EEStor is another interesting electric-car-related Kleiner Perkins investment http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/dealflow/archives/2005/09/kleiner_perkins_1.html. They have patented technology for super capacitors with over ten times the energy density of lead acid batteries. Being capacitors without electrochemistry, the power density (charge/discharge rates) is also very high.
The trick is that they use a doped barium titanate dielectric with a very high permittivity structured as a sub-micron grain composite interspersed with thin Aluminum oxide and glass layers to lower the breakdown voltage. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:EEStor. The big gain over normal capacitors happens because the energy content of a capacitor goes as the voltage square, and the overall relative permittivity exceeds 10000.
Is it? This is not free competition in an open market with a free flow of information. This is specifically targetting and trying to undo deals for the acquisition of a competitor's products using backroom machinations, bribes, and threats. Anti-trust legislation exists for a reason: to avoid cartels and monopolies and allow an open market to function and thereby protect the consumer. Some rules that are enforced are required. Unfortunately, monopolist corporate power in the US is such that rules have hardly been enforced.
Rather ironic given how relativity theory has been converted into religious dogma, and Einstein has been canonized into the pantheon of saints http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm.
This story making the rounds with unwarranted AMD-user-scaring headlines is typical of the kind of FUD that Intel shills have been spreading. There is a gaggle of them here on slashdot and most other blogs and boards of any reach. Most review sites with any impact have been bought and paid for.
You have consistently come down on the side of a few experiments, and utterly ignored all others.
Obviously, it has taken rather more for me to start to doubt what I was taught. It began with some first hand experience of surpression. Not too surprising, if you consider the implications of my line of research. That made me question whether in other branches of physics something similar might be going on. So I asked around and it was pointed out to me that there were quite a few claims about surpression of lightspeed experiments and data falsification. This one, for example http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html#SEC6.
Given this context, it is imprudent to rely on an "immense amount of more precise data" type argument.
Well, Halton Arp still seems to have a fine career, at the Max Planck Institute.
I suggest you read up on how he was forced into exile by pulling his observation time. Him ending up in Germany was not because he was intent on leaving the US. It was about finding some place where he'd still be allowed to continue his research.
Dayton Miller died in 1941, so I would hardly consider his case relevant to a discussion of the state of modern physics.
Why? His observations stand and are at odds with the constant-lightspeed postulate. And the same goes for a number of later experiments by others. Of course, claims have been made that the non-null aspect of his experiments are because of experimental error and hence are actually consistent with zero lightspeed variation. But then, others have reanalyzed his data and found it consistent: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0311054
Mills' theories are inconsistent and do not even predict these hydrino states!
That is why refrained from recommending any theory. The states (which are simply an extension of the Rydberg series) are clearly there in the EUV data I have (at least for the first few fractional states 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4), as well in data by others, but I have not yet seen a convincing theory for them. But then, nature does not need a theory to do what it does.
Getting back to anomalies, the original subject of this thread, it is interesting to point out the anomalously high solar corona temperature (over a million Kelvin). Note that the corona includes atomic hydrogen and singly ionized helium, and as such meets the conditions for catalysis of fractional states. That explains why it can be so hot: the energy to heat it is generated within the corona itself. Observations consistent with this explanation have been done: the solar wind is strongly dependent on the fraction of Helium present in the flux.
By the way, did you read the crackpot index I linked to previously?
Yes, I have read it. If you think me scoring high on it somehow refutes my arguments, I'd like to point out that I have consistently come down on the side of experiment and observation. And nature, not theory, is primary in the scientific method. Experiment and observation should be the final judge. When theory is defended in the face of falsifying data, we are talking religion, not science. So, what are you, a scientist or a believer?
Certainly nobody regards current theories as "sacred". Sorry to burst your anti-establishment bubble, but it just ain't so.
You are ill-informed. Quite a number of scientists have been persecuted (funding pulled, career destroyed, ridicule, the works) for challenging "sacred" theories. In particular those that have challenged relativity (believe it or not, it has been experimentally falsified) or the big-bang model of cosmology (a ludicrous patchwork of band-aids that even so still fails to match observation).
Examples of heretics are Dayton Miller and Halton Arp. Look them up, skip past the ridicule and character assassination and read their actual work. It is solid science, but it was not to the liking of the inquisition.
BTW, you mentioned a PhD. What is it in? What research did you do (for the PhD), and what research are you doing now?
Experimental physics. Heated reaction cells for infrared spectroscopy. I currently research helium/hydrogen plasmas using EUV spectroscopy to elucidate states of atomic hydrogen that are not predicted by quantum mechanics.
So unless you've got something better (in which case I would very much like to see it. That would be quite exciting, if it really is better and works.)
and there is experimental evidence to support string theory.
Oh? I am not aware of any experimental predictions uniquely made by string theory that have been borne out by experiment. String theorists themselves hardly even know how to use it to calculate stuff. The situation is so bad that in the rare instance where they actually do manage to calculate something, they are elated.
For example, several years ago string theorists were all happy about having been able to calculate the entropy of a black hole. Cool. But note that that is not something that can be verified experimentally. The "success" was merely that it matched a theoretical prediction obtained via an alternate theory.
I am a scientist buddy. PhD and all. But I am in science because I'd like to understand how nature works. Some of my colleagues, on the other hand, are happy to go where fashion, funding or peer pressure takes them. Half of theoretical physics has been herded into string theory that way. Sad.
I wish, though, that that were more true than it actually is in science. Quite a few anomalies are being ignored because resolving them would challenge "sacred" theories.
Anyone familiar with modern physics should be appalled by its complexity, confused by the many correction and perturbation factors, and amazed at the many weird theories propounded in all sincerity to explain observations in terms of "established theories". Anomalies are the rule rather than the exception, and the amount of data which just won't fit is colossal. All in all it is fairly obvious the mainstream view of the Universe is bogging down and we are in reality conjuring up a mathematical monstrosity and raising it to Deity status. It is truly the modern Golden Calf.
Yet for whatever reason, fusion funding has been dropping for decades.
The reason is simple: unrealistic always 30-years-away hot fusion schemes (Tokomak-based, mostly) are being promoted to take attention and funding away from cheap energy alternatives and preserve the money-spinning oil/gas/coal/nuclear energy status quo. Much cheaper alternatives do exist. Thin film solar in combination with cheap storage http://www.google.com/search?q=eestor&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 for example.
OSC has proven that it can put small payloads into LEO using solid fuel boosters. For cargo delivery to the ISS, you need a system that can match orbits rather well. That means advanced avionics and more flexibility in the upper stage. For that kind of capability, SpaceX seems to be rather better positioned as their liquid-fuel engines have restart capability.
Yes, the last Falcon I launch did not deliver payload to orbit. But the failure mode was fairly innocuous: slosh in the upper-stage fuel tank together with some positive feedback. Throughout the oscillating burn the risky parts of the system (pumps, engines, guidance) performed well enough to indicate that had the engine not run dry a bit too soon because of the propellant being centrifuged to the tank sides, the burn would have been complete and on target.
The slosh issue looks like an easy fix: baffles in the tank and some changes to the thrust-vectoring software.
But then, making a suboptimal choice seems to be in-line with NASA history. It is almost as if NASA is trying is doing its best to go slow and waste as much money in the process as possible.
The name of the scientist you are reminded of is most likely Kary Mullis. He got a Nobel prize for inventing PCR. An interview with him on the topic of AIDS can be found here http://www.virusmyth.com/aids//hiv/cfmullis.htm
Possibly, you were thinking of Peter Duesberg, a Berkley professor. He has a website on AIDS here http://www.duesberg.com/
It requires solid raw data to establish the HIV->AIDS causative link because the symptoms of AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) can have many potential causes. For example, stress and malnutrition can also leave your immune system in tatters. So it is certainly reasonable to question the evidence and call for more data.
The autism-vaccine link has been thoroughly disproven many times now.
It has not been disproven. Studies have been done that show an epidemiologic link. Other studies have been done that claim there is no link whatsoever. The authors of the latter studies were often found to have close links with the pharmaceutical industry. The statistics employed in these "nothing to see here, please move a long" studies are often highly questionable.
As to David Ayoub, as opposed to what you suggest, he is a qualified and well-informed MD. If you doubt that, read this paper http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/ayoub.pdf he co-authored. People without qualifications do not get published in medical journals.
I suggest you inform yourself better. A good place to start with plenty of source references is the following book http://astore.amazon.com/medical-bookstore-20/detail/1881217302. Moreover, I would refrain, in the future, from claiming that medical studies can "prove" anything. You can show correlations and do statistics that offer relative certainty as to causation. But that is a far cry from proof given the complexity of biology.
Quantum mechanics encompasses a variety of related theories, and some of those are very solid indeed.
The mathematical formalism may be very solid, but that does not imply that reality is like that. Only experiment can show how well theory reflects reality. And there is no such thing as proof by experiment since there always remain domains in which no experiment has tested the theory yet.
Let's take the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP) you mention as an example. It can be derived from the commutation relations of operators (e.g.the position and momentum operators) used in quantum theory. Fine. But how well has it been tested experimentally? Consider the difficulty of that experiment. And consider that the experiments that have been done and are said to show aspects of the HUP were interpreted within the broader context of quantum theory. Will an interpretation of the same experimental data within the context of a different theory still be considered a validation of the HUP?
And old revolutionary, a new revolution
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 0, Troll
The proposals and attempts at quantum computing are based on predictions made using quantum theory. But how well does quantum theory reflect reality? There is good reason to seriously question that, and by implication, question the fundamental feasibility of quantum computing.
The first problem with quantum theory is that the mathematical formalism leaves a lot of leeway in how to interpret it. There are many interpretations of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics. These mostly do not yield different predictions for the domain in which the theory has been matched with experiment. But they imply very different realities, and sometimes do yield different predictions for less basic phenomena, including the phenomena that are supposed to make quantum computing feasible.
The second problem is that quantum theory has made basic predictions that have been experimentally falsified. Specifically, quantum theory has yielded a very definite description of the ground state of atomic hydrogen. It is called the ground state because no lower energy levels are possible, within the framework of quantum theory. But such lower energy levels are exactly what has been observed experimentally in the past 15 years, in many different experiments. This one, for example: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509127.pdf
Given these problems, I view quantum computing with great skepticism.
in which the foundation has invested in companies that have policies that actively undermine the social welfare goals of the foundation
And that is not coincidental. The publically stated goals of the foundation serve to hide its actual agenda. To learn more about the actual agenda of the Gates Foundatation, watch this shocking presentation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646
I give up. You've found a news source less reliable than Judy Miller.
Don't give up buddy. Strive for an open mind. You picked out one detail, pronounce a verdict based on a preconception, then generalize to the conclusion that the whole source is unreliable. Why not try for a while what I suggest: turn to independent news sources and carefully make up your own mind. Pretty soon, you will find out that http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ is a rather more reliable news source than anything the corporate media have on offer.
Ask yourself, where did I get my preconception from? It was a story in some corporate news outlet, was it not?
People are getting wise and no longer expect corporate/government news sources to provide them with anything close to the truth. More and more, they are turning to various independent Internet news sources, and make up their own minds about what is credible, and what is not.
Slashdot Mirror
EEStor is another interesting electric-car-related Kleiner Perkins investment http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/dealflow/archives/2005/09/kleiner_perkins_1.html. They have patented technology for super capacitors with over ten times the energy density of lead acid batteries. Being capacitors without electrochemistry, the power density (charge/discharge rates) is also very high.
The trick is that they use a doped barium titanate dielectric with a very high permittivity structured as a sub-micron grain composite interspersed with thin Aluminum oxide and glass layers to lower the breakdown voltage. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:EEStor. The big gain over normal capacitors happens because the energy content of a capacitor goes as the voltage square, and the overall relative permittivity exceeds 10000.
The internal combustion engine is obsolete.
Is it? This is not free competition in an open market with a free flow of information. This is specifically targetting and trying to undo deals for the acquisition of a competitor's products using backroom machinations, bribes, and threats. Anti-trust legislation exists for a reason: to avoid cartels and monopolies and allow an open market to function and thereby protect the consumer. Some rules that are enforced are required. Unfortunately, monopolist corporate power in the US is such that rules have hardly been enforced.
And guess who is to blame for OLPC failing to gain much traction? http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4472654.ece Yes, Intel mostly. Can't allow there to be so many AMD chips out there...
50 years, and we are still stuck in low Earth orbit. 50 years, and still no cost-effective launch system.
Rather ironic given how relativity theory has been converted into religious dogma, and Einstein has been canonized into the pantheon of saints http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm.
This story making the rounds with unwarranted AMD-user-scaring headlines is typical of the kind of FUD that Intel shills have been spreading. There is a gaggle of them here on slashdot and most other blogs and boards of any reach. Most review sites with any impact have been bought and paid for.
It does claim that, here is the relevant section quoted:
"Q: Do their caps hold 10x the energy at 1/10th the weight of a lead acid battery?"
"A: Yes."
But their technology seems to be for real. Lookheed also took out a license and confirmed their claims regarding energy density (ten times that of lead acid batteries). See this interview: http://www.gm-volt.com/2008/01/10/lockheed-martin-signs-agreement-with-eestor/
Obviously, it has taken rather more for me to start to doubt what I was taught. It began with some first hand experience of surpression. Not too surprising, if you consider the implications of my line of research. That made me question whether in other branches of physics something similar might be going on. So I asked around and it was pointed out to me that there were quite a few claims about surpression of lightspeed experiments and data falsification. This one, for example http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html#SEC6.
Given this context, it is imprudent to rely on an "immense amount of more precise data" type argument.
I suggest you read up on how he was forced into exile by pulling his observation time. Him ending up in Germany was not because he was intent on leaving the US. It was about finding some place where he'd still be allowed to continue his research.
Why? His observations stand and are at odds with the constant-lightspeed postulate. And the same goes for a number of later experiments by others. Of course, claims have been made that the non-null aspect of his experiments are because of experimental error and hence are actually consistent with zero lightspeed variation. But then, others have reanalyzed his data and found it consistent: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0311054
That is why refrained from recommending any theory. The states (which are simply an extension of the Rydberg series) are clearly there in the EUV data I have (at least for the first few fractional states 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4), as well in data by others, but I have not yet seen a convincing theory for them. But then, nature does not need a theory to do what it does.
Getting back to anomalies, the original subject of this thread, it is interesting to point out the anomalously high solar corona temperature (over a million Kelvin). Note that the corona includes atomic hydrogen and singly ionized helium, and as such meets the conditions for catalysis of fractional states. That explains why it can be so hot: the energy to heat it is generated within the corona itself. Observations consistent with this explanation have been done: the solar wind is strongly dependent on the fraction of Helium present in the flux.
Yes, I have read it. If you think me scoring high on it somehow refutes my arguments, I'd like to point out that I have consistently come down on the side of experiment and observation. And nature, not theory, is primary in the scientific method. Experiment and observation should be the final judge. When theory is defended in the face of falsifying data, we are talking religion, not science. So, what are you, a scientist or a believer?
You are ill-informed. Quite a number of scientists have been persecuted (funding pulled, career destroyed, ridicule, the works) for challenging "sacred" theories. In particular those that have challenged relativity (believe it or not, it has been experimentally falsified) or the big-bang model of cosmology (a ludicrous patchwork of band-aids that even so still fails to match observation).
Examples of heretics are Dayton Miller and Halton Arp. Look them up, skip past the ridicule and character assassination and read their actual work. It is solid science, but it was not to the liking of the inquisition.
Experimental physics. Heated reaction cells for infrared spectroscopy. I currently research helium/hydrogen plasmas using EUV spectroscopy to elucidate states of atomic hydrogen that are not predicted by quantum mechanics.
For a start, have a look at the following experiments http://www.epjap.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/epjap/abs/2004/08/ap03047/ap03047.html http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509127.pdf. As a skeptical experimentalist, I will refrain from recommending theories.
Oh? I am not aware of any experimental predictions uniquely made by string theory that have been borne out by experiment. String theorists themselves hardly even know how to use it to calculate stuff. The situation is so bad that in the rare instance where they actually do manage to calculate something, they are elated.
For example, several years ago string theorists were all happy about having been able to calculate the entropy of a black hole. Cool. But note that that is not something that can be verified experimentally. The "success" was merely that it matched a theoretical prediction obtained via an alternate theory.
I am a scientist buddy. PhD and all. But I am in science because I'd like to understand how nature works. Some of my colleagues, on the other hand, are happy to go where fashion, funding or peer pressure takes them. Half of theoretical physics has been herded into string theory that way. Sad.
I wish, though, that that were more true than it actually is in science. Quite a few anomalies are being ignored because resolving them would challenge "sacred" theories.
Anyone familiar with modern physics should be appalled by its complexity, confused by the many correction and perturbation factors, and amazed at the many weird theories propounded in all sincerity to explain observations in terms of "established theories". Anomalies are the rule rather than the exception, and the amount of data which just won't fit is colossal. All in all it is fairly obvious the mainstream view of the Universe is bogging down and we are in reality conjuring up a mathematical monstrosity and raising it to Deity status. It is truly the modern Golden Calf.
The reason is simple: unrealistic always 30-years-away hot fusion schemes (Tokomak-based, mostly) are being promoted to take attention and funding away from cheap energy alternatives and preserve the money-spinning oil/gas/coal/nuclear energy status quo. Much cheaper alternatives do exist. Thin film solar in combination with cheap storage http://www.google.com/search?q=eestor&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 for example.
The US has pulled funding of ITER (the planned international Tokokmak research reactor) http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4559/ Let's hope that this is in indication that the hot-fusion farce is about to end.
OSC has proven that it can put small payloads into LEO using solid fuel boosters. For cargo delivery to the ISS, you need a system that can match orbits rather well. That means advanced avionics and more flexibility in the upper stage. For that kind of capability, SpaceX seems to be rather better positioned as their liquid-fuel engines have restart capability.
Yes, the last Falcon I launch did not deliver payload to orbit. But the failure mode was fairly innocuous: slosh in the upper-stage fuel tank together with some positive feedback. Throughout the oscillating burn the risky parts of the system (pumps, engines, guidance) performed well enough to indicate that had the engine not run dry a bit too soon because of the propellant being centrifuged to the tank sides, the burn would have been complete and on target.
The slosh issue looks like an easy fix: baffles in the tank and some changes to the thrust-vectoring software.
One would have expected NASA to opt for SpaceX http://www.spacex.com/ had they really been serious about engaging private space efforts. SpaceX has made lots of progress http://www.spacex.com/updates.php and has a range of boosters in the works including ones for heavy payloads http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php.
But then, making a suboptimal choice seems to be in-line with NASA history. It is almost as if NASA is trying is doing its best to go slow and waste as much money in the process as possible.
The name of the scientist you are reminded of is most likely Kary Mullis. He got a Nobel prize for inventing PCR. An interview with him on the topic of AIDS can be found here http://www.virusmyth.com/aids//hiv/cfmullis.htm
Possibly, you were thinking of Peter Duesberg, a Berkley professor. He has a website on AIDS here http://www.duesberg.com/
It requires solid raw data to establish the HIV->AIDS causative link because the symptoms of AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) can have many potential causes. For example, stress and malnutrition can also leave your immune system in tatters. So it is certainly reasonable to question the evidence and call for more data.
It has not been disproven. Studies have been done that show an epidemiologic link. Other studies have been done that claim there is no link whatsoever. The authors of the latter studies were often found to have close links with the pharmaceutical industry. The statistics employed in these "nothing to see here, please move a long" studies are often highly questionable.
As to David Ayoub, as opposed to what you suggest, he is a qualified and well-informed MD. If you doubt that, read this paper http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/ayoub.pdf he co-authored. People without qualifications do not get published in medical journals.
I suggest you inform yourself better. A good place to start with plenty of source references is the following book http://astore.amazon.com/medical-bookstore-20/detail/1881217302. Moreover, I would refrain, in the future, from claiming that medical studies can "prove" anything. You can show correlations and do statistics that offer relative certainty as to causation. But that is a far cry from proof given the complexity of biology.
The mathematical formalism may be very solid, but that does not imply that reality is like that. Only experiment can show how well theory reflects reality. And there is no such thing as proof by experiment since there always remain domains in which no experiment has tested the theory yet.
Let's take the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP) you mention as an example. It can be derived from the commutation relations of operators (e.g.the position and momentum operators) used in quantum theory. Fine. But how well has it been tested experimentally? Consider the difficulty of that experiment. And consider that the experiments that have been done and are said to show aspects of the HUP were interpreted within the broader context of quantum theory. Will an interpretation of the same experimental data within the context of a different theory still be considered a validation of the HUP?
Ironic, an old revolutionary retires while a new revolution is pending over in the US. He may yet live to see it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7191570287261358564.
Was Castro a force for good? Maybe at first, but he soon became rather autocratic. Cuba is better off without him.
The proposals and attempts at quantum computing are based on predictions made using quantum theory. But how well does quantum theory reflect reality? There is good reason to seriously question that, and by implication, question the fundamental feasibility of quantum computing.
The first problem with quantum theory is that the mathematical formalism leaves a lot of leeway in how to interpret it. There are many interpretations of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics. These mostly do not yield different predictions for the domain in which the theory has been matched with experiment. But they imply very different realities, and sometimes do yield different predictions for less basic phenomena, including the phenomena that are supposed to make quantum computing feasible.
The second problem is that quantum theory has made basic predictions that have been experimentally falsified. Specifically, quantum theory has yielded a very definite description of the ground state of atomic hydrogen. It is called the ground state because no lower energy levels are possible, within the framework of quantum theory. But such lower energy levels are exactly what has been observed experimentally in the past 15 years, in many different experiments. This one, for example: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509127.pdf
Given these problems, I view quantum computing with great skepticism.
And that is not coincidental. The publically stated goals of the foundation serve to hide its actual agenda. To learn more about the actual agenda of the Gates Foundatation, watch this shocking presentation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646
Don't give up buddy. Strive for an open mind. You picked out one detail, pronounce a verdict based on a preconception, then generalize to the conclusion that the whole source is unreliable. Why not try for a while what I suggest: turn to independent news sources and carefully make up your own mind. Pretty soon, you will find out that http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ is a rather more reliable news source than anything the corporate media have on offer.
Ask yourself, where did I get my preconception from? It was a story in some corporate news outlet, was it not?
People are getting wise and no longer expect corporate/government news sources to provide them with anything close to the truth. More and more, they are turning to various independent Internet news sources, and make up their own minds about what is credible, and what is not.
News sources such as these: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ http://www.opednews.com/ http://www.electricpolitics.com/ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/