhill for physics ever since.
> >
> 
> Yep. Relativity (G & S), quantum mechanics, cosmology and numerous other 
> fields have certainly gone downhill since 1900. Duh. 

You are so impressed with technology that you miss the point of whether or
not the scientific explanations are even reasonable let alone reflect
reality.  

> >> This may be "obvious" to most, but it bears repeating, especially in
> >> education where we want to stimulate insight, not create converts.
> 
> >You are very wrong.  We need to create converts to the idea that truth is
> >knowable and that academia generally doesn't have the answers either to
> >the creative process or the process of gaining insight.  What it can do is
> >regurgitate facts and concepts and has little taste for differentiating
> >between the two.
> 
> Evidence, please.

The fact that you have a job based upon the theory that you are
scientifically competent can not make the point any clearer.

-- 
Charles Cagle
Chief Technical Officer
Singularity Technologies, Inc,
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR 97304

Ph/Fx 503/362-7781


I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed,
Hid privily, a measureless resource
For man, and mighty teacher of all arts.  - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound

email> singtech@teleport.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Charles Cagle /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
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: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 19:55:44 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3uo0su$hd7@hawk.le.ac.uk>, mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary) wrote:

> In article <-1607950120230001@ip-salem2-05.teleport.com>,
>  <singtech@teleport.com> wrote:
> 
> >In article <805190629snz@galacta.demon.co.uk>, rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
wrote:
> >> As scientists we should be careful to keep both feet on the firm ground
> >> of the scientific method and not try claiming knowledge of some greater
> >> truth regarding reality.  Leave that to philosophy and religion. 
> 
> >Rich, you may be a doctor or a Ph.D. but I think you missed a class or two.
> 
> Thats a good start to a well reasoned article.
> 
> >Like modern science isn't a religion?  
> 
> No, it isn't. The only other person I've seen quoting this misconception is
> Bill Conner. The reasons why it isn't have been put forward to him at great
> length (though he has ignored them).
> 
> >And philosophy?  
> 
> This is a harder question than it appears on the surface, it _is_ a
philosophy,
> but it draws no conclusions without evidence... "I think therefore I am"
is not
> a rigorous scientific statement...
> 
> >Goodness, physics
> >used to be called 'natural philosophy'.  
> 
> It also used to be called 'magick' and 'alchemy'. Your point is..?

You are wandering in the dark without a conceptual framework.

> 
> >Physics has never made a
> >significant advance without philosophy first encouraging it and
> >authorizing it to do so.
> 
> How about three examples of this?

Read Mann.

> Perhaps you'd like to start with the philosophical conviction that earth was
> the centre of the universe around which the sun and stars revolved that lead
> inexorably to ...

That's your straw man, not mine.
 
> >(Thomas Mann)  When there was a split a little
> >after the turn of the century where philosophy was no longer the guiding
> >instrument, its been downhill for physics ever since.
> 
> Another claim that needs backing up. Another three examples please.

Same thing. Read Mann.
 
> >> This may be "obvious" to most, but it bears repeating, especially in
> >> education where we want to stimulate insight, not create converts.
> 
> >You are very wrong.  
> 
> Thats your opinion. I think you are in a very small minority.

Oh, so that's how you do science, by consensus?  I don't know if it would
do any good to remind you that generally small minorities (often one) are
who make significant strides.  Not regurgitators such as you appear to be.
 
> >We need to create converts to the idea that truth is
> >knowable 
> 
> Who is this 'we' that has a vested interest in converting anyone? 

Mankind.  Or those who are 'kind' in humanity.  I'm not sure this applies
to you.

>And what are you converting them to?

Reason.

> It is a fundamental axiom of science that there is an external universe there
> to be studied, i.e. "the truth is knowable"

External to what?  To you?  That is why you shall never have an intimate
knowledge of it.
 
> >and that academia generally doesn't have the answers either to
> >the creative process or the process of gaining insight.  
> 
>This is a null-content sentence. If academia 'generally' doesnt know
>something, does that mean some part of 'academia' does know it? Or does
it know >some small part of it? And what is "insight" - the kind of
thought that leads >to understanding how gravity works, or the kind of
thought that clues you to >the nature of god? Whats the 'creative process'
- the manufacture of circuits, >or the composition of music?

See how clueless you are?

> >What it can do is
> >regurgitate facts and concepts and has little taste for differentiating
> >between the two.
> 
> Science doesn't generate 'facts'.
> Science does generate 'concepts', loosely speaking.

You show your ignorance in every sentence.  Facts are experimental data. 
Concepts are the interpretation of that data.  Science generates, by its
activities, both items.
 
> You seem to be hankering after The Truth, adn you are looking in the wrong
> place for it. Science _isnt_ a religion...

Any you, obviously, are not.

Regards,

-- 
Charles Cagle
Chief Technical Officer
Singularity Technologies, Inc,
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR 97304

Ph/Fx 503/362-7781


I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed,
Hid privily, a measureless resource
For man, and mighty teacher of all arts.  - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound

email> singtech@teleport.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Charles Cagle /  Re: Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 21:59:37 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3ulq6h$nd2@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

<snip>

> Nope.  Write out the momentum and energy conservation equations for
> the reaction and you will see that if there are only two products,
> the heavier one carries off most of the momentum but very little energy;
> the light one gets all the energy.  That 4He is going to be flying
> *very* fast, and you should see all sorts of gamma and x-rays from 
> when it collides with the other atoms nearby.  

Can we let this statement pass?  Robert, Robert, Robert.  Where were you
when the conservation of momentum law was taught in your physics class?  

Can you actually believe you wrote this?

Regards,

-- 
Charles Cagle
Chief Technical Officer
Singularity Technologies, Inc,
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR 97304

Ph/Fx 503/362-7781


I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed,
Hid privily, a measureless resource
For man, and mighty teacher of all arts.  - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound

email> singtech@teleport.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / mitchell swartz /  Richard Schultz admits being just "hot air" on ACS issue
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Richard Schultz admits being just "hot air" on ACS issue
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 22:04:34 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <3uorea$g6u@agate.berkeley.edu>
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes

    >How many of the CF applicants to the symposium
     >did Mr. Schultz actually speak with?  And who?
 -rs  "None. 
 -rs   "Nor have I spoken to anyone involved in the programming."

   QED

  No wonder Mr. Schultz has been so willing to impugn.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS 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 07:11:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) says:

>In article <3ui64l$re5@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:
>|> In <3uh0lq$31f@news.utdallas.edu> iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes: 
>|> >
>|> >In article <3ugfe2$bm1@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com
(Tom Potter ) writes:
>|> >|> In <3ueqac$o09@starman.convex.com> schumach@convex.com
(Richard A. Schumacher) writes: 
>|> >|> >
>|> >|> >>Are you saying that:
>|> >|> >>	time(X) <> cycles(reference) / cycles(X)
>|> >|> >
>|> >|> >Indeed. You've defined time as a dimendionless quantity. This is
>|> >|> >not consistent with your other "definitions":
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> The inconsistencies introduced by the constants "C" and "G" are not mine.
>|> >|> Those are inconsistencies of the existing system.
>|> >|> 
>|> >
>|> >I believe you are confused.  Constants like "C" and "G" have units.  they 
>|> >are not dimensionles.  therefore
>|> Who said "C" and "G" were dimensionless?
>|> I have made many posts in these forums, all dimensionally correct.
>|> 
>
>Your inference is that distance is only a facet of time and that time is 
>dimensionless.  constants like "C" and "G" are usefull because they are 
>parts of transformations.  these transformations can NOT be ignored.
>
>|> >distance = C * time (which is only true for light) does not mean that a 
>|> >second is equivelent to a meter.
>|> >
>|> >In a much more real sense, the proper way to reference this is:
>|> >
>|> >distance(t) = V(t) * t   where distance and velocity are both functions 
>|> >of time.  This is much more often true for particles than your equation.  
>|> Fundamentally, what we percieve as velocity is a dimensionless tangent
>|> multiplied by "C". This tangent is an interaction or radial time
>|> divided by a period or cyclical time. When applied to the electron, 
>|> this tangent is known as the "fine structure constant".
>|> Velocity(X) = tangent(X) * C  
>|>             =  time(interaction)/ time(period)  
>|>             =  FSC * C 
>|> 
>
>You are being slippery.  the fine structure constant only applies to a 
>particle travelling in an interactive medium at relativistic speeds.  In 
>vacuum or at non-relativistic speeds, v = dx/dt  (simple)
>
>|> >Sometimes V(t) isn't even a normal function, it can be all sorts of 
>|> >things, especially at a quantum level.  In quantum concepts, you see this:
>|> >
>|> >H(v,x,t)psi = E(t)psi, the Schroedinger equation. where H, the Hamiltonian, 
>|> >is usually expressed as the following differential operator:  
>|> >del^2/2m + V(v,x,t) where V is a potential which can be dependant on 
>|> >velocity, position, and time (although Heisenberg had different ideas) 
>|> >E(t) is another differential operator which usually looks like this: -id/dt
>|> >Note that I am setting h (plank's constant) to 1 for this.  
>|> As you perhaps know, the del function has the dimensions of a reciprocal distance.
>|> I will look over this paragraph offline and see if it is correct.
>|> 
>
>del is not a function, del is an operator.  del^2 is usually referred to 
>as the laplacian.  try looking that up.
>
>|> >|> "C" ( Unnecessarily ) introduces the concept of distance.
>|> >
>|> >The concept of distance is both necessary and sufficient to explain most 
>|> >physical phenomena.  However, you are certainly welcome to express all of 
>|> >your distances in plank-seconds or light-years, those being the only two 
>|> >distance measures which are time-related.  (well, there's also the 
>|> >driving time distance, but that's colloquial)
>|> Are you saying that all distances cannot be expressed as time / C ??
>|> They can and this expression is more fundamental.
>|> 
>
>As a matter of fact I just stated that all distance can be expressed as 
>time/C, since that is what light-years does.  I also stated that 
>distances can be measured in plank-seconds, which you ignored.  the 
>question is not whether it can be done, the question is of convenience. 
>
>|> >|> "G" ( Unnecessarily ) introduces the concept of mass.
>|> >|> 
>|> >
>|> >Please tell my fiance that the concept of mass is unimportant.  She 
>|> >thinks I'm too massive and should lose some of it.  I'll tell you what.  
>|> >You stand there and I'll drop a 100ton (metric) weight on your head.  If 
>|> >you can feasibly explain mass away, you might not be crushed.  (then 
>|> >again, you might.)  
>|> The intensions or the fundamental properties of mass are:
>|> 	mass(A) = tangent(A)^2 * tangent(B)^3 * time(period) * C^5 / G
>|> 
>
>since tangent(a), tangent(b) are not physically measurable quantities and 
>are instead philisophical constructs with no real meaning (that you've 
>shown) I'll regard this statement as bunk.
>
>|> According to your logic, hydrogen is more fundamental than protons and electrons.
>|> 
>
>depends on context.  in gas theory, hydrogen is more fundamental than 
>protons and electrons.  in molecular theory, the electron is important, 
>but the proton isn't.  in atomic theory, hydrogen is just a 
>conglomeration of protons and electrons.  in current particle physics, 
>the proton is a conglomeration of quarks and gluons while the electron 
>remains.  In each case the results are measureable.  If I detect a pion 
>flying through the drift chamber, I can report its momentum, energy, the 
>amount of time it takes to travers the drift chamber, and position.  
>
>|> >|> >>and 	distance <> time * C
>|> >|> >>AND 	mass <> distance^3 / time^2 / G
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> BTW, run an experiment.
>|> >|> Measure cycles(reference) and cycles(X).
>|> >
>|> >I can't measure cycles in an experiment.  (unless you are refering to 
>|> >bicycles or motorcycles.)  experiments usually measure such mundane 
>|> >concepts as time and distance.  
>|> 
>|> If you can count, you can measure cycles.
>|> To measure time, you need to count two cycles concurrently.
>|> 
>
>then cycles are too abstract a concept to be used in particle physics.  
>Go back and use some more thinkons and come up with something which might 
>make physics easier, and not more difficult.

If not cycles how about periodicity, or change.  As I've always felt,
there is no time only change.  Nature, at the most fundamental, quantum level
is digital.  Even motion is an illusion, matter just "refreshes" from one
place to the next along some ether scaffolding.
-- 
                                         
                                      cordially, 
                                                  Alex 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbq904 cudfnAlex cudlnGaal cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / mitchell swartz /  Scientist proves bumblebees CAN fly
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scientist proves bumblebees CAN fly
Subject: Scientist proves bumblebees CAN fly (was: Re: Implica Miles results)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 22:20:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3up5vf$3co@soenews.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Scientist proves bumblebees CAN fly (was: Re: Implica Miles results)
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)writes:

   "Just for your future enlightenment: no scientist ever ``proved''
   that bumblebees can't fly, which would obviously be a ridiculous 
   thing to prove. Instead, a german aerodynamacist, circa 1930
   (I think it may have been Von Karmen, but I'm not sure), studied
   a model of insect flight in which he assumed the insects wings 
   were rigid plates. His analysis showed these would not allow 
   flight, and thus he concluded INSECTS DON'T HAVE RIGID WINGS.
   (or, more precisely, their flexibility plays a critical role in their
   function).  ..."

      ok.

  -  "In any case: WHO CARES about bees, airplanes, puerile fever, ..."

     Barry, 
     that word is puerperal (L. puerperalis pertaining to the puerperium
                             or the confinement state after labor) 
   and not puerile [L. puerilis  child).

         Whew!!!!  good thing some people care   ;-)X

     Best wishes, and better luck with hot fusion.
       Mitchell

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.22 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Magnetic Target Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnetic Target Fusion
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 06:40:45 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3udklg$sca@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@pho
nix.princeton.edu> writes:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Newsreader: Nuntius 2.0.4_PPC
>X-XXMessage-ID: <AC2FCCC90401416F@rfheeter.remote.princeton.edu>
>X-XXDate: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 12:16:09 GMT
>
>In article <DBtBoK.9CE@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>>What's your read on MTF (Magnetic Target Fusion) as to its 
>>conventionality  or unconventionality?    
>
>Probably conventional; I'll add the references you listed
>to my (long, growing) list of things to look at for the FAQ.

>My criterion for conventionality is crystallizing somewhat
>into a decision on whether or not there is a consensus on
>how the proposed scheme basically works.  New ideas that
>work using "conventional" physics (confinement, implosion, etc)
>would still be conventional, even though new.

Sounds reasonable.  

>>To me it would seem to be a hybrid of your two highly exclusive
>>categories, magnetic fusion and inertial fusion.  

>Those aren't "my" categories - I didn't name them or anything.
>I don't see that they're necessarily exclusive either, so don't
>try and pin that on me.  (It would appear that you've gone off
>and used that generalized "you" again!)

Sorry about that, but you're being paid by "them" and the 'them' 
in this case are really hard assed s-o-b s,  when it comes to 
funding non-tokamak or ICF (with a gun to their head).  It's 
part of that simplistic black or white, no shades allowed, 
you're either for us or "a'gin us" attitude that comes from 
years and years of watching huge bucks settling more and more
on funding just one dinosaur egg.  Of course being raised on
the white/black hat Saturday morning western reruns helped a 
bit.  

>I have nothing against hybrid schemes as long as they don't
>require totally new laws of physics to function.  Even then
>I try to keep an open mind, but won't put them in the FAQ.

Well, at least LANL has some money to find out the physics, 
and so far as I can tell, it seems pretty straight forward
with the exception of the compression numbers the Russian
members of the MTF team have achieved  ... . 90 10^6 bars.  
(Note: that's not dynes/cm^2).  That is the plasma regimes 
are going to be (are?) pretty fantastic.  

The Russians incidentally consider this as a distinctive
approach, probably because the reliance on strong
magnetic fields embedded in the target plasma which clamp
thermal diffusion and allow MUCH longer compression times.  

As I meant to indicate, the USDoE does NOT consider this as a 
fusion approach!  However, it does relate to dense plasma 
and strong fields.  Yep, they still have their heads up
their own personal dark space.   

Thanks for the response.   
>------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Heeter
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
>http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
>Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Musings from "A mosquito"
Date: 21 Jul 1995 05:36:42 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <JTLC4h1.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> Out here in the real world, real people -- taxpayers, industrialists,
> people who have to heat houses in winter -- do not care about such trivial
> academic debates. Heat is heat, energy is energy. Fusion, fission, solar, ZPE
> or green-cheese energy; no sane person cares where it comes from. 

Well, some folks apparently care wether it creates radioactive waste
or not. Others care about other types of exhaust. I gues we are
just lucky that CF produces *no exhaust at all*---just glorious, 
benign heat. Its a wonderful universe we live in, isn't it?

In fact, I suggest you start posting to sci.religion, since this is
obviously the proof that a benevolent god exists.


> Real people want *results*

No truer words were ever said. And last time I checked, I was 
a real person. And, just as you suggest, I want to see those results 
that P&F are supposedly producing. 

--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Mahipal Virdy /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy)
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: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 20:21:38 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics

In article <806177135snz@microser.demon.co.uk>,
Ben Newsam  <Ben@microser.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com "Bronis Vidugiris" writes:
>
>> Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> 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.
>

PhuleeeaaasssszzzZe!! I hope there's enough sarcasm there.

>"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?
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ben Newsam               Micro Services -- ben@microser.demon.co.uk
>Tel & Fax: -- +44 (114) 233 2071   Tel: -- +44 (114) 285 2727
>"I'm not known for blowing my own trumpet." --- Hugh Grant
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll share a bit of my "mind stuff" with you.
Whatever TP's cycles are about, all TP has done, at the very extreme
best, is algebraic nonsense. Time is charge, etc. Nonsense. 

I've communicated this openly before. TP didn't respond. But he could be
overwhelmed by the interest and follow-up email. But in my humble
scientific opinion, TP's stuff isn't fit to print on TP. I couldn't
resist the ;-)

Mixing dimensional quantities doesn't take a lot of work. One has to
show what the ratios suggest, imply, mean, etc. The question is still
open to Tom.

Mahipal,
|meforce>

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenvirdy cudfnMahipal cudlnVirdy cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / 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: 21 Jul 1995 09:04:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <1995Jul20.202138.21018@news2.den.mmc.com> virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com
(Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes: 

>
>In article <806177135snz@microser.demon.co.uk>,
>Ben Newsam  <Ben@microser.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com "Bronis Vidugiris" writes:
>>
>>> Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> 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.
>>
>
>PhuleeeaaasssszzzZe!! I hope there's enough sarcasm there.
>
>>"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?
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Ben Newsam               Micro Services -- ben@microser.demon.co.uk
>>Tel & Fax: -- +44 (114) 233 2071   Tel: -- +44 (114) 285 2727
>>"I'm not known for blowing my own trumpet." --- Hugh Grant
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I'll share a bit of my "mind stuff" with you.
>Whatever TP's cycles are about, all TP has done, at the very extreme
>best, is algebraic nonsense. Time is charge, etc. Nonsense. 
>
>I've communicated this openly before. TP didn't respond. But he could be
>overwhelmed by the interest and follow-up email. But in my humble
>scientific opinion, TP's stuff isn't fit to print on TP. I couldn't
>resist the ;-)
>
>Mixing dimensional quantities doesn't take a lot of work. One has to
>show what the ratios suggest, imply, mean, etc. The question is still
>open to Tom.
>
>Mahipal,
>|meforce>

Physical reality is a simple 4 by 4 by cycles^N matrix.

What each cell of the matrix means is in you mind.
For example, what did charge and voltage mean to Newton?
What did mass and force mean to prehistoric man?

If you download my PHYSICST.ZIP hypertext, physics tutorial,
you will find that I provide a common explanation of what every cell 
of the matrix is, in simple, plain language. This does not mean what
I wrote in this tutorial is right. I just provided the most commonly
accepted definition for most cells ( Properties ).

Although, a physical description of "reality" serves a useful purpose
in the conceptual evolution of "reality" concepts, at some point, these
physical analogs serve no useful function. They take on a life of their own. 
We begin to conceptualize in terms of the physical analogs and lose sight 
of the true nature of nature.

I provided such physical analogs in my tutorial but I did so only
to maintain continuity with custom.


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / 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: 21 Jul 1995 09:10:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <1995Jul20.211149.22636@news2.den.mmc.com> virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com
(Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes: 

>
>In article <3uk85a$rf2@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>As several people have informed me by email that they missed
>>my original posts on "cycles", and several others have asked me
>>to elaborate on my "theory", I am reposting some of this information.
>>
>>                        ------------
>>
>>1. The fundamental unit of information and perception
>>   is the BIT ( BInary uniT ),
>
>actually it's Binary unIT...
>
>John Wheeler's "IT from BIT" is hardly at all here.
>
>>   which in its' most fundamentally form is a cycle.
>>
>
>What is a cycle? Is it a TRIcycle? 
>
>[deletia...]
>
>>   This definition introduces critical misconceptions into
>>   physics and is the source of many errors, including the
>>   reduced mass of the electron. One of the misconceptions it
>>   introduces is that the "Earth orbits the Sun".
>>   The fact is, that all pairs of bodies in the universe
>>   interact about the center of mass common to each.
>>
>
>1AU=1.4959789e11 meters
>mearth=5.9742e24 kg
>msun=1.989e30 kg
>
>The center of mass of these two bodies is given by
>cm=[mearth*0 + msun*(1 AU)]/(msun + mearth)
>
>Leading to
>cm=[msun/(msun+mearth)] * 1 AU
>cm = 0.999996997 * 1 AU = 1.4959744e11 meters from Earth
>
>BTW, don't let all those upside down "6"s intimidate you. ;-)
>
>That's 449300 meters = 449.3 km from the center of the Sun.
>The barycenter is THAT close to the center of the Sun.
>The Sun's radius is 6.9599e5 km.
>
>The Earth orbits the Sun.
>
>Please disspell my misconceptions Tom.
>
>
>[more deleted...]
>
>What are you trying to say about science or do with it?
>
>Mahipal,
>|meforce>

It's a unicycle.

Okay, the Earth is flat.
The Earth orbits the Sun.

I am not here to convince you of anything.
I just thought I'd share a couple of ideas with you.
Perhaps, you'd rather hear my views on how to get laid?

I am trying to have fun with science. 
What are you trying to do with it?


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / 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: 21 Jul 1995 09:43:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3un51k$mhp@er7.rutgers.edu> bain@er7.rutgers.edu (Michael Bain) writes: 

>
>rhuss@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Robert Huss) writes:
>>Tom Potter (tdp@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: If you can count, you can measure cycles.
>>: To measure time, you need to count two cycles concurrently.
>
>>Okay, I've never heard of "cycles" as fundamental units, but now
>>you give me something to work with. You say we can "measure"
>>cycles. From this I gather there are many different cycles
>>you could use as a base. I can count the spinning of the earth,
>>the orbit of the earth, the beating of my heart, etc. Is
>>this what a cycle is? Now, how do you define the
>>count of these cycles without time? Counting cycles implies
>>a starting point and an ending point and a direction of time.
>>Therefore time is still a fundamental.
>
>This is not true, particularly in relation to a branch of mathematics
>called nonlinear dynamics.  I leave it to the reader to learn the 
>following basic tenets of nonlinear dynamics:  Poincare' Plots and limit
>cycles.  My point will be self-evident (if not write repost with 
>complaints).
>
>Michael Bain

This will be my last post on this subject for a while.

I will think over your comments and will respond to them only
in the alt.sci.new-theories forum, as I have received a couple 
of complaints for posting in the wrong forums.

So, please don't flame me as I will not post information on this
subject in the other forums any more. I am sorry for the clutter this
thread has created in the other forums, but hopefully some in the
other forums enjoyed some of the posts.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Mahipal Virdy /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy)
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: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 21:11:49 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics

In article <3uk85a$rf2@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>As several people have informed me by email that they missed
>my original posts on "cycles", and several others have asked me
>to elaborate on my "theory", I am reposting some of this information.
>
>                        ------------
>
>1. The fundamental unit of information and perception
>   is the BIT ( BInary uniT ),

actually it's Binary unIT...

John Wheeler's "IT from BIT" is hardly at all here.

>   which in its' most fundamentally form is a cycle.
>

What is a cycle? Is it a TRIcycle? 

[deletia...]

>   This definition introduces critical misconceptions into
>   physics and is the source of many errors, including the
>   reduced mass of the electron. One of the misconceptions it
>   introduces is that the "Earth orbits the Sun".
>   The fact is, that all pairs of bodies in the universe
>   interact about the center of mass common to each.
>

1AU=1.4959789e11 meters
mearth=5.9742e24 kg
msun=1.989e30 kg

The center of mass of these two bodies is given by
cm=[mearth*0 + msun*(1 AU)]/(msun + mearth)

Leading to
cm=[msun/(msun+mearth)] * 1 AU
cm = 0.999996997 * 1 AU = 1.4959744e11 meters from Earth

BTW, don't let all those upside down "6"s intimidate you. ;-)

That's 449300 meters = 449.3 km from the center of the Sun.
The barycenter is THAT close to the center of the Sun.
The Sun's radius is 6.9599e5 km.

The Earth orbits the Sun.

Please disspell my misconceptions Tom.


[more deleted...]

What are you trying to say about science or do with it?

Mahipal,
|meforce>
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenvirdy cudfnMahipal cudlnVirdy cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Barry Merriman /  What's up with P&F ?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's up with P&F ?
Date: 21 Jul 1995 01:11:27 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE


Does anyone know what is going on with Pon's and F.? Last
rumor we heard---from an evil skeptical source---was that 
they were in essence abandoning their cold fusion work.

Given that their public presentation history consists
of a big press conference, an initial provocative but 
sketchy paper, and then a long slow series of retractions
of nuclear signatures (gamma's, neutrons, He4), its hard
to see how much longer they can go without issuing some
sort of detailed status report.

Particulalrly amusing is their effective non-presence at last years
CF conference, which was held on their home turf. Though I 
recall F. said something along the lines of ``no news is good news''
(an odd slogan for a scientist).

In any event, does anyone happen to have an inside knowledge 
of whats going on? In my book, the current body of CF lives or dies 
by the work of P&F: they've been at longer (10 years now!) and
with more funding (must be approaching $10,000,000, including the 
$5M from Utah) than anybody else, and are also the most competent 
elechtro-chemists involved.If their experiments are a bust,
I doubt there is anything to the various spinoff approaches, regardless of
whether they seem more robust.




--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Robert Heeter /  OFF-CHARTER POST: Re: New Gravitational force
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: OFF-CHARTER POST: Re: New Gravitational force
Date: 21 Jul 1995 00:08:04 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <-1807952244350001@ip-salem2-12.teleport.com> Charles Cagle,
singtech@teleport.com writes:
>> >>    The propulsion mechanism of infinitely advanced beings has been
>> >>    thoroughly studied and explained.
>> 
>> >This is our last warning!
>> >Quit deciminating this information!
>> Was that decimating, or disseminating?:-)
>> 
>> >The Federation
>
>
>Hey, Robin.  How are you?  I enjoy your humor as above.  We haven't
>connected in months.  What is going on.  Employed yet?
>

Charles, why on earth are you flaming me for telling you this thread 
is off-charter?  Or are personal messages and discussions
of aliens now considered relevant to fusion too?


 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Robert Heeter /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 21 Jul 1995 00:52:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

[ sci.physics removed from the newsgroups list to eliminate
unnecessary crossposting. ]

In article <3ue2dl$crm@mtnmath.mtnmath.com> Paul Budnik,
paul@mtnmath.mtnmath.com writes:
>Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
>
>: Below you will find FYI98 from the American Institute of Physics, 
>: which contains recent news on the state of the fusion program.
>: The House of Representatives passed an appropriation of only
>: $229 million, down from this year's funding of about $370 million.
>
>It is most unfortunate that in these times of tight budgets *any*
>money is being thrown down this rat hole. We have a perfectly
>good fusion reactor conveniently delivering to us more energy than
>we could ever safely use and that is far more reliable than anything
>we will ever be able to build on earth. It is located at a safe
>distance of 93 million miles so we do not have to worry about the
>radioactive products it creates.

I share your sentiments about the sun, but if you take the time
to do the math you'll discover that it's going to be pretty damned
difficult to harness the sun's energy without doing incredible
environmental damage due to the land-use and materials requirements 
of solar-based energy sources.  Furthermore, solar energy is very
unevenly distributed around the world.  From a purely 
environmental standpoint fusion is a better bet, especially if you
would like to actually get out into space.

If you consider that the population of the earth is likely to
double in the next 50 years or so, and that land-use pressures are
already acute even in relatively underpopulated nations like the U.S.,
you can imagine how tough it will be to power the 21st century
(much less the 22nd) with an energy source as diffuse as solar.

>We ought to be spending money figuring out how to effectively use that
>power source and not create another monstrous and monstrously expensive
>boondoggle like nuclear power is today. The main reason we do not is
>that nobody can control that power source. The infrastructure to exploit
>it would be widely owned and therefore is anathema to the corporations that
>make their livings selling energy.

Hey, I share your dream, but I don't think you're being realistic.  
The waste burden from fusion will be miniscule (0.00001) relative 
to that from fission, so tarring fusion with fission's brush doesn't 
really work.  And what makes you think that the infrastructure for 
solar energy would be widely-owned, given that right now the major 
research facilities and new installations are either government-owned 
or run by large private corporations?  The competitive advantages to 
owning large-scale solar facilities will make small private operators 
extremely uncompetitive.  

The main obstacle to solar power is that the energy source is very
dilute and it's difficult to harness it with much efficiency; if
Nevada won't allow a (relatively) small nuclear waste facility, 
how do you expect them to allow you to coat the state with 
silicon solar panels?  What happens to the environment when
you do?  And where do you expect to put the solar farms in
Southeast Asia?


>: Those who support applied research say it's too expensive 
>: and will take too long; those who support basic research say
>: it's too applied.  Sheesh!
>
>They are both correct. The more important reason is that fusion power
>is a very bad idea. There are much better long term solutions to the problem
>of energy and this is where we should be putting our resources.

Please name a solution that does better fusion's combination of 
virtually-infinite fuel supply, low land-use, minimal environmental 
hazards, and well-distributed resources.  Solar, biomass?  Nope, too 
much land and environmental stress.  Wind?  Nope, not enough sites, 
not well-distributed.  The biggest problem with fusion is that
it's not economical yet, but that's a technological limit, not
a fundamental problem.  That's why research on fusion would
be a good idea:  if you can improve the technology, you can win
big.

>: Energy research (only a few billion
>: dollars per year including private funding) is cheap considering
>: that energy represents the foundation of the economy and 
>: roughly 10% of GNP (that would be $500 Billion plus); what
>: is spent on energy supply R&D is just a drop in the bucket.
>
>That argument would make sense if there were reasons to believe fusion
>research was a reasonable approach to dealing with the energy problem.

Which there are, as I explained above.  Why do you disagree?

>: I urge those of you who support fusion to write or call your
>: senators this week; on an arcane technical issue like this,
>: a few voices can make a big difference, especially if they
>: come from outside the fusion program.
>
>And I urge those who oppose it to do the same. There must be
>some sensible people inside the fusion program who understand
>what a boondoggle it is. Their inputs would be especially valuable.

I haven't met any yet; I'll keep looking.  I don't see any of them
posting here, either.  The tokamak approach may not be the best 
way to go, but I doubt you'll find any serious
scientist in the program who considers it overall to be a 
"boondoggle."  The taxes paid by industries which rely on
technologies in plasma physics (developed as a result of the
fusion program) do much more than pay for fusion research;
America is getting a damned good return on its investment, 
even before commercialization of fusion.  I still think the
idea of cutting a hundred million from fusion to reduce
a $200 billion deficit is like giving yourself a lobotomy to
lose a little weight.

>:  Even a cut to $320
>: million (envisioned by PCAST) will virtually eliminate any 
>: chance of getting a demonstration fusion reactor within the 
>: next 30 years.
>
>This is utter nonsense. You have no idea what is going to happen
>in technology in the next 30 years. 

You're partly right; I can't say for sure what will happen.  I was 
mostly just referring to the official program plan published 
by the Office of Fusion Energy, which is about to be scrapped.  
On the other hand, it's awfully hard to innovate without any
research.

>There are many terrible things Washington
>is doing in the name of balancing the budget and reducing
>government but killing this program would be a very good thing.

I think you should take a little more time to learn about it before
jumping off the deep end to that conclusion.  (I love mixed
metaphors sometimes!)

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Howard Eckles /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: heckles@ix.netcom.com (Howard Eckles)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 21 Jul 1995 01:41:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <v01510100ac33e178d057@[130.95.180.107]> aprice@geol.uwa.edu.au
(Antony Price) writes: 
>
>        I'm just a humble Physics Graduate, and I read this news group
>purely out of interest. The thread concerning the 'Farce of Physics'
seems
>to be getting a little out of hand, but the point I wish to make is
that if
>Wallace was trying to present new ideas to the community for comment,
he
>shouldn't have call that community 'farcical'. If I were to allow my
>imagination to wander, I might begin to think that he was looking to
'but
>heads' before the thread started in earnest.
>
>Antony.
>
>______________________________________________________________________
_____
>Antony David Price BSc (Hons)                        
aprice@geol.uwa.edu.au
>Dept. of Geology and Geophysics                                (09)
380 1920
>The University of Western Australia                       Nedlands
W.A. 6009
>______________________________________________________________________
_____
>    "I didn't do it."   -   Bart Simpson
>
>
It would be good if "Farce" was not posted to sci.physics.fusion!
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenheckles cudfnHoward cudlnEckles cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.20 / Michael Bain /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: bain@er7.rutgers.edu (Michael Bain)
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: 20 Jul 1995 22:56:52 -0400
Organization: Rutgers University

rhuss@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Robert Huss) writes:
>Tom Potter (tdp@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: If you can count, you can measure cycles.
>: To measure time, you need to count two cycles concurrently.

>Okay, I've never heard of "cycles" as fundamental units, but now
>you give me something to work with. You say we can "measure"
>cycles. From this I gather there are many different cycles
>you could use as a base. I can count the spinning of the earth,
>the orbit of the earth, the beating of my heart, etc. Is
>this what a cycle is? Now, how do you define the
>count of these cycles without time? Counting cycles implies
>a starting point and an ending point and a direction of time.
>Therefore time is still a fundamental.

This is not true, particularly in relation to a branch of mathematics
called nonlinear dynamics.  I leave it to the reader to learn the 
following basic tenets of nonlinear dynamics:  Poincare' Plots and limit
cycles.  My point will be self-evident (if not write repost with 
complaints).

Michael Bain

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbain cudfnMichael cudlnBain cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.21 / Robert Heeter /  OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
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: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 21 Jul 1995 02:11:08 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3ugg94$bpr@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> Tom Potter,
tdp@ix.netcom.com writes:
[...]
>Space and mass are sensory perceptions of a simple matrix of cycles
>and cycles ratios. From the standpoint of physics, it is better to
>reduce the sensory properties to the simplist expression.
[...]

All this is very interesting, but it does not belong in
sci.physics.fusion.  We all know where to find this info
and there's no need to waste bandwidth with superfluous
crossposting.  Please show a little more respect for
the rest of us on the internet.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jul 22 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
