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 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 12:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n59foe$8j1$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372492 |
On 12/21/2015 11:08 AM, szczepan bialek wrote: > "Jos Bergervoet" <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci > news:5677d97f$0$23863$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl... >>>> >> >> 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). > > The U 235 hasthe simmilar half-life. > But in A-bomb and in nuclear stations it is a little shorter. > Is not it? > S* > Isn't potassium-40 a beta-decayer? U235 is via by fission. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 13:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KrXdy.17889$h27.13304@fx23.iad> |
| In reply to | #372484 |
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.
> ..
>>>> Why you think these are "my" rules, I have no idea.
>>>
>>> It is you who claims there is a forbidden part of the
>>> list! Others may also have such a list but it probably
>>> differs from yours. I vaguely remember.. ah, here is one:
>>>
>>> http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html
>>
>> Where have I heard this argument before?
>
> What is the argument? You mean that lists of lost
> causes will turn out to contain errors? Who is
> denying that?
The implied argument that I clearly stated and you have pointedly ignored.
> ..
>>>> Nobody plays by "my" rules.
>>>
>>> Not even the heroes on your list? No, I guess they have
>>> no rules.. That's the problem with crackpot science,
>>> it has no internal consistency.
>>
>> And why do you feel they are "my" heroes and why is it "my" list even
>> though I have already said that it is not
>
> I don't always believe what others say!
Good policy! Even better if you "know" what is true ahead of time so you
don't have to bother looking at anything which does not fit your world
view.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 20:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <56784cd8$0$23753$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #372494 |
On 12/21/2015 7:22 PM, benj wrote: > 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! Scanning a few links, I see voltages of about 150kV are claimed. And 150keV is equivalent to about 1.8GK (giga-Kelvin) just like 25 milli-eV is room temperature. So I think the energy used in the fusor *is* comparable to that in the tokamaks, or inside stars. .. >> 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. Assertions are irrelevant. > Hence traditional physics isn't relevant. ...except if one > uses it it to "know" that low energy transmutations are "impossible" Also if one uses it to "do" a correct measurement to find out what is true. > and > thus have an excuse not to examine any of it. No-one will "have to" examine it, it is up to those who make the (exceptional) claim to come up with the (exceptional) proof. Others have no obligation at all to invest time in crackpot ideas. > Obviously your argument is that since "cold fusion" has been shown to be > false (It actually hasn't) thus, geological transmutation is also false. Not exactly, it was: "just like the interpretation of the cold-fusion experiments was wrong, the interpretation of the geological transmutation can be wrong." Perhaps practically that is the same.. > .. We KNOW what is true! There are indeed things that are already known. > Note that time on ultra-high pressure presses is hard > to come by. If the pressure is high enough the transmutation will definitely work (you get neutronium as an intermediate product, which subsequently can transmute into almost everything). A press for that range of pressures will indeed be hard to come by. (The nearest may be at a few 100 ly, some very old ones may exist closer to home.) ... >> I don't always believe what others say! > > Good policy! Yes I know we agree on that one! -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 21:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <yx2ey.50056$9A4.30445@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #372497 |
On 12/21/2015 02:02 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 7:22 PM, benj wrote:
>> 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!
>
> Scanning a few links, I see voltages of about 150kV
> are claimed. And 150keV is equivalent to about 1.8GK
> (giga-Kelvin) just like 25 milli-eV is room temperature.
> So I think the energy used in the fusor *is* comparable
> to that in the tokamaks, or inside stars.
>
> ..
>>> 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.
>
> Assertions are irrelevant.
Unless they agree with your opinions, natch.
>> Hence traditional physics isn't relevant. ...except if one
>> uses it it to "know" that low energy transmutations are "impossible"
>
> Also if one uses it to "do" a correct measurement to
> find out what is true.
"Correct measurements" I presume are the ones that agree with what you
"know" the outcome will be before even performing them.
>> and
>> thus have an excuse not to examine any of it.
>
> No-one will "have to" examine it, it is up to those
> who make the (exceptional) claim to come up with the
> (exceptional) proof. Others have no obligation at all
> to invest time in crackpot ideas.
Thank you. Just as I said. When you "know" ideas to be crackpot, there
is no reason to bother to read any of the work or examine any of the
explantions. "Crackpot" says it all! Why would a person have to actually
read someones ideas to know they are crackpot? One doesn't. It's far
better to have an opinion bases on your OWN facts rather that what some
nutjob is claiming he measured.
>> Obviously your argument is that since "cold fusion" has been shown to be
>> false (It actually hasn't) thus, geological transmutation is also false.
>
> Not exactly, it was: "just like the interpretation of
> the cold-fusion experiments was wrong, the interpretation
> of the geological transmutation can be wrong." Perhaps
> practically that is the same..
>
>> .. We KNOW what is true!
>
> There are indeed things that are already known.
>
>> Note that time on ultra-high pressure presses is hard
>> to come by.
>
> If the pressure is high enough the transmutation will
> definitely work (you get neutronium as an intermediate
> product, which subsequently can transmute into almost
> everything). A press for that range of pressures will
> indeed be hard to come by. (The nearest may be at a few
> 100 ly, some very old ones may exist closer to home.)
>
> ...
>>> I don't always believe what others say!
>>
>> Good policy!
>
> Yes I know we agree on that one!
>
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 21:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5679b915$0$23802$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #372517 |
On 12/22/2015 3:26 AM, benj wrote: > On 12/21/2015 02:02 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 12/21/2015 7:22 PM, benj wrote: >>> 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: >>>>>>>> ... ... >>> ... assertion is that >>> Chickens can transmute between potassium and calcium at biological >>> temperatures. >> >> Assertions are irrelevant. > > Unless they agree with your opinions, Opinions are irrelevant. ... >>> Hence traditional physics isn't relevant. ...except if one >>> uses it it to "know" that low energy transmutations are "impossible" >> >> Also if one uses it to "do" a correct measurement to >> find out what is true. > > "Correct measurements" I presume are the ones that agree If measurements agree with other measurements then at least they are reproducible. > ... with what you > "know" the outcome will be before even performing them. That is the case if a large number of other measurements has already been done and a knowledge base exists. .. >>> and thus have an excuse not to examine any of it. >> >> No-one will "have to" examine it, it is up to those >> who make the (exceptional) claim to come up with the >> (exceptional) proof. Others have no obligation at all >> to invest time in crackpot ideas. > > Thank you. Just as I said. I'm glad we agree now on everything! ... >> ... >>>> I don't always believe what others say! >>> >>> Good policy! >> >> Yes I know we agree on that one! -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 23:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <eGpey.38442$cu5.30516@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #372559 |
On 12/22/2015 03:56 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 3:26 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 12/21/2015 02:02 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>> On 12/21/2015 7:22 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>> ...
> ...
>>>> ... assertion is that
>>>> Chickens can transmute between potassium and calcium at biological
>>>> temperatures.
>>>
>>> Assertions are irrelevant.
>>
>> Unless they agree with your opinions,
>
> Opinions are irrelevant.
Except yours, natch.
> ...
>>>> Hence traditional physics isn't relevant. ...except if one
>>>> uses it it to "know" that low energy transmutations are "impossible"
>>>
>>> Also if one uses it to "do" a correct measurement to
>>> find out what is true.
>>
>> "Correct measurements" I presume are the ones that agree
>
> 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!
>> ... with what you
>> "know" the outcome will be before even performing them.
>
> That is the case if a large number of other measurements has
> already been done and a knowledge base exists.
No. Just likely to be the case.
> ..
>>>> and thus have an excuse not to examine any of it.
>>>
>>> No-one will "have to" examine it, it is up to those
>>> who make the (exceptional) claim to come up with the
>>> (exceptional) proof. Others have no obligation at all
>>> to invest time in crackpot ideas.
>>
>> Thank you. Just as I said.
>
> I'm glad we agree now on everything!
>
> ...
>>> ...
>>>>> I don't always believe what others say!
>>>>
>>>> Good policy!
>>>
>>> Yes I know we agree on that one!
>
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 08:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n5eahf$p3s$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372574 |
On 12/22/2015 10:46 PM, benj wrote: >> If measurements agree with other measurements then at least >> they are reproducible. > > And that means? People like to say that results that are not not > reproducible means the phenomena is a hoax. You must be one of those > guys who thinks lightning is all hoaxes by college kids! Ben, don't be an idiot. Reproducibility doesn't mean that humans have to be able to manufacture it. Reproducibility just means that if certain conditions prevail, then the outcome is predictable. This is true for lightning too. All you need to have is a set of circumstances, whether naturally occurring OR man-made, that will reliably produce the predicted result. The problem is that Uri Geller could never seem to muster the reliable circumstances where that result would be the necessary outcome. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 06:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b7a9603e-1af3-45c9-9d64-3dc2bef0e719@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372621 |
On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 7:19:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > The problem is that Uri Geller could never seem to muster the reliable > circumstances where that result would be the necessary outcome. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables The professional magician, James Randi, observed Geller distracting his audience while trying to bend the spoon on a table. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 14:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5ecff$teu$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372624 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 7:19:31 AM UTC-7, 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. > > The professional magician, James Randi, observed Geller distracting his > audience while trying to bend the spoon on a table. This is correct, but not a proof that Geller couldn't do some other things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 10:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n5eghv$9lc$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372625 |
On 12/23/2015 8:52 AM, Waye Kitchens wrote: > Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 7:19:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>> The problem is that Uri Geller could never seem to muster the reliable >>> circumstances where that result would be the necessary outcome. >> >> The professional magician, James Randi, observed Geller distracting his >> audience while trying to bend the spoon on a table. > > This is correct, but not a proof that Geller couldn't do some other things. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_About_Uri_Geller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNKmhv9uoiQ This isn't about proof, it's about likelihood. If one finds that the claimed phenomenon can't be reproduced under controlled circumstances, then the claim is suspect. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 17:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5ekkt$k7j$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372627 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > This isn't about proof, it's about likelihood. If one finds that the > claimed phenomenon can't be reproduced under controlled circumstances, > then the claim is suspect. There's not that much about controlled circumstances. Some things are only possible to be performed once. Apparently he did that, several times. (different unrelated things). Something Quantum Mechanic-ish, very low probability and nevertheless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 11:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n5elr2$nhh$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372633 |
On 12/23/2015 11:11 AM, Waye Kitchens wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> This isn't about proof, it's about likelihood. If one finds that the >> claimed phenomenon can't be reproduced under controlled circumstances, >> then the claim is suspect. > > There's not that much about controlled circumstances. Some things are only > possible to be performed once. Apparently he did that, several times. > (different unrelated things). Something Quantum Mechanic-ish, very low > probability and nevertheless. > I'm sorry, but I just find the one-off performance thing not very convincing. If something strange happens, and a guy says, "Yeah, I just did that," I'm going to say, "OK, do it again." And if he says, "Sorry, I don't think I can," then my mind will be made up. Another scenario is he says, "I'm going to make something happen," and then it happens. I'll be more impressed, but I'll still say, "Do it again." And if he tries and can't, even with some patience for "recovery time", then I'm going to suspect that what happened had nothing to do with an ability on his part. I don't think that's an irrational stance to take. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 18:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5enfd$rre$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372635 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: >> There's not that much about controlled circumstances. Some things are >> only possible to be performed once. Apparently he did that, several >> times. (different unrelated things). Something Quantum Mechanic-ish, >> very low probability and nevertheless. > > I'm sorry, but I just find the one-off performance thing not very > convincing. If something strange happens, and a guy says, "Yeah, I just > did that," I'm going to say, "OK, do it again." And if he says, "Sorry, > I don't think I can," then my mind will be made up. > > Another scenario is he says, "I'm going to make something happen," and > then it happens. I'll be more impressed, but I'll still say, "Do it > again." And if he tries and can't, even with some patience for "recovery > time", then I'm going to suspect that what happened had nothing to do > with an ability on his part. I don't think that's an irrational stance > to take. I understand you perfectly. You might wish to give it a second thought. If one comes op saying tomorrow will win the lottery, exactly 10 millions or so, I will definitely not ask him to do it again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 12:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n5ep0i$ulv$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372637 |
On 12/23/2015 12:00 PM, Waye Kitchens wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> There's not that much about controlled circumstances. Some things are >>> only possible to be performed once. Apparently he did that, several >>> times. (different unrelated things). Something Quantum Mechanic-ish, >>> very low probability and nevertheless. >> >> I'm sorry, but I just find the one-off performance thing not very >> convincing. If something strange happens, and a guy says, "Yeah, I just >> did that," I'm going to say, "OK, do it again." And if he says, "Sorry, >> I don't think I can," then my mind will be made up. >> >> Another scenario is he says, "I'm going to make something happen," and >> then it happens. I'll be more impressed, but I'll still say, "Do it >> again." And if he tries and can't, even with some patience for "recovery >> time", then I'm going to suspect that what happened had nothing to do >> with an ability on his part. I don't think that's an irrational stance >> to take. > > I understand you perfectly. You might wish to give it a second thought. If > one comes op saying tomorrow will win the lottery, exactly 10 millions or > so, I will definitely not ask him to do it again. > That depends on the ability claimed. If he claimed he can affect the lottery so that he will win it, then I definitely will ask him to do it again. If he claimed that he had this knowledge by reading the future, then right after he won the lottery I would ask him what was going to happen to him tomorrow that he could not influence. You see? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 19:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5er5d$4gi$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372643 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > That depends on the ability claimed. If he claimed he can affect the > lottery so that he will win it, then I definitely will ask him to do it > again. If he claimed that he had this knowledge by reading the future, > then right after he won the lottery I would ask him what was going to > happen to him tomorrow that he could not influence. You see? You may ask him all you want, Oddy. It will not change anything. And the mechanism used, channels or the procedure, in case that he had one, is totally irrelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 13:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n5etor$bhk$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372647 |
On 12/23/2015 1:03 PM, Waye Kitchens wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> That depends on the ability claimed. If he claimed he can affect the >> lottery so that he will win it, then I definitely will ask him to do it >> again. If he claimed that he had this knowledge by reading the future, >> then right after he won the lottery I would ask him what was going to >> happen to him tomorrow that he could not influence. You see? > > You may ask him all you want, Oddy. It will not change anything. And the > mechanism used, channels or the procedure, in case that he had one, is > totally irrelevant. > Well, it's completely relevant to me. What was Geller was not the event but the ability. The ability is what needs to be verified. That is done by his explanation of what it is he's doing, and then testing that explanation. This seems to be a .... how shall I say it? ... scientific approach. Now, I get that some people go see magician's shows, and they get very entertained when the magician does something surprising and then meticulously rules out the explanations you might have had in your head. But then to say, "Well, I guess he did it by magic!" seems to be just buying into the hokum. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 22:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5f5oi$vki$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372649 |
Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> You may ask him all you want, Oddy. It will not change anything. And
>> the mechanism used, channels or the procedure, in case that he had one,
>> is totally irrelevant.
>>
>>
> Well, it's completely relevant to me. What was Geller was not the event
Completely irrelevant for the phenomenon what is relevant for you. The man
has his 10 millions and no relevance in the world can change it.
> but the ability. The ability is what needs to be verified. That is done
> by his explanation of what it is he's doing, and then testing that
> explanation. This seems to be a .... how shall I say it? ... scientific
> approach.
No Oddy. it is not. It can't be verified, without violating the 1st
amendment saying that it is an one-time shot. What are you going to do,
take the 10 million away from him demanding to do it again?
> Now, I get that some people go see magician's shows, and they get very
> entertained when the magician does something surprising and then
> meticulously rules out the explanations you might have had in your head.
> But then to say, "Well, I guess he did it by magic!" seems to be just
> buying into the hokum.
Randi was a faker, never understood too much. Dealt only with tricks and
easy things, like bending spoons and such. He ran away from real stuff,
and nobody ever see a penny from that million dollar challenge.
"We plan on continuing the Million Dollar" if you can bend a spoon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 16:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n5f78n$3vh$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372657 |
On 12/23/2015 4:04 PM, Waye Kitchens wrote: > No Oddy. it is not. It can't be verified, without violating the 1st > amendment saying that it is an one-time shot. What are you going to do, > take the 10 million away from him demanding to do it again? Well, aside from the fact that I'm now tired of talking to a troll, let me just finish by saying no, I would not strip him of his $10M. I believe he earned it from all the gullible fools like John Sefton and Ben Jacoby who will happily support hoaxsters and flimflam artists. I believe that serves Darwinian evolution by making it less likely that fools like that will breed and pass on their genes. Those who do not recognize predators are removed from the gene pool. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 22:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5f8li$6rb$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372659 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/23/2015 4:04 PM, Waye Kitchens wrote: >> No Oddy. it is not. It can't be verified, without violating the 1st >> amendment saying that it is an one-time shot. What are you going to do, >> take the 10 million away from him demanding to do it again? > > Well, aside from the fact that I'm now tired of talking to a troll, let > me just finish by saying no, I would not strip him of his $10M. I > believe he earned it from all the gullible fools like John Sefton and > Ben Jacoby who will happily support hoaxsters and flimflam artists. I > believe that serves You just proved you are the troll, Oddy, demanding understanding things mechanically way. That's arrogance, not science. Stop lamenting, I'm a nice person by not calling you for what you are, a less than average moron. And I don't think I will be tutoring you in physics from now on. Show me obedience and respect first.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 14:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <WkCey.90215$qz7.80139@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #372621 |
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.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web