Has anyone checked to see if Deuterium is really stable at 2.7 Kelvin or below??

wrote in message
...

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Jonathan S. wrote, re. 'speed of gravity',

I have no idea. Tom van Flandern thinks
it's enormous, but he seems to have lost
the reputation he once had.

Yes, van Flandern finally concludes that the flowing-space explanation
is the only rational model for the mechanism of gravity. That's probably
why he's 'lost his reputation'. Under that model, there's nothing
'propagating' outbound from the source; therefore gravity's "action" is
instantaneous at any distance. oc


Just in case I guessed Right, the last eight digits of my cable modems mac
address is DAA46260.
And a Mr. David A Smith kind of knows more about what I am proposing.
Hope
he doesn't mind me dragging him into this.

I would Put my self at the level of "Kook" right now. but mabye a kook
that
guessed right.


http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html

instead of using hydrogen use very cold deuterium gas in a vacuum chamber

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-09/msg0027904.html

http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html

instead of using hydrogen use very cold deuterium gas in a vacuum chamber

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-09/msg0027904.html

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/lascool4.html

http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html

instead of using hydrogen use very cold deuterium gas in a vacuum chamber

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-09/msg0027904.html

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/lascool4.html

wrote in message
...

http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html

instead of using hydrogen use very cold deuterium gas in a vacuum
chamber

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-09/msg0027904.html

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/lascool4.html


Bob,
Is this thread going anywhere?

wrote in message
...

http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html

instead of using hydrogen use very cold deuterium gas in a vacuum
chamber

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-09/msg0027904.html

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/lascool4.html


Bob,
Is this thread going anywhere?

Bill Sheppard writes:

[bill]: Yes, Van Flandern finally concludes that the flowing-space
explanation is the only rational model for the mechanism of gravity.
That's probably why he's 'lost his reputation'. Under that model,
there's nothing 'propagating' outbound from the source; therefore
gravity's "action" is instantaneous at any distance.

It is difficult enough running an organization that looks
into puzzles and anomalies that mainstream models cannot handle, and
evaluates models (mainstream and otherwise). So please don't associate
me with illogical ideas. I have always argued that action at a distance
is logically impossible. And the only "flowing space" model I've seen
seemed to have unsolvable problems, not the least of which is whether to
treat space as tangible or intangible, either choice seeming to lead to
a contradiction.

But perhaps you were thinking of my work in support of
"pushing gravity" on a Le Sage-type model. You can find that in
"Possible new properties of gravity", Astrophys.&SpaceSci. v. 244, pp.
249-261 (1996), also available at
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gr...sofgravity.asp.
But this model has drawn wide interest and no criticism, and does not
suffer from the problems you mention. It provides a simple, viable
mechanism for gravity with several testable consequences that are
looking golden based on the latest experimental evidence. That and other
details can be found in the new book spawned by mounting interest in
this subject: "Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of
Gravitation", M. Edwards, ed., Apeiron Press, Montreal (2002).


and Jonathan Silverlight )
writes:

[js]: I may be maligning him, but IIRC he also went overboard for the
Cydonia and "face on Mars" nonsense.

It is only "nonsense" if you believe in making -a priori-
judgments about such matters without looking at the scientific arguments
and observational evidence - a highly unscientific approach to
concluding what is possible and what is not. Six qualified authors have
presented their main argument in favor of an artificial origin at
http://essence.utsi.edu/~spsr/. Click the link to "peer-reviewed journal
publications" and see the 7th entry on list: "Evidence of Planetary
Artifacts" by T. Van Flandern, M. Carlotto, H. Crater, J. Erjavec, L.
Fleming, J.P. Levasseur. This is also published in "Infinite Energy", v.
7, #40, pp. 23-31 (2001). See some of the amazing supporting evidence
for additional Mars anomalies at
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20...ssconf_nyc.asp,
and follow the link to the presentation: "Artificial Structures on
Mars".

Whether or not you agree with us that the evidence for
artificiality is now strong, I fail to see how any scientist could call
the investigation "nonsense". By your criteria, should NASA's entire
search for life on Mars also be considered "nonsense"? Or just the
search for intelligent life, past or present?

[js]: He also supports the theory that the asteroids come from an
exploded planet, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the
fact that the only evidence he proposed (moons of asteroids, and
specifically a debris field around Eros - God know why) hasn't appeared.

See "The exploded planet hypothesis - 2000", in "Proceedings
of New Scenarios on the Evolution of the Solar System and Consequences
on History of Earth and Man", E. Spedicato & A. Notarpietro, eds.,
Universita Degli Studi di Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy, pp. 40-54 (2002); or
on the web: http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp. This
has a nice overview of the numerous EPH predictions that have been right
on the money, with none failed so far. It also cites many earlier
supporting papers:
** T. Van Flandern, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, North
Atlantic Books, Berkeley, chapter 11, (1993; 2nd edition 1999) -
synthesis of exploded planet hypothesis (EPH) evidence.
** Icarus 36, 51-74 (1978) - technical justification for the EPH.
** Mercury 11, 189-193 (1982) - the EPH as an alternative to the Oort
cloud for the origin of comets.
** Icarus 47, 480-486 (1981) - the EPH's "satellite model" for comets as
an alternative to the "dirty snowball" model.
** Science 203, 903-905 (1979) - asteroid satellite evidence, confirming
an EPH prediction.
** Science 211, 297-298 (1981) - technical comment on previous paper.
** Asteroids, T. Gehrels, ed., U. of Ariz. Press, Tucson, 443-465
(1979) - theory and observations of asteroid satellites.
** Dynamics of the Solar System, R.L. Duncombe, ed., Reidel, Dordrecht,
257-262 (1979) - short summary of selected EPH evidence.
** Dynamics of Planets and Satellites and Theories of their Motion, V.
Szebehely, ed., Reidel, Dordrecht, 89-99 (1978) -- short summary of
selected EPH evidence.
** Comets, Asteroids, Meteorites, A.H. Delsemme, ed., U. of Toledo,
475-481 (1977) - short summary of EPH evidence with technical critiques
and author responses.
** Science Digest 90, 78-82 + 94-95 (1982) - popular exposition of the
EPH and its implications.

The specific prediction you referred to was that Eros would
have a debris field of thousands of small satellites in orbit around
it, -or-, if the shape of the asteroid made the nearby orbits unstable
(which turned out to be true), most of that debris would now be found on
the surface of Eros along with "roll marks" to show gentle, tangential
touch-downs from orbit rather than collisional debris (most of which
would escape the weak gravity anyway). Show me anyone else who predicted
boulders and roll marks all over Eros before they were discovered.

[js]: Everyone's entitled to hold unconventional theories about
physics, though. Gravity _has_ to appear to be instantaneous, an idea
that goes back to Newton, but current theories hate real instantaneous
effects.

These facts are relevant, but you don't draw logical
conclusions from them. Consider that the "speed of gravity" in Newton is
infinite, and that GR reduces to Newton in the weak-field, low-velocity
limit (such as applies to most of the solar system). How can two models
with drastically different propagation speeds become equivalent even for
cases where propagation speed matters? Why do computer simulations using
either Newtonian or GR equations of motion show that, if forces between
bodies are delayed by propagating at the speed of light, the orbits
become spirals that quickly depart from observations? Why can gravity
behind an event horizon still be felt outside, whereas light (supposedly
propagating at the same speed) cannot? Why does this remain true even
for binary black holes, where the "fossilized gravity field" argument
cannot hold?

Those modern theories that "hate real instantaneous
effects" still use them. The "virtual photons" of electrodynamics
propagate at infinite speed. The gradient of the potential field in GR
is an instantaneous one, not a retarded one as light-speed propagation
would require. And six experiments now show that the speed of
propagation of gravitational force in GR is strongly faster-than-light,
with no experiments opposing. See "Experimental Repeal of the Speed
Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions"
, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. v. 32(#7), pp. 1031-1068
(2002).

People like Kopeikin who measure changes in the
gravitational potential field are confused about the differences between
potential and force, or between field equations and equations of motion.
Of course, gravitational waves propagate at speed c, which no one
disputes. But those have nothing to do with gravitational forces or
changes therein. Indeed, gravitational waves have yet to be detected
anywhere in the solar system. Their effect is just too weak to matter in
even our highest precision experiments. By contrast, a good gravimeter
can detect a person walking around a room. It is detecting changes in
gravitational force, but -not- gravitational waves. -|Tom|-


Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our web site on replacement
astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org

Bill Sheppard writes:

[bill]: Yes, Van Flandern finally concludes that the flowing-space
explanation is the only rational model for the mechanism of gravity.
That's probably why he's 'lost his reputation'. Under that model,
there's nothing 'propagating' outbound from the source; therefore
gravity's "action" is instantaneous at any distance.

It is difficult enough running an organization that looks
into puzzles and anomalies that mainstream models cannot handle, and
evaluates models (mainstream and otherwise). So please don't associate
me with illogical ideas. I have always argued that action at a distance
is logically impossible. And the only "flowing space" model I've seen
seemed to have unsolvable problems, not the least of which is whether to
treat space as tangible or intangible, either choice seeming to lead to
a contradiction.

But perhaps you were thinking of my work in support of
"pushing gravity" on a Le Sage-type model. You can find that in
"Possible new properties of gravity", Astrophys.&SpaceSci. v. 244, pp.
249-261 (1996), also available at
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gr...sofgravity.asp.
But this model has drawn wide interest and no criticism, and does not
suffer from the problems you mention. It provides a simple, viable
mechanism for gravity with several testable consequences that are
looking golden based on the latest experimental evidence. That and other
details can be found in the new book spawned by mounting interest in
this subject: "Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of
Gravitation", M. Edwards, ed., Apeiron Press, Montreal (2002).


and Jonathan Silverlight )
writes:

[js]: I may be maligning him, but IIRC he also went overboard for the
Cydonia and "face on Mars" nonsense.

It is only "nonsense" if you believe in making -a priori-
judgments about such matters without looking at the scientific arguments
and observational evidence - a highly unscientific approach to
concluding what is possible and what is not. Six qualified authors have
presented their main argument in favor of an artificial origin at
http://essence.utsi.edu/~spsr/. Click the link to "peer-reviewed journal
publications" and see the 7th entry on list: "Evidence of Planetary
Artifacts" by T. Van Flandern, M. Carlotto, H. Crater, J. Erjavec, L.
Fleming, J.P. Levasseur. This is also published in "Infinite Energy", v.
7, #40, pp. 23-31 (2001). See some of the amazing supporting evidence
for additional Mars anomalies at
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20...ssconf_nyc.asp,
and follow the link to the presentation: "Artificial Structures on
Mars".

Whether or not you agree with us that the evidence for
artificiality is now strong, I fail to see how any scientist could call
the investigation "nonsense". By your criteria, should NASA's entire
search for life on Mars also be considered "nonsense"? Or just the
search for intelligent life, past or present?

[js]: He also supports the theory that the asteroids come from an
exploded planet, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the
fact that the only evidence he proposed (moons of asteroids, and
specifically a debris field around Eros - God know why) hasn't appeared.

See "The exploded planet hypothesis - 2000", in "Proceedings
of New Scenarios on the Evolution of the Solar System and Consequences
on History of Earth and Man", E. Spedicato & A. Notarpietro, eds.,
Universita Degli Studi di Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy, pp. 40-54 (2002); or
on the web: http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp. This
has a nice overview of the numerous EPH predictions that have been right
on the money, with none failed so far. It also cites many earlier
supporting papers:
** T. Van Flandern, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, North
Atlantic Books, Berkeley, chapter 11, (1993; 2nd edition 1999) -
synthesis of exploded planet hypothesis (EPH) evidence.
** Icarus 36, 51-74 (1978) - technical justification for the EPH.
** Mercury 11, 189-193 (1982) - the EPH as an alternative to the Oort
cloud for the origin of comets.
** Icarus 47, 480-486 (1981) - the EPH's "satellite model" for comets as
an alternative to the "dirty snowball" model.
** Science 203, 903-905 (1979) - asteroid satellite evidence, confirming
an EPH prediction.
** Science 211, 297-298 (1981) - technical comment on previous paper.
** Asteroids, T. Gehrels, ed., U. of Ariz. Press, Tucson, 443-465
(1979) - theory and observations of asteroid satellites.
** Dynamics of the Solar System, R.L. Duncombe, ed., Reidel, Dordrecht,
257-262 (1979) - short summary of selected EPH evidence.
** Dynamics of Planets and Satellites and Theories of their Motion, V.
Szebehely, ed., Reidel, Dordrecht, 89-99 (1978) -- short summary of
selected EPH evidence.
** Comets, Asteroids, Meteorites, A.H. Delsemme, ed., U. of Toledo,
475-481 (1977) - short summary of EPH evidence with technical critiques
and author responses.
** Science Digest 90, 78-82 + 94-95 (1982) - popular exposition of the
EPH and its implications.

The specific prediction you referred to was that Eros would
have a debris field of thousands of small satellites in orbit around
it, -or-, if the shape of the asteroid made the nearby orbits unstable
(which turned out to be true), most of that debris would now be found on
the surface of Eros along with "roll marks" to show gentle, tangential
touch-downs from orbit rather than collisional debris (most of which
would escape the weak gravity anyway). Show me anyone else who predicted
boulders and roll marks all over Eros before they were discovered.

[js]: Everyone's entitled to hold unconventional theories about
physics, though. Gravity _has_ to appear to be instantaneous, an idea
that goes back to Newton, but current theories hate real instantaneous
effects.

These facts are relevant, but you don't draw logical
conclusions from them. Consider that the "speed of gravity" in Newton is
infinite, and that GR reduces to Newton in the weak-field, low-velocity
limit (such as applies to most of the solar system). How can two models
with drastically different propagation speeds become equivalent even for
cases where propagation speed matters? Why do computer simulations using
either Newtonian or GR equations of motion show that, if forces between
bodies are delayed by propagating at the speed of light, the orbits
become spirals that quickly depart from observations? Why can gravity
behind an event horizon still be felt outside, whereas light (supposedly
propagating at the same speed) cannot? Why does this remain true even
for binary black holes, where the "fossilized gravity field" argument
cannot hold?

Those modern theories that "hate real instantaneous
effects" still use them. The "virtual photons" of electrodynamics
propagate at infinite speed. The gradient of the potential field in GR
is an instantaneous one, not a retarded one as light-speed propagation
would require. And six experiments now show that the speed of
propagation of gravitational force in GR is strongly faster-than-light,
with no experiments opposing. See "Experimental Repeal of the Speed
Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions"
, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. v. 32(#7), pp. 1031-1068
(2002).

People like Kopeikin who measure changes in the
gravitational potential field are confused about the differences between
potential and force, or between field equations and equations of motion.
Of course, gravitational waves propagate at speed c, which no one
disputes. But those have nothing to do with gravitational forces or
changes therein. Indeed, gravitational waves have yet to be detected
anywhere in the solar system. Their effect is just too weak to matter in
even our highest precision experiments. By contrast, a good gravimeter
can detect a person walking around a room. It is detecting changes in
gravitational force, but -not- gravitational waves. -|Tom|-


Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our web site on replacement
astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org

Tom Van Flandern writes,

So please don't associate me with
illogical ideas..... the only "flowing
space" model I've seen seemed to have
unsolvable problems, not the least of
which is whether to treat space as
tangible or intangible, either choice
seeming to lead to a contradiction.

Hi Tom. I perceived (evidently erroneously) that you favored the flowing
space model from your statement in the paper on 'Speed of Gravity',
where you wrote (exerpting),

"It seems impossible to conceive of a static field with literally no
moving parts as capable of tranferring momentum. This is the dilemma of
the 'rubber sheet' analogy again. Just because a rubber sheet or
spacetime is curved, why should a stationary target body on the slope of
such a curve change momentum? What is the source of the momentum
change?....... We can visualize the difference by thinking of a
waterfall..... which has moving parts capable of transferring momentum
and is made of entities that propagate."

That's why I assumed you favor flowing space. Dunno if you are familiar
with the work of Lindner, Warren, Shifman et al. Here are their web
pages delineating the flowing-space model (which a number of people
worldwide have independantly deduced)- www.olypen.com/hcwarren/
http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/W...ce/Physics.htm
http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/W...plications.htm
http://ohio.river.org/~jerry/grav1.htm
www.river.org/~jerry/telling.htm

One caveat to reading Lindner is to understand he harbors a beef against
Einstein for 'capitulating' to the void-space paradigm when he knew (or
should have known) full-well better. And he demeans relativity as
"merely describing effects instead of explaining causes" rather than
expanding and building on it as it stands.
Also, in private correspondance with Lindner and Shifman, I
urged them to ditch that grotesquely archaic word 'ether' because of the
stigma it carries, and quit shooting themselves in the foot. But so far
to no avail.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Nice chatting with you.
Bill (oc)

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

Tom Van Flandern writes,

So please don't associate me with
illogical ideas..... the only "flowing
space" model I've seen seemed to have
unsolvable problems, not the least of
which is whether to treat space as
tangible or intangible, either choice
seeming to lead to a contradiction.

Hi Tom. I perceived (evidently erroneously) that you favored the flowing
space model from your statement in the paper on 'Speed of Gravity',
where you wrote (exerpting),

"It seems impossible to conceive of a static field with literally no
moving parts as capable of tranferring momentum. This is the dilemma of
the 'rubber sheet' analogy again. Just because a rubber sheet or
spacetime is curved, why should a stationary target body on the slope of
such a curve change momentum? What is the source of the momentum
change?....... We can visualize the difference by thinking of a
waterfall..... which has moving parts capable of transferring momentum
and is made of entities that propagate."

That's why I assumed you favor flowing space. Dunno if you are familiar
with the work of Lindner, Warren, Shifman et al. Here are their web
pages delineating the flowing-space model (which a number of people
worldwide have independantly deduced)- www.olypen.com/hcwarren/
http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/W...ce/Physics.htm
http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/W...plications.htm
http://ohio.river.org/~jerry/grav1.htm
www.river.org/~jerry/telling.htm

One caveat to reading Lindner is to understand he harbors a beef against
Einstein for 'capitulating' to the void-space paradigm when he knew (or
should have known) full-well better. And he demeans relativity as
"merely describing effects instead of explaining causes" rather than
expanding and building on it as it stands.
Also, in private correspondance with Lindner and Shifman, I
urged them to ditch that grotesquely archaic word 'ether' because of the
stigma it carries, and quit shooting themselves in the foot. But so far
to no avail.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Nice chatting with you.
Bill (oc)

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

Hi Tom and oc Radiation can go through space and give momentum to an
object. I'm thinking of a comet"s tail that gets pushed ahead of the
comet by the EM radiation of the sun. Bert