Hank Rearden wrote:
Time is a local phenomena and invariant under changing gravimetric
potential.

Cascade breaker! Hrrrrmph!

and....um....

The distant observer doesn't see it that way.

--
,,,
..oo
c
- Soque

The distant observer hasn't seen it at all. For him, the event hasn't even
happened yet.
But that doesn't stop him from harvesting energy from the fringing fields of
the Casimir gradient.

Henry

A friend of mine who is gone. Do not attempt to find us. We do not
choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do
not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you own us. You don't. Do not
beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind.

We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the
creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike
against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness is evil. We are
on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt.

There is a difference between our strike and all those you've practiced
for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of
granting them. We are evil according to your morality. We have chosen
not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your
economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are
dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have
chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are
only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to
blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality--the
reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind.

We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always
been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to
present to you, no terms of bargain about, no compromise to reach. You
have nothing to offer us. WE DO NOT NEED YOU.

Are you crying: No, this was not what you wanted? A mindless world of
ruins was not your goal? You did not want us to leave you? You moral
cannibals, I know that you've always known what it was that you wanted.
But your game is up, because now we know it too.

Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code
of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the
scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and
too selfish to spill all the blood it required. You damned man, you
damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question
your code. Your victims took the blame and struggled on, with your
curses as rewards for their martyrdom--while you went on crying that
your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice
it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good?--by what standard?

You wanted to know John Galt's identity. I am the man who has asked
that question.

Yes, this is an age of moral crisis. Yes, you are bearing punishment
for your evil. But it is not man who is now on trial and it is not
human nature that will take the blame. It is your moral code that's
through, this time. Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind
alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what
you now need is not to return to morality--you who have know any--but
to discover it.

You have heard no concepts of morality but the mystical or the social.
You have been taught that morality is a code of behavior imposed on you
by whim, the whim of a supernatural power or the whim of society, to
serve God's purpose or your neighbor's welfare, to please an authority
beyond the grave or else next door--but not to serve your life or
pleasure. Your pleasure you have been taught is to be found in
immortality, your interests would best be served by evil, and any moral
code must be designed not for you, but against you, not to further your
life, but to drain it.

For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who
claimed that it belongs to your neighbors--between those who preached
that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and
those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of
incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to
you and that the good is to live it.

Both sides agreed that morality demands the surrender of your
self-interest and of your mind, that the moral and the practical are
opposites, that morality is not the province of reason, but the
province of faith and force. Both side agreed that no rational morality
is possible, that there is no right or wrong in reason--that in reason
there's no reason to be moral. Whatever else they fought about, it was
against man's mind that all your moralists have stood united. It was
mind that all their schemes and systems were intended to despoil and
destroy. Now choose to perish or to learn that the anti-mind is the
anti-life.

Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him,
survival is not. His body is given to him sustenance is not. His mind
is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and
before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He
cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to
obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch--or build a cyclotron--without a
knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive,
he must think.

But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly
call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name,
is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason
does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the
connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your
stomach, lungs, or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is
not. In any hour and issue of your life , you are free to escape from
that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be'
is the question 'to think or not to think'.

A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of
behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. 'Value' is
that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which
one gains and keeps it. 'Value' presupposes an answer to the question:
of value to whom and for what? 'Value' presupposes a standard, a
purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative.
Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or
non-existence--and it pertains to a single class of entities: living
organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the
existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action.
Matter is indestructable, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to
exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative:
th eissue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and
self-generating action. If an organism fails in that action, it does;
its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is
only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible.
It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the
chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its
life is the standard of value directing its actions. Bur a plant has no
choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it
encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts
automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own
destruction.

Joe

your an idiot Hank, Henry whoever.

All the energy in a closed system is constant. So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system. This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without
using energy.
Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an area of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the system.
So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.

Casimer was a quack.

Joe

Joe

All the energy in a closed system is constant.

There's only one closed system in nature. That is the entire universe.


So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.

Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman experiments.



This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without
using energy.

This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free space
at any speed consumes no energy.

The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.

Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?



Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an area of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the system.

Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is not a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.


So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical process and
is not a cause for an effect. Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.

In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some research
on oscillators.

All the energy in a closed system is constant.


There's only one closed system in nature. That is the entire universe.

The universe is not a closed system.


So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.


Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.


They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could never
re-produce his claimed cold fusion.





This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without
using energy.


This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free
space
at any speed consumes no energy.

Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.

The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.

See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.


Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?

The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses. However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order effect.


Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the system.



Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not
apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.

They are indeed external


So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical process
and
is not a cause for an effect.

There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.



Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.

In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.

Why?

Joe

The universe is not a closed system.

If the universe is not a closed system then there are things outside of the
universe. If the universe is everything (all inclusive) how could something
not be a subset of it.?



So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.


Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.


They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could never
re-produce his claimed cold fusion.



My statement is supported in its entirity by this document from the US
Department of Energy:

http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsr...nal_120104.pdf





This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without
using energy.


This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free
space
at any speed consumes no energy.

Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.

Not true at all. Inertial motion is relative. I see a train pass by,
relative to me it is moving. It required energy to get it moving relative to
the earth's reference frame. The people on the train see me moving relative
to them. How much energy was put into me for the train passengers to see me
moving? None.

Energy is used to accelerate the object, the result of which is motion. Does
all of the energy used to accelerate the object wind up as the kinetic
energy of the object? Acceleration is absolute, it is not relative; motion
is relative, the absolute inertial frame has not yet been widely accepted.



The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.

See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.

Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not the
observed to change the apparent motion.


Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?

The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.

What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving?

However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order effect.

Where does the linear acceleration arise? What type of field is this?



Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the system.



Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not
apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.

They are indeed external.

Ok then, consider a closed system consisting of a 10 watt oscillator with an
output terminal impedance of X ohms, a lossless transmission line of X ohms
impedance and a load at the end of the transmission line of Y ohms. The
oscillator signal travels down the transmission line and part of the signal
is reflected back to the oscillator by the load mismatch. The load is a
passive power sink, the oscillator a power source. Yet in this closed
system, energy travels from a sink to a source. What is the external effect
of this system?


So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical process
and
is not a cause for an effect.

There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.


Randomness is a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the lack
of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.



Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.

In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.

Why?

The seek the lowest energy state and maintain high coherence.



Joe

Hank Rearden wrote:
The distant observer hasn't seen it at all. For him, the event hasn't even
happened yet.

It will. An he'll notice the effect of the curvature of spacetime
on the properties of the mechanism conveying the information.
(redshifted photons)

--
,,,
..oo
c
- Soque

Hank Rearden


The universe is not a closed system.


If the universe is not a closed system then there are things outside of
the
universe. If the universe is everything (all inclusive) how could
something
not be a subset of it.?

parallel universe.
Plus our universe is still expanding into space ..Since it is expanding
into space then space is not yet part of our universe and contains Juju
not yet in our universe.



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.


Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.


They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could never

re-produce his claimed cold fusion.



My statement is supported in its entirity by this document from the US
Department of Energy:

http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub=AD/Ne...C=AD/2004/low=
..=2E.


Read it again, same result Pons-Flieschman had. Nothing new just a
bunch of physicist unable to grasp the structure of energy, whether
massbound or massfree.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving
mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without

using energy.


This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free

space
at any speed consumes no energy.


Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.



Not true at all. Inertial motion is relative. I see a train pass by,
relative to me it is moving. It required energy to get it moving
relative to
the earth's reference frame. The people on the train see me moving
relative
to them. How much energy was put into me for the train passengers to
see me
moving? None.

Wrong. They are in motion... not you. They do not see you moving, they
see the effects of the engine pulling the train.

Energy is used to accelerate the object, the result of which is motion.
Does
all of the energy used to accelerate the object wind up as the kinetic
energy of the object? Acceleration is absolute, it is not relative;
motion
is relative, the absolute inertial frame has not yet been widely
accepted.

And will never be. It's bunk



The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion
is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.


See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy
to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.



Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not
the
observed to change the apparent motion.

apparent motion is not motion.


Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?


The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.



What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is
rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving?

Gravity, & yes


However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration
field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order
effect.


Where does the linear acceleration arise? What type of field is this?


Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an
area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the
system.


Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is
not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not

apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.


They are indeed external.



Ok then, consider a closed system consisting of a 10 watt oscillator
with an
output terminal impedance of X ohms, a lossless transmission line of X
ohms
impedance and a load at the end of the transmission line of Y ohms. The

oscillator signal travels down the transmission line and part of the
signal
is reflected back to the oscillator by the load mismatch. The load is a

passive power sink, the oscillator a power source. Yet in this closed
system, energy travels from a sink to a source. What is the external
effect
of this

Loss of massbound energy.




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

system?

So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical
process
and
is not a cause for an effect.


There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.


Randomness is



a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the lack
of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.


Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.


In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.


Why?



The seek the lowest energy state and maintain high coherence.

I have no need to seek the lowest energy state when I have discovered
the highest energy state.=20

Joe

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hank Rearden


The universe is not a closed system.


If the universe is not a closed system then there are things outside of
the
universe. If the universe is everything (all inclusive) how could
something
not be a subset of it.?

parallel universe.
Plus our universe is still expanding into space ..Since it is expanding
into space then space is not yet part of our universe and contains Juju
not yet in our universe.

-----------------The universe is everything. It is not expanding into
anything. There is only one universe. If not, then explain it and give two
examples.



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.


Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.


They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could never

re-produce his claimed cold fusion.



My statement is supported in its entirity by this document from the US
Department of Energy:

http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub*/News...E-SC*/2004/low...


Read it again, same result Pons-Flieschman had. Nothing new just a
bunch of physicist unable to grasp the structure of energy, whether
massbound or massfree.


------------ I never said it was cold fusion. I simply said that people are
still trying to account for the excess energy of this "closed" system. This
was simply one example.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving
mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without

using energy.


This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free

space
at any speed consumes no energy.


Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.



Not true at all. Inertial motion is relative. I see a train pass by,
relative to me it is moving. It required energy to get it moving
relative to
the earth's reference frame. The people on the train see me moving
relative
to them. How much energy was put into me for the train passengers to
see me
moving? None.

Wrong. They are in motion... not you. They do not see you moving, they
see the effects of the engine pulling the train.


------------------So you are claiming an absolute reference frame for the
motion between the train and the observer. What is the absolute reference
frame for all motion in the universe?

Energy is used to accelerate the object, the result of which is motion.
Does
all of the energy used to accelerate the object wind up as the kinetic
energy of the object? Acceleration is absolute, it is not relative;
motion
is relative, the absolute inertial frame has not yet been widely
accepted.

And will never be. It's bunk

------------Check the implications of the "Cosmological Constant".



The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion
is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.


See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy
to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.



Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not
the
observed to change the apparent motion.

apparent motion is not motion.


Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?


The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.



What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is
rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving?

Gravity, & yes

---------------Most claim gravity is a quadripole field and rotating masses
do not produce additional gravitational fields. Could the field be a time
distortion instead?


However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration
field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order
effect.


Where does the linear acceleration arise? What type of field is this?


Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an
area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the
system.


Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is
not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not

apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.


They are indeed external.



Ok then, consider a closed system consisting of a 10 watt oscillator
with an
output terminal impedance of X ohms, a lossless transmission line of X
ohms
impedance and a load at the end of the transmission line of Y ohms. The

oscillator signal travels down the transmission line and part of the
signal
is reflected back to the oscillator by the load mismatch. The load is a

passive power sink, the oscillator a power source. Yet in this closed
system, energy travels from a sink to a source. What is the external
effect
of this

Loss of massbound energy.

-----------------------------Where does this energy go?




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

system?

So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical
process
and
is not a cause for an effect.


There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.


Randomness is



a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the lack
of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.


Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.


In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.


Why?



The seek the lowest energy state and maintain high coherence.

I have no need to seek the lowest energy state when I have discovered
the highest energy state.


-----------------And that is?



Joe