Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #539548 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-16 02:38 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-12-26 22:22 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 211 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 02:38 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "J.B. Wood" <arl_123234@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-16 06:19 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 04:18 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 13:02 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 07:46 -0600
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... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-16 22:13 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-16 21:21 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-16 21:17 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 22:41 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 06:50 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 22:21 -0800
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... 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... Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 07:50 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-16 10:08 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 08:18 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 13:23 -0500
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... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 07:03 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 03:15 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 00:26 -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... "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 07:47 -0800
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... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 07:52 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 10:06 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 08:18 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 10:44 -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... Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 08:24 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Mapple Babble" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-12-19 11:28 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 11:59 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 12:15 -0800
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... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 00:40 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 21:39 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 07:48 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 13:46 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 02:22 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 10:53 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 22:33 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... xxein1@att.net - 2015-12-17 10:36 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 08:51 -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... 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... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 10:52 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 03:29 -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... "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... 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... 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... 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... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 04:01 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 04:19 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 13:09 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 05:14 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:16 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:54 -0800
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... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 17:23 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 19:44 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 02:27 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 02:45 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-19 01:29 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 13:58 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 11:15 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-19 13:07 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 03:23 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-21 01:11 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 16:47 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 12:17 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-19 13:22 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 03:27 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-21 00:57 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 14:00 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 14:21 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-21 17:12 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 21:44 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 07:53 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 13:12 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:34 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 18:13 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:14 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 14:03 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 16:16 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 22:24 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-12-27 14:03 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 16:48 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:38 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 18:20 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:16 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 14:09 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 21:20 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 07:38 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 13:03 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:23 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 17:56 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 17:46 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 20:11 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 05:14 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:21 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 00:48 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 11:13 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 07:44 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 13:05 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:28 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 18:03 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 10:14 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 10:32 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 22:00 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 21:57 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 11:12 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 21:19 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 13:03 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:12 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 22:22 -0800
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 02:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6Fsdy.17813$Hz3.16577@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #540349 |
On 12/19/2015 06:54 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/18/15 12/18/15 9:24 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 12/18/2015 11:58 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 12/16/15 12/16/15 - 1:38 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> Where does the future of physics lie?
>>> With people who actually STUDY physics. Not with fools like you who
>>> attempt to write about subjects they clearly do not understand.
>>
>> Uh oh! Here's another one with "superpowers"!
>
> So sad, that you think an ability to study and learn is a "superpower".
> It isn't, and anyone with a modicum of intelligence and interest can do
> it. Too bad that those requirements are so hard for you.
>
>
>> Anybody here (without superpowers) know what the actual structure of
>> an atom is?
>
> We have excellent models of that structure. Of course no human can know
> what it "actually is" (absent some God whispering in their ear).
Nonsense! Not a clue! Kervran pointed out the lack of any precise atomic
knowledge in spades! Such human hubris! Anyone here actually believe
this shit?
>> [... much nonsense and antagonism, based mostly on ignorance]
>> So just WHERE do you go to "discover" new papers?
>
> Google.com, scholar.google.com, arxiv.org, aps.org, prola.aps.org,
> inspirehep.net, and surely more which don't come right to mind.
>
> A more powerful method is contained in the emails I receive from various
> journals giving their tables of contents.
But the point being made is that journals censor all "forbidden" topics.
Hence they cannot be a source for anything except "officially approved"
advances.
> A still more powerful method is to use the references section in papers
> I have read.
Now this is correct! This is really how it's done. You start with an
idea. You collect papers addressing that idea, then you collect and read
the references in those papers. And then do the same with the
references. and then rinse and repeat. Soon one has amassed what I like
to call a "master file" which is a large compendium of the history,
development and thoughts on the idea. And the good news is that often
references are not particularly sanitized of "forbidden" topics and
hence the method can lead into far more interesting ideas than mere
official abstracts or other summaries.
>> What you are
>> saying is you've all turned the internet into a private network
>
> NONSENSE! You can't see much through your incredible anger and
> antagonism. Take off your shit-colored glasses.
Your emails are not private? Sure they are. Tis you with the chip.
>
>> through use of
>> fees
>
> People have a right to be compensated for their work.2
Or do they? The purpose of copyright laws is not to insure profits for
authors and their descendants! The purpose is to try to create
conditions that promote the betterment of civilization. The Law
acknowledges research and education as two areas where civilization are
benefited, but greed has pushed the limits of the law past the creators
lifetime for outrageous numbers of years stifling any hope of furthering
civilization. Basically today "fair use" is nil except the court still
routinely accept satire as a pass. That's why I write in satire! :-)
> You OBVIOUSLY have not noticed, but most government-sponsored research
> is now freely available on the internet. And at least in physics, a
> majority of articles published in journals with access fees are also
> available on the (free) preprint servers.
which means little with regard to "forbidden" topics because it's all
pre-censored. How many government papers are there suggesting
anthropogenic CO2 is not causing "global warming"? Zip, natch.
>> and that means that you keep all new ideas OUT!
>
> Impossible! Again, you just cannot see very much through your
> shit-colored glasses. Why you choose to wear them and write with such
> blind anger is beyond me.
So you choose to reject truth by calling it "anger"? Well that's a step
up! Most here (and most debunkers) tend to call it insanity! The point
being one need not pay attention to anyone who is insane and I presume
the same thing goes for anyone who is angry beyond reason. Right?
>
> Of course new ideas are important to science, but they are not useful
> unless they have some basis in fact. What you seem to mean is that "new
> ideas based on fantasies and dreams" are kept out of peer-reviewed
> journals -- YES! MOST DEFINITELY! the purpose of peer review is to avoid
> wasting the journals' readers' time with nonsense.
The purpose of "peer review" is to most definitely to censor any
politically incorrect topics out of major journals. The beauty of this
method is that it forces new ideas into "minor" journals where you then
have an automatic ridicule by pointing out the guy was so kooky he could
only publish in "minor" (meaning inferior and willing to accept any
fantasy) journals. You just use the same old tired argument that if
there is no "theory" to explain a phenomenon, then clearly it can't
exist. And if it can't exist, there is no use wasting time reading some
reports of experiments, because they obviously must somehow be in error.
And after going through this Do Loop you puff yourself up and call it
"science"! Yeah sure.
>> [about Velikovsky]
>> Given the way his books seem to give everyone diarrhea in science, and
>> how hard
>> you all work to "debunk" what was merely the idea that there may be
>> truth to
>> ancient myth, he obviously was onto something.
>
> You REALLY should learn basic logic. And you should learn to take off
> your shit-colored glasses.
You are really stuck on "shit-colored" aren't you? When name calling is
the only arguments you have in a science debate, you've already lost.
> Like you, back in grad school I though he had something, based
> on reading his books (three of which are still on my shelf).
> UNLIKE you, I TESTED his ideas, and found them wanting --
> if he truly "had something", he would not need to lie about
> references. And he was STUPID about it.
>
> When someone writes a book with so many FRAUDULENT references, there is
> no basis to believe he is "onto" anything (except deceiving others).
>
> There's no point in continuing. Goodbye.
Obviously. If only I'd GET the GOSPEL and BELIEVE the dogma! Clearly I
am a kook with shit-colored glasses. If one can't trust those in
authority to tell the truth then obviously they are insane and can
safely be ignored. Got it.
Good luck in your efforts to fill in the few remaining blank spots in
the handbook tables...
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 10:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <56767a34$0$23843$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #540398 |
On 12/20/2015 8:20 AM, benj wrote: > On 12/19/2015 06:54 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 12/18/15 12/18/15 9:24 PM, benj wrote: .. ... >>> Anybody here (without superpowers) know what the actual structure of >>> an atom is? >> >> We have excellent models of that structure. Of course no human can know >> what it "actually is" (absent some God whispering in their ear). > > Nonsense! Not a clue! If "we" has to include you as well, the knowledge may be, eh.. more restricted indeed! But if "we" refers to people who have studied atoms (and were talented enough to successfully understand the matter) then I can't follow you.. Maybe you refer to the complexity of the many electrons in large atoms? Or do you mean the nucleus? I don't expect you mean the simpler atoms like hydrogen and helium, or do you? .. >> There's no point in continuing. Goodbye. > > Obviously. It is indeed a bit unclear now. Do you mean that "future advances in physics" should come from refining the models of the structure of an atom? -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 02:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rINdy.23562$Cg1.22676@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #540412 |
On 12/20/2015 04:51 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 12/20/2015 8:20 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 12/19/2015 06:54 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 12/18/15 12/18/15 9:24 PM, benj wrote:
> ..
> ...
>>>> Anybody here (without superpowers) know what the actual structure of
>>>> an atom is?
>>>
>>> We have excellent models of that structure. Of course no human can know
>>> what it "actually is" (absent some God whispering in their ear).
>>
>> Nonsense! Not a clue!
>
> If "we" has to include you as well, the knowledge may be,
> eh.. more restricted indeed!
Obviously must include me. I wouldn't want to be arrogant, would I?
> But if "we" refers to people who have studied atoms (and
> were talented enough to successfully understand the matter)
> then I can't follow you.. Maybe you refer to the complexity
> of the many electrons in large atoms? Or do you mean the
> nucleus?
Talented people is certainly true, but "successfully understand" is a
rather gross overstatement. Reminds me of American Indian tales of how
the universe was created with the eagle this and bear that while the
turtle did something else. There may indeed be some analog with reality
there, to regard such as "successful understanding" is well, hubris.
So sure we both know that one can point to simpler atoms, express joy at
the "explanations" of spectroscopic events and say it's all "known".
However if I press you for what an electron is, what light is, the
structure of a nucleus, etc. it's all fog. Now as it turns out Kervran
in his musings HAS developed some interesting theories regarding the
structures of nuclei. which makes my point of looking to "forbidden"
topics for advances.
> I don't expect you mean the simpler atoms like hydrogen
> and helium, or do you?
Sure I do. Just because you know what SPDF means doesn't mean that you
can tell me as I said above what the details of even those simple things
like the nucleus, the electrons or even the light which is given off.
And of course with larger atoms the math gets so out of hand that even
with computing machines it gets hopeless.
> ..
>>> There's no point in continuing. Goodbye.
>>
>> Obviously.
>
> It is indeed a bit unclear now. Do you mean that "future
> advances in physics" should come from refining the models
> of the structure of an atom?
Obviously, a refined model of an atom would be an "advance" in physics".
Right? But showing the reality of low temperature transmutations is an
even bigger advance, and demonstrating a theory of atomic structure that
explains physical and chemical properties including low energy
transmutations would be a major earthquake.
So while many here are trying to cling to progress through myriad tiny
refinements, I am discussing the big picture of the breath and scope of
rethought philosophy. And I am suggesting a place to look for hints in
that quest.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 12:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5677dd86$0$23744$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #540566 |
On 12/21/2015 8:17 AM, benj wrote:
> On 12/20/2015 04:51 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> On 12/20/2015 8:20 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2015 06:54 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 12/18/15 12/18/15 9:24 PM, benj wrote:
>> ..
>> ...
>>>>> Anybody here (without superpowers) know what the actual structure of
>>>>> an atom is?
...
>> I don't expect you mean the simpler atoms like hydrogen
>> and helium, or do you?
>
> Sure I do. Just because you know what SPDF means doesn't mean that you
> can tell me as I said above what the details of even those simple things
> like the nucleus, the electrons or even the light which is given off.
I cannot follow you any more. The things that are
solved by quantum field theory seem to be unclear
to you, but others already understand them. So why
should other people study things they already know,
just because you do not understand them?
Even if they would find that a subtle change in QFT
was needed (like the change from SR to GR, for
instance) then you would most likely again not
understand it. It's not likely to become simpler.
> And of course with larger atoms the math gets so out of hand that even
> with computing machines it gets hopeless.
So you agree that with lighter atoms it is fairly
simple? Now you suddenly change position again!
...
>> It is indeed a bit unclear now. Do you mean that "future
>> advances in physics" should come from refining the models
>> of the structure of an atom?
>
> Obviously, a refined model of an atom would be an "advance" in physics".
> Right?
No, since only the larger atoms are difficult and
that is a matter of computational power, it would
probably be more an advance in numerical algorithms.
> But showing the reality of low temperature transmutations is an
> even bigger advance,
Huh?? Most transmutations until now are at low T.
In nuclear reactors you have a moderator to get
the neutrons below the thermal distribution. The
slower they are, the more transmutations!
...
> So while many here are trying to cling to progress through myriad tiny
> refinements, I am discussing the big picture of the breath and scope of
> rethought philosophy
Unlike you, I think the advances will come from
other things. Here is my humble list:
1) Finding new forms of matter (CDM? Axions?)
2) Better use of QM (BEC, quantum computing, etc.)
3) Study of gravity waves.
4) High-T superconductors (still unexplained and
room temperature still not ruled out!)
--
Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 13:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <%UXdy.3910$hF6.363@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #540589 |
On 12/21/2015 06:07 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 8:17 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 12/20/2015 04:51 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2015 8:20 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2015 06:54 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>> On 12/18/15 12/18/15 9:24 PM, benj wrote:
>>> ..
>>> ...
>>>>>> Anybody here (without superpowers) know what the actual structure of
>>>>>> an atom is?
> ...
>>> I don't expect you mean the simpler atoms like hydrogen
>>> and helium, or do you?
>>
>> Sure I do. Just because you know what SPDF means doesn't mean that you
>> can tell me as I said above what the details of even those simple things
>> like the nucleus, the electrons or even the light which is given off.
>
> I cannot follow you any more. The things that are
> solved by quantum field theory seem to be unclear
> to you, but others already understand them. So why
> should other people study things they already know,
> just because you do not understand them?
Glad to hear once again that science knows it all. I'm so ignorant I
really don't know what light is. Could you explain it again for me.
Einstein wants to know too.
> Even if they would find that a subtle change in QFT
> was needed (like the change from SR to GR, for
> instance) then you would most likely again not
> understand it. It's not likely to become simpler.
When a proper viewpoint is found complex things become simpler, not more
complex. It's how things work.
>> And of course with larger atoms the math gets so out of hand that even
>> with computing machines it gets hopeless.
>
> So you agree that with lighter atoms it is fairly
> simple? Now you suddenly change position again!
<sigh> Here's the point again Jos. CERTAIN things can be calculated with
simpler atoms using QM theory as we both know. Hydrogen spectroscopy is
"explained" or so it is said for example. Yet the the structures and
components of even simple atoms is basically totally unknown. Even
worse, the QM theory is just educated guesses (probability...of course
it is a Highly Educated Guesses! :-) So you take the broad brush and
start telling the world that EVERYTHING is known. Clearly this is false.
Then you say, oh, sure there may be a few fine points that are unknown
but really the basics are all known. Which is also false since even
basic fundamental questions of structure and combinations are all
unknown or even denied. Kervran proposes some of these and all your
argument is would be that since we already know it all, his speculations
are clearly a waste of my time! I'm not even going to look at them. Jos,
this is hardly what one calls science.
> ...
>>> It is indeed a bit unclear now. Do you mean that "future
>>> advances in physics" should come from refining the models
>>> of the structure of an atom?
>>
>> Obviously, a refined model of an atom would be an "advance" in physics".
>> Right?
>
> No, since only the larger atoms are difficult and
> that is a matter of computational power, it would
> probably be more an advance in numerical algorithms.
>
>> But showing the reality of low temperature transmutations is an
>> even bigger advance,
>
> Huh?? Most transmutations until now are at low T.
> In nuclear reactors you have a moderator to get
> the neutrons below the thermal distribution. The
> slower they are, the more transmutations!
True but it's more like half a transmutation and thermal neutrons aren't
exactly at biological temperatures. But it's a good point!
> ...
>> So while many here are trying to cling to progress through myriad tiny
>> refinements, I am discussing the big picture of the breath and scope of
>> rethought philosophy
>
> Unlike you, I think the advances will come from
> other things. Here is my humble list:
> 1) Finding new forms of matter (CDM? Axions?)
> 2) Better use of QM (BEC, quantum computing, etc.)
> 3) Study of gravity waves.
> 4) High-T superconductors (still unexplained and
> room temperature still not ruled out!)
Your list is interesting. But Yes, I don't agree that this is the total
of what advances can cover. My list doesn't exclude your "official" list.
1. New forms of matter are always interesting.
2. QM is a mess, and Quantum computing is extremely suspicious to me.
What is needed is for an explanation of what exactly "probability waves
in nothing at all" actually is.
3. Gravity needs an explanation. So far there is NONE in spite of all
the scientists who methinks protest too much. I don't think there are
such things as "gravity waves". However there are the waves that create
gravity (Wheeler theory) but these are a "forbidden topic"! :-)
4. Now here is where we really agree! High temperature (or room
temperature or even LN2 temperatures) would be a discovery of immense
utility. And best of all so far shows little connection to forbidden
topics! So Dump the money in!
How about:
1. An explanation of what light actually is and how it works.
2. What QM is really all about rather than just hand waving and
justifications of things making no real sense.
3. Identification of extra-dimensional spaces and the exposition of the
few weak interactions with our 3D space. And then a methodical
examination of the implications of this.
4. High temperature Superconductors (I said we agree!)
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 23:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Fb5dy.5568$pV5.2616@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #539548 |
On 12/16/2015 02:38 AM, benj wrote:
> Where does the future of physics lie?
So we've seen the list of "forbidden" topics generated by those in this
newsgroup. So how about I pick one topic and give an example?
OK. I pick Alchemy. (Sorry for those of you hoping it would be Ghosts,
or ESP or Remote Viewing or the like...but really you'll find the story
basically the same no matter which one is picked)
Back in history there was the myth of Alchemy. It was the story that
lead (relatively inexpensive) could be turned into gold (valuable)
by some means. So the thought of limitless riches had men grinding and
melting and vaporizing and condensing and in essence inventing much of
chemistry in an attempt to create this transformation. Some stories said
it was possible others just said it was myth.
Enter science. In particular, the Law of Lavoisier. This with "atomic
theory" created the dogma expounded by the most learned of ladies and
gentlemen for many years that alchemy was simply a "hoax". Foolery
designed to bamboozle the ignorant kings of yore! Science and great
learning NOW had ALL the answers! There is no such thing as
transmutation. It was the "settled science" of it's day!
Except, of course, all the "learned gentlemen" were just completely
wrong. All those years of science dogma down the drain as atomic physics
demonstrated beyond any doubt that transmutations were indeed possible.
Does anyone notice here that this particular advance in physics actually
came about through a "forbidden" topic, namely that alchemy was actually
possible?
But there is something about Alchemy I neglected to mention. Namely that
traditional "mythical" alchemy is "cold transmutations". The
transformation of lead to gold takes place at the melting point of lead
through the addition of a material known as the "Philosopher's stone"
that effects the transmutation.
So again while science has adjusted to transmutations actually being
real, the "forbidden" topic is now Low energy transmutations since the
transmutations of nuclear physics require high energies to occur.
So once again it is hoped the whole issue can be avoided. But such is
not the case. An autodidact of the name Corentin Louis Kervran notices
some things that simply do not make scientific sense. Violations, if you
will, in nature, of the law of Lavoisier. He develops myriad connections
of low energy transmutation explanations for heretofore unexplained
features of physics, geology, agriculture, medicine and so forth. It
looks like a major advance in the offing!
But did you forget "forbidden"? Did you not hear "autodidact"? Can you
not see the enormous economic and political earthquake industrial level
alchemy could cause if gold were so cheap you could just back your
trailer to the city gold pile and fill up? There is a LOT at stake here!
And unsurprisingly, the debunkers descend. While the Japanese are so
impressed they said they nominated Kervran for a Nobel prize, everyone
else was in denier mode nominating him for the Ignoble Prize where he
can be laughed at as a kook and his theories discounted as "insane".
Just all the usual stuff. No surprises. Anyway he was French and
everybody know all Frenchmen are nuts.
So Kervran's theories, his data, his speculations all sit there in his
books (in French) laughed at and dismissed from any serious
consideration. No experiments. No follow-ups. Even Wikipedia took a
factual article on Kervran and cleverly "spun" it to paint him as a nut
job and misrepresent his ideas.
So just WHERE are the advances in Geology, in Agriculture, in Medicine
or even industrial ore concentrations? Some actually are there believe
it or not, but hidden well down below the surface. And certainly making
sure nothing points back toward the late C.L. Kervran.
One can find similar stories by researching virtually ANY topic on that
list.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 06:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddk9lsF68o2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #540217 |
Am 19.12.2015 05:39, schrieb benj: > So once again it is hoped the whole issue can be avoided. But such is > not the case. An autodidact of the name Corentin Louis Kervran notices > some things that simply do not make scientific sense. Violations, if you > will, in nature, of the law of Lavoisier. He develops myriad connections > of low energy transmutation explanations for heretofore unexplained > features of physics, geology, agriculture, medicine and so forth. It > looks like a major advance in the offing! > > But did you forget "forbidden"? Did you not hear "autodidact"? Can you > not see the enormous economic and political earthquake industrial level > alchemy could cause if gold were so cheap you could just back your > trailer to the city gold pile and fill up? There is a LOT at stake here! > > And unsurprisingly, the debunkers descend. While the Japanese are so > impressed they said they nominated Kervran for a Nobel prize, everyone > else was in denier mode nominating him for the Ignoble Prize where he > can be laughed at as a kook and his theories discounted as "insane". > Just all the usual stuff. No surprises. Anyway he was French and > everybody know all Frenchmen are nuts. > > So Kervran's theories, his data, his speculations all sit there in his > books (in French) laughed at and dismissed from any serious > consideration. No experiments. No follow-ups. Even Wikipedia took a > factual article on Kervran and cleverly "spun" it to paint him as a nut > job and misrepresent his ideas. > > So just WHERE are the advances in Geology, in Agriculture, in Medicine > or even industrial ore concentrations? Some actually are there believe > it or not, but hidden well down below the surface. And certainly making > sure nothing points back toward the late C.L. Kervran. > http://www.rexresearch.com/kervran/kervran.htm Actually VERY interesting person. I have never heard that name before, but read something from George Lochack. This is also a French physicist, who found hints for transmutation in experiments with large discharges under water. For some odd reasons he used the term 'magnetic monopoles' as title, while actually he proves transmutation. The method he used was a discharge of high voltage and large currents into a pressure chamber full of water. Accidentally the electrodes had been analysed and Lochack found, their composition in elements had changed after that giant spark happened. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 01:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n52u51$9ge$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #540226 |
On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Accidentally the electrodes had been analysed and Lochack found, their > composition in elements had changed after that giant spark happened. Cold fusion perhaps? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "szczepan bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 09:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n535l0$mav$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #540230 |
"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości news:n52u51$9ge$1@dont-email.me... > On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> Accidentally the electrodes had been analysed and Lochack found, their >> composition in elements had changed after that giant spark happened. > > Cold fusion perhaps? "The method he used was a discharge of high voltage and large currents into a pressure chamber full of water." It was rather hot fusion. The new elements are the result of colisions. See: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.pdf S* --- Ta wiadomosc zostala sprawdzona na obecnosc wirusow przez oprogramowanie antywirusowe Avast. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 13:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iqhdy.1671$m53.1340@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #540230 |
On 12/19/2015 01:43 AM, rickman wrote:
> On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Accidentally the electrodes had been analysed and Lochack found, their
>> composition in elements had changed after that giant spark happened.
>
> Cold fusion perhaps?
Well, obviously cold fusion is cold transmutation. Ah! The "forbidden"
plot thickens!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 13:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Xohdy.1670$m53.1168@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #540226 |
On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.12.2015 05:39, schrieb benj:
>
>> So once again it is hoped the whole issue can be avoided. But such is
>> not the case. An autodidact of the name Corentin Louis Kervran notices
>> some things that simply do not make scientific sense. Violations, if you
>> will, in nature, of the law of Lavoisier. He develops myriad connections
>> of low energy transmutation explanations for heretofore unexplained
>> features of physics, geology, agriculture, medicine and so forth. It
>> looks like a major advance in the offing!
>>
>> But did you forget "forbidden"? Did you not hear "autodidact"? Can you
>> not see the enormous economic and political earthquake industrial level
>> alchemy could cause if gold were so cheap you could just back your
>> trailer to the city gold pile and fill up? There is a LOT at stake here!
>>
>> And unsurprisingly, the debunkers descend. While the Japanese are so
>> impressed they said they nominated Kervran for a Nobel prize, everyone
>> else was in denier mode nominating him for the Ignoble Prize where he
>> can be laughed at as a kook and his theories discounted as "insane".
>> Just all the usual stuff. No surprises. Anyway he was French and
>> everybody know all Frenchmen are nuts.
>>
>> So Kervran's theories, his data, his speculations all sit there in his
>> books (in French) laughed at and dismissed from any serious
>> consideration. No experiments. No follow-ups. Even Wikipedia took a
>> factual article on Kervran and cleverly "spun" it to paint him as a nut
>> job and misrepresent his ideas.
>>
>> So just WHERE are the advances in Geology, in Agriculture, in Medicine
>> or even industrial ore concentrations? Some actually are there believe
>> it or not, but hidden well down below the surface. And certainly making
>> sure nothing points back toward the late C.L. Kervran.
>>
>
> http://www.rexresearch.com/kervran/kervran.htm
>
>
> Actually VERY interesting person.
>
> I have never heard that name before, but read something from George
> Lochack.
>
> This is also a French physicist, who found hints for transmutation in
> experiments with large discharges under water.
>
> For some odd reasons he used the term 'magnetic monopoles' as title,
> while actually he proves transmutation.
>
>
> The method he used was a discharge of high voltage and large currents
> into a pressure chamber full of water.
>
> Accidentally the electrodes had been analysed and Lochack found, their
> composition in elements had changed after that giant spark happened.
Not to discuss forbidden topics or anything, but the Rexresearch paper
is just a fragment and doesn't include remarks by the late O. Costa de
Beauregard the eminent physicist on the energy problem of how
transmutations can occur at low energy (In other words how energy is
conserved). Yet laughing continues...
Kervran in his other books showed promising results that geological
transmutations can occur under very high pressures from a press or in
the case of underground nuclear explosions (From the pressure not the
radiation). All very kooky science according to debunkers.
There is an English translation of some earlier works and a couple
"popular" books as well.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 21:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5675b8d6$0$23868$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #540284 |
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:
...
..
> on the energy problem of how
> transmutations can occur at low energy
I vaguely remember the simplest set-up needed is something
not more complicated than an old-fashioned CRT..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor
There must be other links somewhere for a do-it-yourself
nuclear fusion reactor. (That actually works!)
> ... that geological
> transmutations can occur under very high pressures from a press
That seems more speculative..
> All very kooky science according to debunkers.
If it has been debunked then forget it. As a matter of
fact, the nice thing about Sheldrake was that he actually
favored doing tests to verify his ideas:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Seven_Experiments_That_Could_Change_the_World>
Most likely he would even have welcomed mathematical
descriptions of these morphic fields, had they been found.
So probably you have to remove him from your list again,
benj. He does not play by your rules..
--
Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 01:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fasdy.6394$dB4.3797@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #540306 |
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:
> ...
> ..
>> on the energy problem of how
>> transmutations can occur at low energy
>
> I vaguely remember the simplest set-up needed is something
> not more complicated than an old-fashioned CRT..
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor
> There must be other links somewhere for a do-it-yourself
> nuclear fusion reactor. (That actually works!)
Vague is the word. Obviously you are much more familiar with advanced
mathematics than what constitutes a CRT and how "complicated" it is.
However, while I know of Philo T. Farnsworth's Fusor and would actually
like the know more the patents were as you put it "vague". However I
once did actually sit over the exact spot where Philo invented the image
dissector tube (or so they told me).
Since you are a theoretical kind of guy Jos, the energy problem can be
reduced to the simple question "why are not chickens atomic bombs?" The
problem as speculated by Costa De Beauregard is that "neutral currents"
carry away the missing excess. But this topic is forbidden so say no more.
>> ... that geological
>> transmutations can occur under very high pressures from a press
>
> That seems more speculative..
Experiments are not speculative.
>> All very kooky science according to debunkers.
>
> If it has been debunked then forget it. As a matter of
> fact, the nice thing about Sheldrake was that he actually
> favored doing tests to verify his ideas:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Seven_Experiments_That_Could_Change_the_World>
As I indicated there is much history and anecdote that point to a theory
like that proposed by Sheldrake. He's really just shaken down and
condensed standard long standing ideas. However, the Atheist crowd
(which includes a great many leftist scientists) flatly reject any
extra-dimensional existence for mind. Hence, any such theory which is
not chemically based and ends with death of the brain is assumed false
no matter what the the evidence.
> Most likely he would even have welcomed mathematical
> descriptions of these morphic fields, had they been found.
> So probably you have to remove him from your list again,
> benj. He does not play by your rules..
Most credible researchers of these topics welcome mathematical models as
well an any other kind of models that aid in thinking about the nature
of these at times very "unantural" effects. The "forbidden" part of the
list, however is not determined by the ability, integrity and honesty of
the experimenters, but by the politics of those managing the perception
and advance of science.
Why you think these are "my" rules, I have no idea. Nobody plays by "my"
rules. They don't even listen to what I'm saying.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 10:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <567676ab$0$23723$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #540396 |
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: >> ... >> .. >>> on the energy problem of how >>> transmutations can occur at low energy >> >> I vaguely remember the simplest set-up needed is something >> not more complicated than an old-fashioned CRT.. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor >> There must be other links somewhere for a do-it-yourself >> nuclear fusion reactor. (That actually works!) > > Vague is the word. Yes, we do not need mathematical exactness for everything. > Obviously you are much more familiar with advanced > mathematics than what constitutes a CRT and how "complicated" it is. Actually I'm familiar with both (and even know how to adjust the dynamic color convergence of a delta-gun tube without opening a manual) but what I wasn't sure about is whether the Fusor is really *not more complicated* than the CRT. The pictures of its interior (which I vaguely remember, by lack of a high-resolution photographic memory) show very simple structures inside. In any case, I'm almost certain that it is the simplest concept for a working nuclear fusion reactor. Or have you seen a simpler one? > "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.) >>> ... that geological >>> transmutations can occur under very high pressures from a press >> >> That seems more speculative.. > > Experiments are not speculative. 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! > ... The "forbidden" part of the > list, however is not determined by the ability, integrity and honesty of > the experimenters, but by the politics of those managing the perception > and advance of science. You mean the topics that need no further experiments because enough results already are available? > 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 > 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. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 02:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ggOdy.3874$hF6.1614@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #540408 |
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:
>>> ...
>>> ..
>>>> on the energy problem of how
>>>> transmutations can occur at low energy
>>>
>>> I vaguely remember the simplest set-up needed is something
>>> not more complicated than an old-fashioned CRT..
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor
>>> There must be other links somewhere for a do-it-yourself
>>> nuclear fusion reactor. (That actually works!)
>>
>> Vague is the word.
>
> Yes, we do not need mathematical exactness for everything.
>
>> Obviously you are much more familiar with advanced
>> mathematics than what constitutes a CRT and how "complicated" it is.
>
> Actually I'm familiar with both (and even know how to adjust
> the dynamic color convergence of a delta-gun tube without
> opening a manual) but what I wasn't sure about is whether
> the Fusor is really *not more complicated* than the CRT.
> The pictures of its interior (which I vaguely remember,
> by lack of a high-resolution photographic memory) show very
> simple structures inside.
Well, "complicated" is relative. As I indicated I don't have much
information on this because not much seems available. I have seen the
(a?) patent. (But I do not have a photographic memory either) The device
appears to be a simple sort of vacuum tube device, however I'd caution
that Farnsworth was a genius in the design of vacuum devices and his
devices were FAR from simple. So while there may have been a simple
APPEARING design, the REAL question is what does it take to actually
make it work? Did it actually work? If so, why are people fooling around
with gigantic stellarators and tokamaks? Why the gigantic laser fusor if
a simple tube does it all? If it doesn't work they why was a patent
issued? Is this a "forbidden topic"? Inquiring minds want to know.
> In any case, I'm almost certain that it is the simplest
> concept for a working nuclear fusion reactor. Or have you
> seen a simpler one?
But does it work? Contrary to those who think science is all about
belief, it's really about experiments and measurements. Famous "Kook"
science just wants to believe. I want to see it operate.
>> "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 for the
amount of calcium produced by chicken eggshells.
>>>> ... that geological
>>>> transmutations can occur under very high pressures from a press
>>>
>>> That seems more speculative..
>>
>> Experiments are not speculative.
>
> 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. So why is the topic
not enthusiastically pursued? Forbidden?
>> ... The "forbidden" part of the
>> list, however is not determined by the ability, integrity and honesty of
>> the experimenters, but by the politics of those managing the perception
>> and advance of science.
>
> You mean the topics that need no further experiments
> because enough results already are available?
I mean no further experiments can be permitted because of political
reasons. And it certainly doesn't hurt to have scientists who are ready
to assume that what they've come to believe is absolute truth (except of
course for some minor tweaks in accuracy) and thus any suggestions that
this truth may be incorrect can easily be rejected without even
examining the experiments or arguments. Just laugh and call them all
"Kooks". Takes care of it all!
>> 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? Oh yes, The city of Troy is a
fantasy. Heavier than air craft shall never be built. "You shall kill
yourselves" was the quote I read. A list of out of favor ideas, proves
nothing except that out of favor ideas do get generated and that some of
them even prove to be wrong. It's a piss poor argument to then imply
that therefore ALL out of favor ideas are therefore wrong.
>> 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 and that I am not endorsing
any specific topic or their promoters on this list. And what exactly is
"crackpot science" I need a better definition. Would that be the list of
topics on YOUR list of "lost causes"? If "hidden variables" is
"crackpot science", then Einstein is a crackpot and not science God of
the cosmos as media hype contends! Why to I detect your transmission
shifting into "spin" mode? Have we an agenda here Jos?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 11:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5677d97f$0$23863$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #540570 |
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? 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). ... >> 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). .. >>> 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? .. >>> 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! -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "szczepan bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 18:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n59bmf$n47$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #540588 |
"Jos Bergervoet" <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> napisał w wiadomości 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* --- Ta wiadomosc zostala sprawdzona na obecnosc wirusow przez oprogramowanie antywirusowe Avast. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 12:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n59foe$8j1$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #540630 |
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 | #540588 |
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 | #540644 |
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]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web