Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372131 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-16 02:38 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-01-22 15:57 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 02:38 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-15 23:54 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-16 05:10 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-16 06:27 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 07:46 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-16 06:27 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 16:06 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 09:22 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 13:08 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 12:36 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 13:01 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-16 20:08 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-16 20:11 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-16 22:09 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-16 22:08 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-16 21:17 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-16 21:21 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-16 18:39 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 13:04 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 12:19 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-17 01:37 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 10:09 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 12:38 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 20:47 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-12-16 09:58 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 13:06 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-16 20:26 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-20 11:27 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-16 20:18 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 00:45 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-17 07:27 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-16 10:08 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 13:40 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 01:04 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 10:43 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 20:16 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-16 23:17 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-17 03:42 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 01:23 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-17 21:54 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 20:00 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-18 05:49 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 04:43 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-18 20:26 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 22:36 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-19 05:51 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 00:55 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-20 08:05 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 02:26 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-20 12:04 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-20 16:37 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 01:57 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-22 05:48 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-19 12:00 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 09:11 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-17 22:04 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-17 21:07 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 15:35 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-18 05:17 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 07:45 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-18 20:29 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:52 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-18 21:23 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 14:50 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-20 12:54 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 01:51 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-22 05:12 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 21:39 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 15:00 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 15:05 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 16:27 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-18 10:58 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-18 18:02 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-18 13:17 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-18 22:01 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 18:14 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-19 11:13 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 09:59 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 22:24 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-19 11:51 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 13:36 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-19 17:54 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 02:20 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-20 10:51 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 02:17 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-21 12:07 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 13:53 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 23:39 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-19 06:52 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 01:43 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 00:23 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "szczepan bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> - 2015-12-19 09:48 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 13:33 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 13:32 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-19 21:06 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 01:47 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-20 10:36 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 02:55 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-21 11:50 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "szczepan bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> - 2015-12-21 18:08 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 12:17 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 13:22 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-21 20:02 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 21:26 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-22 21:56 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 23:46 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:19 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-23 06:46 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-23 14:52 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 10:02 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-23 17:11 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 11:32 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-23 18:00 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 12:26 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-23 19:03 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 13:47 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-23 22:04 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 16:29 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-23 22:53 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 14:10 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 13:49 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 22:03 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 11:00 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 21:17 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 12:39 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-23 23:46 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-24 15:15 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Don Kelly <dhky@shaw.ca> - 2015-12-24 18:24 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 22:18 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Don Kelly <dhky@shaw.ca> - 2015-12-25 15:54 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 03:58 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-26 11:35 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-25 10:50 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-25 11:46 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-25 20:28 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-25 03:09 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 04:00 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-25 11:01 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 14:39 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-22 18:17 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 23:10 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-22 15:57 -0800
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 13:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n5etrv$bhk$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372648 |
On 12/23/2015 1:10 PM, benj wrote: > On 12/23/2015 09:19 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/22/2015 10:46 PM, benj wrote: >>>> If measurements agree with other measurements then at least >>>> they are reproducible. >>> >>> And that means? People like to say that results that are not not >>> reproducible means the phenomena is a hoax. You must be one of those >>> guys who thinks lightning is all hoaxes by college kids! >> >> Ben, don't be an idiot. Reproducibility doesn't mean that humans have to >> be able to manufacture it. >> >> Reproducibility just means that if certain conditions prevail, then the >> outcome is predictable. This is true for lightning too. All you need to >> have is a set of circumstances, whether naturally occurring OR man-made, >> that will reliably produce the predicted result. >> >> The problem is that Uri Geller could never seem to muster the reliable >> circumstances where that result would be the necessary outcome. > > And the way you know the details of ALL the experiments he performed is? > Oh that's right! Lib superpowers again. Got it. Uri didn't conduct experiments. He had a magic show. He was a stage and television performer. Performers aren't scientists. I had assumed you know the difference. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 22:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3gJey.29621$LO3.29341@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #372650 |
On 12/23/2015 02:49 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/23/2015 1:10 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 12/23/2015 09:19 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2015 10:46 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>> If measurements agree with other measurements then at least
>>>>> they are reproducible.
>>>>
>>>> And that means? People like to say that results that are not not
>>>> reproducible means the phenomena is a hoax. You must be one of those
>>>> guys who thinks lightning is all hoaxes by college kids!
>>>
>>> Ben, don't be an idiot. Reproducibility doesn't mean that humans have to
>>> be able to manufacture it.
>>>
>>> Reproducibility just means that if certain conditions prevail, then the
>>> outcome is predictable. This is true for lightning too. All you need to
>>> have is a set of circumstances, whether naturally occurring OR man-made,
>>> that will reliably produce the predicted result.
>>>
>>> The problem is that Uri Geller could never seem to muster the reliable
>>> circumstances where that result would be the necessary outcome.
>>
>> And the way you know the details of ALL the experiments he performed is?
>> Oh that's right! Lib superpowers again. Got it.
>
> Uri didn't conduct experiments. He had a magic show. He was a stage and
> television performer. Performers aren't scientists. I had assumed you
> know the difference.
I assume you know that "The Amazing Randi" used by your ilk as "proof"
that all this is fake was... I grow too weary to even continue with your
stupidity. I already pointed you how ignorant you are. Uri has been
studied by a great many scientists (who you seem to think are all
incompetent) some of which worked for the government.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 11:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n5h8ap$hmr$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372668 |
On 12/23/2015 9:03 PM, benj wrote: > I assume you know that "The Amazing Randi" used by your ilk as "proof" > that all this is fake was... I grow too weary to even continue with your > stupidity. I already pointed you how ignorant you are. Uri has been > studied by a great many scientists (who you seem to think are all > incompetent) some of which worked for the government. Sure he was studied by some scientists. Note that Geller did not do well in controlled studies. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 21:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0H1fy.20778$Sn4.20671@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #372688 |
On 12/24/2015 12:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/23/2015 9:03 PM, benj wrote:
>> I assume you know that "The Amazing Randi" used by your ilk as "proof"
>> that all this is fake was... I grow too weary to even continue with your
>> stupidity. I already pointed you how ignorant you are. Uri has been
>> studied by a great many scientists (who you seem to think are all
>> incompetent) some of which worked for the government.
>
> Sure he was studied by some scientists.
> Note that Geller did not do well in controlled studies.
Not the information that I have.
Hey, Merry Christmas Odd Bodkin. (I'm hoping that for you that is an insult)
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 12:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n5mmt6$sge$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372723 |
On 12/24/2015 8:17 PM, benj wrote: > Hey, Merry Christmas Odd Bodkin. (I'm hoping that for you that is an > insult) Nice of you to have Christmas spirit while wishing that. Merry Christmas to you. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 23:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <5-2dnfWEgI4iG-bLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #372648 |
On 12/23/15 12/23/15 1:10 PM, benj wrote: > On 12/23/2015 09:19 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> The problem is that Uri Geller could never seem to muster the reliable >> circumstances where that result would be the necessary outcome. > > And the way you know the details of ALL the experiments he performed is? Oh > that's right! Lib superpowers again. Got it. You REALLY need to get a clue. Geller claimed to be able to bend spoons using only his mind. And he demonstrated spoon bending repeatedly in this shows. But he was never able to do it in the presence of other professional magicians who prevented him from using typical illusionist tricks to bend spoons mechanically. You see "superpowers" where everyone else sees simple, ordinary phenomena. How sad for you to be so limited that you cannot also understand ordinary stuff. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 15:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5h26r$2qn$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372672 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > You REALLY need to get a clue. Geller claimed to be able to bend spoons > using only his mind. And he demonstrated spoon bending repeatedly in > this shows. But he was never able to do it in the presence of other > professional magicians who prevented him from using typical illusionist > tricks to bend spoons mechanically. Is not the mind pushing the mechanics? I find it extraordinary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Kelly <dhky@shaw.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 18:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ZN1fy.51965$_r1.39086@fx24.iad> |
| In reply to | #372574 |
On 12/22/2015 8:46 PM, benj wrote: > > And that means? People like to say that results that are not not > reproducible means the phenomena is a hoax. You must be one of those > guys who thinks lightning is all hoaxes by college kids! > > Silly argument - you can do better--we can replicate lightning as a phenomena -but we cannot replicate the conditions involved in any given discharge because we don't know them . We can find statistical data with regard to polarity and strength and make use of this in providing lightning protection. We then do provide laboratory lightning discharges replicating strokes of different rise and fall times as well as intensity.-standard practice in testing HV and EHV equipment. Similarly we know the mechanism of making snowflakes but cannot predict the extremely local conditions that dictate the shape of individual snowflakes However we can, based on what we know, make snowflakes and do so. Anyhow, don't waste Christmas on checking those snowflakes as you'll change them in the process. -- Don Kelly remove the 'cross' to reply directly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 22:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <BA2fy.30239$Eo2.4822@fx19.iad> |
| In reply to | #372724 |
On 12/24/2015 09:24 PM, Don Kelly wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 8:46 PM, benj wrote:
>>
>> And that means? People like to say that results that are not not
>> reproducible means the phenomena is a hoax. You must be one of those
>> guys who thinks lightning is all hoaxes by college kids!
>>
>>
> Silly argument - you can do better--we can replicate lightning as a
> phenomena -but we cannot replicate the conditions involved in any given
> discharge because we don't know them . We can find statistical data with
> regard to polarity and strength and make use of this in providing
> lightning protection. We then do provide laboratory lightning discharges
> replicating strokes of different rise and fall times as well as
> intensity.-standard practice in testing HV and EHV equipment.
> Similarly we know the mechanism of making snowflakes but cannot predict
> the extremely local conditions that dictate the shape of individual
> snowflakes However we can, based on what we know, make snowflakes and do
> so.
>
> Anyhow, don't waste Christmas on checking those snowflakes as you'll
> change them in the process.
No. Replicated lightning is not made! Just a poor imitation man vainly
points too pretending it's the same as the natural. Man can't imitate
lightning and even worse if I tell you when to call so-called REAL
lightning down in my back yard nobody can do it! I've offered a million
bucks to anyone who can produce lightning in my back yard at my command
in front of scientists. (ahem, I am the final judge if they succeed or
not) and nobody has claimed the money! What does that tell you? It tells
me lightning is just myth and fabrications and so-called "lightning
damage" is just hoaxes by college frat boys!
So don't tell me that the problem in replicating lightning is you can't
produce the right "conditions". That is science. That is just excuses to
cover up fraud! Lightning needs to get an Ignoble prize for paper in the
journal of irreproducible results!
Sorry Lightning is all FAKE! Simple electrical parlor tricks to fool the
gullible! That is all there is too it! So real scientist believes in
nonsense like lightning!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Kelly <dhky@shaw.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 15:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <uHkfy.31296$xz4.15117@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #372725 |
On 12/24/2015 7:18 PM, benj wrote: > On 12/24/2015 09:24 PM, Don Kelly wrote: >> On 12/22/2015 8:46 PM, benj wrote: >>> >>> And that means? People like to say that results that are not not >>> reproducible means the phenomena is a hoax. You must be one of those >>> guys who thinks lightning is all hoaxes by college kids! >>> >>> >> Silly argument - you can do better--we can replicate lightning as a >> phenomena -but we cannot replicate the conditions involved in any given >> discharge because we don't know them . We can find statistical data with >> regard to polarity and strength and make use of this in providing >> lightning protection. We then do provide laboratory lightning discharges >> replicating strokes of different rise and fall times as well as >> intensity.-standard practice in testing HV and EHV equipment. >> Similarly we know the mechanism of making snowflakes but cannot predict >> the extremely local conditions that dictate the shape of individual >> snowflakes However we can, based on what we know, make snowflakes and do >> so. >> >> Anyhow, don't waste Christmas on checking those snowflakes as you'll >> change them in the process. > > No. Replicated lightning is not made! Just a poor imitation man vainly > points too pretending it's the same as the natural. Man can't imitate > lightning and even worse if I tell you when to call so-called REAL > lightning down in my back yard nobody can do it! I've offered a > million bucks to anyone who can produce lightning in my back yard at > my command in front of scientists. (ahem, I am the final judge if they > succeed or not) and nobody has claimed the money! What does that tell > you? It tells me lightning is just myth and fabrications and so-called > "lightning damage" is just hoaxes by college frat boys! > > So don't tell me that the problem in replicating lightning is you > can't produce the right "conditions". That is science. That is just > excuses to cover up fraud! Lightning needs to get an Ignoble prize for > paper in the journal of irreproducible results! > > Sorry Lightning is all FAKE! Simple electrical parlor tricks to fool > the gullible! That is all there is too it! So real scientist believes > in nonsense like lightning! > "Replication as a phenomena" -by whatever method we produce the required charge separation. I am not saying that we can produce a real lightning stroke even if we knew the conditions at each and every point in the vicinity of the path as we don't even know, ahead of time the path itself. We don't have to do so because the distance from your back yard to the last step in the leader is what is of importance (your house might just be a bit closer) .- and this is related, albeit empirically, to the stroke as a current source.-which is within our capability. Probabilities of stroke peak currents, , typical waveforms and polarities are well known. So -as far as your back yard is concerned, we can produce something that is the same thing. .However a cost /benefit study might make it a waste of time. and would not provide the spectacle of a real stroke for your more distant neighbors. I haven't been in a EHV test lab for about 30 years but you would not appreciate the effect of the imitation in your back yard and the difference between real and fake would be not of much concern. Snowflakes are easier. Enjoy the season Don -
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 03:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8Fsfy.23750$8u4.21064@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #372767 |
On 12/25/2015 06:54 PM, Don Kelly wrote:
> On 12/24/2015 7:18 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 12/24/2015 09:24 PM, Don Kelly wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2015 8:46 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And that means? People like to say that results that are not not
>>>> reproducible means the phenomena is a hoax. You must be one of those
>>>> guys who thinks lightning is all hoaxes by college kids!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Silly argument - you can do better--we can replicate lightning as a
>>> phenomena -but we cannot replicate the conditions involved in any given
>>> discharge because we don't know them . We can find statistical data with
>>> regard to polarity and strength and make use of this in providing
>>> lightning protection. We then do provide laboratory lightning discharges
>>> replicating strokes of different rise and fall times as well as
>>> intensity.-standard practice in testing HV and EHV equipment.
>>> Similarly we know the mechanism of making snowflakes but cannot predict
>>> the extremely local conditions that dictate the shape of individual
>>> snowflakes However we can, based on what we know, make snowflakes and do
>>> so.
>>>
>>> Anyhow, don't waste Christmas on checking those snowflakes as you'll
>>> change them in the process.
>>
>> No. Replicated lightning is not made! Just a poor imitation man vainly
>> points too pretending it's the same as the natural. Man can't imitate
>> lightning and even worse if I tell you when to call so-called REAL
>> lightning down in my back yard nobody can do it! I've offered a
>> million bucks to anyone who can produce lightning in my back yard at
>> my command in front of scientists. (ahem, I am the final judge if they
>> succeed or not) and nobody has claimed the money! What does that tell
>> you? It tells me lightning is just myth and fabrications and so-called
>> "lightning damage" is just hoaxes by college frat boys!
>>
>> So don't tell me that the problem in replicating lightning is you
>> can't produce the right "conditions". That is science. That is just
>> excuses to cover up fraud! Lightning needs to get an Ignoble prize for
>> paper in the journal of irreproducible results!
>>
>> Sorry Lightning is all FAKE! Simple electrical parlor tricks to fool
>> the gullible! That is all there is too it! So real scientist believes
>> in nonsense like lightning!
>>
> "Replication as a phenomena" -by whatever method we produce the required
> charge separation. I am not saying that we can produce a real lightning
> stroke even if we knew the conditions at each and every point in the
> vicinity of the path as we don't even know, ahead of time the path itself.
> We don't have to do so because the distance from your back yard to the
> last step in the leader is what is of importance (your house might just
> be a bit closer) .- and this is related, albeit empirically, to the
> stroke as a current source.-which is within our capability.
> Probabilities of stroke peak currents, , typical waveforms and
> polarities are well known.
> So -as far as your back yard is concerned, we can produce something that
> is the same thing. .However a cost /benefit study might make it a waste
> of time. and would not provide the spectacle of a real stroke for your
> more distant neighbors.
>
> I haven't been in a EHV test lab for about 30 years but you would not
> appreciate the effect of the imitation in your back yard and the
> difference between real and fake would be not of much concern.
>
> Snowflakes are easier.
>
> Enjoy the season
> Don
Thanks, Don and best wishes to you and all the denizens here.
I am familiar with man made lightning. For a time I used to have an
office next door to the EHV lab. Impressive, yes, but not "real"
lightning. I keep trying to make a philosophical point here about
"forbidden subjects" but you are ignoring my efforts.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 11:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <567e6d5d$0$23785$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #372779 |
On 12/26/2015 9:58 AM, benj wrote: > On 12/25/2015 06:54 PM, Don Kelly wrote: >> On 12/24/2015 7:18 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 12/24/2015 09:24 PM, Don Kelly wrote: >>>> On 12/22/2015 8:46 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> ... > ... I keep trying to make a philosophical point here about > "forbidden subjects" but you are ignoring my efforts. Don is only trying to help proving your point in this way! For the rest you only have the usual benj deniers.. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 10:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <567d115e$0$23816$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #372724 |
On 12/25/2015 3:24 AM, Don Kelly wrote: > On 12/22/2015 8:46 PM, benj wrote: >> >> And that means? People like to say that results that are not not >> reproducible means the phenomena is a hoax. You must be one of those >> guys who thinks lightning is all hoaxes by college kids! > > Silly argument - you can do better- Of course he can, but benj takes pride in his specialty! > -we can replicate lightning as a phenomena - Since nuclear fusion already came up: even simpler than building your own fusor might be to simply wait for a good thunderstorm. <https://www.cwi.nl/news/2014/creation-of-antimatter-lightning-simulated-first-time> I'm not sure whether the laboratory version will work just as well (in this respect). After all, the voltages used might be somewhat lower than in nature. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 11:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <D9KdneETuceOHODLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #372735 |
On 12/25/15 12/25/15 3:50 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: > Since nuclear fusion already came up: even simpler than > building your own fusor might be to simply wait for a > good thunderstorm. > <https://www.cwi.nl/news/2014/creation-of-antimatter-lightning-simulated-first-time> This just shows that you know a little bit about the subject, but not enough to understand it. Yes, lightning can create "antimatter" in the form of positrons. That is VERY VERY far from any sort of nuclear fusion. > I'm not sure whether the laboratory version will work > just as well (in this respect). After all, the voltages > used might be somewhat lower than in nature. We accelerate electrons and protons to ENORMOUSLY higher energies than lightning can possibly do. But there are poorly-understood astrophysical processes that get to much higher energies than we humans do. You really ought to learn something about the subject before attempting to write about it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 20:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <567d98fe$0$23796$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #372753 |
On 12/25/2015 6:46 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/25/15 12/25/15 3:50 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> Since nuclear fusion already came up: even simpler than >> building your own fusor might be to simply wait for a >> good thunderstorm. >> <https://www.cwi.nl/news/2014/creation-of-antimatter-lightning-simulated-first-time> > > This just shows that you know a little bit about the subject, You are flattering me, but it wasn't me who wrote this, Tom. Although I do live in the Netherlands, so I can understand your confusion. It was Christoph Köhn who showed to understand a little bit about it (that's why he got his PhD.) > Yes, lightning can create "antimatter" in the > form of positrons. That is VERY VERY far from any sort of nuclear fusion. The claim in the dissertation is that also protons and neutrons are created, which means that by definition nuclear processes occur. Not necessarily much fusion, but the energy range for it is available (NB in a fusor, particularly the home-made variety, there isn't much fusion either. Hence the comparison applies.) .. >> I'm not sure whether the laboratory version will work >> just as well (in this respect). After all, the voltages >> used might be somewhat lower than in nature. > > We accelerate electrons and protons to ENORMOUSLY higher energies than > lightning can possibly do. Yes, but it is the laboratory version of the lightning that I meant (e.g. at Eindhoven University, where Christoph got his PhD, they create lightning bolts of about 1 meter length: <https://www.tue.nl/en/university/departments/electrical-engineering/research/research-groups/electrical-energy-systems-ees/organisation/facilities/high-voltage-laboratory/> ). > But there are poorly-understood astrophysical > processes that get to much higher energies than we humans do. > > You really ought to learn something about the subject before attempting > to write about it. You haven't shown one single factual error in what I wrote. (Admittedly it was only a short post which mainly referred to the link describing the dissertation, but still you could have tried harder, I think!) -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 03:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <de3mrgF2tgbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372494 |
Am 21.12.2015 19:22, schrieb benj:
> On 12/21/2015 05:50 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> On 12/21/2015 8:55 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2015 04:36 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2015 7:47 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 12/19/2015 03:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 7:32 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 19.12.2015 05:39, schrieb benj:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> ..
>> ... [ fusor ]
>>> the REAL question is what does it take to actually
>>> make it work? Did it actually work?
>>
>> Why is that a question? It produces neutrons and
>> is even used for that purpose commercially (IIRC).
>>
>>> .. If so, why are people fooling around
>>> with gigantic stellarators and tokamaks?
>
> Obviously you seem to know more about further research and development
> of the Farsnworth fusor than I do. Apparently you say it does work even
> though it does not appear to be a device capable of what would be called
> "fusing energies" such as high plasma temperatures. That seems an
> interesting fact in itself!
>
>> To generate energy. The fusor consumes more than
>> you get out. (People actually fooled around with
>> fusors for quite a while before they were sure).
>>
>> ..
>>>>> "why are not chickens atomic bombs?"
>>>>
>>>> Not enough fissile material in them for a chain reaction.
>>>> (Of course if you use the right chicken food you might be
>>>> able to change this.)
>>>
>>> Not enough information Jos. Calculate the (theoretical) amount of energy
>>> involved in the transmutation between calcium and potassium
>>
>> It's the reaction rate you need to calculate! Or
>> else there would be dozens of other transmutations
>> that could give you lots of energy. The only one
>> inside the chicken that works is the Potassium-40
>> decay (and even that one with 10^9 years half-life).
>
> Well, you've got the official story down, Jos, but assertion is that
> Chickens can transmute between potassium and calcium at biological
> temperatures. Hence traditional physics isn't relevant. ...except if one
> uses it it to "know" that low energy transmutations are "impossible" and
> thus have an excuse not to examine any of it.
>
>> ...
>>>> There was also a theory that diamonds could be formed
>>>> under high pressures from a press. The results of
>>>> experiments proved it to be correct. That's what
>>>> experiments do, they give results!
>>>
>>> And there is a theory that high pressure can create geological
>>> transmutations. Experiment seemed to show it true.
>>
>> That's of no use. Experiments must *prove* it to be
>> true. (Like cold-fusion experiments that "seemed" to
>> show nuclear fusion, but were incorrect).
>
> Obviously your argument is that since "cold fusion" has been shown to be
> false (It actually hasn't) thus, geological transmutation is also false.
> Hence there is no need to do anything but reject all such ideas a
> priori. Data? Experiments? We doan need no steenkin' experiments. We
> KNOW what is true! Note that time on ultra-high pressure presses is hard
> to come by.
I personally think, that 'Growing Earth' is in fact true. Actually I
spent years on this subject and can produce as much arguments about it
as you like.
In the course of researching GE I found it surprising, that certain
heavy materials are found high in mountains.
This is illogic in a 'plate tectonics scenario', which is based on a
initial creation of the planets from a hot, lava-like, molten ball.
In such a scenario the heavy elements would sink into deeper regions and
would not stay on top of mountains.
But if physicists are wrong about the nature of the atom and falsely
believe, that one atom does not change the element it belongs to, than
elements could actually 'transmute'.
This would be a process similar to ageing and the oldest elements are
found, where the oldest surface is.
And - as a matter of fact - the places, where heavy elements are found,
would fit to such a concept (assumed that Growing Earth is true).
And this would bring conventional physics into deep trouble, since quite
a few assumptions ('laws') are completely incompatible to Growing Earth.
Mainly incompatible is the so called 'Standard model' of QM, since it
is based on particles and those are assumed to be created in a hot big-bang.
But If Earth would in fact grow from within, this assumption cannot be
kept, since the interior of Earth does not explode.
So also a chicken could eventually transmute potassium without high
voltage or the creation of a plasma vortex.
And this would bring physics into even deeper trouble, since this would
violate certain assumption about the nature of matter, which are
universally accepted.
But I would think, that chickens are (in this case) smarter than
physicists, since they can actually do the trick, even if physicists do
not understand it.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 04:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <WA7fy.23441$uJ5.13759@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #372722 |
On 12/24/2015 09:09 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.12.2015 19:22, schrieb benj:
>> On 12/21/2015 05:50 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>> On 12/21/2015 8:55 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2015 04:36 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>> On 12/20/2015 7:47 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 03:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 7:32 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am 19.12.2015 05:39, schrieb benj:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> ..
>>> ... [ fusor ]
>>>> the REAL question is what does it take to actually
>>>> make it work? Did it actually work?
>>>
>>> Why is that a question? It produces neutrons and
>>> is even used for that purpose commercially (IIRC).
>>>
>>>> .. If so, why are people fooling around
>>>> with gigantic stellarators and tokamaks?
>>
>> Obviously you seem to know more about further research and development
>> of the Farsnworth fusor than I do. Apparently you say it does work even
>> though it does not appear to be a device capable of what would be called
>> "fusing energies" such as high plasma temperatures. That seems an
>> interesting fact in itself!
>>
>>> To generate energy. The fusor consumes more than
>>> you get out. (People actually fooled around with
>>> fusors for quite a while before they were sure).
>>>
>>> ..
>>>>>> "why are not chickens atomic bombs?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Not enough fissile material in them for a chain reaction.
>>>>> (Of course if you use the right chicken food you might be
>>>>> able to change this.)
>>>>
>>>> Not enough information Jos. Calculate the (theoretical) amount of
>>>> energy
>>>> involved in the transmutation between calcium and potassium
>>>
>>> It's the reaction rate you need to calculate! Or
>>> else there would be dozens of other transmutations
>>> that could give you lots of energy. The only one
>>> inside the chicken that works is the Potassium-40
>>> decay (and even that one with 10^9 years half-life).
>>
>> Well, you've got the official story down, Jos, but assertion is that
>> Chickens can transmute between potassium and calcium at biological
>> temperatures. Hence traditional physics isn't relevant. ...except if one
>> uses it it to "know" that low energy transmutations are "impossible" and
>> thus have an excuse not to examine any of it.
>>
>>> ...
>>>>> There was also a theory that diamonds could be formed
>>>>> under high pressures from a press. The results of
>>>>> experiments proved it to be correct. That's what
>>>>> experiments do, they give results!
>>>>
>>>> And there is a theory that high pressure can create geological
>>>> transmutations. Experiment seemed to show it true.
>>>
>>> That's of no use. Experiments must *prove* it to be
>>> true. (Like cold-fusion experiments that "seemed" to
>>> show nuclear fusion, but were incorrect).
>>
>> Obviously your argument is that since "cold fusion" has been shown to be
>> false (It actually hasn't) thus, geological transmutation is also false.
>> Hence there is no need to do anything but reject all such ideas a
>> priori. Data? Experiments? We doan need no steenkin' experiments. We
>> KNOW what is true! Note that time on ultra-high pressure presses is hard
>> to come by.
>
> I personally think, that 'Growing Earth' is in fact true. Actually I
> spent years on this subject and can produce as much arguments about it
> as you like.
>
> In the course of researching GE I found it surprising, that certain
> heavy materials are found high in mountains.
>
> This is illogic in a 'plate tectonics scenario', which is based on a
> initial creation of the planets from a hot, lava-like, molten ball.
>
> In such a scenario the heavy elements would sink into deeper regions and
> would not stay on top of mountains.
>
> But if physicists are wrong about the nature of the atom and falsely
> believe, that one atom does not change the element it belongs to, than
> elements could actually 'transmute'.
>
> This would be a process similar to ageing and the oldest elements are
> found, where the oldest surface is.
>
> And - as a matter of fact - the places, where heavy elements are found,
> would fit to such a concept (assumed that Growing Earth is true).
>
> And this would bring conventional physics into deep trouble, since quite
> a few assumptions ('laws') are completely incompatible to Growing Earth.
>
> Mainly incompatible is the so called 'Standard model' of QM, since it
> is based on particles and those are assumed to be created in a hot
> big-bang.
>
> But If Earth would in fact grow from within, this assumption cannot be
> kept, since the interior of Earth does not explode.
>
>
> So also a chicken could eventually transmute potassium without high
> voltage or the creation of a plasma vortex.
>
> And this would bring physics into even deeper trouble, since this would
> violate certain assumption about the nature of matter, which are
> universally accepted.
>
> But I would think, that chickens are (in this case) smarter than
> physicists, since they can actually do the trick, even if physicists do
> not understand it.
While there is little use going over the arguments of Kervran as to how
the elements in the Earth's crust are distributed and seem to violate
all reason (such as transport through metamorphic caps etc.) as well as
elements theorized to be created by sea creatures it's clear that the
earth is not some static ball as theorized by mechanical physics but is
indeed changing geology due to growing life and other ignored processes.
Quite the breakthrough thinking and discoveries in my opinion.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 11:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <567d13f8$0$23853$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #372734 |
On 12/25/2015 10:00 AM, benj wrote: > On 12/24/2015 09:09 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 21.12.2015 19:22, schrieb benj: >>> On 12/21/2015 05:50 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>> On 12/21/2015 8:55 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 12/20/2015 04:36 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>>> On 12/20/2015 7:47 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 03:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 7:32 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am 19.12.2015 05:39, schrieb benj: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> .. >>>> ... [ fusor ] .. . > ..it's clear that the > earth is not some static ball as theorized by mechanical physics but is > indeed changing geology due to growing life and other ignored processes. > > Quite the breakthrough thinking and discoveries in my opinion. No, as you write "it's clear", so there never has been any problem acknowledging this in the first place. What could count as a "breakthrough" are things like the "giant-impact" formation of the moon. Things that are not completely obvious, I mean. (And violating a "static ball" picture, of course). -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 14:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bYgfy.13185$L45.7679@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #372736 |
On 12/25/2015 05:01 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 12/25/2015 10:00 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 12/24/2015 09:09 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 21.12.2015 19:22, schrieb benj:
>>>> On 12/21/2015 05:50 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>> On 12/21/2015 8:55 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/20/2015 04:36 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/20/2015 7:47 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 03:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 7:32 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 19.12.2015 05:39, schrieb benj:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>> ... [ fusor ]
> ..
> .
>> ..it's clear that the
>> earth is not some static ball as theorized by mechanical physics but is
>> indeed changing geology due to growing life and other ignored processes.
>>
>> Quite the breakthrough thinking and discoveries in my opinion.
>
> No, as you write "it's clear", so there never has been any
> problem acknowledging this in the first place. What could
> count as a "breakthrough" are things like the "giant-impact"
> formation of the moon. Things that are not completely obvious,
> I mean. (And violating a "static ball" picture, of course).
Yeah, though the theory of uniformity is happily dead and none who
argued so strongly for it now admit it was ever believed. However, the
creation of geology by transmutations is closer to the theory than Tesla
moon-impact theories.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 18:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dgfsulF9ughU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372760 |
After further consideration... *Significant* Future Advances in Physics cannot appear until the nonsence of QM is scrapped, and replaced with a physically consistent theory that "works" from the smallest component of the Nucleus to the Universe. Watch this space for a challenge... All the best, Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web