The last time wasn't you but Plasmatic in his reply to a mod.webolife wrote:GC said:
Verbiage old boy, verbiage.
This is the second time you have corrected me on this word!
I was thinking of "garbage", as in that previous discussion.
Anyway, from now on, I will use "verbosity", but hopefully not toooo much!
Let's keep our proper nounage sorted, shall we, Gordon?Grey Cloud wrote:The last time wasn't you but Plasmatic in his reply to a mod.webolife wrote:GC said:
Verbiage old boy, verbiage.
This is the second time you have corrected me on this word!
I was thinking of "garbage", as in that previous discussion.
Anyway, from now on, I will use "verbosity", but hopefully not toooo much!
And thanks, Grey Cloud, for catching that time-reversed wave to fetch back historical truth. 
I will take that as tongue firmly planted in cheek, GC. 
Did we miss the point of the article, getting bogged down in inconsequential details?junglelord wrote:There is more where he is totally off track with his ability to accept the truth, I guess he is stuck in the time of Isaac Newton, meanwhile I live in the day and age of David Bohm. Quantum devices like a Superconductor require a deeper knowledge then Newton can deliver.
Indeed a particle zoo that attempts to make some frankenstein creature, quite ugly and quite frankly stupid.MK: The LHC, contrary to myth, will not destroy the world. Each proton in the LHC beam has a lot of energy, but there are very few protons in the beam. Hence, the energy of the beam is about the energy of a fruit fly. In fact, you would not light up a light bulb with the energy of the sub-atomic particles created by the machine.
In reality, we want to re-create the temperatures of the big bang. We hope to find a particle, called the Higgs Boson, which is the last missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle called the Standard Model of particles. Although the Standard Model has had much success in explaining the sub-atomic world, it has several glaring defects: first, it is supremely ugly (containing 36 types of quarks, 3 exact copies of sub-atomic particles, and a zoo of particles including neutrinos, leptons, hadrons, gluons, W-bosons, mesons, etc. etc. etc.) It's like gluing together an aardvark, whale, and platypus and declaring it to be nature's supreme evolutionary creation.
So we physicists hope to find particles beyond the Higgs boson, such as "sparticles" or superparticles which are predicted by superstring theory. In this picture, the world we see around us corresponds to the lowest vibration of tiny vibrating rubber bands. Sparticles represent the next set of vibrations. If true, then superstring theory, being a theory of everything, may reveal the deepest secrets of the universe, such as what happened before the big bang, whether parallel universes and other dimensions exist, whether time travel is possible, and whether wormholes are credible. All this could have a profound impact on our view of the universe or multiverse.
Recently, I was lucky enough to chat with theoretical physicist Professor Michio Kaku. Professor Kaku is one of a rare breed; working at the cutting edge of complex maths and physics, but also able to talk about his research topics with a layperson, in their language. He specialises in string field theory, but is also an eloquent populariser of science, having appeared on nearly every major television network in the United States and hosted a number of documentaries. He also has written numerous popular books on cutting edge science and future thought, the latest being Physics of the Impossible (Amazon US and UK).
Professor Kaku was quick to assure me that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will definitely not destroy the world, instead listing some of the benefits that science could reap from the project - not least, a refining of the current understanding of particle physics. He didn't shy away from the fact that in its current form "the Standard Model...is supremely ugly... It's like gluing together an aardvark, whale, and platypus and declaring it to be nature's supreme evolutionary creation."
We also touched on the 'mainstream' view that human consciousness is simply an epiphenomenon of the brain - which in many respects, does not match up with the supreme importance that some branches of quantum physics accord consciousness. Professor Kaku agreed that "consciousness is one of the great problems facing science," and stated plainly that despite the mainstream view, "most scientists cannot even define it, let alone explain it." To illustrate how consciousness is important to quantum physics, he discussed the well-known "Schrodinger's Cat" paradox, and then explored various theories which might explain it. One of those was put forward by Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner - he assumed that consiousness is the key factor in creating reality. Furthermore, extrapolating Wigner's theory means that, as Professor Kaku put it, "eventually, we need an infinite chain of observers, each watching the other... Wigner implied that this chain was a cosmic consciousness or even God."
One of the main reasons I was interested in talking to Professor Kaku was his openness to some of the more 'heretical' areas of science. One of those topics is the scientific investigation of the UFO phenomenon, something which he has gone on the public record as supporting. Professor Kaku said that generally UFOs were subject to the "giggle factor" with scientists, because most assume that the distance between possible civilisations is far too great. But he thinks differently.
"Once you imagine a civilization a million years more advanced (which is a blink of an eye compared to the 13.7 billion year age of the universe) then new laws of physics and technologies open up," Dr Kaku told me. "For such a civilization (a Type III civilization, according to the Kardashev scale), travel between stars might not be such a problem."
He also pondered on how we might struggle to relate to such technically advanced alien civilisations - or more correctly, how they might fail to recognise our 'sophistication'. "Imagine walking down a country road, and meeting an ant hill. Do we go down to the ants and say, 'I bring you trinkets. I bring you beads. I give you nuclear energy and biotechnology. Take me to your leader?' Or we have the urge to step on a few of them??"
Given the likely differences between us and alien civilisations, the next obvious question to me was to ask whether Professor Kaku thought SETI was worth the time and effort. His reply? "Yes, because it's all we have today. So by default, we should fund it, but not expect too much."
He wasn't as charitable, however, about the idea of Active SETI (beaming messages out to space, rather than listening). "I think it's an awful idea to advertise our existence in space, without understanding the motives and intentions of possible alien civilizations," he said, comparing us to the inhabitants of the New World encountering "Cortez and his band of cut-throats". Instead of David vs. Goliath, Professor Kaku suggests it would be more akin to "a fruit fly versus Goliath".
The full interview transcript is after the fold, click 'Read More' to view it. Also, there is plenty of wonderful reading on Professor Kaku's personal website, for those who want to explore these topics further.
http://dailygrail.com/features/michio-k ... le-science
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object ... ctid=39998ESA-ESO Working Groups
Following an agreement to cooperate on science planning issues, the executives of the European Southern Observatory (ESO) and the European Space Agency (ESA) Science Programme and representatives of their science advisory structures have met to share information and to identify potential synergies within their future projects.
The agreement arose from their joint founding membership of EIROforum (http://www.eiroforum.org) and a recognition that, as pan-European organisations, they served essentially the same scientific community.
At a meeting at ESO in Garching during September 2003, it was agreed to establish a number of working groups that would be tasked to explore these synergies in important areas of mutual interest and to make recommendations to both organisations.
RELATED PUBLICATIONS
Final Report: Galactic Populations, Chemistry and Dynamicshttp://www.stecf.org/coordination/eso-e ... report.pdf
Final Report: Fundamental Cosmologyhttp://www.stecf.org/coordination/eso-e ... _cover.pdf
Final Report: Herschel/ALMA Synergies
Final Report: Extrasolar Planets
It's very nice and informative . As information is also given about what is not known or not understood properly.Terms of Reference
(1) To outline the current state of knowledge of the field. (This is not intended
as a free-standing review but more as an introduction to set the scene.)
(2) To review the observational and experimental methods used or envisaged for
the characterisation of the Galactic population and dynamics.
(3) To perform a worldwide survey of the relevant programmes and associated
instruments that are operational, planned or proposed, both on the ground
and in space.
But maybe someone else can use it as ammunition in discussions with relativists and ilk Jackson admits that most classical electrodynamicists still erroneously assume an EM force field in space, but they also illogically assume that somehow it is nonobservable (even though force is an observable!) and so observable charged mass must be present to allow the interaction product of E and q, before F is observed. This notion assumes first that EM force exists in the absence of mass but is not observable, but then it becomes observable after interacting with charged matter. Jackson does admit that the field—as it exists in space—is nonobservable.
Thus Jackson clearly admits a major non sequitur but continues to neglect this falsity that has been propagated in CEM/EE for more than 100 years. The falsity is still taught to every electrical engineer and in every university. Extant CEM/EE texts detail the calculation of the force E-field in charged matter, and erroneously present it as a calculation of the E-field existing in mass-free space. This is a fundamental and far-reaching falsity in all present CEM/EE texts.
Basic mechanics also errs when it assumes a mass-free vector force in space, acting upon a separate mass. No such situation exists, simply from again examining
F d/dt(mv). Substitute m = 0, and immediately F = 0. As we stated, the mass m is actually a component of the force that is produced by the interaction of a vector force-free “condition in space” with that mass m. Thus the interacting vector entity (which exists alone in space prior to its interaction with q) cannot be a force. This error—failure to recognize that mass is a component of force—has been in basic mechanics for more than 300 years, and it continues to be propagated without objection and without correction.
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM% ... tract4.doc
Following Maxwell’s death, in the 1880s and 1890s several scientists (Heaviside, 1885-1887 and later; Gibbs, 1934; Hertz, 1887, 1893) ripped the quaternions apart, greatly truncating the theory and creating and using vector algebra in the process. This vector truncation was a greatly curtailed treatment of Maxwell’s original quaternion theory, and together with Maxwell’s own truncation it essentially spelled the end of Maxwell’s quaternion EM theory. Barrett describes the result as follows:
"[T]he A field [for the potentials] was banished from playing the central role in Maxwell's theory and relegated to being a mathematical (but not physical) auxiliary. This banishment took place during the interpretation of Maxwell's theory... by Heaviside... and Hertz. The 'Maxwell theory' and 'Maxwell's equations' we know today are really the interpretation of Heaviside... Heaviside took the 20 equations of Maxwell and reduced them to the four now known as ‘Maxwell's equations’." (Barrett, 1993, p. 11).
What today are taught in university as “Maxwell’s equations” are not that at all. They are actually Heaviside’s greatly curtailed equations and Heaviside’s notation—as even further simplified and reduced by Lorentz (Lorentz, 1892).
In 1892 Lorentz put the final coup de grace on Maxwell’s theory, by symmetrically regauging (Jackson, 1999) the already watered down equations of Heaviside. That symmetrizing action arbitrarily discarded all asymmetrical Maxwell systems. A priori, Lorentz symmetrizing retains only those Maxwell systems that are freely and symmetrically regauged. It is implicitly assumed that a physical mechanism is present and enforcing Lorentz symmetry. We shall meet that subtle physical mechanism shortly.
The arbitrarily discarded asymmetric Maxwellian systems can have magnificent capabilities: Although the thermodynamic efficiency1 of any system is always less than 100%, the rejected asymmetric systems nonetheless can exhibit an overunity coefficient of performance2 (COP > 1.0) by use of asymmetric free EM regauging energy received from the active vacuum/spacetime environment. These asymmetric systems can function with COP > 1.0 analogously to the common home heat pump, or even at COP = ∞ analogously to a solar cell array power system, a windmill-driven power system, etc. All that is necessary is that the environment freely input most or all of the input energy required.
Every electrodynamicist already assumes free regauging, and thus assumes that the potential energy of a system can be changed freely and at will.3 However, the electrodynamicist has been trained since Lorentz (Lorentz, 1892; Jackson, 1999) to insist that the system’s potential energy must be “symmetrically” changed, so that the excess free energy can only be locked up as stress of the system, incapable of use to freely power loads. To power the loads, the symmetrical system must also cut off the environmental inflow of free potentialization energy as fast as it powers its losses and loads—which is faster than it powers its load.
When current is flowing in such symmetrized systems, half the free excitation energy is used to destroy the dipolarity of the source of potential, while the other half is dissipated to power the external circuit’s losses and loads. To restore the dipolarity of the source, so that excitation potential energy again flows onto the circuit, the operator must input at least as much energy to again force the charges apart and remake the dipole, as was used to scatter the charges and destroy it. Hence the operator is always inputting more energy to restore the source dipole than the energy dissipated to do useful work in the load. In short, the standard symmetrically regauged system self-enforces its own
COP < 1.0.
All asymmetrical Maxwellian systems having COP > 1.0 by energy from the vacuum were arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz’s symmetrical regauging of the equations, just to give simpler equations that were easier to solve algebraically. If the two free excess force fields produced were deliberately made equal and opposite (thus forming a stress potential and a net zero force field resultant), the erroneous assumption was that the regauged system was “identical” to the previous unregauged system. Try standing between two equally pushing and opposing elephants, and compare that “symmetrically regauged” system to the same system with the elephants removed!
In truth, a system under increased physical stress is not identical to the same system with the stress removed, and it will not interact the same. Indeed, stress relief (as the current flows) will dissipate half the excess free stress energy to power the external circuit’s losses and loads, and it will dissipate the other half of the excess free stress energy in destroying the source dipolarity of the system. Hence the insane symmetrically regauged system with the source of potential remaining connected as a load—while current is flowing and work is being done—will always destroy its own source faster than it powers its own useful loads.
But Lorentz’s symmetrical regauging gave much simpler equations, particularly easier to solve algebraically. So to escape the tortuous use of numerical methods, the already dramatically reduced EM model of Heaviside, Gibbs, and Hertz was further fractionalized by Lorentz and only a small symmetrized (simpler) part was retained. Lorentz unwittingly discarded all COP > 1.0 asymmetrically regauging Maxwellian systems, teaching everyone else to continue to do it since then!
Nature and thermodynamics do not exclude asymmetric Maxwellian COP > 1.0 electrical power systems freely taking their excess energy from asymmetrical regauging and using that energy to power loads freely. Nonequilibrium thermodynamics could care less whether the COP > 1.0 NESS system freely receiving and using excess energy from its active environment receives the usable energy in fluid, mechanical, or electromagnetic form. But the present CEM/EE model arbitrarily omits such EM systems, and it has since the 1890s and Lorentz’s symmetrical regauging. Since the asymmetrically regauged solar cell array electrical power system taking its excess energy from the EM solar radiation from the environment is possible with its COP = ∞, then from the thermodynamics viewpoint asymmetrically regauged COP = ∞ electrical power systems taking their excess energy from the vacuum EM energy are feasible. What is important is that the energy be furnished in a form usable by the system. All usable EM energy already comes from the vacuum, via the source charges; hence obviously the use of any EM energy is already the use of EM energy from the vacuum. E.g., the solar radiation used by the solar cell array electrical power system comes from the active vacuum in the sun, interacting with the source charges there and resulting in continuous emission of “energy from the vacuum” by those charges in the sun.
By propagating a seriously flawed and sharply curtailed CEM/EE model and refusing to correct and update it for electrical power engineering, our own scientific community is responsible for the forced absence of self-powering, fuel-free electrical power systems taking their input energy freely from the active vacuum and curved spacetime via free asymmetrical regauging. The community also bears responsibility for a century-long delay in the progress of energy science, for the world energy crisis itself, for the pollution of the planet by use of dirty energy methods, and for the miserable economic state of many poor nations and peoples worldwide who cannot achieve the cheap energy necessary for a viable national economy and a decent standard of living.
The ethics and pathos of the situation cries out for immediate and strong corrective action by the scientific community.
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM% ... tract4.doc
shufei6771486, go back into the woodwork! Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests