On Fri, 3 Jan 2014 16:00:16 +0000 Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote: I like your wording here:-) Especially considering the fact that sound distributes spherical. So the energy looses in r^3... afair. - Arnold

On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 20:21 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: PS: If we wear something to protect our lungs (and ears) we could go much, much further and humans could levitate by sound waves. The real problem are or lungs, grenades and other evil shit kill humans regarding to the pressure, our lungs are unable to stand this, less people are killed by splinter.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org>wrote;wrote: These are nice back-of-the-envelope calculations, but I think there's a little more explanation needed (not sure, but bear with me). Why do we see this technique applied with high frequencies? At the node locations, there is the highest peak spatial derivative of the pressure while at the same time, the volume velocity of air goes to 0. Vice-versa at the anti-nodes. It may not require so much power as the frequency becomes very high (although the physical scale between nodes also diminishes making it impractical for "large" objects), if the variable of interest is not the pressure difference itself, but the magnitude of its spatial derivative. Other thoughts: the apparent acoustic power only needs to be large in the region of standing waves. You may not be exposed to dangerous SPL's when you get far enough away from the focus. I have been contemplating some designs on acoustic levitation, but I haven't risen to the task of figuring how much power is involved. This discussion is helpful to me (and fun!) Chuck

On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:01:33PM -0600, Charles Z Henry wrote: I don't think acoustic levitation can be explained as long as linearity is assumed - because in that case there can't be any constant term in the forces that he acoustic waves generate. So what's going on here is probably a lot more complex than we imagine, and the way it's 'explained' in the video is completely bogus. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 09:24:54PM +1100, Patrick Shirkey wrote: No idea. If it does that could be rather destructive on some materials. What is clear is that acoustic radiation pressure plays a role. And that's a subject that has caused a lot of confusion and false results throughout the history of acoustics as a science. Some big names (including Rayleigh) have burnt their fingers on it, so it's not and easy matter. To prime the confusion, there are at least two formulations of acoustic radiation pressure: one from Rayleigh (which depends on non-linearity) and one due to Langevin (which does not depend on it). Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

Le Sat, 4 Jan 2014 13:39:05 +0000, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> a écrit : Acoustic, inclusive acoustic levitation, already have uses. The army use it (at least from the Vietnam war), the chemical and drug industry use it or have plans to use it, etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jvcgz-BiHs Dominique

Le Sat, 4 Jan 2014 13:39:05 +0000, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> a écrit : According to that presentation http://www.dalembert.upmc.fr/Oleron2010/docs/Presentations/Oleron-Barriere.… it look like Langevin (which is the same than Rayleigh first formula in 1902) apply well when we are long enough from the source, and when we are in its vicinity, Rayleigh (1905) must be applied. Dominique

Le Sat, 4 Jan 2014 20:19:27 +0000, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> a écrit : And classical physics is even worst. In Einstein formula e=mc^2, the only term for which we have a definition is c... For e, it is no definition, only equations which are not definitions, and this is the same issue with m=e/c^2, which is maybe the less obvious equation of all equations. Ciao, Dominique

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 13:50:52 +0100 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote: Please, no. c is a constant with the unit(!) m/s. m and s are no variables... And the m in [c] = m/s is not the same as the m in E = m*c². - Arnold

Would it not be better to continue this discussion off-list? John

On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 08:41:55PM +0100, Dominique Michel wrote: Bullshit. It just shows that the target receives more energy than its size would suggest, because its presence modifies the field around it. The effect is the same as putting a large lens in front of a small target. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

Le Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:38:10 +0100, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> a écrit : No I don't say that, I just say it is other theories today than the one we learn at school, theories where the topological space under consideration is described by an O(3) group rather than by an U(1) group, as described by Evans. One of the main Evans' claim is that more things are possible into an O(3) group of reference. I also know that mainstream physics doesn't validate Evans' theory (as it didn't validated Galileo's theory at his time), that mainstream physics and Evans as well, doesn't know every thing, and that all papers exists and can be read by every one to draw its own conclusion. If Evans is right, and I don't know the answer (some papers disagree with him, other agrees, and I am not a specialist in physics but in electronics), his theory will also have great theological consequences. Among other things, he unify the 4 fundamental forces of physics into one. That imply if one force is at the origin of every thing, and can be expressed by mathematics, it cannot be personified and called God at the same time. This can be one more good reason why mainstream physics will suppress him. In our society, the ones that fund the research are often the same than the ones that fund the politicians, and I remember it was about 20 years ago, the scientists at the CERN which was working at unifying the fundamental forces was very choked when, without any warning, their research was cancelled. Dominique

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote: specifically: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607186 "Correcting a former proof of M.W. Evans it is shown that his O(3) hypothesis is not Lorentz invariant and hence no law of Physics. " http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AcPPB..39...51B "We comment on the recent article of M.W. Evans, "Spin Connection Resonance in Gravitational General Relativity", Acta Phys. Pol. B {38}, 2211 (2007). We point out that the equations underlying Evans' theory are highly problematic. Moreover, we demonstrate that the so-called ``spin connection resonance'', predicted by Evans, cannot be derived from the equation he used. We provide an exact solution of Evans' corresponding equation and show that it has definitely no resonance solutions." http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0411085 "The names tetrad, tetrads, cotetrads, have been used with many different meanings in the physical literature, not all of them, equivalent from the mathematical point of view. In this paper we introduce unambiguous definitions for each one of those terms, and show how the old miscellanea made many authors to introduce in their formalism an ambiguous statement called `tetrad postulate', which has been source of many misunderstandings, as we show explicitly examining examples found in the literature. Since formulating Einstein's field equations intrinsically in terms of cotetrad fields theta^{a}, a = 0,1,2,3 is an worth enterprise, we derive the equation of motion of each theta^{a} using modern mathematical tools (the Clifford bundle formalism and the theory of the square of the Dirac operator). Indeed, we identify (giving all details and theorems) from the square of the Dirac operator some noticeable mathematical objects, namely, the Ricci, Einstein, covariant D'Alembertian and the Hodge Laplacian operators, which permit to show that each theta^{a} satisfies a well defined wave equation. Also, we present for completeness a detailed derivation of the cotetrad wave equations from a variational principal. We compare the cotetrad wave equation satisfied by each theta^{a} with some others appearing in the literature, and which are unfortunately in error. " Compare and contrast for interesting sociological effect, if you will, to the treatment received by Galileo.

Le Mon, 6 Jan 2014 20:11:13 -0500, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> a écrit : I know these papers, they are just a part of the story. Evans and other scientists refuted them all. We can find them in the rebuttals section of http://www.atomicprecision.com/Community/content.html Evans was not killed, I know that. On the other hand, the UN said it is more than enough food on earth for every one, and that 35 millions of peoples are staving to death each single year. It's a sociological effect which have one single reason, these peoples are to poor to buy the food that exist for them on the markets. It is called capitalism. I don't think either that communism is better. They are just 2 sides of the same reality. But from a few decades ago, capitalism is the only one left, so we cannot blame others any longer for the total failure of capitalism to archive peace and prosperity for every one on earth. The root of the problem is respect, and as we don't respect Nature, we don't respect each others. Capitalism exploit Nature for profit, Communism exploit Nature for the sole satisfaction of Humanity. In both cases this is the same egoistic bullshit where the satisfaction of Nature is just not taken in account. Communism is right on one thing: the economy must be just a tool, and for that, it have to be subordinated to the goal. But as our relationship with Nature is what affects the whole ontology of our society (among others, see Philippe Descola on this), economy must be subordinated not only to the satisfaction of every body's needs, but also to the satisfaction of the needs of Nature. In other words, a society based on the exploitation of Nature can and will generate a society of exploitation of each others. In our case, that exploitation is industrialised at all levels, and NSA is just a step further to total exploitation of humanity. So Houston, we have a big problem here. And to know if Evans is right or wrong is totally secondary. Dominique

On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 00:22 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote: Since it seems to continue on the list. I agree with Fons statement, but IMO it's likely that in the future physics will change a lot assumed humans will survive another 2000 years or longer. -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Ralf Mardorf To: Dominique Michel Subject: [off-list][LAD] Audio Levitation Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 16:59:36 +0100 Mailer: Evolution 3.10.3 On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 00:32 +0100, Dominique Michel wrote: That's true and it even might be that "the law of conservation of energy" someday will be outdated. Nowadays it's just that most, if not all super-ideas are simply nonsense.

On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 20:41 +0100, Dominique Michel wrote: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_mathematischer_Symbole#Definitionszeich… And why is c a definition for you when the "="-sign is used? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtgeschwindigkeit On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 19:52 +0100, Arnold Krille wrote: Meters and seconds are variables, just the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. All physical constants are defined by a "="-sign, or "rounded" ≈. There seems to be a language barrier. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physikalische_Konstante

On Sun, January 5, 2014 7:19 am, Fons Adriaensen wrote: IIUC there are some people who understand it very well but the application of their knowledge is considered classified so it's not released into the public domain if it is even written down anywhere. A bit like RSA decryption used to be. The funny thing is that the technology that can be created using this technique would probably solve the energy crisis if this knowledge was allowed to be used for civilian purposes like power stations. It would probably also be useful for deep space exploration. ( Avatar scale not Hubble scale ) Depends on the fuel used of course. One thing we do know is the humble pistol crab can generate impulses with the same heat intensity as the surface of the sun and some salty water. What other exotic mixtures would allow for is anyones guess. -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd

On Mon, January 6, 2014 2:33 am, R. Mattes wrote: Wikipedia. Instant truth Just add the complement set. People knew how to decrypt RSA before it was released. Just saying. Besides that there is *nothing* to prove the solving factors of primes is an inherently difficult task. Separately these days any company with a few 10's of thousands $$$ available can purchase the hardware to do the job with brute force but there are other more subtle methods. Like the NSA paying companies to use broken algorithms by default, etc... But I digress. I guess you don't have the information that I have ;-) Lets go, bring out the naysaying, heretical, finger pointing. Just let me get a shot in now before it descends into truly dangerous territory. Yo Mama is so fat they can't launch her into orbit , land her on the moon and then return her to Earth. The heat generated when the *snap* occurs is as hot as the surface of the sun. Watch the video... -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd

On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 05:48:51PM +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote: And GCHQ knew about it in the 1950s, apparently. -- Gordonjcp MM0YEQ