Friday, July 29, 2005
Planet X.... again
Ok, I don't have a lot of comments to be made here, except for, "Cool". It seems that a group of astronomers have found new planet in our solar system. It is unusual in that it quite bright, well, brighter than Pluto at any rate, which suggests it may even be bigger than Pluto. Much of this has significant uncertainty until further observations can be made. But it is certain to reignite the debate about exactly what the difference between an asteroid and a planet is. And that can be a contentious topic. One girl I had classes with in college explained about the debate over planet status, "We astronomers only have so many things to get upset about".
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
The Loose Screw Awards
Ok, I have always thought that psychologists were a bit off the deep end. Richard Feynman, the celebrated if somewhat quirky physicist, said that if you have a choice between a psychologist and a witchdoctor, choose the witchdoctor because he uses the scientific method. As you may guess, he was not very fond of them. Fraud scandals involving the likes of Frued and Kinsey certainly have not helped matters.
Well, it appears psychology is not completely unaware of it failings. Enter the The Loose Screw Awards. Here we have the top ten discredited ideas, and many still have a lot of life left in them.
Rorschach blots and other so called projective tests land in number one, but number two, really should have been there, with recovered memories. Mozart for babies, while perhaps ineffective, was really quite innocent (#6. The P.T. Barnum Medal for Mass-Market Potential) while on the other hand, trying to boost self esteem (in at #4) by trying to convince yourself just how wonderful you are, is more insidious and damaging.
The only one I can find some fault with is enabling (#5) because I realized I had done that to some degree during my marriage. However, to their credit, I think that they are talking about extreme cases and reactions. Worth taking a look at.
Well, it appears psychology is not completely unaware of it failings. Enter the The Loose Screw Awards. Here we have the top ten discredited ideas, and many still have a lot of life left in them.
Rorschach blots and other so called projective tests land in number one, but number two, really should have been there, with recovered memories. Mozart for babies, while perhaps ineffective, was really quite innocent (#6. The P.T. Barnum Medal for Mass-Market Potential) while on the other hand, trying to boost self esteem (in at #4) by trying to convince yourself just how wonderful you are, is more insidious and damaging.
The only one I can find some fault with is enabling (#5) because I realized I had done that to some degree during my marriage. However, to their credit, I think that they are talking about extreme cases and reactions. Worth taking a look at.
I need a word
I have needed a word for some time now... and I am stymed. I need a word that means you come to the opposite conclusion after hearing someone's argument.
Case in point, it was reported today on the news, that the largest age segment of people viewing porn, was teenagers. Possible, I though, but rather suspect sounding. And what was the porn industry's response? Well, if they aren't doing it, they aren't interested. That has to be among the lamest bits of logic I have heard. Do these people not know what a nerd is? Or... ok, ok, I am not going to spend half an hour dissecting everything wrong with that argument. I don't know if the original study has merit or not, but I can tell you that the response to it incriminates them more, in my mind. BUT I NEED A WORD FOR IT!
It isn't just bad logic, or a non sequitur. It is so bad it makes you arrive at the opposite conclusion. But what is a word for it?
Case in point, it was reported today on the news, that the largest age segment of people viewing porn, was teenagers. Possible, I though, but rather suspect sounding. And what was the porn industry's response? Well, if they aren't doing it, they aren't interested. That has to be among the lamest bits of logic I have heard. Do these people not know what a nerd is? Or... ok, ok, I am not going to spend half an hour dissecting everything wrong with that argument. I don't know if the original study has merit or not, but I can tell you that the response to it incriminates them more, in my mind. BUT I NEED A WORD FOR IT!
It isn't just bad logic, or a non sequitur. It is so bad it makes you arrive at the opposite conclusion. But what is a word for it?
Sunday, July 24, 2005
FTL part 2
Ok, last time I mentioned that the main problem with FTL, Faster Than Light travel, is that, according to Special Relativity, all frames of reference are equivalent, none are preferred. That means that there is no way to define what is simultaneous in SR.. This means that every place defines its own past, which means that if you go faster than the speed of light in one reference frame, it may be seen as time travel in another.
So, we have two possibilities. Either (1) FTL inherently means time travel and there is no such thing as simultaneity OR (2) there is a preferred frame of reference, which means we can define simultaneity and time travel is not required. But #2 is not generally considered an option. After all, aren’t simple basic things like that already proven? You would think so....
What is considered to be the first proof, were a series of experiments involving precision interferometers, preformed by scientists Michelson and Morley. This was about a hundred years ago and it was thought that we understood everything. The last experiment that needed to be preformed was measuring the speed of the luminiferious aether. Well, any old text on relativity will tell you that his experiment was a bust. He didn’t measure the speed he was looking for and that paved the way for Einstein and his theory.
Only, that isn’t the whole story. What is not commonly known, and certainly not in the textbooks, is that Michelson did not have a null result – that is to say, he did measure something, only it wasn’t as big as it should have been.
However, that experiment has been performed many times and the latest and greatest have been vacuum sealed and they have most definitely been null. That settles it then, doesn’t it? There must be no aether, and no preferred reference frame..... if the experiments were done correctly. It seems that there have been a number of them done.
Dr. Reginald T Cahill made a fascinating analysis in one of the latest issues of Infinite Energy, he shows that the fringe shifts (that is actually what is measured in a Michelson Morley Interferometers) were related to the density. Proportional to the third power of the index of refraction, actually, but I will leave the technical details to those who wish to read the paper- well worth it. His own page is at here, and a lengthy list of papers and interferometer experiments may be found here.
Appearently, most of the new experiments all used vacuum sealed apparatuses. Normally, you would expect that to make it more accurate, but in this case, the signal strength is related to the amount of material you go through.
What his work suggests to me, is that rather than space-time being a fabric of sorts, it is closer to a fluid. And while the speed of light may be finite in any given space, that space it self may flow much faster than light’s limit.
I wish to walk a fine line here. While I would like to point out all the evidences against Relativity, I don’t want anyone to think Einstein is a waste. He is no more of a waste than Newton. We all know Newton is not technically correct, but that does not mean he is not useful.
So, we have two possibilities. Either (1) FTL inherently means time travel and there is no such thing as simultaneity OR (2) there is a preferred frame of reference, which means we can define simultaneity and time travel is not required. But #2 is not generally considered an option. After all, aren’t simple basic things like that already proven? You would think so....
What is considered to be the first proof, were a series of experiments involving precision interferometers, preformed by scientists Michelson and Morley. This was about a hundred years ago and it was thought that we understood everything. The last experiment that needed to be preformed was measuring the speed of the luminiferious aether. Well, any old text on relativity will tell you that his experiment was a bust. He didn’t measure the speed he was looking for and that paved the way for Einstein and his theory.
Only, that isn’t the whole story. What is not commonly known, and certainly not in the textbooks, is that Michelson did not have a null result – that is to say, he did measure something, only it wasn’t as big as it should have been.
However, that experiment has been performed many times and the latest and greatest have been vacuum sealed and they have most definitely been null. That settles it then, doesn’t it? There must be no aether, and no preferred reference frame..... if the experiments were done correctly. It seems that there have been a number of them done.
Dr. Reginald T Cahill made a fascinating analysis in one of the latest issues of Infinite Energy, he shows that the fringe shifts (that is actually what is measured in a Michelson Morley Interferometers) were related to the density. Proportional to the third power of the index of refraction, actually, but I will leave the technical details to those who wish to read the paper- well worth it. His own page is at here, and a lengthy list of papers and interferometer experiments may be found here.
Appearently, most of the new experiments all used vacuum sealed apparatuses. Normally, you would expect that to make it more accurate, but in this case, the signal strength is related to the amount of material you go through.
What his work suggests to me, is that rather than space-time being a fabric of sorts, it is closer to a fluid. And while the speed of light may be finite in any given space, that space it self may flow much faster than light’s limit.
I wish to walk a fine line here. While I would like to point out all the evidences against Relativity, I don’t want anyone to think Einstein is a waste. He is no more of a waste than Newton. We all know Newton is not technically correct, but that does not mean he is not useful.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Faster Than Light - part 1
Ok, this is a subject that needs to be examined more closely than it has been. Oh, sure, I know that some sci-fi geeks (not unlike myself) have considered it carefully. There have even been some mainstream scientists, but it still has not gotten the attention it needs. The problem is that of so-called Faster Than Light travel, or, simply, FTL.
I have always believed this is possible, though I certainly have no proof. And being the kind of person I am, I don’t just want proof, I want a full fledged hyper-warp-FTL drive attachment for my car. But this is going to take some work, I think. I suppose that a proper treatment of FTL demands that I treat two things, why it is not supposed to be possible, and why it might. Now, I think that before one goes about smashing idols, one ought to know exactly how, and why each of these idols exist.
Thus, today’s topic is, what prevents FTL Travel? If you can’t answer this, there is no sense in looking for loopholes. You got to know the rules before you can break them.
The first problem with faster than light travel is relativity. Not the nasty mathematics of General Relativity, the relatively simple stuff of Special Relativity. This is the main problem, though there are others. If all frames of reference are equally valid, then it doesn’t matter which one we use. And for any speed less than light, it will be less than light in any other reference frame. BUT, once we exceed the speed of light, there will be a reference frame where it appear we are going backwards in time. And you don’t have to rewatch “Back to the Future” many times to know that that makes trouble. A good place to see this is here, though admittedly it was meant for a game.
Another problem is that relativistic mass is related to speed. And going the speed of light means your mass is infinite, which means the rocket fuel needed is infinite, which means....
The last real problem that I see is that our atoms are held together by the electrical force. On the quantum mechanical level, that force is mediated using virtual photons, which move at the speed of light. In other words, if we exceeded the speed of light, then we would be moving faster than the force that holds us together.
I think that those are all the critial problem. If I missed any, someone let me know. But it was on the basis of reasons like this, many have concluded FTL would never be possible, never considering how limited our knowledge is. I think it is possible.
I have always believed this is possible, though I certainly have no proof. And being the kind of person I am, I don’t just want proof, I want a full fledged hyper-warp-FTL drive attachment for my car. But this is going to take some work, I think. I suppose that a proper treatment of FTL demands that I treat two things, why it is not supposed to be possible, and why it might. Now, I think that before one goes about smashing idols, one ought to know exactly how, and why each of these idols exist.
Thus, today’s topic is, what prevents FTL Travel? If you can’t answer this, there is no sense in looking for loopholes. You got to know the rules before you can break them.
The first problem with faster than light travel is relativity. Not the nasty mathematics of General Relativity, the relatively simple stuff of Special Relativity. This is the main problem, though there are others. If all frames of reference are equally valid, then it doesn’t matter which one we use. And for any speed less than light, it will be less than light in any other reference frame. BUT, once we exceed the speed of light, there will be a reference frame where it appear we are going backwards in time. And you don’t have to rewatch “Back to the Future” many times to know that that makes trouble. A good place to see this is here, though admittedly it was meant for a game.
Another problem is that relativistic mass is related to speed. And going the speed of light means your mass is infinite, which means the rocket fuel needed is infinite, which means....
The last real problem that I see is that our atoms are held together by the electrical force. On the quantum mechanical level, that force is mediated using virtual photons, which move at the speed of light. In other words, if we exceeded the speed of light, then we would be moving faster than the force that holds us together.
I think that those are all the critial problem. If I missed any, someone let me know. But it was on the basis of reasons like this, many have concluded FTL would never be possible, never considering how limited our knowledge is. I think it is possible.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Heat_of_Moment.pdf (application/pdf Object)
Ok, started on that large PDF on the effect of porn on the brain. But it occurred to me that I did know a little about what she was saying. Partly because I am a man, and I know how easily my brain turns off when I see pretty, or more especially a sexy woman. A while ago, I copied this off of Netscape.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty Women Make Men Stupid!
Women have known this since the beginning of time. Now psychologists at McMaster University in Canada have figured it out, too. A beautiful woman can make a guy stupid.
According to New Scientist, pretty women scramble men's ability to assess the future. Scientifically, it's known as "discounting the future." Seen frequently in animals, it means preferring an immediate, lesser reward to a greater reward in the future.
Here's an example: If someone offered to give you $10,000 now or the same amount five years from now, you would choose to take the money today because there is no value in waiting. But if someone were to offer you $10,000 today or $50,000 in five years, you would probably opt to wait for the higher amount. This is called "rational discounting." If you were to take the $10,000 today, it's called "irrational discounting."
The study: McMaster University researchers Margo Wilson and Martin Daly wanted to find out if sexual mood influenced discounting behavior. They showed 209 male and female students pictures of attractive and not-so-attractive people of the opposite sex. Each was then offered a chance to win a prize. They could accept a check for between $15 and $35 tomorrow or one for $50 to $75 at some point in the future.
The results for the men: After a man viewed pictures of women who were of average attractiveness, they made a rational decision about the prize money and accepted the larger amount to be received in the future. But when they had just seen pictures of beautiful women, they discounted the future value of the reward in an irrational way and opted instead for the immediate and smaller cash outlay. In other words, after seeing a very attractive woman, the men were more likely to make dumb choices.
The results for the women: Viewing the photographs of men--whether they were sexy hunks or just run-of-the-mill guys--had no effect on women's ability to make rational decisions.
Why the difference? Wilson and Daly don't know, but they suspect that viewing pictures of pretty women is mildly arousing for men. If that's the case, it would activate neural mechanisms associated with cues of sexual opportunity. Tommaso Pizzari, an evolutionary biologist at Leeds University, offered another possible explanation to New Scientist: "If there's the prospect of getting a very attractive partner it may pay a man to take more risks than if an average partner was available."
The research findings were published in the journal Biology Letters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has actually been some study done on this. One good paper on how our
decision making changes when aroused. I simple presentation on discounting which looks like it was done by the same guys may be found here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty Women Make Men Stupid!
Women have known this since the beginning of time. Now psychologists at McMaster University in Canada have figured it out, too. A beautiful woman can make a guy stupid.
According to New Scientist, pretty women scramble men's ability to assess the future. Scientifically, it's known as "discounting the future." Seen frequently in animals, it means preferring an immediate, lesser reward to a greater reward in the future.
Here's an example: If someone offered to give you $10,000 now or the same amount five years from now, you would choose to take the money today because there is no value in waiting. But if someone were to offer you $10,000 today or $50,000 in five years, you would probably opt to wait for the higher amount. This is called "rational discounting." If you were to take the $10,000 today, it's called "irrational discounting."
The study: McMaster University researchers Margo Wilson and Martin Daly wanted to find out if sexual mood influenced discounting behavior. They showed 209 male and female students pictures of attractive and not-so-attractive people of the opposite sex. Each was then offered a chance to win a prize. They could accept a check for between $15 and $35 tomorrow or one for $50 to $75 at some point in the future.
The results for the men: After a man viewed pictures of women who were of average attractiveness, they made a rational decision about the prize money and accepted the larger amount to be received in the future. But when they had just seen pictures of beautiful women, they discounted the future value of the reward in an irrational way and opted instead for the immediate and smaller cash outlay. In other words, after seeing a very attractive woman, the men were more likely to make dumb choices.
The results for the women: Viewing the photographs of men--whether they were sexy hunks or just run-of-the-mill guys--had no effect on women's ability to make rational decisions.
Why the difference? Wilson and Daly don't know, but they suspect that viewing pictures of pretty women is mildly arousing for men. If that's the case, it would activate neural mechanisms associated with cues of sexual opportunity. Tommaso Pizzari, an evolutionary biologist at Leeds University, offered another possible explanation to New Scientist: "If there's the prospect of getting a very attractive partner it may pay a man to take more risks than if an average partner was available."
The research findings were published in the journal Biology Letters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has actually been some study done on this. One good paper on how our
decision making changes when aroused. I simple presentation on discounting which looks like it was done by the same guys may be found here.
what do we call a mind on Porn?
Well, this is an interesting question. Anything the brain enjoys, changes it. Can we quantify the change porn makes as damage then? There is one lady that is trying that. Of course, the mere idea sends some people into a tizzy, especially those that can not distinguish between porn and sex in its own proper place. We know that there is such a thing as sex addiction, so I think it makes sense to look for real damage. Her name is Dr. Judith Reisman and her paper is called, "The Psychopharmacology of Pictorial Pornography Restructuring Brain, Mind & Memory & Subverting Freedom of Speech".
I think most people just hear the premise and laugh, because that is what they want to. But there is a lot to sort out here. I am not even sure how you would quantify damage, other than observing addiction behaviors. I have not attempted to study it out yet, but here are some links. Adult Christianity (more 'adult' than christian, you are warned) trys to tear it down and make it simply a power play by an ideologist, but does not really examine the question before them. Frankly, casting aspersions is much easier than tackling the science. The Deseret News does a nice objective piece while the Guardian mostly makes fun it.
I am going to need to study this out before I can give a worthwhile opinion. The problem with things like this, is most people think with their emotions and prejustices, and not look at the issue at hand. Who wants to? If she is right, there is an awful lot we have to give up.
I think most people just hear the premise and laugh, because that is what they want to. But there is a lot to sort out here. I am not even sure how you would quantify damage, other than observing addiction behaviors. I have not attempted to study it out yet, but here are some links. Adult Christianity (more 'adult' than christian, you are warned) trys to tear it down and make it simply a power play by an ideologist, but does not really examine the question before them. Frankly, casting aspersions is much easier than tackling the science. The Deseret News does a nice objective piece while the Guardian mostly makes fun it.
I am going to need to study this out before I can give a worthwhile opinion. The problem with things like this, is most people think with their emotions and prejustices, and not look at the issue at hand. Who wants to? If she is right, there is an awful lot we have to give up.
New Periodic Table
Ok, I have seen things, and thought of things similar to this. But this guys found the right final details. And that is what makes it good. Here we have here is a more natural, organic way of looking at the electron structure of the elements. It even has a place for Neutronium, which is a first for me. It is worth taking a look at.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
We would never do that, and look, it doesn't hurt either!
Ok, this RFID thing just refuses to die. They talk like they would never do it to us, and then they have a former government official showing how harmless and painless it is. Then they make a point of talking about what good things it is capable of. None of us are denying that. It is the possible abuses, and whether it is even possible to stop the abuses.
How would you like it if, for instance, one day you realized your underwear was reporting on your whereabouts?
— California Senator Debra Bowen, at a 2003 hearing [9]
And would the positive points even happen?
Katherine Albrecht and a few others oppose it. And so, do I believe, do I.
How would you like it if, for instance, one day you realized your underwear was reporting on your whereabouts?
— California Senator Debra Bowen, at a 2003 hearing [9]
And would the positive points even happen?
Katherine Albrecht and a few others oppose it. And so, do I believe, do I.
The Spat
Ok, I give up. I have to comment on this. I hate to do so because it smacks of celebrity worship, which I generally mock, but it is still interesting.
It seems that Tom Cruise has strong opinions of his own and has been speaking his mind. That in and of itself is quite unusual. I admit, I happened, by chance, to see the much talked about interview with Matt Lauer. And I can honestly say, I don’t remember when I found an interview half as amusing. Matt Lauer, of the Today Show is attempting to have a normal, don’t-upset-anyone interview and Tom Cruise is talking about the history of modern medicine and what works and doesn’t. It was hilarious as Matt trying to steer thing back to conventional waters and common wisdom and pretty-boy Cruise was dashing it all to pieces. Celebrities who are well informed and have unconventional opinions.... wow, what next?!? Frankly, many of his opinions I agree with. I am not sure I would take quite as strong stand as he does. I think that many of these drugs are crutches. And crutches are fine for a little while if you can get back on your own feet. Brook Shields, who was bickering with Tom on this, I think was right; she said she used them with post-partum depression and it worked for her. Perhaps there are better solutions, but I think these things to have a place. I think Cruise is right, however, about the relative importance of vitamins (and minerals, I would say) in actually curing people. Far too much time is spent simply on ‘treatment’.
Frankly, I expected this to die down, but it isn’t. It seems that other celebrities are joining the fight. How well informed they are, I don’t know, but I am a bit pessimistic. Still, debates on real subjects with unconventional ideas. What next? The Britney Spears guide to semiconductor physics was actually done by Britney?
It seems that Tom Cruise has strong opinions of his own and has been speaking his mind. That in and of itself is quite unusual. I admit, I happened, by chance, to see the much talked about interview with Matt Lauer. And I can honestly say, I don’t remember when I found an interview half as amusing. Matt Lauer, of the Today Show is attempting to have a normal, don’t-upset-anyone interview and Tom Cruise is talking about the history of modern medicine and what works and doesn’t. It was hilarious as Matt trying to steer thing back to conventional waters and common wisdom and pretty-boy Cruise was dashing it all to pieces. Celebrities who are well informed and have unconventional opinions.... wow, what next?!? Frankly, many of his opinions I agree with. I am not sure I would take quite as strong stand as he does. I think that many of these drugs are crutches. And crutches are fine for a little while if you can get back on your own feet. Brook Shields, who was bickering with Tom on this, I think was right; she said she used them with post-partum depression and it worked for her. Perhaps there are better solutions, but I think these things to have a place. I think Cruise is right, however, about the relative importance of vitamins (and minerals, I would say) in actually curing people. Far too much time is spent simply on ‘treatment’.
Frankly, I expected this to die down, but it isn’t. It seems that other celebrities are joining the fight. How well informed they are, I don’t know, but I am a bit pessimistic. Still, debates on real subjects with unconventional ideas. What next? The Britney Spears guide to semiconductor physics was actually done by Britney?
Monday, July 18, 2005
Slashdot | Ethanol More Trouble Than It's Worth?
Hmmm.... this is troubling. This is not what I expect, nor is it what I wanted. What ever reality throws at you, you have got it take it like it is. I have found that trying to force things my way doesn’t work well. The best solution to a problem is simple, and not necessarily the one you want. When it isn’t the one you want, let it go, and you will find while it may be painful, it is a good pain.
Ok, what is this all about? This is what I know, there is a debate brewing on the subject of whether Ethanol is feasible. An earlier study showed it to be moderately so, but a new study from what appears to be a pretty unbiased source, disputes that.
Certainly we can make it. That is well known, but is it an energy source or sink? There is a debate at Slashdot
And I had such hopes for ethanol. Here is the current article against... and the old arguement for.
Ok, what is this all about? This is what I know, there is a debate brewing on the subject of whether Ethanol is feasible. An earlier study showed it to be moderately so, but a new study from what appears to be a pretty unbiased source, disputes that.
Certainly we can make it. That is well known, but is it an energy source or sink? There is a debate at Slashdot
And I had such hopes for ethanol. Here is the current article against... and the old arguement for.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Concerning Magic and Technology.... and Harry Potter
I read once, that there is no accepted definition for magic that distinguishes between religion, science, medicine and superstition. And what has been called magic has by no means remained constant throughout the ages. While I do not intend to write a lengthy discourse on the history of magic, I did think that this was a good time to get some of my notes online. A very good time considering the recent release of “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince”.
Now, many zealous people have opposed Harry Potter because of a scriptural prohibition against magic. I have no intention to force meaning onto the scriptures. First, I want to understand what they actually do say, and then I want to put things in context.
To begin with, anciently, magic was not separate from religion. If you wished to have magic powers, you had to get them somewhere. Spells would involve prayers to such deities as Eros, Pan, Hekate, or Aphrodite. These are of course Greek deities. In Old Testament times, they would have used others, such as Baal, Molech, or Ashtoreth. Many of these were grossly immoral and downright sick, but nothing that does not happen today under one guise or another. Thus, a prohibition against magic was really a warning against idolatry.
So what was the real problem with it? Many of their practices led people into sin. One of the main ‘sacraments’ of the Philistines involved sex with a priestess. This was tempting. The prophet Isaiah condemned the people for “the oaks ye have desired” - ie, they desired to perform adulterous pagan rituals, which were done in groves or next to an oak tree.
And off equal or greater significance was that they suggested that they could live without the true and living God.
Not only did they think to receive blessings by by-passing God the Father, they sought to do it by sin. The Lord said, by the prophet Jeremiah said, My people have committed two evils, they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water. Jer. 2:13
They thought to have success and salvation, both earthly and eternal, independently of God, without exercising faith or righteousness. The sin was idolatry.
There are a number of examples in the Old Testament period, but two in particular stick out. The last of these was King Saul. He desired revelation from God desperately, though not desperately enough to repent. And so, instead of seeking for revelation from legitimate sources, he consulted the witch of En-dor. 1 Sam. 28 He was not helped by it.
Earlier in his life, he had been commanded to perform a certain military action and bring nothing back. Saul thought it a shame to just destroy all this perfectly good wealth, and disobeyed, in order to do sacrifice to the Lord. Samuel the prophet was furious and spoke some thing never to be forgotten. But the one that catches my attention best was “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness as iniquity and idolatry.” 1 Sam. 15:23 In case you are not familiar with it, this literary form is called parallelism and the second part essentially restates the first part in different words. The result was a peculiar kind of poetic clarity. Also of note, while Saul was here condemned to lose his crown, yet far earlier in history Jacob was not condemned for what we would consider a simple silly superstition, in deed, he was blessed. Gen. 30
My point in all of this, is that the central sin of magic and witchcraft anciently was idolatry, neither more nor less. Jacob had a simple superstition concerning cattle. And it was a moot point with God. How many simple meaningless false beliefs do we have? Those little errors we have are of little import to God if they do not affect our salvation.
Well, other than a few oddballs, we would NEVER fall in that same trap.... right? Maybe and maybe not. Let’s talk about Harry for a minute. In the strange world that Harry has found himself in. If potatoes need to be peeled, they would usually use a wand instead of a peeler. If they are in a darkened room, they would likely say, “Lumos!”, as opposed to use a flashlight. For them it is a matter of technology. Does this make for a perfect utopia? Not any more than our modern conveniences have. On one hand you have the wicked and wealthy Malfoy’s and the poor and humble Weasley family. For them it is a matter of technology.
Technology... Science... Surely those are entirely different from magic, aren’t they? Well, we need not pray to pagan gods, but we rely on science and technology just as much as any pagan did to their gods. Many people feel like we don’t really need god at all. We are self-sufficient, or so we feel. If we need protection from foreign nations, we build missiles, in stead of seeking the Lord. If we need better crops, we use fertilizer. Surely, there is nothing wrong with technology itself.
Remember the words of Samuel, rebellion is the sin of witchcraft. That sin is also sometimes a sin of technology. For instance, look at StarTrek. You have a perfect utopian society in the Federation, except at the edges where the Enterprise tends to stay. Many references have been made to not needing religion, or treating it as inferior to science. The scene I remember best was one of the last movies made. The Enterprise had gone back in time, and ended up being on Earth when the Vulcans first arrived. The Vulcans made the point that they recognized the warp signature of our first space ship and therefore realized that because we had this technology that we must be mature enough as a society.
For most people, technology is magic anyway. How many people can really tell you how a transistor works? Or a whole computer? I can’t entirely, and I have a degree in Physics. For all most people know, all of our electronics could work on magic smoke. (Let the smoke out and it stops working!)
In summary, because a thing is mysterious or even wrong, does not make it sinful necessarily. What does, is sin itself, and rebellion against God. Therefore, if we condemn Harry Potter, we condemn much of modern society and media. That, and you can’t use a computer until you can properly explain how a transistor works.
Now, many zealous people have opposed Harry Potter because of a scriptural prohibition against magic. I have no intention to force meaning onto the scriptures. First, I want to understand what they actually do say, and then I want to put things in context.
To begin with, anciently, magic was not separate from religion. If you wished to have magic powers, you had to get them somewhere. Spells would involve prayers to such deities as Eros, Pan, Hekate, or Aphrodite. These are of course Greek deities. In Old Testament times, they would have used others, such as Baal, Molech, or Ashtoreth. Many of these were grossly immoral and downright sick, but nothing that does not happen today under one guise or another. Thus, a prohibition against magic was really a warning against idolatry.
So what was the real problem with it? Many of their practices led people into sin. One of the main ‘sacraments’ of the Philistines involved sex with a priestess. This was tempting. The prophet Isaiah condemned the people for “the oaks ye have desired” - ie, they desired to perform adulterous pagan rituals, which were done in groves or next to an oak tree.
And off equal or greater significance was that they suggested that they could live without the true and living God.
Not only did they think to receive blessings by by-passing God the Father, they sought to do it by sin. The Lord said, by the prophet Jeremiah said, My people have committed two evils, they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water. Jer. 2:13
They thought to have success and salvation, both earthly and eternal, independently of God, without exercising faith or righteousness. The sin was idolatry.
There are a number of examples in the Old Testament period, but two in particular stick out. The last of these was King Saul. He desired revelation from God desperately, though not desperately enough to repent. And so, instead of seeking for revelation from legitimate sources, he consulted the witch of En-dor. 1 Sam. 28 He was not helped by it.
Earlier in his life, he had been commanded to perform a certain military action and bring nothing back. Saul thought it a shame to just destroy all this perfectly good wealth, and disobeyed, in order to do sacrifice to the Lord. Samuel the prophet was furious and spoke some thing never to be forgotten. But the one that catches my attention best was “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness as iniquity and idolatry.” 1 Sam. 15:23 In case you are not familiar with it, this literary form is called parallelism and the second part essentially restates the first part in different words. The result was a peculiar kind of poetic clarity. Also of note, while Saul was here condemned to lose his crown, yet far earlier in history Jacob was not condemned for what we would consider a simple silly superstition, in deed, he was blessed. Gen. 30
My point in all of this, is that the central sin of magic and witchcraft anciently was idolatry, neither more nor less. Jacob had a simple superstition concerning cattle. And it was a moot point with God. How many simple meaningless false beliefs do we have? Those little errors we have are of little import to God if they do not affect our salvation.
Well, other than a few oddballs, we would NEVER fall in that same trap.... right? Maybe and maybe not. Let’s talk about Harry for a minute. In the strange world that Harry has found himself in. If potatoes need to be peeled, they would usually use a wand instead of a peeler. If they are in a darkened room, they would likely say, “Lumos!”, as opposed to use a flashlight. For them it is a matter of technology. Does this make for a perfect utopia? Not any more than our modern conveniences have. On one hand you have the wicked and wealthy Malfoy’s and the poor and humble Weasley family. For them it is a matter of technology.
Technology... Science... Surely those are entirely different from magic, aren’t they? Well, we need not pray to pagan gods, but we rely on science and technology just as much as any pagan did to their gods. Many people feel like we don’t really need god at all. We are self-sufficient, or so we feel. If we need protection from foreign nations, we build missiles, in stead of seeking the Lord. If we need better crops, we use fertilizer. Surely, there is nothing wrong with technology itself.
Remember the words of Samuel, rebellion is the sin of witchcraft. That sin is also sometimes a sin of technology. For instance, look at StarTrek. You have a perfect utopian society in the Federation, except at the edges where the Enterprise tends to stay. Many references have been made to not needing religion, or treating it as inferior to science. The scene I remember best was one of the last movies made. The Enterprise had gone back in time, and ended up being on Earth when the Vulcans first arrived. The Vulcans made the point that they recognized the warp signature of our first space ship and therefore realized that because we had this technology that we must be mature enough as a society.
For most people, technology is magic anyway. How many people can really tell you how a transistor works? Or a whole computer? I can’t entirely, and I have a degree in Physics. For all most people know, all of our electronics could work on magic smoke. (Let the smoke out and it stops working!)
In summary, because a thing is mysterious or even wrong, does not make it sinful necessarily. What does, is sin itself, and rebellion against God. Therefore, if we condemn Harry Potter, we condemn much of modern society and media. That, and you can’t use a computer until you can properly explain how a transistor works.
Friday, July 15, 2005
CBC North - Sasquatch sighting reported in Yukon
CBC North - Sasquatch sighting reported in Yukon
Ok, I try to be careful what I make fun of. It certainly isn't that I don't disbelieve in Bigfoot. I see no compelling reason too. I think that most people who laugh at it, do so to feel superior. I know there is some evidence for it, and most wildlife people here are unfamilar with the habits of the great apes. But then, many significant others have doubts. Science, however, does not work by majority rule. That is politics.
In any case, it looks like there was a very high quality sighting up in Canada. Nine people, some good tracks, and fur. And some fur... that is not something usually get. I will have to keep an eye on this. The jury is not out yet.
Ok, I try to be careful what I make fun of. It certainly isn't that I don't disbelieve in Bigfoot. I see no compelling reason too. I think that most people who laugh at it, do so to feel superior. I know there is some evidence for it, and most wildlife people here are unfamilar with the habits of the great apes. But then, many significant others have doubts. Science, however, does not work by majority rule. That is politics.
In any case, it looks like there was a very high quality sighting up in Canada. Nine people, some good tracks, and fur. And some fur... that is not something usually get. I will have to keep an eye on this. The jury is not out yet.
I knew you were going to say that
Gravity doughnut promises time machine - Movement into the past gets one step less improbable.
To be perfectly honest, I have always considered Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster more probable than time machines or time travel. At least these don't involve grandfather paradoxes. But, in physics, you have to look at what the evidence says, and be prepared to disregard all your old prejudices.
In this case, it appears that the evidence is weighing more heavily toward honest time-travel. This is the quick summary of the story. A recent paper shows that according to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the building blocks for a 'time-machine', are a lot more simple and attainable than previously thought. Not that we are going to be able to build one soon. It might be possible to investigate it in astrophysical circumstances.
On the note of time travel, some recent work involving resolution of time-travel paradoxes involving quantum mechanics.
To be perfectly honest, I have always considered Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster more probable than time machines or time travel. At least these don't involve grandfather paradoxes. But, in physics, you have to look at what the evidence says, and be prepared to disregard all your old prejudices.
In this case, it appears that the evidence is weighing more heavily toward honest time-travel. This is the quick summary of the story. A recent paper shows that according to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the building blocks for a 'time-machine', are a lot more simple and attainable than previously thought. Not that we are going to be able to build one soon. It might be possible to investigate it in astrophysical circumstances.
On the note of time travel, some recent work involving resolution of time-travel paradoxes involving quantum mechanics.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Beware of the Common Cold of Death!!!!!!!!
Something funky is going on. Maybe it was just an illusion that I harbored; a satisfying little fantasy, that the CDC (Center for Disease Control)was less corrupt than other government agencies. I have a hard time imagining a good reason for all of their recent scaremongering. Today on the news, they were warning of the dangers of mosquitos and how trouble from West Nile can afflict you for life. What are they talking about? West Nile isn’t that bad. It is the new Chicken Pox. I am sorry. There is no reason for us to live in fear. I refuse to do it. I am not going to do it for any Cold War, terrorist, asteroid or alien. That isn’t living.
But the question that intrigues me more, is ‘Why is the CDC doing it?’. Another thing that they have begun to fearmonger with is the flu. Now, all of the sudden, it is a major health hazard. The numbers they quote aren’t even remotely legit. The only semi-legitimate threat is the bird-flu from Asia, and even there, it was blown out of proportion. Is it merely to sell more flu vaccination shots? Or is it political control. I sure don’t know- I really don’t. But historical comparisons are not comforting
"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive." - Adolf Hitler, 1932
He was quite successful with fearmongering. And you know what they say about history.
"The CDC would be the last place in the world to go for information regarding health. The CDC is a government bureacracy funded by theft (taxation that has reached confiscatory levels) and run by white collar criminals who regularly misinform and misdirect the public while creating pandemonium in the marketplace (unnecessary destruction of livestock, recalls etc) and conspiring to incite public panic on an almost daily basis, in violation of the constitution of the United States."--Dr Duffy DC
But the question that intrigues me more, is ‘Why is the CDC doing it?’. Another thing that they have begun to fearmonger with is the flu. Now, all of the sudden, it is a major health hazard. The numbers they quote aren’t even remotely legit. The only semi-legitimate threat is the bird-flu from Asia, and even there, it was blown out of proportion. Is it merely to sell more flu vaccination shots? Or is it political control. I sure don’t know- I really don’t. But historical comparisons are not comforting
"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive." - Adolf Hitler, 1932
He was quite successful with fearmongering. And you know what they say about history.
"The CDC would be the last place in the world to go for information regarding health. The CDC is a government bureacracy funded by theft (taxation that has reached confiscatory levels) and run by white collar criminals who regularly misinform and misdirect the public while creating pandemonium in the marketplace (unnecessary destruction of livestock, recalls etc) and conspiring to incite public panic on an almost daily basis, in violation of the constitution of the United States."--Dr Duffy DC
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Third of study results don't hold up
I have listened to pundits and analysists on web, on the radio, and elsewhere be nothing but critical because there is so darned much to criticize. I am going to have to be careful that I do not end up in that trap. There is cause for great hope of our future. It just won’t come from watching the news or relying on man.
And that is what I was going to mention today. The Associated Press reports that “New research highlights a frustrating fact about science: What was good for you yesterday frequently will turn out to be not so great tomorrow.”
Gads, if we can’t even trust science, how can we believe anything we hear from anyone? Wasn’t Science supposed to be the firm and unyielding pillar that thrust our society from Dark Ages ignorance to Modern Intellectual Illumination? Yikes, as much as a sometimes pessimist as I am, I had no idea that there was this much shoddy work going on. And why? Partly it is pride in having more papers than others. Partly it is the ‘Publish or Perish’ mentality of academia. But regardless of what the reason is, this is a bad problem. Something is deeply wrong and I don’t really know what.
And that is what I was going to mention today. The Associated Press reports that “New research highlights a frustrating fact about science: What was good for you yesterday frequently will turn out to be not so great tomorrow.”
Gads, if we can’t even trust science, how can we believe anything we hear from anyone? Wasn’t Science supposed to be the firm and unyielding pillar that thrust our society from Dark Ages ignorance to Modern Intellectual Illumination? Yikes, as much as a sometimes pessimist as I am, I had no idea that there was this much shoddy work going on. And why? Partly it is pride in having more papers than others. Partly it is the ‘Publish or Perish’ mentality of academia. But regardless of what the reason is, this is a bad problem. Something is deeply wrong and I don’t really know what.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
With a Bang?
How did the universe come into existance - is the BiG Bang a viable theory?
I am not an iconoclast just to be an academic rebel. However, when I see a question that needs to be asked, and isn't, it bugs me. However, just recently, mainstream astronomers considered a heretical question of sufficient importance, to justify an entire conference (though as far as I am concerned if the location is right, any reason is good)
The question is, Did the Big Bang happen? Contrary to popular conception, not everyone believes it, and there are some questions that need to be addressed before we can rest with confidence - if such a thing is ever truly proper in science.
The 3 most important questions are the horizon problem, the smoothness problem and the flatness problem. These are the ones that about every admits are somewhat problematic, though this is currently explained away by precision variable setting. In other words, if we set things up just exactly right, then we get a usable universe, otherwise life would be impossible. So either, we find a compelling reason for things to be exactly this way, we involve God, or we find a more robust theory. Personally, I suppose God could have done it, but I suspect He would agree we need something more robust. Perhaps some of these will go away with better observations, but that is ignoring and not really addressing what observations we have.
The Horizon Problem
The universe has a very isotropic temperature, but the speed of light limits how much a region can interact with other regions. It is like a cup of hot chocolate that is thrown into the air. As the spray from the cup expands out, each drop will cool down slightly differently. But what we observe is too uniform.
The Flatness Problem
The universe is almost exactly, if not precisely flat, within one part in 10^15. That is what the measurements say, any way.
The Smoothness Problem
The Structure of the Universe is unusually constant. While there are some dense regions, and some voids, for the most part, it is pretty uniform.
That isn't all. I could post a lot more. Other problems include, the (lack of) existence of antimatter and magnetic monopoles, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. Now, I have not given the opposition space to rebutt my arguments, and remind us of what evidence there is for the Big Bang - there is evidence. Alas, in Science we get evidence and never proof, and don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise. So I am going to leave a few links for interested readers.
Wikipedia Nice balanced discussion
Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp
Here are ten problems considered significant by this author.
The Big Bang Never Happened I have not had time to investigate this one, but it looks interesting.
I am not an iconoclast just to be an academic rebel. However, when I see a question that needs to be asked, and isn't, it bugs me. However, just recently, mainstream astronomers considered a heretical question of sufficient importance, to justify an entire conference (though as far as I am concerned if the location is right, any reason is good)
The question is, Did the Big Bang happen? Contrary to popular conception, not everyone believes it, and there are some questions that need to be addressed before we can rest with confidence - if such a thing is ever truly proper in science.
The 3 most important questions are the horizon problem, the smoothness problem and the flatness problem. These are the ones that about every admits are somewhat problematic, though this is currently explained away by precision variable setting. In other words, if we set things up just exactly right, then we get a usable universe, otherwise life would be impossible. So either, we find a compelling reason for things to be exactly this way, we involve God, or we find a more robust theory. Personally, I suppose God could have done it, but I suspect He would agree we need something more robust. Perhaps some of these will go away with better observations, but that is ignoring and not really addressing what observations we have.
The Horizon Problem
The universe has a very isotropic temperature, but the speed of light limits how much a region can interact with other regions. It is like a cup of hot chocolate that is thrown into the air. As the spray from the cup expands out, each drop will cool down slightly differently. But what we observe is too uniform.
The Flatness Problem
The universe is almost exactly, if not precisely flat, within one part in 10^15. That is what the measurements say, any way.
The Smoothness Problem
The Structure of the Universe is unusually constant. While there are some dense regions, and some voids, for the most part, it is pretty uniform.
That isn't all. I could post a lot more. Other problems include, the (lack of) existence of antimatter and magnetic monopoles, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. Now, I have not given the opposition space to rebutt my arguments, and remind us of what evidence there is for the Big Bang - there is evidence. Alas, in Science we get evidence and never proof, and don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise. So I am going to leave a few links for interested readers.
Wikipedia Nice balanced discussion
Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp
Here are ten problems considered significant by this author.
The Big Bang Never Happened I have not had time to investigate this one, but it looks interesting.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Alas, the learned high priests of Science have sometimes gone astray
Allegations of Fake Research Hit New High
Ok, this officially is beginning to get worrisome. I knew that there was a good reason I didn't want to get into academia. The summary of the news story is that many researchers succumb to the many pressures around them and cheat to get ahead, or even to just get by. From experience, I can say that it is a daunting feeling, to be expected to know something your don’t. What really alarmed me was
He testified that he was working 80 to 90 hours a week, seeing patients two days a week, doing surgery one day a week, supervising medical residents, serving on as many as 10 different committees at the hospital and the medical school and putting on national medical conferences.
He did seek help, both from a psychiatrist, who counseled him to cut back, and from his boss, who demanded Friedman increase his research and refused to reduce Friedman's patient load.
The poor guy has broken laws to keep up, and his boss’s solution is to work harder. something is seriously wrong here.
Granted, in a survey taken, only 1.5% admit falsification or plagiarism, but about a third did admit some kind of misconduct- and that are those who responded to the survey. Science has taken the aura of infallibility by many, and yet, this shows just how very fallible, both it is, and its adherents.
I say this not to denigrate Science, but to remind us not to blindly rely on it.
Ok, this officially is beginning to get worrisome. I knew that there was a good reason I didn't want to get into academia. The summary of the news story is that many researchers succumb to the many pressures around them and cheat to get ahead, or even to just get by. From experience, I can say that it is a daunting feeling, to be expected to know something your don’t. What really alarmed me was
He testified that he was working 80 to 90 hours a week, seeing patients two days a week, doing surgery one day a week, supervising medical residents, serving on as many as 10 different committees at the hospital and the medical school and putting on national medical conferences.
He did seek help, both from a psychiatrist, who counseled him to cut back, and from his boss, who demanded Friedman increase his research and refused to reduce Friedman's patient load.
The poor guy has broken laws to keep up, and his boss’s solution is to work harder. something is seriously wrong here.
Granted, in a survey taken, only 1.5% admit falsification or plagiarism, but about a third did admit some kind of misconduct- and that are those who responded to the survey. Science has taken the aura of infallibility by many, and yet, this shows just how very fallible, both it is, and its adherents.
I say this not to denigrate Science, but to remind us not to blindly rely on it.
Blogging
Well, I have not really be blogging very well the last few days, have I? Perhaps I need to put together a group so I can team blog. In any case, I have been busy the last few days with a personal hurricane, no not Dennis. This one has not abated yet, though it does seem to have moved on. And so, as a result, I have ended up trying to do things in just a few days, that should (and I sense will) take a lot longer, if my knee-jerk reactions to the unexpected winds haven't made the situation worse. I suppose now is a good time to take the time I ought to have taken in the first place.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Alternative Medicine Links
My philosophy of medicine is that God gave you your body and He intends that you take care of it. Shifting all the responsibility to anybody else, even a good doctor is not right. It is our responsibility and any attempt to shunt it to somebody else will only result in disaster. Here are a few of the many alt medicine links I have and use. (If you need medical help, by all means get help. Used doctors if you need, but think for yourself. The responsibility is yours)
NewsTarget has current news on the alt medicine scene and is a good resource.
However, if you are trying to home in on just what is wrong with you, and how to deal with it, this is the place to go - Diagnose Me. I am hard-pressed to praise this site too highly. If you are not right on target, it will help you figure it out.
Now, if you want to use homeopathy, then an excellent resource, is Homeopathy International. The Books section is particularly worthwhile as many, many of the best and most useful titles are now in the public domain and have been put on computer. I have used these texts many times.
Enjoy!
NewsTarget has current news on the alt medicine scene and is a good resource.
However, if you are trying to home in on just what is wrong with you, and how to deal with it, this is the place to go - Diagnose Me. I am hard-pressed to praise this site too highly. If you are not right on target, it will help you figure it out.
Now, if you want to use homeopathy, then an excellent resource, is Homeopathy International. The Books section is particularly worthwhile as many, many of the best and most useful titles are now in the public domain and have been put on computer. I have used these texts many times.
Enjoy!
Texas Man Arrested After Heroic Rescue - Yahoo! News
Texas Man Arrested After Heroic Rescue
OK, I am really getting sick of hearing trash like this. A man disobeys police orders, by swimming out into dangerous waters and saving a guy - and so the police put cuffs on him before he even gets out of the water.
There is a grossly excessive idea in society, and more especially in government that we ought to be obedient to all that government tell us. Not that I advocate anarchy, or civil disobedience, but we need to put government in its place. Heaven forbid people think and act for themselves. That could be dangerous.
OK, I am really getting sick of hearing trash like this. A man disobeys police orders, by swimming out into dangerous waters and saving a guy - and so the police put cuffs on him before he even gets out of the water.
There is a grossly excessive idea in society, and more especially in government that we ought to be obedient to all that government tell us. Not that I advocate anarchy, or civil disobedience, but we need to put government in its place. Heaven forbid people think and act for themselves. That could be dangerous.
Monday, July 04, 2005
A Few Good Links
Ok,
I have been meaning to do this for a while. So much of the material I examine isn't ideally cut-and-pasted into a blog, but they are still worth looking at.
Today, I have added a few links that regard non-mainstream searchs for energy sources.
ZP Energy is a good place to look for news, especially as regards zero-point energy. Zero-point Energy (or simply ZPE) would be removing excess energy from space-time itself. This would not really be perpetual motion (though that accusation is used alot) because it would have real effects, like changing space around it. It sounds strange, but it just may work.
LENR/CANR - Now, this is a place to go if you are serious about cold fusion. I would work on it myself, but I know enough to know I don't know enough (ok, the first thing) about comdensed matter physics, much less nuclear physics. But, if you want good scientific papers by the truck load on cold fusion, this is the place to go. And properly, it is called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions.
And if you want your news printed on a dead tree, you want Infinite Energy. This was the creation of the late Eugene Mallove and has many good articles on a wide variety of subjects pertaining to alt. energy. I don't agree with all of them, but you will see opinions and ideas here that you would never in a mainstream journal.
And more to come!!
I have been meaning to do this for a while. So much of the material I examine isn't ideally cut-and-pasted into a blog, but they are still worth looking at.
Today, I have added a few links that regard non-mainstream searchs for energy sources.
ZP Energy is a good place to look for news, especially as regards zero-point energy. Zero-point Energy (or simply ZPE) would be removing excess energy from space-time itself. This would not really be perpetual motion (though that accusation is used alot) because it would have real effects, like changing space around it. It sounds strange, but it just may work.
LENR/CANR - Now, this is a place to go if you are serious about cold fusion. I would work on it myself, but I know enough to know I don't know enough (ok, the first thing) about comdensed matter physics, much less nuclear physics. But, if you want good scientific papers by the truck load on cold fusion, this is the place to go. And properly, it is called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions.
And if you want your news printed on a dead tree, you want Infinite Energy. This was the creation of the late Eugene Mallove and has many good articles on a wide variety of subjects pertaining to alt. energy. I don't agree with all of them, but you will see opinions and ideas here that you would never in a mainstream journal.
And more to come!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
