Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
We know that you are already working in your US factory: is also the project of the Swedish factory still going on ?
Cheers,
Frederick
Myron Norby:
In Physics nothing is impossible and nothing is certain. Any event is associated to a probability number.
I am spending my life in this task, therefore you can guess what you deem most probable.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
You answered to Anonymous that maybe you are working for nothing and that the domestic E-Cat will never go in the market: did you mean it ?
If each Quark does not require a large space, then I think that one sheet of Quarks could produce hundreds of times more electricity than a solar panel of the same size during peak solar radiance.
A few facts (approximate numbers).
1 – The most efficient solar panel that is not used for concentrated solar collection is approximately 22% efficient. For fairness, let’s say by the end of this year that may increase to 25%.
2 – During peak hours of the day when there are no clouds the earth receives approximately 1000 watts per square meter.
3 – This would mean that a typical solar panel of one meter squared might produce 250 watts for a few hours a day, lesser output the rest of the day, and no output at night.
4 – Although I found a solar panel online that was 33mm thick (a little thicker than the Quark is long).
In absolute worst case, in which each Quark needed one hundred square millimeters of space, ten thousand Quarks could fit in a single meter sized slab. If each of these Quarks produced five watts of electricity (ignoring heat and light output), that would mean an output of 50,000 watts or 50 kilowatts.
50,000 watts divided by 250 watts (the peak output of a solar panel of one meter square) is 200.
So to equal the output of a single slab of Quarks, you would need at minimum 200 solar panels of the same area that magically could produce the same amount of power 24 hours a day and during any weather conditions.
Hence, the Quark — once the output is confirmed via rigorous testing by multiple third parties — could potentially be far superior by orders of magnitude to solar power.
And I think that one reason why some parties are attacking you so vigorously may be due to their defense of the renewable industry.
On a personal level I’m a Christian, and I do not believe in social Darwinism — that only the fittest should be allowed to survive and the disadvantaged (poor, weak, diseased, depressed) should be allowed to die without any consideration. However, technologically speaking, I lean heavily towards technological Darwinism. If the Quark technology turns out to be superior to photovoltaic technology, then the Quark should flourish and solar should be allowed to fade away.
PS: The above analysis (although it may be incorrect due to the fact I’m unsure how closely the Quark’s can be placed together) doesn’t even factor in the advantages of the Quark in terms of portability.
Hank Mills:
These are constructive particulars I am not going to talk about here, for obvious reasons, because they would generate a cascade of questions leading to confidential information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
For 2016 to be the year of the E-Cat, I think we would need:
1. E-Cat plants working in the real world (not under NDA)
2. Customers happy to openly report about successful operations and significant cost savings (again not under NDA).
3. Some video of your plants in operation.
Which of the above do you hope to achieve in 2016?
If you wanted to setup an array of of Quarks in a flat plane of one square meter, how much distance between the center axis of each Quark (right down the center of the reactor) would be required?
I understand that there would be wires coming from each end of the Quark so there would need to be additional circuitry, control boxes, and so fourth.
1) What is the diameter of the entire setup that is required for one individual Quark X to produce electricity directly? As a hypothetical example, a 1mm diameter reactor tube with a 3mm diameter shield around it.
2) What number of Quark X’s producing electricity directly could hypothetically fit into a given area of space? For example, one square meter of flat surface?
3) For example, there are a million square millimeters in a meter. If a single quark and apparatus to produce electrical power required four square millimeters of space, that would mean 250,000 Quarks could fit into one meter. If more space was required between Quarks, we could claim eight square millimeters of space. That would mean 125,000 Quarks could fit in one square meter of flat space. If we were to be very conservative and claim that a Quark could produce 5% electricity (not 20%) or five watts each, that would mean a panel of Quarks could produce 625,000 watts or 625 kilowatts.
Do you think this analysis is plausible for an eventual product?
Dear Andrea,
I do not know it this question has been asked before, but I hope you are willing to answer:
You spend a lot of time in the 1MW plant during the test. You were checking the ‘symphony of the bubbles’. Did you mainly do that to optimize and adjust the plant to achieve the best possible COP?
1. In other words, if you hadn’t been there every night, would the plant then have been less efficient, e.g. a lower COP?
2. If your answer is ‘yes’, do you think a more sophisticated control system could replace you and are you working on that?
Thanks for answering our questions.
Kind regards, Gerard
Dr Andrea Rossi:
After 5 years your domestic E-Cat is not yet in the market. I suspect it will never be.
Maybe you are working for nothing.
Thank you for spamming.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
As you explained, IH received every three months a quarterly report from the ERV and all the reports had moreless the same results, from the first to the fourth.
You said that IH accepted deiighted the first, the second and the third reports, respectively after three, six and nine months after the start of the 1 year test of the 1 MW E-Cat and collected many millions from their investors thanks to such reports.
The question is: did IH pay the first, second and third report of the ERV ?
Thank you id you can answer,
Russell
Your tests of the E-Cat show that it can operate for > 6 months without refueling at commercial power levels of up to 1 MW thermal with an energy gain > 30(thermal out Vs electrical in). One characteristic that has not been demonstrated is the ability to cycle the E-Cat on and off, or modulate the power level while maintaining a reasonable level of efficiency.
While your short term goal of developing a product for central heating applications may require only a limited ability to either fully modulate the power level or turn the system on and off, for most applications, the ability to either fully modulate the power level or cycle the system on and off perhaps up to 1000 times per year would be extremely useful. Without such capability, given variable heat loads associated with heat applications, a significant energy storage capability will be needed. Certainly, if the E-Cat X were used in place of an oil burner in a home heating system, the ability to cycle it on and off would be essential.
My questions are:
1. Have you demonstrated by testing that the E-Cat can be cycled on and off repeated while still maintaining a reasonable power gain?
2. Have you demonstrated by testing that the E-Cat X can be cycled on and off repeated while still maintaining a reasonable power gain?
3. Have you demonstrated by testing that the E-Cat power level can be fully modulated while still maintaining a reasonable power gain?
4. Have you demonstrated by testing that the E-Cat X power level can be fully modulated while still maintaining a reasonable power gain?
While I realize you may need to keep this type of performance data private, even yes/no answers to these questions will give your followers some idea of what has been achieved in this area.
Dear Andrea,
I must underline 2 facts, apart other considerations that I know you can’t answer to:
Fact #1 – The Rossi Effect has been replicated and produced high levels of excess heat.
Fact #2 – Although multiple parties across the globe have replicated the Rossi Effect, for every one highly successful replicate (Parkhomov, N.Stepanov, Songsheng Jiang, possibly Tom Conover, Me356, etc) there are many more replications that produce little to no excess heat.
When do you think everybody will be able to reproduce your effect, even if not particularly skilled in the art ?
The human brain has indeed reached an advanced stage of evolution. It might be necessary with a more rigid definition of “culture” though, because indeed there are other animals that will cultivate their offspring (for instance you have this phenomenon among killer whales and dolphins, where the parents will educate their children in order to learn specific hunting techniques). This is something passed on through generations.
I think the very sophistication of human culture is due to our big brains. When energy is no longer in short supply, we will be able to dedicate our time to intellectual pursuits.
Yes, I believe the fact that we started to make fire and to cook our food was the onset of the evolution of the human brain. It’s nothing short of a miracle that this happened. It’s one of these “black swan” events that set our species on a very separate course from other species. What is the probability that this would happen simultaneously for two different species? I think it’s not very probable. Also we need to consider the fact that the evolution of the human species, from the first cooked meal, is a rather short period in terms of evolutionary time from the first amoeba.
Now we’re just waiting for the next stage of evolution, with “the new fire”. 😉
I agree that evolution advances through the stochastic, fortuitous creations of cumulative basic toolsets upon which further progress is exponentially grown. For example, the Cambrian Explosion 540 million years ago during which most major animal phyla appeared. A few million years ago, our ape ancestors achieved another qualitative leap in their evolutionary toolset that put them ahead of other species which failed to evolve the same capability in the time given. Indeed, it spawned what seem to be many sentient species of hominids which eventually went extinct from either competitive exclusion or crossbred to create what we now call humans. From a Christian perspective, I suppose it is a matter of when God first intervened and injected a soul.
Dear Andrea,
I have thoroughly enjoyed your discourse with Tom Conover on his discoveries of LENR. What I was most impressed with was the discussion on the very controversial topic of evolution and your response to godless scientific assumptions.
I would like to introduce you and your readers to a book written by an ex-fundamentalist pastor Daniel Samson “God and Evolution? – The Implications of Darwin’s Theory for Fundamentalism, the Bible and the Meaning of Life”. He is among the first to challenge both sides of this polarized thinking. He left his pastor-ship to do an exhaustive 14-year scientific study with respect to God’s word.
As a personal friend of mine he asked me to review the original un-published version for comments. He reminds me of you Andrea in his tenacious thirst for discovery of truth in love.
What I concluded from this review is (commented in the Amazon.com):
“‘God and Evolution’ verses an impossible ‘God or Evolution’?”(By Amazon Customer on November 2, 2012):
“God creates through the process [or simulative process] of evolution? – Can He do that? As a fundamentalist Christian these first thoughts went through my mind reading this thought provoking title. The obvious answer is yes, “with all things are possible with God” (Mt 19:26). However, my Christian doctrinal teachings contradicted such paradigms. After carefully reading Samson’s book I began seeing less of an inconsistency between empirical scientific studies and God’s written word.
The Bible is mostly a spiritual book speaking of spiritual truths. However, God also reveals his creative powers and plans that generally could not be understood by the audience addressed at the time (i.e. Israel, previously Egyptian slaves, taught under a government of mythological religion) who were ignorant of today’s astrophysical, geophysical, and anthropological sciences. God through His messengers spoke in metaphorical language they could understand. As Samson has pointed out, science has grown in its hunt towards truth – the same truth often verified in scripture but often again ignored or spun by clergy to maintain their control or doctrinal purity. On-the-other hand science refuses to believe God’s creative power as truth because of its eternal implications it can’t explain but attempts to avoid its eternal repetitive question – “What caused it?”
Evolution is not directly stated in scriptures but does leave open interpretation the word “eons” or “ages” (interpreted by many as “days”) of time between the Genesis creation periods. From God’s point of view “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day” (2Pe 3:8). In other words time is irrelevant to God. John 8:58 states “Jesus said unto them, Verily, Verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am”. Because God is not bound by His own creation of space and time He inhabits eternity – not specifically to past, present or future but all is present to Him.
What God does reveal about evolution is what Dan Samson calls “God’s Second Bible” of fossilized records of a gradual progressive change in plant and animal design throughout earth’s time capsule. “For the invisible things of him FROM the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power” (Rom 1:20).
The real benefit I see from Samson’s studies is not the studies themselves but how it draws two polarizing opinions to a central theme of uncompromising truth of “God and Evolution” verses an impossible “God or Evolution”. This book should be available as a college-elective study.”
My challenge in studying this new perspective was to overcome biases instilled through decades of man-made doctrines throughout the centuries as it is to overcome those entrenched scientific doctrinal paradigms. For me it is much more difficult to ‘unlearn’ as it is to learn.
I hope you find time to research this book, but I do understand it is not on your high priority list, especially the victory over your tennis nemesis. 😉
Also, I want to congratulate you on your growing recognition by highly renowned scientific leaders. God is with you as men in past history (despite our failings) in pulling the world back from brink of destruction.
With much respect,
Brokeeper (or Rob)
Janne:
Yes, also the time-related factor is a good argument. In 1978 I read a book written by an author whose name was Beethoven ( but not a parent ) that examined thoroughly this issue. I agree also upon this point, but it gives room for counterchatters, like, for example, the possibility of exponential jumps after cumulative basic elements are achieved. The probabilistic factor makes very unlikely the general evolution, albeit not impossible: in mathematic and in physics nothing is impossible, everything is associated to a probability number, but the probability that a general evolution could work only on one living being out of tens of thousands in the same basic environment are very, very tiny.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Thank you for your fantastic insight about evolutionism. It is a comment from which we can also understand the thickness of your culture and the creative intelligence you take advantage of it. I have been stunned from your mathematical considerations regarding the absurdity of what you call the general evolutionism. I never heard before such considerations, but they make a strong point.
No doubt that LENR have found the right man, or, perhaps, the right man has found the LENR at the right time.
Godspeed,
Hal
You wrote: “the probability that among n forms of life on and in the Earth only one evolves to a culturally developed level are 1/n”. This does not follow, the probability may be much less, i.e., 1/googol. In such case, it is not at all infeasible that only one (or, indeed, none of the) species out of n species “make it” to an advanced stage in x time. Moreover, humans have only been what you would call culturally developed for some tens of thousands of years. Evolution takes time; you would not expect to see billions of years of basic evolution followed up by the conception of higher intelligence–a fundamentally fortuitous circumstance–only to suddenly have the same thing happen across many different species in orders of magnitude(!!) less time than it took for this to occur for the first time.
Janne:
I am not talking of the Universe: I am talking of the Earth. Again: the probability that among n forms of life on and in the Earth only one evolves to a culturally developed level are 1/n. The probability that (n-1) life forms do not evolve even a bit toward superior cultural forms make n become an exponential. This, obviously, if we accept the general concept of evolutionism.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
We know that you are already working in your US factory: is also the project of the Swedish factory still going on ?
Cheers,
Frederick
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Can you give us an idea of your work during an average day ?
Thank you if you can,
Regards,
Zero
Hank Mills:
Thank you for your insight.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Myron Norby:
In Physics nothing is impossible and nothing is certain. Any event is associated to a probability number.
I am spending my life in this task, therefore you can guess what you deem most probable.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
You answered to Anonymous that maybe you are working for nothing and that the domestic E-Cat will never go in the market: did you mean it ?
Dear Andrea,
If each Quark does not require a large space, then I think that one sheet of Quarks could produce hundreds of times more electricity than a solar panel of the same size during peak solar radiance.
A few facts (approximate numbers).
1 – The most efficient solar panel that is not used for concentrated solar collection is approximately 22% efficient. For fairness, let’s say by the end of this year that may increase to 25%.
2 – During peak hours of the day when there are no clouds the earth receives approximately 1000 watts per square meter.
3 – This would mean that a typical solar panel of one meter squared might produce 250 watts for a few hours a day, lesser output the rest of the day, and no output at night.
4 – Although I found a solar panel online that was 33mm thick (a little thicker than the Quark is long).
In absolute worst case, in which each Quark needed one hundred square millimeters of space, ten thousand Quarks could fit in a single meter sized slab. If each of these Quarks produced five watts of electricity (ignoring heat and light output), that would mean an output of 50,000 watts or 50 kilowatts.
50,000 watts divided by 250 watts (the peak output of a solar panel of one meter square) is 200.
So to equal the output of a single slab of Quarks, you would need at minimum 200 solar panels of the same area that magically could produce the same amount of power 24 hours a day and during any weather conditions.
Hence, the Quark — once the output is confirmed via rigorous testing by multiple third parties — could potentially be far superior by orders of magnitude to solar power.
And I think that one reason why some parties are attacking you so vigorously may be due to their defense of the renewable industry.
On a personal level I’m a Christian, and I do not believe in social Darwinism — that only the fittest should be allowed to survive and the disadvantaged (poor, weak, diseased, depressed) should be allowed to die without any consideration. However, technologically speaking, I lean heavily towards technological Darwinism. If the Quark technology turns out to be superior to photovoltaic technology, then the Quark should flourish and solar should be allowed to fade away.
PS: The above analysis (although it may be incorrect due to the fact I’m unsure how closely the Quark’s can be placed together) doesn’t even factor in the advantages of the Quark in terms of portability.
Abbey Endicott:
Yes, it is.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
The effect you get with the QuarkX is explicable with the Standard Model ?
Thanks,
Abbey
Hank Mills:
These are constructive particulars I am not going to talk about here, for obvious reasons, because they would generate a cascade of questions leading to confidential information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
I hope all of them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
For 2016 to be the year of the E-Cat, I think we would need:
1. E-Cat plants working in the real world (not under NDA)
2. Customers happy to openly report about successful operations and significant cost savings (again not under NDA).
3. Some video of your plants in operation.
Which of the above do you hope to achieve in 2016?
Thank you,
Frank Acland
Dear Andrea,
Let me please rephrase my question.
If you wanted to setup an array of of Quarks in a flat plane of one square meter, how much distance between the center axis of each Quark (right down the center of the reactor) would be required?
I understand that there would be wires coming from each end of the Quark so there would need to be additional circuitry, control boxes, and so fourth.
Thank you.
Hank
Teemu:
That’s what I am working for!
Warm Regards
A.R.
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Hank Mills:
No, because there are interspaces connected.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
1) What is the diameter of the entire setup that is required for one individual Quark X to produce electricity directly? As a hypothetical example, a 1mm diameter reactor tube with a 3mm diameter shield around it.
2) What number of Quark X’s producing electricity directly could hypothetically fit into a given area of space? For example, one square meter of flat surface?
3) For example, there are a million square millimeters in a meter. If a single quark and apparatus to produce electrical power required four square millimeters of space, that would mean 250,000 Quarks could fit into one meter. If more space was required between Quarks, we could claim eight square millimeters of space. That would mean 125,000 Quarks could fit in one square meter of flat space. If we were to be very conservative and claim that a Quark could produce 5% electricity (not 20%) or five watts each, that would mean a panel of Quarks could produce 625,000 watts or 625 kilowatts.
Do you think this analysis is plausible for an eventual product?
Do you think it is optimistic or conservative?
Sincerely,
Hank Mills
Dear Andrea
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/07/jul-19-2016-what-would-agatha-christie.html
about who too could help LENR and truth.
peter
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Please let 2016 be the Year of the E-Cat!
Sincerely,
Teemu
Valerie Banks:
Yes, we are working very hard and very well.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Rudolph:
I never made those analysis, those analysis have not been made or controlled by me and for me they simply do not exist.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Anonymous:
Maybe.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gerard McEk:
1- yes
2- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I do not know it this question has been asked before, but I hope you are willing to answer:
You spend a lot of time in the 1MW plant during the test. You were checking the ‘symphony of the bubbles’. Did you mainly do that to optimize and adjust the plant to achieve the best possible COP?
1. In other words, if you hadn’t been there every night, would the plant then have been less efficient, e.g. a lower COP?
2. If your answer is ‘yes’, do you think a more sophisticated control system could replace you and are you working on that?
Thanks for answering our questions.
Kind regards, Gerard
Dr Andrea Rossi:
After 5 years your domestic E-Cat is not yet in the market. I suspect it will never be.
Maybe you are working for nothing.
Thank you for spamming.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Do you have comments about the analysis of the fuel published on Ecat World ?
They seem to be very interesting, don’t they ?
Rudolph
Dear Andrea Rossi,
How is going your work with the QuarkX ?
Still ‘very promisind’ as you always said ?
Cheers,
Valerie
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Russell:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Today’s Ego Out dedicated to greatbattles in LENR:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/07/jul-18-2016-great-lenr-ists-fight-great.html
All the best, including winning the battles,
Peter
Luis Navarro:
Thank you for the link.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
A new and interesting article from http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/did-abd-ul-rahman-lomax-admit-being-an-ih-operative-with-a-mission-to-induce-fud/
Best
Luis
Dan Galburt:
We are working on all the three issues (1 and 2 are the same).
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
As you explained, IH received every three months a quarterly report from the ERV and all the reports had moreless the same results, from the first to the fourth.
You said that IH accepted deiighted the first, the second and the third reports, respectively after three, six and nine months after the start of the 1 year test of the 1 MW E-Cat and collected many millions from their investors thanks to such reports.
The question is: did IH pay the first, second and third report of the ERV ?
Thank you id you can answer,
Russell
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Your tests of the E-Cat show that it can operate for > 6 months without refueling at commercial power levels of up to 1 MW thermal with an energy gain > 30(thermal out Vs electrical in). One characteristic that has not been demonstrated is the ability to cycle the E-Cat on and off, or modulate the power level while maintaining a reasonable level of efficiency.
While your short term goal of developing a product for central heating applications may require only a limited ability to either fully modulate the power level or turn the system on and off, for most applications, the ability to either fully modulate the power level or cycle the system on and off perhaps up to 1000 times per year would be extremely useful. Without such capability, given variable heat loads associated with heat applications, a significant energy storage capability will be needed. Certainly, if the E-Cat X were used in place of an oil burner in a home heating system, the ability to cycle it on and off would be essential.
My questions are:
1. Have you demonstrated by testing that the E-Cat can be cycled on and off repeated while still maintaining a reasonable power gain?
2. Have you demonstrated by testing that the E-Cat X can be cycled on and off repeated while still maintaining a reasonable power gain?
3. Have you demonstrated by testing that the E-Cat power level can be fully modulated while still maintaining a reasonable power gain?
4. Have you demonstrated by testing that the E-Cat X power level can be fully modulated while still maintaining a reasonable power gain?
While I realize you may need to keep this type of performance data private, even yes/no answers to these questions will give your followers some idea of what has been achieved in this area.
Sincerely,
Dan Galburt
Q.G.:
Thank you, I just spoke my opinion against an issue that is too much given for certain, while certain is not.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hank Mills:
When the E-Cat will be massively in the market.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jose’:
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
I liked your comments about the evolutionism: there is shown the fertility of the mind that generated the Rossi Effect.
Cheers,
Jose’
Dear Andrea,
I must underline 2 facts, apart other considerations that I know you can’t answer to:
Fact #1 – The Rossi Effect has been replicated and produced high levels of excess heat.
Fact #2 – Although multiple parties across the globe have replicated the Rossi Effect, for every one highly successful replicate (Parkhomov, N.Stepanov, Songsheng Jiang, possibly Tom Conover, Me356, etc) there are many more replications that produce little to no excess heat.
When do you think everybody will be able to reproduce your effect, even if not particularly skilled in the art ?
Dear Andrea Rossi:
I like your position on the evolutionism. Genial.
Cheers,
Quincy
Brokeeper:
Thank you for your comment and the very interesting citation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Janne:
I appreciate your insight.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mattias Andersson,
Thank you for your insight and your kind wishes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
The human brain has indeed reached an advanced stage of evolution. It might be necessary with a more rigid definition of “culture” though, because indeed there are other animals that will cultivate their offspring (for instance you have this phenomenon among killer whales and dolphins, where the parents will educate their children in order to learn specific hunting techniques). This is something passed on through generations.
I think the very sophistication of human culture is due to our big brains. When energy is no longer in short supply, we will be able to dedicate our time to intellectual pursuits.
Yes, I believe the fact that we started to make fire and to cook our food was the onset of the evolution of the human brain. It’s nothing short of a miracle that this happened. It’s one of these “black swan” events that set our species on a very separate course from other species. What is the probability that this would happen simultaneously for two different species? I think it’s not very probable. Also we need to consider the fact that the evolution of the human species, from the first cooked meal, is a rather short period in terms of evolutionary time from the first amoeba.
Now we’re just waiting for the next stage of evolution, with “the new fire”. 😉
/Mattias
Dear Andrea,
I agree that evolution advances through the stochastic, fortuitous creations of cumulative basic toolsets upon which further progress is exponentially grown. For example, the Cambrian Explosion 540 million years ago during which most major animal phyla appeared. A few million years ago, our ape ancestors achieved another qualitative leap in their evolutionary toolset that put them ahead of other species which failed to evolve the same capability in the time given. Indeed, it spawned what seem to be many sentient species of hominids which eventually went extinct from either competitive exclusion or crossbred to create what we now call humans. From a Christian perspective, I suppose it is a matter of when God first intervened and injected a soul.
Best Regards,
Janne
Dear Andrea,
I have thoroughly enjoyed your discourse with Tom Conover on his discoveries of LENR. What I was most impressed with was the discussion on the very controversial topic of evolution and your response to godless scientific assumptions.
I would like to introduce you and your readers to a book written by an ex-fundamentalist pastor Daniel Samson “God and Evolution? – The Implications of Darwin’s Theory for Fundamentalism, the Bible and the Meaning of Life”. He is among the first to challenge both sides of this polarized thinking. He left his pastor-ship to do an exhaustive 14-year scientific study with respect to God’s word.
As a personal friend of mine he asked me to review the original un-published version for comments. He reminds me of you Andrea in his tenacious thirst for discovery of truth in love.
What I concluded from this review is (commented in the Amazon.com):
“‘God and Evolution’ verses an impossible ‘God or Evolution’?”(By Amazon Customer on November 2, 2012):
“God creates through the process [or simulative process] of evolution? – Can He do that? As a fundamentalist Christian these first thoughts went through my mind reading this thought provoking title. The obvious answer is yes, “with all things are possible with God” (Mt 19:26). However, my Christian doctrinal teachings contradicted such paradigms. After carefully reading Samson’s book I began seeing less of an inconsistency between empirical scientific studies and God’s written word.
The Bible is mostly a spiritual book speaking of spiritual truths. However, God also reveals his creative powers and plans that generally could not be understood by the audience addressed at the time (i.e. Israel, previously Egyptian slaves, taught under a government of mythological religion) who were ignorant of today’s astrophysical, geophysical, and anthropological sciences. God through His messengers spoke in metaphorical language they could understand. As Samson has pointed out, science has grown in its hunt towards truth – the same truth often verified in scripture but often again ignored or spun by clergy to maintain their control or doctrinal purity. On-the-other hand science refuses to believe God’s creative power as truth because of its eternal implications it can’t explain but attempts to avoid its eternal repetitive question – “What caused it?”
Evolution is not directly stated in scriptures but does leave open interpretation the word “eons” or “ages” (interpreted by many as “days”) of time between the Genesis creation periods. From God’s point of view “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day” (2Pe 3:8). In other words time is irrelevant to God. John 8:58 states “Jesus said unto them, Verily, Verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am”. Because God is not bound by His own creation of space and time He inhabits eternity – not specifically to past, present or future but all is present to Him.
What God does reveal about evolution is what Dan Samson calls “God’s Second Bible” of fossilized records of a gradual progressive change in plant and animal design throughout earth’s time capsule. “For the invisible things of him FROM the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power” (Rom 1:20).
The real benefit I see from Samson’s studies is not the studies themselves but how it draws two polarizing opinions to a central theme of uncompromising truth of “God and Evolution” verses an impossible “God or Evolution”. This book should be available as a college-elective study.”
My challenge in studying this new perspective was to overcome biases instilled through decades of man-made doctrines throughout the centuries as it is to overcome those entrenched scientific doctrinal paradigms. For me it is much more difficult to ‘unlearn’ as it is to learn.
I hope you find time to research this book, but I do understand it is not on your high priority list, especially the victory over your tennis nemesis. 😉
Also, I want to congratulate you on your growing recognition by highly renowned scientific leaders. God is with you as men in past history (despite our failings) in pulling the world back from brink of destruction.
With much respect,
Brokeeper (or Rob)
Janne:
Yes, also the time-related factor is a good argument. In 1978 I read a book written by an author whose name was Beethoven ( but not a parent ) that examined thoroughly this issue. I agree also upon this point, but it gives room for counterchatters, like, for example, the possibility of exponential jumps after cumulative basic elements are achieved. The probabilistic factor makes very unlikely the general evolution, albeit not impossible: in mathematic and in physics nothing is impossible, everything is associated to a probability number, but the probability that a general evolution could work only on one living being out of tens of thousands in the same basic environment are very, very tiny.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Thank you for your fantastic insight about evolutionism. It is a comment from which we can also understand the thickness of your culture and the creative intelligence you take advantage of it. I have been stunned from your mathematical considerations regarding the absurdity of what you call the general evolutionism. I never heard before such considerations, but they make a strong point.
No doubt that LENR have found the right man, or, perhaps, the right man has found the LENR at the right time.
Godspeed,
Hal
Dear Andrea,
You wrote: “the probability that among n forms of life on and in the Earth only one evolves to a culturally developed level are 1/n”. This does not follow, the probability may be much less, i.e., 1/googol. In such case, it is not at all infeasible that only one (or, indeed, none of the) species out of n species “make it” to an advanced stage in x time. Moreover, humans have only been what you would call culturally developed for some tens of thousands of years. Evolution takes time; you would not expect to see billions of years of basic evolution followed up by the conception of higher intelligence–a fundamentally fortuitous circumstance–only to suddenly have the same thing happen across many different species in orders of magnitude(!!) less time than it took for this to occur for the first time.
Janne:
I am not talking of the Universe: I am talking of the Earth. Again: the probability that among n forms of life on and in the Earth only one evolves to a culturally developed level are 1/n. The probability that (n-1) life forms do not evolve even a bit toward superior cultural forms make n become an exponential. This, obviously, if we accept the general concept of evolutionism.
Warm Regards,
A.R.