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

Groups > sci.physics > #540217 > unrolled thread

Re: Future Advances in Physics...

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#541714

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 12:58:46 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:
> On 12/25/2015 06:54 PM, Don Kelly wrote:
> > On 12/24/2015 7:18 PM, benj wrote:
> >> On 12/24/2015 09:24 PM, Don Kelly wrote:
> >>> On 12/22/2015 8:46 PM, benj wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> And that means? People like to say that results that are not not
> >>>> reproducible means the phenomena is a hoax. You must be one of those
> >>>> guys who thinks lightning is all hoaxes by college kids!

  I think it's time to mention that what it is we're talking about reproducing should be more clearly specified before we can start slapping labels like "real" or "hoax" on various experimental efforts.

> >>> Silly argument - you can do better--we can replicate lightning as a
> >>> phenomena -but we cannot replicate the conditions involved in any given
> >>> discharge because we don't know them . We can find statistical data with
> >>> regard to polarity and strength  and make use of this in providing
> >>> lightning protection. We then do provide laboratory lightning discharges
> >>> replicating strokes of different rise and fall times as well as
> >>> intensity.-standard practice in testing HV and EHV equipment.
> >>> Similarly we know the mechanism of making snowflakes but cannot predict
> >>> the extremely local conditions that dictate the shape of individual
> >>> snowflakes However we can, based on what we know, make snowflakes and do
> >>> so.
> >>>
> >>> Anyhow, don't waste Christmas on checking those snowflakes as you'll
> >>> change them in the process.
> >>
> >> No. Replicated lightning is not made! Just a poor imitation man vainly
> >> points too pretending it's the same as the natural. Man can't imitate
> >> lightning and even worse if I tell you when to call so-called REAL
> >> lightning  down in my back yard nobody can do it! I've offered a
> >> million bucks to anyone who can produce lightning in my back yard at
> >> my command in front of scientists. (ahem, I am the final judge if they
> >> succeed or not) and nobody has claimed the money! What does that tell
> >> you? It tells me lightning is just myth and fabrications and so-called
> >> "lightning damage" is just hoaxes by college frat boys!
> >>
> >> So don't tell me that the problem in replicating lightning is you
> >> can't produce the right "conditions". That is science. That is just
> >> excuses to cover up fraud! Lightning needs to get an Ignoble prize for
> >> paper in the journal of irreproducible results!
> >>
> >> Sorry Lightning is all FAKE! Simple electrical parlor tricks to fool
> >> the gullible! That is all there is too it! So real scientist believes
> >> in nonsense like lightning!
> >>
> > "Replication as a phenomena" -by whatever method we produce the required
> > charge separation.  I am not saying that we can produce a real lightning
> > stroke  even if we knew the conditions at each and every point in the
> > vicinity of the path as we don't even know, ahead of time the path itself.
> > We don't have to do so because the distance from your back yard to the
> > last step in the leader is what is of  importance (your house might just
> > be a bit closer) .- and this is related, albeit empirically,   to the
> > stroke as a current source.-which is within our capability.
> > Probabilities of stroke peak currents, , typical waveforms and
> > polarities  are well known.
> > So -as far as your back yard is concerned, we can produce something that
> > is the same thing. .However a cost /benefit study might make it a waste
> > of time. and would not provide the spectacle of a real stroke for your
> > more distant neighbors.
> >
> > I haven't been in a EHV test lab for about 30 years but you would not
> > appreciate the effect of the imitation in your back yard and the
> > difference between real and fake would be not of much concern.
> >
> > Snowflakes are easier.
> >
> > Enjoy the season
> > Don
> 
> Thanks, Don and best wishes to you and all the denizens here.

  Merry Winter Solstice to you, too.

> I am familiar with man made lightning. For a time I used to have an 
> office next door to the EHV lab. Impressive, yes, but not "real" 
> lightning.

  People have been attempting to replicate various *effects* associated with natural lightning strikes since the days of Tesla and Steinmetz. Figuring out that charge separation was involved and inventing tech to do that with (Tesla, Cockcroft-Walton, van de Graaff, etc.) was the easy part.

  Natural lightning has more to it than just setting buildings on fire, of course, and we keep discovering "new phenomena" all the time as people have pointed out here- RF whistlers, particle and antiparticle cascade showers, X-rays, gamma rays, sprites and elves, possible causal association with geomagnetic field line reconnection events way out beyond the ionosphere, and so on.

  How real does it have to be to be real? If your interest is fireproofing wooden structures, and you can consistently replicate all of the *relevant* characteristics- those that set buildings afire- of natural lightning strikes in a lab, is that real enough?

  If you're studying whistlers and can replicate them, is that real enough?

  Sprites? Positrons showers? Or, do you have to be able to replicate each and every individual sub-phenomenon exactly as they occur in natural strikes?

  That would require a near-continent-sized laboratory, you know.

> I keep trying to make a philosophical point here about 
> "forbidden subjects" but you are ignoring my efforts.

  Then just make the point instead of inviting others guess what it might be.

  Is it fundamental to your philosophy that natural lightning's association with the so-called Electric Universe conclusively demonstrates all of the other follow-on "woo woo" stuff like Ancient Aliens and whatnot?

  I ask that silly question because it seems to be the assumption made by HVAC and not a few others that your answer would be "yes".


  Mark L. fergerson

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

#541456

On 12/25/2015 3:24 AM, Don Kelly wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 8:46 PM, benj wrote:
>>
>> And that means? People like to say that results that are not not
>> reproducible means the phenomena is a hoax. You must be one of those
>> guys who thinks lightning is all hoaxes by college kids!
>
> Silly argument - you can do better-

Of course he can, but benj takes pride in his specialty!

> -we can replicate lightning as a phenomena -

Since nuclear fusion already came up: even simpler than
building your own fusor might be to simply wait for a
good thunderstorm.
<https://www.cwi.nl/news/2014/creation-of-antimatter-lightning-simulated-first-time>

I'm not sure whether the laboratory version will work
just as well (in this respect). After all, the voltages
used might be somewhat lower than in nature.

-- 
Jos

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

#541494

On 12/25/15 12/25/15   3:50 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> Since nuclear fusion already came up: even simpler than
> building your own fusor might be to simply wait for a
> good thunderstorm.
> <https://www.cwi.nl/news/2014/creation-of-antimatter-lightning-simulated-first-time>

This just shows that you know a little bit about the subject, but not enough to 
understand it. Yes, lightning can create "antimatter" in the form of positrons. 
That is VERY VERY far from any sort of nuclear fusion.


> I'm not sure whether the laboratory version will work
> just as well (in this respect). After all, the voltages
> used might be somewhat lower than in nature.

We accelerate electrons and protons to ENORMOUSLY higher energies than lightning 
can possibly do. But there are poorly-understood astrophysical processes that 
get to much higher energies than we humans do.

You really ought to learn something about the subject before attempting to write 
about it.


Tom Roberts

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

#541512

On 12/25/2015 6:46 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/25/15 12/25/15   3:50 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> Since nuclear fusion already came up: even simpler than
>> building your own fusor might be to simply wait for a
>> good thunderstorm.
>> <https://www.cwi.nl/news/2014/creation-of-antimatter-lightning-simulated-first-time>
>
> This just shows that you know a little bit about the subject,

You are flattering me, but it wasn't me who wrote this, Tom.
Although I do live in the Netherlands, so I can understand your
confusion. It was Christoph Köhn who showed to understand a
little bit about it (that's why he got his PhD.)

>    Yes, lightning can create "antimatter" in the
> form of positrons. That is VERY VERY far from any sort of nuclear fusion.

The claim in the dissertation is that also protons and
neutrons are created, which means that by definition nuclear
processes occur. Not necessarily much fusion, but the energy
range for it is available (NB in a fusor, particularly the
home-made variety, there isn't much fusion either. Hence the
comparison applies.)

  ..
>> I'm not sure whether the laboratory version will work
>> just as well (in this respect). After all, the voltages
>> used might be somewhat lower than in nature.
>
> We accelerate electrons and protons to ENORMOUSLY higher energies than
> lightning can possibly do.

Yes, but it is the laboratory version of the lightning that
I meant (e.g. at Eindhoven University, where Christoph got his
PhD, they create lightning bolts of about 1 meter length:
<https://www.tue.nl/en/university/departments/electrical-engineering/research/research-groups/electrical-energy-systems-ees/organisation/facilities/high-voltage-laboratory/> 
).

> But there are poorly-understood astrophysical
> processes that get to much higher energies than we humans do.
>
> You really ought to learn something about the subject before attempting
> to write about it.

You haven't shown one single factual error in what I wrote.
(Admittedly it was only a short post which mainly referred to
the link describing the dissertation, but still you could
have tried harder, I think!)

-- 
Jos

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

#541406

Am 21.12.2015 19:22, schrieb benj:
> On 12/21/2015 05:50 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> On 12/21/2015 8:55 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2015 04:36 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2015 7:47 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 12/19/2015 03:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 7:32 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 19.12.2015 05:39, schrieb benj:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> ..
>> ... [ fusor ]
>>> the REAL question is what does it take to actually
>>> make it work? Did it actually work?
>>
>> Why is that a question? It produces neutrons and
>> is even used for that purpose commercially (IIRC).
>>
>>> .. If so, why are people fooling around
>>> with gigantic stellarators and tokamaks?
>
> Obviously you seem to know more about further research and development
> of the Farsnworth fusor than I do. Apparently you say it does work even
> though it does not appear to be a device capable of what would be called
> "fusing energies" such as high plasma temperatures. That seems an
> interesting fact in itself!
>
>> To generate energy. The fusor consumes more than
>> you get out. (People actually fooled around with
>> fusors for quite a while before they were sure).
>>
>> ..
>>>>> "why are not chickens atomic bombs?"
>>>>
>>>> Not enough fissile material in them for a chain reaction.
>>>> (Of course if you use the right chicken food you might be
>>>> able to change this.)
>>>
>>> Not enough information Jos. Calculate the (theoretical) amount of energy
>>> involved in the transmutation between calcium and potassium
>>
>> It's the reaction rate you need to calculate! Or
>> else there would be dozens of other transmutations
>> that could give you lots of energy. The only one
>> inside the chicken that works is the Potassium-40
>> decay (and even that one with 10^9 years half-life).
>
> Well, you've got the official story down, Jos, but assertion is that
> Chickens can transmute between potassium and calcium at biological
> temperatures. Hence traditional physics isn't relevant. ...except if one
> uses it it to "know" that low energy transmutations are "impossible" and
> thus have an excuse not to examine any of it.
>
>> ...
>>>> There was also a theory that diamonds could be formed
>>>> under high pressures from a press. The results of
>>>> experiments proved it to be correct. That's what
>>>> experiments do, they give results!
>>>
>>> And there is a theory that high pressure can create geological
>>> transmutations. Experiment seemed to show it true.
>>
>> That's of no use. Experiments must *prove* it to be
>> true. (Like cold-fusion experiments that "seemed" to
>> show nuclear fusion, but were incorrect).
>
> Obviously your argument is that since "cold fusion" has been shown to be
> false (It actually hasn't) thus, geological transmutation is also false.
> Hence there is no need to do anything but reject all such ideas a
> priori. Data? Experiments? We doan need no steenkin' experiments. We
> KNOW what is true! Note that time on ultra-high pressure presses is hard
> to come by.

I personally think, that 'Growing Earth' is in fact true. Actually I 
spent years on this subject and can produce as much arguments about it 
as you like.

In the course of researching GE I found it surprising, that certain 
heavy materials are found high in mountains.

This is illogic in a 'plate tectonics scenario', which is based on a 
initial creation of the planets from a hot, lava-like, molten ball.

In such a scenario the heavy elements would sink into deeper regions and 
would not stay on top of mountains.

But if physicists are wrong about the nature of the atom and falsely 
believe, that one atom does not change the element it belongs to, than 
elements could actually 'transmute'.

This would be a process similar to ageing and the oldest elements are 
found, where the oldest surface is.

And - as a matter of fact - the places, where heavy elements are found, 
would fit to such a concept (assumed that Growing Earth is true).

And this would bring conventional physics into deep trouble, since quite 
a few assumptions ('laws') are completely incompatible to Growing Earth.

Mainly  incompatible is the so called 'Standard model' of QM, since it 
is based on particles and those are assumed to be created in a hot big-bang.

But If Earth would in fact grow from within, this assumption cannot be 
kept, since the interior of Earth does not explode.


So also a chicken could eventually transmute potassium without high 
voltage or the creation of a plasma vortex.

And this would bring physics into even deeper trouble, since this would 
violate certain assumption about the nature of matter, which are 
universally accepted.

But I would think, that chickens are (in this case) smarter than 
physicists, since they can actually do the trick, even if physicists do 
not understand it.


TH

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

#541455

On 12/24/2015 09:09 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.12.2015 19:22, schrieb benj:
>> On 12/21/2015 05:50 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>> On 12/21/2015 8:55 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2015 04:36 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>> On 12/20/2015 7:47 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 03:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 7:32 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am 19.12.2015 05:39, schrieb benj:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> ..
>>> ... [ fusor ]
>>>> the REAL question is what does it take to actually
>>>> make it work? Did it actually work?
>>>
>>> Why is that a question? It produces neutrons and
>>> is even used for that purpose commercially (IIRC).
>>>
>>>> .. If so, why are people fooling around
>>>> with gigantic stellarators and tokamaks?
>>
>> Obviously you seem to know more about further research and development
>> of the Farsnworth fusor than I do. Apparently you say it does work even
>> though it does not appear to be a device capable of what would be called
>> "fusing energies" such as high plasma temperatures. That seems an
>> interesting fact in itself!
>>
>>> To generate energy. The fusor consumes more than
>>> you get out. (People actually fooled around with
>>> fusors for quite a while before they were sure).
>>>
>>> ..
>>>>>> "why are not chickens atomic bombs?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Not enough fissile material in them for a chain reaction.
>>>>> (Of course if you use the right chicken food you might be
>>>>> able to change this.)
>>>>
>>>> Not enough information Jos. Calculate the (theoretical) amount of
>>>> energy
>>>> involved in the transmutation between calcium and potassium
>>>
>>> It's the reaction rate you need to calculate! Or
>>> else there would be dozens of other transmutations
>>> that could give you lots of energy. The only one
>>> inside the chicken that works is the Potassium-40
>>> decay (and even that one with 10^9 years half-life).
>>
>> Well, you've got the official story down, Jos, but assertion is that
>> Chickens can transmute between potassium and calcium at biological
>> temperatures. Hence traditional physics isn't relevant. ...except if one
>> uses it it to "know" that low energy transmutations are "impossible" and
>> thus have an excuse not to examine any of it.
>>
>>> ...
>>>>> There was also a theory that diamonds could be formed
>>>>> under high pressures from a press. The results of
>>>>> experiments proved it to be correct. That's what
>>>>> experiments do, they give results!
>>>>
>>>> And there is a theory that high pressure can create geological
>>>> transmutations. Experiment seemed to show it true.
>>>
>>> That's of no use. Experiments must *prove* it to be
>>> true. (Like cold-fusion experiments that "seemed" to
>>> show nuclear fusion, but were incorrect).
>>
>> Obviously your argument is that since "cold fusion" has been shown to be
>> false (It actually hasn't) thus, geological transmutation is also false.
>> Hence there is no need to do anything but reject all such ideas a
>> priori. Data? Experiments? We doan need no steenkin' experiments. We
>> KNOW what is true! Note that time on ultra-high pressure presses is hard
>> to come by.
>
> I personally think, that 'Growing Earth' is in fact true. Actually I
> spent years on this subject and can produce as much arguments about it
> as you like.
>
> In the course of researching GE I found it surprising, that certain
> heavy materials are found high in mountains.
>
> This is illogic in a 'plate tectonics scenario', which is based on a
> initial creation of the planets from a hot, lava-like, molten ball.
>
> In such a scenario the heavy elements would sink into deeper regions and
> would not stay on top of mountains.
>
> But if physicists are wrong about the nature of the atom and falsely
> believe, that one atom does not change the element it belongs to, than
> elements could actually 'transmute'.
>
> This would be a process similar to ageing and the oldest elements are
> found, where the oldest surface is.
>
> And - as a matter of fact - the places, where heavy elements are found,
> would fit to such a concept (assumed that Growing Earth is true).
>
> And this would bring conventional physics into deep trouble, since quite
> a few assumptions ('laws') are completely incompatible to Growing Earth.
>
> Mainly  incompatible is the so called 'Standard model' of QM, since it
> is based on particles and those are assumed to be created in a hot
> big-bang.
>
> But If Earth would in fact grow from within, this assumption cannot be
> kept, since the interior of Earth does not explode.
>
>
> So also a chicken could eventually transmute potassium without high
> voltage or the creation of a plasma vortex.
>
> And this would bring physics into even deeper trouble, since this would
> violate certain assumption about the nature of matter, which are
> universally accepted.
>
> But I would think, that chickens are (in this case) smarter than
> physicists, since they can actually do the trick, even if physicists do
> not understand it.

While there is little use going over the arguments of Kervran as to how 
the elements in the Earth's crust are distributed and seem to violate 
all reason (such as transport through metamorphic caps etc.) as well as 
elements theorized to be created by sea creatures it's clear that the 
earth is not some static ball as theorized by mechanical physics but is 
indeed changing geology due to growing life and other ignored processes.

Quite the breakthrough thinking and discoveries in my opinion.


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#541457

On 12/25/2015 10:00 AM, benj wrote:
> On 12/24/2015 09:09 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 21.12.2015 19:22, schrieb benj:
>>> On 12/21/2015 05:50 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>> On 12/21/2015 8:55 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 12/20/2015 04:36 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/20/2015 7:47 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 03:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 7:32 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am 19.12.2015 05:39, schrieb benj:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> ..
>>>> ... [ fusor ]
   ..
  .
>   ..it's clear that the
> earth is not some static ball as theorized by mechanical physics but is
> indeed changing geology due to growing life and other ignored processes.
>
> Quite the breakthrough thinking and discoveries in my opinion.

No, as you write "it's clear", so there never has been any
problem acknowledging this in the first place. What could
count as a "breakthrough" are things like the "giant-impact"
formation of the moon. Things that are not completely obvious,
I mean. (And violating a "static ball" picture, of course).

-- 
Jos

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

#541514

On 12/25/2015 05:01 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 12/25/2015 10:00 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 12/24/2015 09:09 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 21.12.2015 19:22, schrieb benj:
>>>> On 12/21/2015 05:50 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>> On 12/21/2015 8:55 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/20/2015 04:36 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/20/2015 7:47 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 03:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 7:32 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 19.12.2015 05:39, schrieb benj:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>> ... [ fusor ]
>    ..
>   .
>>   ..it's clear that the
>> earth is not some static ball as theorized by mechanical physics but is
>> indeed changing geology due to growing life and other ignored processes.
>>
>> Quite the breakthrough thinking and discoveries in my opinion.
>
> No, as you write "it's clear", so there never has been any
> problem acknowledging this in the first place. What could
> count as a "breakthrough" are things like the "giant-impact"
> formation of the moon. Things that are not completely obvious,
> I mean. (And violating a "static ball" picture, of course).

Yeah, though the theory of uniformity is happily dead and none who 
argued so strongly for it now admit it was ever believed. However, the 
creation of geology by transmutations is closer to the theory than Tesla 
moon-impact theories.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#547333

After further consideration...

*Significant* Future Advances in Physics cannot appear until the nonsence of 
QM is scrapped, and replaced with a physically consistent theory that 
"works" from the smallest component of the Nucleus to the Universe.

Watch this space for a challenge...

All the best,

Bill 

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

#547374

*Significant* Future Advances in Physics cannot appear until the nonsence of 
QM is scrapped, and replaced with a physically consistent theory that 
"works" from the smallest component of the Nucleus to the Universe. 
------------

Says who? You? Just because you want a unified theory doesn't mean one exists or even needs to exist

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

#547393

I say it, two

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

#547441

I say it, two
----------

Well, you've been wrong about every single claim you make. This is no different

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

#547432

On 01/22/2016 08:23 PM, HVAC wrote:
>
> *Significant* Future Advances in Physics cannot appear until the nonsence of
> QM is scrapped, and replaced with a physically consistent theory that
> "works" from the smallest component of the Nucleus to the Universe.
> ------------
>
> Says who? You? Just because you want a unified theory doesn't mean one exists or even needs to exist
>
HVAC, he just follows your theory of science. If something can be 
imagined then it is true. There's nothing more to say. If he believes in 
a unified theory then it must exist. Period.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#540239

On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 2:39:16 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> 
> 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.

Cartoon/soundbite representation of alchemy, rather than accurate. Is the correct presentation of ancient and medieval science a forbidden topic? If not, do it right!

> Does anyone notice here that this particular advance in physics actually 
> came about through a "forbidden" topic, namely that alchemy was actually 
> possible?

No. It didn't come about through alchemy. It came about through mainstream science. Novel, Nobel Prize recognised mainstream science. Alchemy contributed nothing (except through its contribution to chemistry in general).

> 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.

OK, go ahead and use alchemical theories of 4/5 elements to achieve transmutation. The theories are sometimes interesting, generally wrong, and sometimes led to interesting innovations. The experimental techniques developed in alchemy were really useful to the development of chemistry (and chemical engineering, even).

Don't get too hung up on the words people used. Democritus isn't a theoretical ancestor of Dalton in any useful sense, even if they both called them "atom". Words are words, not magic.

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

#540296

On 12/19/2015 04:29 AM, Timo wrote:
> On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 2:39:16 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Cartoon/soundbite representation of alchemy, rather than accurate. Is the correct presentation of ancient and medieval science a forbidden topic? If not, do it right!
>
>> Does anyone notice here that this particular advance in physics actually
>> came about through a "forbidden" topic, namely that alchemy was actually
>> possible?
>
> No. It didn't come about through alchemy. It came about through mainstream science. Novel, Nobel Prize recognised mainstream science. Alchemy contributed nothing (except through its contribution to chemistry in general).
>
>> 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.
>
> OK, go ahead and use alchemical theories of 4/5 elements to achieve transmutation. The theories are sometimes interesting, generally wrong, and sometimes led to interesting innovations. The experimental techniques developed in alchemy were really useful to the development of chemistry (and chemical engineering, even).
>
> Don't get too hung up on the words people used. Democritus isn't a theoretical ancestor of Dalton in any useful sense, even if they both called them "atom". Words are words, not magic.
>
Timo, quit acting like a nerd! we are not talking about the scientific 
details here, but the large sweep of politics and belief. You've got the 
wrong hat on. When atomic transmutation was discovered it doesn't matter 
that it came about through means other than traditional alchemy. Not the 
point. The point is the that the TOPIC of "transmutations existing" was 
politically forbidden. That someone chose to actually buck the tradition 
(even in another area) is of some note. Just try publishing a paper that 
involves "intelligent design" even in a totally unrelated discipline.

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

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

#540299

the future of physics is THERE'LL BE NO PHYSICS (as product of newton's ill imagination). instead all that will remain will be en-math-ed. 

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

#540319

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 4:58:53 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 12/19/2015 04:29 AM, Timo wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 2:39:16 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Cartoon/soundbite representation of alchemy, rather than accurate. Is the correct presentation of ancient and medieval science a forbidden topic? If not, do it right!
> >
> >> Does anyone notice here that this particular advance in physics actually
> >> came about through a "forbidden" topic, namely that alchemy was actually
> >> possible?
> >
> > No. It didn't come about through alchemy. It came about through mainstream science. Novel, Nobel Prize recognised mainstream science. Alchemy contributed nothing (except through its contribution to chemistry in general).
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > OK, go ahead and use alchemical theories of 4/5 elements to achieve transmutation. The theories are sometimes interesting, generally wrong, and sometimes led to interesting innovations. The experimental techniques developed in alchemy were really useful to the development of chemistry (and chemical engineering, even).
> >
> > Don't get too hung up on the words people used. Democritus isn't a theoretical ancestor of Dalton in any useful sense, even if they both called them "atom". Words are words, not magic.
> >
> Timo, quit acting like a nerd! we are not talking about the scientific 
> details here, but the large sweep of politics and belief. You've got the 
> wrong hat on. When atomic transmutation was discovered it doesn't matter 
> that it came about through means other than traditional alchemy. Not the 
> point. The point is the that the TOPIC of "transmutations existing" was 
> politically forbidden.

Forbidden? The discovery was loudly acclaimed by The Establishment, given multiple Nobel Prizes, and made science superstars. In what way was it "forbidden"?

> That someone chose to actually buck the tradition 
> (even in another area) is of some note. Just try publishing a paper that 
> involves "intelligent design" even in a totally unrelated discipline.

Want to publish in science? Ideally, you should have science in your paper. If, in principle, you had actual scientific evidence of ID, what would the real obstacle be? The bar would be a bit higher, due to the non-science of ID that's out there, so your scientific ID paper would be suspected of being a non-science ID attempt to get respectable scientific publications.

If you're putting it into a paper in a totally unrelated discipline, swift rejection might well be in order. Because "totally unrelated".

("Intelligent design", in the human-done sense is a sadly diminishing art. After a recent DIY task, I was asked "Was it easy?". Except for idiot design, it would have been easy. What kind of moron puts screw holes where the rest of the thing stops easy access to the screw heads, and there is plenty of structurally sound space 1cm away where access would be easy. Plus needing to actually fix the thing because idiot designers made it so that essential moving parts would jam. Engineering schools out there: your job is to stop this kind of thing.)

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

#540572

On 12/19/2015 04:07 PM, Timo wrote:
> On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 4:58:53 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 12/19/2015 04:29 AM, Timo wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 2:39:16 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Cartoon/soundbite representation of alchemy, rather than
>>> accurate. Is the correct presentation of ancient and medieval
>>> science a forbidden topic? If not, do it right!
>>>
>>>> Does anyone notice here that this particular advance in physics
>>>> actually came about through a "forbidden" topic, namely that
>>>> alchemy was actually possible?
>>>
>>> No. It didn't come about through alchemy. It came about through
>>> mainstream science. Novel, Nobel Prize recognised mainstream
>>> science. Alchemy contributed nothing (except through its
>>> contribution to chemistry in general).
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> OK, go ahead and use alchemical theories of 4/5 elements to
>>> achieve transmutation. The theories are sometimes interesting,
>>> generally wrong, and sometimes led to interesting innovations.
>>> The experimental techniques developed in alchemy were really
>>> useful to the development of chemistry (and chemical engineering,
>>> even).
>>>
>>> Don't get too hung up on the words people used. Democritus isn't
>>> a theoretical ancestor of Dalton in any useful sense, even if
>>> they both called them "atom". Words are words, not magic.
>>>
>> Timo, quit acting like a nerd! we are not talking about the
>> scientific details here, but the large sweep of politics and
>> belief. You've got the wrong hat on. When atomic transmutation was
>> discovered it doesn't matter that it came about through means other
>> than traditional alchemy. Not the point. The point is the that the
>> TOPIC of "transmutations existing" was politically forbidden.
>
> Forbidden? The discovery was loudly acclaimed by The Establishment,
> given multiple Nobel Prizes, and made science superstars. In what way
> was it "forbidden"?

I love the way scientists operate. They all get on some idea (like 
transmutations are IMPOSSIBLE) They all will argue with you half a day 
that this is the absolute truth no matter what the hints that it might 
be wrong. And then someone finally provides definitive proof the old saw 
is dead wrong. Suddenly at the speed of light EVERYONE is on the new 
bandwagon. Why NOBODY EVER said it was impossible! EVERYBODY KNOWS that 
this is true! Why would you accuse us a saying anything different! 
(probably because they did say it). And the result is your view through 
rose-colored glasses. God is in his heaven and all's right with the 
world (again).

>> That someone chose to actually buck the tradition (even in another
>> area) is of some note. Just try publishing a paper that involves
>> "intelligent design" even in a totally unrelated discipline.
>
> Want to publish in science? Ideally, you should have science in your
> paper. If, in principle, you had actual scientific evidence of ID,
> what would the real obstacle be? The bar would be a bit higher, due
> to the non-science of ID that's out there, so your scientific ID
> paper would be suspected of being a non-science ID attempt to get
> respectable scientific publications.
>
> If you're putting it into a paper in a totally unrelated discipline,
> swift rejection might well be in order. Because "totally unrelated".

Nice story, Timo. But your pretense that the publication process is 
totally fair, unbiased and apolitical is not how it is. A really good 
examples along these lines can be found in the documentary "Expelled" 
with Ben Stein. Naturally all the "debunkers" have panned the film as 
"conspiracy theory" and all the usual name-calling that you see here 
directed at me. Which oddly enough is proof of my contention (and that 
of the film) of political bias and censorship in science.

> ("Intelligent design", in the human-done sense is a sadly diminishing
> art. After a recent DIY task, I was asked "Was it easy?". Except for
> idiot design, it would have been easy. What kind of moron puts screw
> holes where the rest of the thing stops easy access to the screw
> heads, and there is plenty of structurally sound space 1cm away where
> access would be easy. Plus needing to actually fix the thing because
> idiot designers made it so that essential moving parts would jam.
> Engineering schools out there: your job is to stop this kind of
> thing.)

And of course this point is very much correct which is highly in 
evidence in most any automotive design when with age comes the need for 
repairs.  I certainly can point with some authority to the Brit E-type 
Jag I used to own as a premier example of lack of ID. And sadly, though 
you mention only mechanics, the problem is FAR more widespread than 
that, particularly infesting much software regardless of cost. I do have 
a crusade to stop high schoolers in a garage (or basement in the case of 
Rolf) level software being allowed to be distributed without the 
programmers waterboarded and subjected to other EIT.



-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

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

#540578

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 6:23:18 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 12/19/2015 04:07 PM, Timo wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 4:58:53 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >> On 12/19/2015 04:29 AM, Timo wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 2:39:16 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Cartoon/soundbite representation of alchemy, rather than
> >>> accurate. Is the correct presentation of ancient and medieval
> >>> science a forbidden topic? If not, do it right!
> >>>
> >>>> Does anyone notice here that this particular advance in physics
> >>>> actually came about through a "forbidden" topic, namely that
> >>>> alchemy was actually possible?
> >>>
> >>> No. It didn't come about through alchemy. It came about through
> >>> mainstream science. Novel, Nobel Prize recognised mainstream
> >>> science. Alchemy contributed nothing (except through its
> >>> contribution to chemistry in general).
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> OK, go ahead and use alchemical theories of 4/5 elements to
> >>> achieve transmutation. The theories are sometimes interesting,
> >>> generally wrong, and sometimes led to interesting innovations.
> >>> The experimental techniques developed in alchemy were really
> >>> useful to the development of chemistry (and chemical engineering,
> >>> even).
> >>>
> >>> Don't get too hung up on the words people used. Democritus isn't
> >>> a theoretical ancestor of Dalton in any useful sense, even if
> >>> they both called them "atom". Words are words, not magic.
> >>>
> >> Timo, quit acting like a nerd! we are not talking about the
> >> scientific details here, but the large sweep of politics and
> >> belief. You've got the wrong hat on. When atomic transmutation was
> >> discovered it doesn't matter that it came about through means other
> >> than traditional alchemy. Not the point. The point is the that the
> >> TOPIC of "transmutations existing" was politically forbidden.
> >
> > Forbidden? The discovery was loudly acclaimed by The Establishment,
> > given multiple Nobel Prizes, and made science superstars. In what way
> > was it "forbidden"?
> 
> I love the way scientists operate. They all get on some idea (like 
> transmutations are IMPOSSIBLE) They all will argue with you half a day 
> that this is the absolute truth no matter what the hints that it might 
> be wrong. And then someone finally provides definitive proof the old saw 
> is dead wrong. Suddenly at the speed of light EVERYONE is on the new 
> bandwagon. Why NOBODY EVER said it was impossible! EVERYBODY KNOWS that 
> this is true! Why would you accuse us a saying anything different! 
> (probably because they did say it). And the result is your view through 
> rose-colored glasses. God is in his heaven and all's right with the 
> world (again).

Rose coloured glasses? Curie got 2 Nobel Prizes for her efforts, and became a science superstar.

Sure, evidence convinces people. What do you expect?
 
> >> That someone chose to actually buck the tradition (even in another
> >> area) is of some note. Just try publishing a paper that involves
> >> "intelligent design" even in a totally unrelated discipline.
> >
> > Want to publish in science? Ideally, you should have science in your
> > paper. If, in principle, you had actual scientific evidence of ID,
> > what would the real obstacle be? The bar would be a bit higher, due
> > to the non-science of ID that's out there, so your scientific ID
> > paper would be suspected of being a non-science ID attempt to get
> > respectable scientific publications.
> >
> > If you're putting it into a paper in a totally unrelated discipline,
> > swift rejection might well be in order. Because "totally unrelated".
> 
> Nice story, Timo. But your pretense that the publication process is 
> totally fair, unbiased and apolitical is not how it is.

Pretense? Are you imagining imaginary claims again? Just read what I wrote. Note well the "bar would be a bit higher". Strong claims? Better have strong evidence!  You don't? Then don't whine about censorship, whine about your own sloppy work. Get that strong evidence!

Political? The journals want to fill pages, and they want to fill those pages with stuff that will be cited. Controversial stuff will be cited. Controversial science is the best kind, if you take your impact factor seriously. Controversial stuff - if it's science and interesting - *benefits* from the politics. Controversial stuff also attracts attention, and if it's based on crap, it will often be quickly refuted. Publishing stuff that is quickly shown to be crap isn't so good for a journal's reputation. See above about the bar being higher.

Have a paper that was rejected for "political reasons"? Post an eprint, and link. Not getting into PRL, and then giving up doesn't count.

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

#540359

Timo, quit acting like a nerd! we are not talking about the scientific 
details here, but the large sweep of politics and belief. You've got the 
wrong hat on. When atomic transmutation was discovered it doesn't matter 
that it came about through means other than traditional alchemy. Not the 
point. The point is the that the TOPIC of "transmutations existing" was 
politically forbidden. That someone chose to actually buck the tradition 
(even in another area) is of some note. Just try publishing a paper that 
involves "intelligent design" even in a totally unrelated discipline. 
-----------

The same could be said for flat earth. Or the moon being made from green cheese. 

Kooks like you serve the purpose of entertaining me. That's it

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web