Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #602528 > unrolled thread

Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-26 02:22 -0700
    Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 04:53 -0700
      Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-10-26 15:19 +0200
      Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-10-26 13:48 +0000
      Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 09:02 -0500
        Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-27 18:20 -0400
          Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-28 00:07 +0000
            Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-29 17:45 -0400
              Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-29 23:27 +0000
                Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-31 19:13 -0400
                  Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-31 23:26 +0000
                    Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-31 20:32 -0400
                      Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-01 05:06 +0000
          Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 17:11 -0500
            Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-31 19:10 -0400
              Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-31 23:29 +0000
                Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-31 20:34 -0400
                  Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-01 05:10 +0000
                    Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-01 18:15 -0400
                      Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-01 23:42 +0000
                        Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-02 17:01 -0400
                          Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-02 22:58 +0000
                            Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-03 16:55 -0400
                              Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 21:29 +0000
      Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-26 09:24 -0500
        Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 07:30 -0700
          Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-26 10:24 -0500
          Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 16:13 -0500
    Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-26 08:05 -0700
      Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 07:11 -0700
      Re: Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-30 06:58 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#603520

On 11/1/2016 7:42 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 11/1/2016 1:10 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/31/2016 7:29 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/2016 6:11 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/27/2016 5:20 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2016 10:02 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2016 6:53 AM, john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I think politics has killed Physics.
>>>>>>>>>> When Tesla died,
>>>>>>>>>> his ideas were not shared.
>>>>>>>>>> The US government came and
>>>>>>>>>> confiscated them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For what purpose?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To look them over and see if there was anything of interest to them,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And why would confiscating them and preventing them from being in public
>>>>>>> view serve this purpose? You think the government can only benefit from
>>>>>>> ideas if they hide them away? Why would the government have to
>>>>>>> CONFISCATE Tesla's ideas? What would they possibly gain?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What an absolute IDIOT statement! Why the hell is so many things
>>>>>> "clasified". Serves no purpose you say. How could government benefit
>>>>>> form hiding technology from those who would use it against the country.
>>>>>> And why would the government have to CONFISCATE the papers of Tesla
>>>>>> which they couldn't get legally? I mean why would they even have an
>>>>>> interest in the ideas of the guy who was the genius who just about
>>>>>> invented the 20th century. I mean that makes no sense right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God you are as senile and ignornat as Bert. Do you live in your van and
>>>>>> shit in a bucket?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> obviously, (especially with Tesla jammering in the newspapers about
>>>>>>>> inventing a "death ray" to shoot down airplanes). And gosh, years later
>>>>>>>> somehow the government has this "star wars" program to develop...wait
>>>>>>>> for it... yeah, a "death ray" to shoot down missiles. Coincidence?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quite possibly. Lasers didn't exist in Tesla's day but they certainly do
>>>>>>> now. You have one in your DVD player.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who said his "death ray" was a laser? YOu debunkers are always throwing
>>>>>> chaff into to wind. HAve you ro HVAC ever had an honest discussion in
>>>>>> your lives?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS. Have YOU ever worked on classified technology? Were YOU ever been
>>>>>> employed on SDI developing "death rays"?  You know, there Boinker, a
>>>>>> death ray takes a bit more brain power than it takes to make wooden toys.
>>>>>
>>>>> As SDI was all about destroying or at least disabling unmanned stuff
>>>>> coming from space, a "death ray" would be useless.
>>>>
>>>> Depends if you are "killing" people or incoming hardware. You and Odd
>>>> are about as ignorant as they come. You must be an engineer. Go tell
>>>> John about all the aliens you talked to.
>>>
>>> Was there supposed to be a point to this disjointed babble other than
>>> to demonstrate you are incapable of putting together a coherent paragraph?
>>
>> I know (and anyone else familiar with science and the historical facts
>> knows what it's about. But you just do your senile Bert act repeating
>> journalist tripe and telling everybody you know science.
>
> Science and historical facts like Tesla died before lasers were invented?

You are the only one saying that I said Tesla invented a laser. I said 
no such thing. You are nothing but the big liar Bert says you are. And 
anyway, "Death ray" was journalist garbage (your kind of science) while 
Tesla never said any such thing. His "SDI" "ray" was not to kill people 
it was supposed to stop invading aircraft.

>> All you know how to do is just rattle on with nonsense and then justify
>> it all by saying everone else is a "kook".
>
> Not everyone, you specifically, kook.

Obviously you get to rattle on with your kooky lies and theories. Next 
you'll be chiming in with HVAC who believes UFOs are "holograms" 
projected by aliens!


>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603532

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 11/1/2016 7:42 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/1/2016 1:10 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/31/2016 7:29 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2016 6:11 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/27/2016 5:20 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2016 10:02 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2016 6:53 AM, john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I think politics has killed Physics.
>>>>>>>>>>> When Tesla died,
>>>>>>>>>>> his ideas were not shared.
>>>>>>>>>>> The US government came and
>>>>>>>>>>> confiscated them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For what purpose?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To look them over and see if there was anything of interest to them,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And why would confiscating them and preventing them from being in public
>>>>>>>> view serve this purpose? You think the government can only benefit from
>>>>>>>> ideas if they hide them away? Why would the government have to
>>>>>>>> CONFISCATE Tesla's ideas? What would they possibly gain?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What an absolute IDIOT statement! Why the hell is so many things
>>>>>>> "clasified". Serves no purpose you say. How could government benefit
>>>>>>> form hiding technology from those who would use it against the country.
>>>>>>> And why would the government have to CONFISCATE the papers of Tesla
>>>>>>> which they couldn't get legally? I mean why would they even have an
>>>>>>> interest in the ideas of the guy who was the genius who just about
>>>>>>> invented the 20th century. I mean that makes no sense right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God you are as senile and ignornat as Bert. Do you live in your van and
>>>>>>> shit in a bucket?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> obviously, (especially with Tesla jammering in the newspapers about
>>>>>>>>> inventing a "death ray" to shoot down airplanes). And gosh, years later
>>>>>>>>> somehow the government has this "star wars" program to develop...wait
>>>>>>>>> for it... yeah, a "death ray" to shoot down missiles. Coincidence?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quite possibly. Lasers didn't exist in Tesla's day but they certainly do
>>>>>>>> now. You have one in your DVD player.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who said his "death ray" was a laser? YOu debunkers are always throwing
>>>>>>> chaff into to wind. HAve you ro HVAC ever had an honest discussion in
>>>>>>> your lives?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PS. Have YOU ever worked on classified technology? Were YOU ever been
>>>>>>> employed on SDI developing "death rays"?  You know, there Boinker, a
>>>>>>> death ray takes a bit more brain power than it takes to make wooden toys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As SDI was all about destroying or at least disabling unmanned stuff
>>>>>> coming from space, a "death ray" would be useless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends if you are "killing" people or incoming hardware. You and Odd
>>>>> are about as ignorant as they come. You must be an engineer. Go tell
>>>>> John about all the aliens you talked to.
>>>>
>>>> Was there supposed to be a point to this disjointed babble other than
>>>> to demonstrate you are incapable of putting together a coherent paragraph?
>>>
>>> I know (and anyone else familiar with science and the historical facts
>>> knows what it's about. But you just do your senile Bert act repeating
>>> journalist tripe and telling everybody you know science.
>>
>> Science and historical facts like Tesla died before lasers were invented?
> 
> You are the only one saying that I said Tesla invented a laser.

I never said that kook.

> I said no such thing.

You implied Tesla as such by bringing up SDI, which other than one
particle beam in space experiment was about lasers and more or less
conventional mass weapons. I doubt you think your hero was thinking
about advanced shotguns.

> You are nothing but the big liar Bert says you are. And 
> anyway, "Death ray" was journalist garbage (your kind of science) while 
> Tesla never said any such thing. His "SDI" "ray" was not to kill people 
> it was supposed to stop invading aircraft.

All aircraft in Tesla's time were manned.

This is just more raving babble.

You certainly do get worked up over Tesla, kook.

>>> All you know how to do is just rattle on with nonsense and then justify
>>> it all by saying everone else is a "kook".
>>
>> Not everyone, you specifically, kook.
> 
> Obviously you get to rattle on with your kooky lies and theories. Next 
> you'll be chiming in with HVAC who believes UFOs are "holograms" 
> projected by aliens!

Exactly what did I write that is a lie, kook?

As for HVAC, he certainly is excellent at pulling your strings and
making you dance.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603680

On 11/2/2016 6:58 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 11/1/2016 7:42 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/1/2016 1:10 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/31/2016 7:29 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2016 6:11 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/2016 5:20 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2016 10:02 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2016 6:53 AM, john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think politics has killed Physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>> When Tesla died,
>>>>>>>>>>>> his ideas were not shared.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The US government came and
>>>>>>>>>>>> confiscated them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For what purpose?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To look them over and see if there was anything of interest to them,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And why would confiscating them and preventing them from being in public
>>>>>>>>> view serve this purpose? You think the government can only benefit from
>>>>>>>>> ideas if they hide them away? Why would the government have to
>>>>>>>>> CONFISCATE Tesla's ideas? What would they possibly gain?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What an absolute IDIOT statement! Why the hell is so many things
>>>>>>>> "clasified". Serves no purpose you say. How could government benefit
>>>>>>>> form hiding technology from those who would use it against the country.
>>>>>>>> And why would the government have to CONFISCATE the papers of Tesla
>>>>>>>> which they couldn't get legally? I mean why would they even have an
>>>>>>>> interest in the ideas of the guy who was the genius who just about
>>>>>>>> invented the 20th century. I mean that makes no sense right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> God you are as senile and ignornat as Bert. Do you live in your van and
>>>>>>>> shit in a bucket?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> obviously, (especially with Tesla jammering in the newspapers about
>>>>>>>>>> inventing a "death ray" to shoot down airplanes). And gosh, years later
>>>>>>>>>> somehow the government has this "star wars" program to develop...wait
>>>>>>>>>> for it... yeah, a "death ray" to shoot down missiles. Coincidence?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Quite possibly. Lasers didn't exist in Tesla's day but they certainly do
>>>>>>>>> now. You have one in your DVD player.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who said his "death ray" was a laser? YOu debunkers are always throwing
>>>>>>>> chaff into to wind. HAve you ro HVAC ever had an honest discussion in
>>>>>>>> your lives?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PS. Have YOU ever worked on classified technology? Were YOU ever been
>>>>>>>> employed on SDI developing "death rays"?  You know, there Boinker, a
>>>>>>>> death ray takes a bit more brain power than it takes to make wooden toys.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As SDI was all about destroying or at least disabling unmanned stuff
>>>>>>> coming from space, a "death ray" would be useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends if you are "killing" people or incoming hardware. You and Odd
>>>>>> are about as ignorant as they come. You must be an engineer. Go tell
>>>>>> John about all the aliens you talked to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was there supposed to be a point to this disjointed babble other than
>>>>> to demonstrate you are incapable of putting together a coherent paragraph?
>>>>
>>>> I know (and anyone else familiar with science and the historical facts
>>>> knows what it's about. But you just do your senile Bert act repeating
>>>> journalist tripe and telling everybody you know science.
>>>
>>> Science and historical facts like Tesla died before lasers were invented?
>>
>> You are the only one saying that I said Tesla invented a laser.
>
> I never said that kook.
>
>> I said no such thing.
>
> You implied Tesla as such by bringing up SDI, which other than one
> particle beam in space experiment was about lasers and more or less
> conventional mass weapons. I doubt you think your hero was thinking
> about advanced shotguns.
>
>> You are nothing but the big liar Bert says you are. And
>> anyway, "Death ray" was journalist garbage (your kind of science) while
>> Tesla never said any such thing. His "SDI" "ray" was not to kill people
>> it was supposed to stop invading aircraft.
>
> All aircraft in Tesla's time were manned.
>
> This is just more raving babble.
>
> You certainly do get worked up over Tesla, kook.
>
>>>> All you know how to do is just rattle on with nonsense and then justify
>>>> it all by saying everone else is a "kook".
>>>
>>> Not everyone, you specifically, kook.
>>
>> Obviously you get to rattle on with your kooky lies and theories. Next
>> you'll be chiming in with HVAC who believes UFOs are "holograms"
>> projected by aliens!
>
> Exactly what did I write that is a lie, kook?
>
> As for HVAC, he certainly is excellent at pulling your strings and
> making you dance.


We make each other dance. Dancing is fun, chimp.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603690

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 11/2/2016 6:58 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/1/2016 7:42 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/1/2016 1:10 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/31/2016 7:29 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2016 6:11 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/2016 5:20 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2016 10:02 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2016 6:53 AM, john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think politics has killed Physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Tesla died,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> his ideas were not shared.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The US government came and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confiscated them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For what purpose?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To look them over and see if there was anything of interest to them,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And why would confiscating them and preventing them from being in public
>>>>>>>>>> view serve this purpose? You think the government can only benefit from
>>>>>>>>>> ideas if they hide them away? Why would the government have to
>>>>>>>>>> CONFISCATE Tesla's ideas? What would they possibly gain?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What an absolute IDIOT statement! Why the hell is so many things
>>>>>>>>> "clasified". Serves no purpose you say. How could government benefit
>>>>>>>>> form hiding technology from those who would use it against the country.
>>>>>>>>> And why would the government have to CONFISCATE the papers of Tesla
>>>>>>>>> which they couldn't get legally? I mean why would they even have an
>>>>>>>>> interest in the ideas of the guy who was the genius who just about
>>>>>>>>> invented the 20th century. I mean that makes no sense right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> God you are as senile and ignornat as Bert. Do you live in your van and
>>>>>>>>> shit in a bucket?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> obviously, (especially with Tesla jammering in the newspapers about
>>>>>>>>>>> inventing a "death ray" to shoot down airplanes). And gosh, years later
>>>>>>>>>>> somehow the government has this "star wars" program to develop...wait
>>>>>>>>>>> for it... yeah, a "death ray" to shoot down missiles. Coincidence?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Quite possibly. Lasers didn't exist in Tesla's day but they certainly do
>>>>>>>>>> now. You have one in your DVD player.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who said his "death ray" was a laser? YOu debunkers are always throwing
>>>>>>>>> chaff into to wind. HAve you ro HVAC ever had an honest discussion in
>>>>>>>>> your lives?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PS. Have YOU ever worked on classified technology? Were YOU ever been
>>>>>>>>> employed on SDI developing "death rays"?  You know, there Boinker, a
>>>>>>>>> death ray takes a bit more brain power than it takes to make wooden toys.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As SDI was all about destroying or at least disabling unmanned stuff
>>>>>>>> coming from space, a "death ray" would be useless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depends if you are "killing" people or incoming hardware. You and Odd
>>>>>>> are about as ignorant as they come. You must be an engineer. Go tell
>>>>>>> John about all the aliens you talked to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was there supposed to be a point to this disjointed babble other than
>>>>>> to demonstrate you are incapable of putting together a coherent paragraph?
>>>>>
>>>>> I know (and anyone else familiar with science and the historical facts
>>>>> knows what it's about. But you just do your senile Bert act repeating
>>>>> journalist tripe and telling everybody you know science.
>>>>
>>>> Science and historical facts like Tesla died before lasers were invented?
>>>
>>> You are the only one saying that I said Tesla invented a laser.
>>
>> I never said that kook.
>>
>>> I said no such thing.
>>
>> You implied Tesla as such by bringing up SDI, which other than one
>> particle beam in space experiment was about lasers and more or less
>> conventional mass weapons. I doubt you think your hero was thinking
>> about advanced shotguns.
>>
>>> You are nothing but the big liar Bert says you are. And
>>> anyway, "Death ray" was journalist garbage (your kind of science) while
>>> Tesla never said any such thing. His "SDI" "ray" was not to kill people
>>> it was supposed to stop invading aircraft.
>>
>> All aircraft in Tesla's time were manned.
>>
>> This is just more raving babble.
>>
>> You certainly do get worked up over Tesla, kook.
>>
>>>>> All you know how to do is just rattle on with nonsense and then justify
>>>>> it all by saying everone else is a "kook".
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone, you specifically, kook.
>>>
>>> Obviously you get to rattle on with your kooky lies and theories. Next
>>> you'll be chiming in with HVAC who believes UFOs are "holograms"
>>> projected by aliens!
>>
>> Exactly what did I write that is a lie, kook?
>>
>> As for HVAC, he certainly is excellent at pulling your strings and
>> making you dance.
> 
> 
> We make each other dance. Dancing is fun, chimp.

Must be, you sure do a lot of it.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602541

On 10/26/2016 6:53 AM, john wrote:
> I think politics has killed Physics.
> When Tesla died,
> his ideas were not shared.
> The US government came and
> confiscated them.
>

yep, the US Gov sure kept his AC ideas and transformers secret.

US Gov killed his love Pigeon too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602547

Odd and Sergio
You obviously don't read.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602553

On 10/26/2016 9:30 AM, john wrote:
> Odd and Sergio
> You obviously don't read.
>

A. if you meant the OP I did read it,
PV is Kaput in both cases,
    1. the first is misapplying statistical average characteristics to a 
single event (same mistake Global Wormists make)
    2. PV ignores SR.


B. I did read your post, and
    1. Politicians are incapable of understanding Physics, but use them.
    2. US Gov didn't take anything by Tesla, Wardenclyffe funding failed 
as Marconi started to succeed, and Tesla lost.
    3. the US Gov taking Teslas stuff is rumor created about 15 years 
ago by greenies wanting free power.


C. I did not read all of this post
   1. because my cellphone died, had to get another one, free, it was 
insured.
   2. I did early voting today, very difficult to choose between a crude 
reckless jackass, and an old corrupt alzhimer drunk old lady.  But I 
chose not to continue with more of the same short sited economic 
policies that have kept interest rates at 0 ZERO for 8 stupid years!!
WATCH => as the older retired/ now retiring folks run out of money 
faster, and realize the Gov has thrown them under the Bus

D. reserved for future expansion

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602718

On 10/26/2016 9:30 AM, john wrote:
> Odd and Sergio
> You obviously don't read.
>

Um, John, YOU'RE the guy that doesn't read. You like YouTube videos better.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602550

Experiments have unequivocally shown that the speed of light is not a constant: 

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html 
 "Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. [...] In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. [...] If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum." 

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/857 
 "Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light" Science 20 Feb 2015: Vol. 347, Issue 6224, pp. 857-860 

http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/ 
 "Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum [...] ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. [...] "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release." 

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480 
 "The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently." 

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/417655/scitech/science/exclusive-this-pinay-physicist-can-slow-down-light-without-touching-it 
 "Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg 
 "Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light" 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faster-than-the-speed-of-light/ 
 "For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. [...] The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature." 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0.html 
 Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602657

Catalysts ("apposing vane surfaces" in this case) can violate the second law of thermodynamics:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-014-9781-5 
 "In 2000, a simple, foundational thermodynamic paradox was proposed: a sealed blackbody cavity contains a diatomic gas and a radiometer whose apposing vane surfaces dissociate and recombine the gas to different degrees (A_2 <-> 2A). As a result of differing desorption rates for A and A_2 , there arise between the vane faces permanent pressure and temperature differences, either of which can be harnessed to perform work, in apparent conflict with the second law of thermodynamics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan%27s_Paradox 
 "Consider a dimeric gas (A2) that is susceptible to endothermic dissociation or exothermic recombination (A2 <-> 2A). The gas is housed between two surfaces (S1 and S2), whose chemical reactivities are distinct with respect to the gas. Specifically, let S1 preferentially dissociate dimer A2 and desorb monomer A, while S2 preferentially recombines monomers A and desorbs dimer A2. [...]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/NatureSLTD-Fig1c.jpg

In 2014 Duncan's temperature paradox was experimentally realized, utilizing hydrogen dissociation on high-temperature transition metals (tungsten and rhenium). Ironically, these experiments support the predictions of the paradox and provide laboratory evidence for second law breakdown. These results are corroborated by other experiments that demonstrate anomalous (and differential) levels of hydrogen dissociation on heated transition metals; additional theoretical support can be found in the theory of epicatalysis. In 2015 Laboratory experiments verified examples of room temperature epicatalysis involving hydrogen-bonded diamonds on polymers. This could open the door to room temperature tests of Duncan's Paradox." [end of quotation]

Here is the (valid) argument that, if catalysts can shift chemical equilibrium, the second law would be violated: 

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/chemical-equilibrium-14/factors-that-affect-chemical-equilibrium-106/the-effect-of-a-catalyst-447-3459/ 
 "In the presence of a catalyst, both the forward and reverse reaction rates will speed up equally, thereby allowing the system to reach equilibrium faster. However, it is very important to keep in mind that the addition of a catalyst has no effect whatsoever on the final equilibrium position of the reaction. It simply gets it there faster. [...] To reiterate, catalysts do not affect the equilibrium state of a reaction. In the presence of a catalyst, the same amounts of reactants and products will be present at equilibrium as there would be in the uncatalyzed reaction. To state this in chemical terms, catalysts affect the kinetics, but not the thermodynamics, of a reaction. If the addition of catalysts could possibly alter the equilibrium state of the reaction, this would violate the second rule of thermodynamics..."

Yet, for for the dissociation-association reaction 

A <-> B + C, 

a catalyst cannot speed up both the forward and reverse reaction rates equally, due to the entirely different forward and reverse catalytic mechanisms. In the forward (dissociation) reaction, the catalyst should just meet and split A. So the rate of the forward reaction can be substantially increased by the catalyst. In the reverse (association) reaction, the catalyst should first get together B and C. However, if the reverse reaction is diffusion-controlled (virtually any encounter between B and C produces A), the catalyst cannot accelerate it - the rate is already at its maximum.

Conclusion: Catalysts can OBVIOUSLY violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602949

Fast radio burst are proof of this. They are initially constant
stellar sources extremely blue shifted relative to us.The 
speed of that radiation is much faster than c relative to us
at that point. However,...rapid red shifting of the wavefront
relative to us slows the light to c where it's visible for a nano
second as a broad spectrum infrared source. And then as the
wave font slows to less than c relative to us, it becomes visible
in radio. But at lower and lower frequencies over time.
The initial gamma to radio detection seems to last only seconds
at most. Slower versions are called gamma ray bursts.

http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web