gravity masking
Charles Cagle
<kent_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This article about very old supernovae states that in the early few
> billions of years that the expansion of the Universe was slowing
> down.
>
> http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0304/10supernova/
>
> It has now been observed that the expansion of the Universe is
> accelerating.
This isn't a true statement. We haven't observed that the Universe is
accelerating its putative expansion nor have we observed that the
Universe is expanding in the first place. The reality is that such
remarks are both unscientific and misleading because they require an a
priori assumption of a specific interpretation of data. Sometimes, or
I should say 'often' people forget that the interpretation of the data
is not the data. The facts are that there is no indisputable method of
determining distances of most cosmological objects. This throws a
monkey wrench into what would otherwise seem to be a rational
interpretation of data. We can't use the magnitude of observed
redshift to insist that greater redshift means a greater distance (from
the source). The observation of a 3 degree microwave background is not
proof that there ever was a Big Bang in the first place but again is a
specific interpretation of data. The reality is that there are other
ways of interpreting the same data which do not lead to the same
conclusions.
The longtime editor of Nature (Sir John Maddox) remarked that the Big
Bang isn't any more scientific than creationism but the problem is that
there's a huge intellectual investment which has been made by a great
number of people who are considered to be "experts" on these matters
and that investment is a guarded interest as their 'stock in trade'.
If they give up the fairy tale of a Big Bang then that means that the
books that they've written on the subject are nonsense or that the time
that they have taken to read many books written by others on the
subject has been wasted. So, cosmologists and astrophysicists, even
though they know that the Big Bang isn't a proven fact, now write
essays and papers and give lectures the content of which speaks of the
Big Bang as if it were a real factual physical event describing the
beginning of our Universe.
I think the real problem is that the community of cosmologists,
astronomers, astrophysicists, etc. are out of ideas and so they are
basically stuck in the groove of a particular paradigmatic
interpretation of the data.
People need to sit down every once in a while a make a big list of the
things that they don't know for sure. If they are honest this will
have a humbling effect. The fundamental advantage of being humbled is
that one comes to the conclusion that they really don't have a handle
on how the universe is put together or how it works. Think of the
worldview that people carry around in their heads as composed of sets
of questions and answers. If people believe that they have the answer
to a particular question then they are like the fellow whose only tool
is a hammer and so he thinks all problems are best solved with a
hammer. They see all things in the light of the specific paradigm or
model that they have come to intellectual endorse. We can see right
away that we shouldn't be so quick to endorse solutions because then we
are blinded in such a manner that we won't be able to recognize the
truth when it appears.
Charles Cagle
Elmer Bataitis
> The reality is that such
> remarks are both unscientific and misleading because they require an a
> priori assumption of a specific interpretation of data.
Sort of like seeing things fall requires no specific interpretation of
the data? OK.
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
Chuck Taylor
> > It has now been observed that the expansion of the Universe is
> > accelerating.
>
> This isn't a true statement. We haven't observed that the Universe is
> accelerating its putative expansion nor have we observed that the
> Universe is expanding in the first place. The reality is that such
> remarks are both unscientific and misleading because they require an a
> priori assumption of a specific interpretation of data. Sometimes, or
> I should say 'often' people forget that the interpretation of the data
> is not the data. The facts are that there is no indisputable method of
> determining distances of most cosmological objects.
There is no "indisputable method of determining" whether or not you know
what you are talking about, but most of us would agree that you do not.
We all make assumptions about the interpretation of data on a nonstop basis.
You yourself do as well. The problem is that you make assumptions that have
been disproved. But instead of dealing with that, you protest about
everybody else's conclusions as if your fallacies somehow invalidates what
others have found.
Clear Skies
Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/
(Archives now open to public)
Sam Wormley
> > accelerating.
>
> This isn't a true statement. We haven't observed that the Universe is
> accelerating its putative expansion nor have we observed that the
> Universe is expanding in the first place. The reality is that such
> remarks are both unscientific and misleading because they require an a
> priori assumption of a specific interpretation of data. Sometimes, or
> I should say 'often' people forget that the interpretation of the data
> is not the data. The facts are that there is no indisputable method of
> determining distances of most cosmological objects. This throws a
> monkey wrench into what would otherwise seem to be a rational
> interpretation of data. We can't use the magnitude of observed
> redshift to insist that greater redshift means a greater distance (from
> the source). The observation of a 3 degree microwave background is not
> proof that there ever was a Big Bang in the first place but again is a
> specific interpretation of data. The reality is that there are other
> ways of interpreting the same data which do not lead to the same
> conclusions.
>
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
WMAP data
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
Excellent article "Turning a Corner on the New Cosmology", "Sky &
Telescope", May 2003, Vol. 105, No. 5, pp 16-17
"Among WMAP's Findings:
o Space all across the universe is flat, just like the familiar space
right around us. That is, parallel lines will never meet no matter how
far they are extended, and other aspects of geometry work normally no
matter how far you look. Flat space is a sign that the cosmic inflation
theory underlying the Big Bang is right on target. This in turn implies
that the familiar scenery of galaxies and galaxy clusters that we see
extending across the universe continues infinitely far beyond our cosmic
horizon".
Personally I have difficulty with "infinitely far" in a universe of finite
age, but then lots of things in GR and QM are not intuitive for me, a
learner of physics.
"o The universe is 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years old. This is the best age
determination for the cosmos ever achieved, accurate to better than 2
percent. It fits perfectly with recent determinations using a variety
of independent astronomical methods".
Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Singularity+Technologies%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3ACC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3ACagle
Charles Cagle
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
This is hilarious. Baez is an apologist for a belief system that isn't
even consistent with itself. The beat goes on and on and the effort to
force data into arcane conceptual models which more often than not are
developed without the benefit of reason nor solid deductive logic
continues apace. Sigh....
Then you make the announcement of a 'finding' that 'Space' is flat
without realizing that you have bought into a conceptualization that
whizzed right past your nose without you blinking an eye or even
noticing. The reality is that even Einstein began to have serious
doubts as to whether or not the notion of continuous structures is even
a valid concept.
Einstein wrote to his dear friend Michele Besso in 1954:
: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the
: field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case,
: nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory
: included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
quoted from:
_Subtle is the Lord_, Abraham Pais, page 467.
But by the time Einstein began to wake up it was too late and no one
would take him seriously. It was a situation kind of like where some
fellow goes out and enthusiastically buys into the Mormon church or the
Moonies and then talks a number of his friends into it as well. Later
he investigates the whole thing using history and reason and realizes
what a tremendous con it all was. He can leave the LDS church or the
Moonie church but the people he talked into joining probably won't
leave with him. The hardest thing for a person to do is to deny his
labors. Einstein at least got to that point but by then practically
the whole scientific community had been converted and there was no way
in hell that Einstein could lead them back out of the woods because it
would mean that they would all have to admit that they weren't really
experts in the subjects that their degrees said they were experts in.
They would have to deny their own labors in coming to the point where
they could adequately teach the nonsense that Einstein had come to the
point of denying was valid. But you don't want to hear about that.
Baez is, no doubt, an able mathematician but he's far too invested to
ever give an unbiased evaluation of the nature of the universe. He
bills himself as a mathematical physicist but he's really a
mathematician who is trying to play the part of a physicist.
In reality, cosmologists don't understand the nature of charge nor of
gravity and they have never found a means to unite the quantum aspects
of the universe with the universe as depicted by 'General Relativity'.
There are thousands of papers written every year where numbers of
people are trying to articulate their understanding of the cosmos. If
you don't believe me just go to http://xxx.lanl.gov and check out the
endless archives of intellectual masturbatory bullshit that exists
there.
Charles Cagle
Chuck Taylor
> There are thousands of papers written every year where numbers of
> people are trying to articulate their understanding of the cosmos. If
> you don't believe me just go to http://xxx.lanl.gov and check out the
> endless archives of intellectual masturbatory bullshit that exists
> there.
We don't need to go there. You already post it here.
Charles Cagle
<chucktaylo...@speakeasy.fishing> wrote:
> "Charles Cagle" <c...@singtech.com> got help with the big words to scribble:
> > > It has now been observed that the expansion of the Universe is
> > > accelerating.
> >
> > This isn't a true statement. We haven't observed that the Universe is
> > accelerating its putative expansion nor have we observed that the
> > Universe is expanding in the first place. The reality is that such
> > remarks are both unscientific and misleading because they require an a
> > priori assumption of a specific interpretation of data. Sometimes, or
> > I should say 'often' people forget that the interpretation of the data
> > is not the data. The facts are that there is no indisputable method of
> > determining distances of most cosmological objects.
>
> There is no "indisputable method of determining" whether or not you know
> what you are talking about, but most of us would agree that you do not.
Your life in a nutshell is your inability to discuss things without
that contrived 'most of us' consensus that you are so willing to
fabricate. The consensus of fools does not make the fools smarter but
only easier to collectively locate.
> We all make assumptions about the interpretation of data on a nonstop basis.
> You yourself do as well. The problem is that you make assumptions that have
> been disproved.
That's a nice sound byte that you like to wave about but there's no
substance to it at all. You're saying that doesn't make it true but
only a trite repetitious claim you can't back up.
> But instead of dealing with that, you protest about everybody else's
> conclusions as if your fallacies somehow invalidates what others have
> found.
Again, you fake a victory where there was never a battle. You claim
I've posted fallacies but that's all you do (make empty claims). Your
method of debating issues is to make such empty claims.
Charles Cagle
--------------------------------------------------------
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to
hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those
who think differently.
--Friedrich Nietzsche--
***
Bob May
--
Bob May
Why is there an Ozone Hole at the South Pole but Not at the North Pole?
Somebody's been lying to you!
Orion
It's refreshing to read that someone else besides me doesn't swallow down
dogma whole with a smile and ask for seconds!
The arrogance of"Professional" Astronomers drive me nuts from time to time,
particularly the ones that state as a "Proven fact" things like,
The big bang, black holes, white holes, dark matter, etc,etc etc. not one of
which can honestly said to be a "FACT" by any reasonable thinking man..
Before Copernicus, it was a FACT that the sun went around the earth...
I know some who read this post think I'm full of it but considerr Astronomy
100 years from now, and tell me that the Astronomers of the future won't
look back and think (with a smile)
about what primitive cavemen we were back then.
That's always been the history of Astronomy, probably always will...
Cleardarkskies!
Orion
"Charles Cagle" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
news:150520031810442136%c...@singtech.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 4/25/2003
Charles Cagle
<har...@herald.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Charles Cagle wrote:
> > There are thousands of papers written every year where numbers of
> > people are trying to articulate their understanding of the cosmos. If
> > you don't believe me just go to http://xxx.lanl.gov and check out the
> > endless archives of intellectual masturbatory bullshit that exists
> > there.
>
> So you don't understand it then. Fair enough.
What a nitwit comment. Maybe you should stop at your local newsstand
and get a copy of the latest 'Scientific American' there's a list of 10
things that the 'Standard Model' can't answer. I think it is safe to
say that no one truly understands the universe if they look through the
filter of the Standard Model as their central paradigmatic guide.
That you are too witless to realize this was made manifest in your
comment.
Charles Cagle
Sam Wormley
Charles - take a flying ---- at a rolling magnetotoroidal loop!
The Ghost In The Machine
In sci.physics, Charles Cagle
<c...@singtech.com>
wrote
on Sun, 25 May 2003 02:03:22 GMT
<240520031903154257%c...@singtech.com>:
Throwing "Questions the Standard Model can't answer" at
www.sciam.com's search engine produced absolutely nothing.
The June 2003 issue does include Physics as a topic:
"The Dawn Of Physics beyond the Standard Model"
Since I'm not a subscriber I can't comment further specifically thereon.
However, Googling for "beyond the Standard Model" produced a fair
number of hits (some to a conference).
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Charles Cagle
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <hm17q-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>, The Ghost In The
Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
Dear Ghost,
That's the article I meant which you referred to above. There's a list
of ten questions which the Standard Model is unable to deal with. They
are listed as Ten Mysteries.
1) The cosmological constant
2) Dark Energy
3) Fields responsible for inflation
4) CP symmetry (or matter antimatter asymmetry)
5) Dark Matter
6) The forms that the Higgs interactions must take
7) Higgs boson mass problems
8) Gravity
9) The values of the masses of the quarks and leptons
10) The numbers of 'generations' of particles.
Part of the problem is that the Standard Model isn't designed to take
care of all of these difficulties such as Dark Energy which is a
conjecture based upon a unique and specific interpretation of red shift
data. So, the source of the problem doesn't come from the SM itself
but from the interpretation of data by comologists.
Some of the problems are self created by the Standard Model such as
Higgs boson, the invention of quarks.
The matter antimatter symmetry is only a problem if you consider pair
creation to be the actual creation of matter instead of a conservative
transformation process which is what it really is. This is a wart that
arose from people worrying about the wrong thing or conceptualizing the
creation of matter as equivalent to the conservative transformation of
matter and energy that already exists. Our conservation laws only say
that whatever the stuff is that composes matter and energy might be can
move back and forth across the equals sign (like in E=mc^2) without
gain or loss. In fact few people stop to consider that our
conservation laws do not address the origin of the 'stuff' of the
universe. For that cosmologists have turned to the Big Bang but they
are still, it seems, thinking that nothing can come from nothing so
they are assuming that the matter and energy of the universe if
converted to a common coin must be a constant. They have no proof that
this is so and hence it is more akin to a religous conviction and not
science.
Problems 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are internally created problems. Number
8 is just a blatant gapping hole with regard to knowledge and the rest
are problems created either by observations by cosmologist or
incompetent interpretations of data (by cosmologists).
What I find hilarious is that there are armies of people who believe
that the Standard Model provides a good interpretation of the universe.
Charles Cagle
Paul Curran
>What I find hilarious is that there are armies of people who believe
>that the Standard Model provides a good interpretation of the universe.
>
>Charles Cagle
In order to make such a remark, you obviously must know why it is
hilarious. Which means you can answer those questions.
So why don't you answerthem for us?
nightbat
nightbat
What I think the physicists and professional researchers find
most perplexing is their knowledge that you have to be Government
licensed to do any kind of nuclear cold fusion research Mr. Cagle. If
you had or were able to secure Government licensing you wouldn't need to
secure investment funds because the government would provide them for
you. When talking about a National Security field like nuclear cold
fusion which requires licensing, it doesn't make much sense to them that
you are seeking private or public investment funds. That your posted
physics theories are interesting, your apparent non knowledge of nuclear
research licensing requirements, the so called loop, is, if nothing
else, perplexing to them.
Personally, I do find your physic theories and topics interesting even
if you're not apparently in the loop.
the nightbat
Charles Cagle
<nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote:
Sorry, nightbat, but what you say above is not true. There is no
licensing requirement for nuclear fusion research (hot or cold).
Fusion is not a National Security 'field' as you say. I don't know
where you got the idea that one had to be licensed to conduct or
participate in such research activities. I would have to have some
sorts of permits to handle radioactive materials (over certain
quantities) such as radioactive heavy metals like uranium, cobal-60,
plutonium, etc. but I can possess any quantity of deuterium or heavy
water, or even lithium deuteride that I want. If I started producing
quantities of tritium I'm sure that DOE would take an interest but I'm
not even sure if there are any laws which state that I cannot possess
tritium in minute quantities.
Charles Cagle
Charles Cagle
<ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Why don't you read the posting? I already answered some aspects.
You'll see that some of the problems are self generated by the Standard
Can I answer them? Sure, most of them. Will I do it for you? Depends.
1) The cosmological constant isn't a problem at all. If the universe
were expanding or if the universe were contracting then one might
suppose that it would be. Data taken to be evidence of expansion is
misinterpreted. In this problem one would suppose the mean density of
the mass in the universe is decreasing or increasing. Or it is staying
the same. I say that it is staying the same because the universe
contains structures the dynamics of which create mass. Space itself is
an artifact of perception not a thing that has physical existence.
Particles are composed of relationships, that is they are themselves
bundles of relationships between other bundles of relationships.
2) Dark Energy. The universe isn't accelerating its expansion because
it isn't expanding in the first place. The data taken to be 'evidence'
of expansion is the redshifting of light from distant sources. The
solution to redshifting is found in the gravitational charge separation
effect. Thus, those bodies which exhibit the greatest redshift really
are not distributed outward from us, as observers, by distance but
rather only are structures with strong gravitational fields. It is
wishful thinking to suppose that they are distributed outward from us,
as observers, with a direct correlation of distance to redshift. We do
not yet possess the technology to make direct measurement of the
distance of most remote sources.
3) Fields responsible for inflation. Since there never was a Big Bang
this nonsense self evaporates.
4) CP symmetry (or matter antimatter asymmetry). I already answered
this but I'll restate. Matter is not created in matter-antimatter
pairs but rather it comes into being in charge conjugate pairs. Pair
creation is merely a transformation process not an actual 'creation' ex
nihlo event.
5) Dark Matter. I've given the solution in many other posts. Dark
matter is the accumulation of Isaacium along the gravitational terminus
lines of monolithic gravitational sources (large scale flux loop
systems with high flux density). It is dark precisely because of the
gravitational charge separation effect which excludes electrons from
the terminus line of the monolithic gravitational field.
6) The forms that the Higgs interactions must take
7) Higgs boson mass problems
The Higgs boson is a fiction that emerges out of other fictions such as
the 'strong force', the 'weak force', quarks, gluons, etc.
8) Gravity. I've presented the solution to unification of
electromagnetism and gravity in other postings.
9) The values of the masses of the quarks and leptons?
Quarks are fictions. Masses are measured quantities of leptons,
fermions, and bosons, hadrons, etc. but one first needs to investigate
the cause of the attribute of the quality which we call mass before we
suggest that we should have a knowledge of why lepton masses are what
they are. I don't pretend to provide an answer as to why a neutron has
a certain mass and an electron appears to have a much smaller mass and
why their mass ratio is what it is. It may be that this is a problem
that has a solution or it may be a nonsensical question and until one
fully understands the nature of mass in the first place the question of
why the n/e mass ratio is what it is may have to rest on the shelf
marked 'unknown' for a while.
10) The numbers of 'generations' of particles.
This is a mixed problem because once the nature of charge is grasped
then certain things vanish, like quarks, gravitions, and certain things
are re-evaluated like neutrinos (as bosons). In fact, photons which
are bosons are re-evaluated as structures which are composed of a
charge and its conjugate and that it produces a gravitational field.
Ultimately we come to an Archetype particle which has the features of a
lepton when measured for spin but really is a boson because it consists
of a charge and its conjugate and produces a gravitational field. From
that single Archetype we can see the emergence of all other particles.
We can see that the Archetype is a more important concept because it
can occur at a broad range of size scales from the neutron to large
scale flux loop systems which are the core features of galaxies.
Charles Cagle
nightbat
nightbat
Respectfully Mr.Cagle, please refer to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0099/r10/#mission
Contents: NRC Mission
the nightbat
Charles Cagle
<nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote:
Respectfully or not, you need to get a grip. Nuclear materials do not
include deuterium or lithium deuteride as falling within the regulatory
authority of NRC. They are referring mainly to materials that are
related to the operation of nuclear fission facilities, or are related
to heavy metal isotopes in nuclear weapons to include tritium,
plutonium and certain isotopes of uranium. However, minute amounts of
tritium and radium must be possessable by the public since I used to
have a Seiko watch that had tritium in the paint on the dials and face.
Radium was used for a long time for luminous watch and clock dials.
Again, there are no licensing requirements for nuclear fusion research
unless you are associated with a facility that plans to use tritium in
the reactor.
Charles Cagle
greywolf42
{snip higher levels}
> >
> > Respectfully Mr.Cagle, please refer to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
> > Commission.
> >
> >
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0099/r10/#m
ission
> >
> > Contents: NRC Mission
> >
> >
> > the nightbat
>
> Respectfully or not, you need to get a grip. Nuclear materials do not
> include deuterium or lithium deuteride as falling within the regulatory
> authority of NRC. They are referring mainly to materials that are
> related to the operation of nuclear fission facilities, or are related
> to heavy metal isotopes in nuclear weapons to include tritium,
> plutonium and certain isotopes of uranium. However, minute amounts of
> tritium and radium must be possessable by the public since I used to
> have a Seiko watch that had tritium in the paint on the dials and face.
> Radium was used for a long time for luminous watch and clock dials.
> Again, there are no licensing requirements for nuclear fusion research
> unless you are associated with a facility that plans to use tritium in
> the reactor.
>
Charles, I'm afraid you are mistaken. The NRC regulates source and special
nuclear material. NOT just fission facilities. Tritium and radium are
"possessable" by you because they are licensed by the manufacturers of those
specific devices. Were you to break up those devices and attempt to reclaim
the material therein, you would need a Federal or State license.
And there ARE licensing requirements for fusion research -- just as soon as
you generate neutrons from your first fusion event.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Charles Cagle
<min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> Charles, I'm afraid you are mistaken. The NRC regulates source and special
> nuclear material.
I never said that they didn't.
> NOT just fission facilities. Tritium and radium are
> "possessable" by you because they are licensed by the manufacturers of those
> specific devices. Were you to break up those devices and attempt to reclaim
> the material therein, you would need a Federal or State license.
Irrelevant. I never mentioned reclamation.
> And there ARE licensing requirements for fusion research -- just as soon as
> you generate neutrons from your first fusion event.
> greywolf42
> ubi dubium ibi libertas
Quote me the regulation. Chapter, verse, and text.
If my putative fusion process is aneutronic then I wouldn't have to be
licensed, eh? Or suppose that my apparatus was creating neutrons on
the spot? For crying out loud, lightning bolts produce bursts of
neutrons. see: S. Shah, H. Razdan, C. Bhat, and Q. Ali, "Neutron
Generation in Lightning Bolts," NATURE, 313, 773 (1985).
Since I used high voltage discharge equipment in my lab producing small
lightning bolts of 8 to 10 in length I was probably also generating
neutrons. But I did not have any equipment for neutron detection.
Plasma pinch experiments in the 1950's produced 10^8 neutrons at a
burst but analysis of their energy spectrum showed that they were not
the products of fusion reactions.
Charles Cagle
Charles Cagle
> Charles, I'm afraid you are mistaken. The NRC regulates source and special
> nuclear material.
Did I say that they didn't?
> NOT just fission facilities. Tritium and radium are
> "possessable" by you because they are licensed by the manufacturers of those
> specific devices. Were you to break up those devices and attempt to reclaim
> the material therein, you would need a Federal or State license.
Irrelevant. I never mentioned reclamation.
> And there ARE licensing requirements for fusion research -- just as soon as
> you generate neutrons from your first fusion event.
> greywolf42
> ubi dubium ibi libertas
Quote me the regulation. Chapter, verse, and text.
Sam Wormley
>
>
> If my putative fusion process is aneutronic then I wouldn't have to be
> licensed, eh? Or suppose that my apparatus was creating neutrons on
> the spot? For crying out loud, lightning bolts produce bursts of
> neutrons. see: S. Shah, H. Razdan, C. Bhat, and Q. Ali, "Neutron
> Generation in Lightning Bolts," NATURE, 313, 773 (1985).
That article DOES NOT say lightning bolts produce bursts neutrons!
^^^^^^^^
>
> Since I used high voltage discharge equipment in my lab producing small
> lightning bolts of 8 to 10 in length I was probably also generating
> neutrons. But I did not have any equipment for neutron detection.
Obviously
Back to Gravity Masking, the subject of this thread...
Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html
Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", Addison
Wesley (2003)
"A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when
gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law
F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and,
since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy.
o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel
positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational
interaction. Gravity is always attractive.
o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law ia a 1/r^2
interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for gravitational
interactions as there is for the strong and weak interactions.
o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting between
individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales. The ratio of
the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic repulsion between two
protons separated by a distance r is
F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2
-------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36
F_elec e^2 / (4 pi e_0 r^2) (e^2/4pi e_0)
where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge.
These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in physical
phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is the weakest force,
gravity governs the organization of the universe on the largest distance
scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These distance scales are far beyond
the subatomic ranges of the strong and the weak interactions. Electromagnetic
interactions COULD be long range were there any large-scale objects with net
electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic
forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale net
charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the structure of the
universe on the largest scales.
Background:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/NewtonsLaws.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html
The theory of general relativity describes the phenomenon of gravity very differently:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GeneralRelativity.html
Crank Information (General)
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Briefs/Cranks.html
Crank Information (Cagle)
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Singularity+Technologies%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3ACC
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Charles Cagle wrote:
[Snip...]
Deja-vu, now where has one seen this before Charles? Mindless
droning, eh?
> Back to Gravity Masking, the subject of this thread...
What's below isn't "Back to Gravity Masking, the subject of this thread..."
> Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html
> Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity",
> Addison Wesley (2003)
>
> "A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when
> gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law
>
> F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
Irrelevant...
> o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass,
> and, since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy.
Irrelevant...
> o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to
> cancel positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen)
> the gravitational interaction. Gravity is always attractive.
Irrelevant...
> o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law ia a 1/r^2
> interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for gravitational
> interactions as there is for the strong and weak interactions.
Relevant... but you haven't begun to illuminate why. How does one 'know'
scientifically the is no length scale?
>o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting between
> individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales. The ratio of
> the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic repulsion between two
> protons separated by a distance r is
>
> F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2
> -------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36
> F_elec e^2 / (4 pi e_0 r^2) (e^2/4pi e_0)
>
> where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge.
Irrelevant...
[Snip...]
More irrelevant rote droning having NOTHING to do with this
particular issue...
Now how about showing that 'you' can field some technical points...
If 'you' want to criticize masking perhaps you could start with
Majorana's experiments...
Paul Stowe
greywolf42
> In article <vd9osep...@corp.supernews.com>, greywolf42
> <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>
> > Charles, I'm afraid you are mistaken. The NRC regulates source and
special
> > nuclear material.
>
> Did I say that they didn't?
Yes. That's why you snipped the post. :) Here is your quote:
===============================
> Respectfully or not, you need to get a grip. Nuclear materials do not
> include deuterium or lithium deuteride as falling within the regulatory
> authority of NRC. They are referring mainly to materials that are
> related to the operation of nuclear fission facilities, or are related
> to heavy metal isotopes in nuclear weapons to include tritium,
> plutonium and certain isotopes of uranium. However, minute amounts of
> tritium and radium must be possessable by the public since I used to
> have a Seiko watch that had tritium in the paint on the dials and face.
> Radium was used for a long time for luminous watch and clock dials.
> Again, there are no licensing requirements for nuclear fusion research
> unless you are associated with a facility that plans to use tritium in
> the reactor.
===============================
> > NOT just fission facilities. Tritium and radium are
> > "possessable" by you because they are licensed by the manufacturers of
those
> > specific devices. Were you to break up those devices and attempt to
reclaim
> > the material therein, you would need a Federal or State license.
>
> Irrelevant. I never mentioned reclamation.
Bullfeathers. You mentioned "minute amounts of tritium and radium must be
possessable by the public" -- which requires either procurement or
reclamation..
And you further claimed "there are no licensing requirements for nuclear
fusion research unless you are associated with a facility that plans to use
tritium in the reactor." You are just plain wrong.
> > And there ARE licensing requirements for fusion research -- just as soon
as
> > you generate neutrons from your first fusion event.
>
> Quote me the regulation. Chapter, verse, and text.
No, lazybones. Go to the website previously provided.
> If my putative fusion process is aneutronic then I wouldn't have to be
> licensed, eh?
Sigh. Fusion PRODUCES neutrons. It doesn't matter if the method does not
utilize neutrons as input to the reaction. Even "cold fusion" produces
radioactive isotopes.
> Or suppose that my apparatus was creating neutrons on
> the spot?
Then you'd need a license. Just like your friendly neighborhood doctor
needs for his X-ray machine. And your dentist.
> For crying out loud, lightning bolts produce bursts of
> neutrons. see: S. Shah, H. Razdan, C. Bhat, and Q. Ali, "Neutron
> Generation in Lightning Bolts," NATURE, 313, 773 (1985).
So, if your lightning bolts that produce neutrons, then you must have a
license. The NRC does not regulate mother nature, however.
> Since I used high voltage discharge equipment in my lab producing small
> lightning bolts of 8 to 10 in length I was probably also generating
> neutrons. But I did not have any equipment for neutron detection.
In which case, you may have violated some Federal or State regulations.
(Various States have taken over from Federal regulation, and their
regulations are not always identical with the Federal ones.) You can find
out if your State does so by looking up "Agreement States."
> Plasma pinch experiments in the 1950's produced 10^8 neutrons at a
> burst but analysis of their energy spectrum showed that they were not
> the products of fusion reactions.
At lease according to you. :) (I minored in Fusion power systems in the
1970s. And theta pinch devices WERE creating fusions -- and neutrons.)
But irrelevant. Such experiments must be licensed.
Double-A
You mean that all those cold fusion experiments that were going on 10
years ago in university labs were all licensed by the government?
Somehow I doubt it. And what about those slightly radioactive
materials that were distributed with the chemistry set I got when I
was a kid, which were included for the purpose of doing experiments
with them? Besides, in our nanny state, which of us hasn't done,
produced, grown, or brewed something illegal in our basements? But
then as long as these things are not observed by outsiders, its not
part of their reality, is it?
Double-A
greywolf42
Double-A <doub...@hush.com> wrote in message
news:79094630.03052...@posting.google.com...
> years ago in university labs were all licensed by the government?
Yes. The labs hold licenses the by Federal (NRC) or State agencies.
> Somehow I doubt it.
This merely demonstrates ignorance.
> And what about those slightly radioactive
> materials that were distributed with the chemistry set I got when I
> was a kid, which were included for the purpose of doing experiments
> with them?
Depends on how old you are. The NRC wasn't created until about 1975. But
radioactive materials are (and mostly were) controlled by licensing the
manufacturers of the consumer products (your chemistry set).
> Besides, in our nanny state, which of us hasn't done,
> produced, grown, or brewed something illegal in our basements?
Me, for one. But I'm not about to tattle on you.
> But
> then as long as these things are not observed by outsiders, its not
> part of their reality, is it?
Tell that to Homeland Security and the child-spy brigades.
nightbat
nightbat wrote
Well I see the lights are on and someone " is " home over
at Greywolf's house.
the nightbat
Paul Curran
>years ago in university labs were all licensed by the government?
Yes , they like to know who is playing wit hradioactive stuff. Just
like all the stuff in Nuclear medicne is well rgulated and monitored.
>Somehow I doubt it. And what about those slightly radioactive
>materials that were distributed with the chemistry set I got when I
>was a kid, which were included for the purpose of doing experiments
>with them? Besides, in our nanny state, which of us hasn't done,
>produced, grown, or brewed something illegal in our basements? But
>then as long as these things are not observed by outsiders, its not
>part of their reality, is it?
1) Are they still available today? I wouldthink the scare of cancer
and major lawsuits would stop that let alone the Feds.
2) Also we were not engaging in experiments thats would produce major
neutron outbursts. Except the few that actually tried to build atom
smashers.
>Double-A
Jeff Relf
" Which of us hasn't
*_1 done , *_2 produced , *_3 grown , or *_4 brewed
something illegal in our basements ? "
Is this a check list ?
Jeff Root
>> You mean that all those cold fusion experiments that were going on
>> 10 years ago in university labs were all licensed by the government?
>
> like all the stuff in Nuclear medicine is well regulated and
> monitored.
Paul,
I agree with you on most things. Concentrated radioactive
materials are carefully regulated. But as far as I know, the
so-called "cold fusion" stuff did not involve *any* radioactive
material at all. Thus no regulation, no licenses.
Also as far as I know, the use of radioactive material in
luminescent clock and watch hands was discontinued in the
1950's, but was probably unregulated up until that time.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.
greywolf42
Jeff Root <je...@FreeMars.org> wrote in message
news:fe58c440.0305...@posting.google.com...
> Paul Curran replied to someone else:
>
> >> You mean that all those cold fusion experiments that were going on
> >> 10 years ago in university labs were all licensed by the government?
> >
> > Yes, they like to know who is playing with radioactive stuff. Just
> > like all the stuff in Nuclear medicine is well regulated and
> > monitored.
>
> Paul,
>
> I agree with you on most things. Concentrated radioactive
> materials are carefully regulated. But as far as I know, the
> so-called "cold fusion" stuff did not involve *any* radioactive
> material at all. Thus no regulation, no licenses.
You are incorrect. EPRI managed to produce some rather novel radioactive
isotopes in the process.
> Also as far as I know, the use of radioactive material in
> luminescent clock and watch hands was discontinued in the
> 1950's, but was probably unregulated up until that time.
You are incorrect twice. Luminescent clocks dials continue to be produced.
Where did the 1950's come from? We were discussing the NRC (which was
created in 1975).
Starlord
using it.
Besides, never had a basement, and that would have made a nice place for a Photo
Darkroom if I had one.
--
In This Universe The Night was Falling,The Shadows were lenghtening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the Stars were still young and the light of morning lingered: and
along the path he once had followed, Man would one day go again.
Arthur C. Clarke "The City & The Stars"
SIAR
www.starlords.org
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Bishop's Car Fund
http://www.bishopcarfund.Netfirms.com/
Starlord's Personal Page
http://starlord-personal.netfirms.com
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
"Jeff Relf" <____Je...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:Xns938B214...@130.133.1.4...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/03
Paul Curran
>You are incorrect twice. Luminescent clocks dials continue to be produced.
>Where did the 1950's come from? We were discussing the NRC (which was
>created in 1975).
>
>greywolf42
>ubi dubium ibi libertas
I beleive he meant the use of radium as the source of luminesense.
They use phosphorus today.
Paul Curran
wrote:
what i want to is, what is he confessing to?
Jeff Root
>> Paul,
>>
>> I agree with you on most things. Concentrated radioactive
>> materials are carefully regulated. But as far as I know, the
>> so-called "cold fusion" stuff did not involve *any* radioactive
>> material at all. Thus no regulation, no licenses.
>
> You are incorrect. EPRI managed to produce some rather novel
> radioactive isotopes in the process.
you are yet another kook. I don't assume that you are, but I
don't assume that you aren't, either.
You are free to try to convince me that new isotopes were
produced. My understanding is that none of the experiments
turned up anything real. Just wishful misinterpretations of
small errors in the experiments.
>> Also as far as I know, the use of radioactive material in
>> luminescent clock and watch hands was discontinued in the
>> 1950's, but was probably unregulated up until that time.
>
> You are incorrect twice. Luminescent clocks dials continue to
> be produced.
nation in which they are made, or describe the intended purpose
of what I presume would be special-purpose clocks? A URL to a
manufacturer's web site describing their product would help.
> Where did the 1950's come from?
dials/hands that were made after the 1950's, nor advertisements
for such clocks or watches.
> We were discussing the NRC (which was created in 1975).
before that.
Double-A
I have several "luminescent" clock/watch dials of fairly recent
vintage, but I have never been able to read them in the dark. Makes
me think that there is no longer any radium being put into them to
excite the phosphorous after the lights have been turned out.
By the way, did you know that cancer research by unlicensed
individuals is illegal too? Wouldn't want some crackpot to stumble
onto a cure, would we???
Double-A
Double-A
> Not me, never belived in the use of it, saw to many in Nam end up DEAD after
> using it.
>
> Besides, never had a basement, and that would have made a nice place for a Photo
> Darkroom if I had one.
You mean for developing those snapshots that might get you in trouble
if you took them to the drugstore?
Double-A
Charles Cagle
<min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> > Plasma pinch experiments in the 1950's produced 10^8 neutrons at a
> > burst but analysis of their energy spectrum showed that they were not
> > the products of fusion reactions.
>
> At lease according to you. :) (I minored in Fusion power systems in the
> 1970s. And theta pinch devices WERE creating fusions -- and neutrons.)
You talk like a man with a paper asshole. While you were minoring in
Fusion power systems a piece of required reading should have been
Project Sherwood a nice little volume written by Amasa Bishop
(director) and published by Addison-Wesley under the auspices of the
AEC. By the time they closed down the program in 1958 the origin of
the neutrons remained a mystery. Read the book Mr. Know-it-all. And
quote the regulations chapter verse and text or get lost.
The NRC may think that they can regulate processes which produce
neutrons but I'd really like to see them try. It would be a tough case
for them to prosecute successfully and where they can't prosecute
successfully they simply don't have control. Back in 1997 I was in
contact with a fellow in Scotland who noticed neutron emission from arc
welding. High current discharges provide the conditions for the actual
creation of neutrons. Recall Shah, et al.
Charles Cagle
Charles Cagle
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Charles Cagle wrote:
>
> [Snip...]
>
> Deja-vu, now where has one seen this before Charles? Mindless
> droning, eh?
Exactly. Quote sources and run. They think they've presented an
argument.
>
> > Back to Gravity Masking, the subject of this thread...
>
> What's below isn't "Back to Gravity Masking, the subject of this thread..."
<snip>
Paul, guys like him not only don't get it; they can't get it.
Regards,
Charles Cagle
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Charles Cagle <c...@singtech.com> wrote:
>In article <bb42be$grd$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>,
><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> > Charles Cagle wrote:
>>
>> [Snip...]
>>
>> Deja-vu, now where has one seen this before Charles? Mindless
>> droning, eh?
>
> Exactly. Quote sources and run. They think they've presented an
> argument.
References are great if you're making a 'specific' point and such
provides 'meat & potatoes' support for that point. Handwaving fluff
on the other hand, like that presented here which had no relevant merit
or bearing on the specific issue of masking (or screening) just shows
ignorance of the topic by the poster. It OK to have no experience or
current knowledge of a specific topic, but to then try to denounce &
dismiss same without such is classical 'crackpot' behavior (or so it
has been claimed).
>>
>> > Back to Gravity Masking, the subject of this thread...
>>
>> What's below isn't "Back to Gravity Masking, the subject of this thread..."
>
> <snip>
>
> Paul, guys like him not only don't get it; they can't get it.
>
> Regards,
I'd just like to see something of technical substance that relates to the
topic if they're going to try to denounce it. Especially from someone
that claims,
"My time on the Earth is such a blink of an instant in the history
of the Universe. I'm learning as much as I can in my short stay. ..."
One cannot learn by refusing to look...
Paul Stowe
Sam Wormley
>
> Back in 1997 I was in
> contact with a fellow in Scotland who noticed neutron emission from arc
> welding. High current discharges provide the conditions for the actual
> creation of neutrons. Recall Shah, et al.
>
> Charles Cagle
I'm recalling S. Shah, H. Razdan, C. Bhat, and Q. Ali, "Neutron Generation
in Lightning Bolts," NATURE, 313, 773 (1985).
That article DOES NOT say lightning bolts produce bursts of neutrons!
^^^^^^^^
Now you have talked to a "fellow in Scotland" just happend to notice
"neutron emission from arc welding". I wonder how he did that!
pst...@ix.netcom.com
je...@FreeMars.org (Jeff Root) wrote:
> "greywolf42" replied to Jeff Root:
>
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> I agree with you on most things. Concentrated radioactive
>>> materials are carefully regulated. But as far as I know, the
>>> so-called "cold fusion" stuff did not involve *any* radioactive
>>> material at all. Thus no regulation, no licenses.
>>
>> You are incorrect. EPRI managed to produce some rather novel
>> radioactive isotopes in the process.
>
> I'm not familiar with your postings, so I don't know whether
> you are yet another kook. I don't assume that you are, but I
> don't assume that you aren't, either.
>
> You are free to try to convince me that new isotopes were
> produced. My understanding is that none of the experiments
> turned up anything real. Just wishful misinterpretations of
> small errors in the experiments.
Pertinent References...
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEalchemynig.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJtwozonesof.pdf
http://www.lenr-canr.org/Features.htm
And some actual data & analysis...
=====================================================================
Overview
An effort was undertaken to in an attempt to identify the isotopes
associated with the spectrum signatures provided in the gamma
spectroscopy data of Kevin Wolf's palladium samples. This data
consisted of two printouts from high purity germanium scans. Scan 1,
dated 10-7-92, was of electrode Pd X-2, and Scan 2, dated 10-21-92,
was of electrode Pd X-3. It was apparent that each analysis was
performed on different systems utilizing different peak analysis
software.
Scan 1 provides no data for channels at or below 500 (200 Kev) and
contained data overflows at channels 280.7 Kev and 344.6 Kev. This
made isotopes with key peaks in these channels difficult to quantify
by peak count subtraction or evaluation by magnitude comparison.
Scan 2 provides a much clearer picture of the isotopes present in the
sample, but still contained 10 unknown peaks.
The purpose of the analysis was to attempt to identify the unknown
peaks and clarify the activity present in the samples.
METHODOLOGY
1.For each unknown peak, a review was made of M. A. Wakat's
"Catalogue of Gamma rays" for possible candidates. If a
reasonable candidate (a reasonable candidate is defined as
element likely to be present in the palladium metal) was
found, a cross check was made to see if the other prominent
peaks were present. If other prominent peaks are present,
it was considered possible that the isotope was present.
Peak overlaps caused uncertainty and manual separation
quickly became untenable.
2.Because of the difficulties of manual separation, a small
gamma spectroscopy analysis program was written and the
spectrum data entered for analysis. A nuclide library of
all possible candidate isotopes was created and utilized.
The program makes two passes through the spectrum data. On
the first pass, if a unique peak of a candidate nuclide can
be resolved the most prominent of these unique peaks is used
to identify the most probable amount, and based on this,
subtract the appropriate counts from all channels associated
with nuclide. If a channel becomes negative the amount is
adjusted to eliminate negative channels and the nuclide is
removed from active consideration. The second pass proceeds
as described above, but the active nuclides are reduced to
those not identified in the first pass.
3.Accounting for the geometry of counting, the Tracer Labs
Cs-137 check source used to calibrate the system for Scan 2,
was used to compute the ratio of total counts to net counts.
The assumption that this ratio is valid for both scans is
based on the fact that the counting geometry is identical
for both scans. We compute the counting efficiency as follows:
Activity on 10-22-92 is: (1.44E+07)e(-2.315E-02)(21.69)
= 8.716E+06 dis/min
Total counts for 363 live seconds is: (0.9)(8.716E+06)(363)/(60)
= 4.746E+07 dis
Net counts in channel: 26,230
Ratio Total to Net: (4.746E+07)/(26,230)= 1.809E+03
4.Once the net counts are determined (Step 2) and adjusted to
total counts (via Step 3) each identified nuclide's activity
is adjusted from the counting date to 9-07-92 by a reverse
decay calculation. This value is divided by the live seconds
(47,752 for Pd X-2 & 54,738 for Pd X-3) and multiplied by
specific activity (atoms/(dis/sec)) to yields a final estimate
of atoms present on 9-07-92.
RESULTS
Identified isotopes for Scan 1 (Pd X-2):
Isotope Net Counts Total Counts Adjusted Atoms Ratio to Rh-99
High Probability
Co-60 1,468 2,685,300 1.311E+10 3.3
Ru-103 176,333 541,034,967 5.559E+10 14.0
Rh-99 14,276 93,940,195 3.950E+09 1.0
Rh-101m 3,104 675,726,487 7.654E+09 1.9
Rh-101 30,045 55,297,015 1.740E+11 44.1
Rh-102m 25,078 50,183,561 2.699E+10 6.8
Rh-102 32,349 59,679,279 1.653E+11 41.8
Ag-105 1,234,524 3,694,515,814 3.985E+11 100.9
Ag-106m 133,170 278,213,680 6.158E+09 1.6
Ag-110m 4,079 8,019,312 5.232E+09 1.3
Low Probability
Ta-182 3,149 6,828,134 2.046E+09 0.5
Ir-192 5,761 13,801,197 2.667E+09 0.7
Possible's
Pt-188
Pt-191
Au-196
Unknown Peaks
910.0 Kev Possible Nuclides: Gd-147, Po-209, Te-121m, Tl-210, Sr-89, Bi-205
969.1 Kev Possible Nuclides: Sb-124, Ba-131, Ba-128, Eu-156
1063.3 Kev Possible Nuclide: Ir-192, Ir-192m, Lu-169, Ru-106, Bk-246, Bi-207
1238.1 Kev Possible Nuclides: Sr-83, Ra-226, Bi-214, Co-56
1406.0 Kev Possible Nuclides: Bi-206, Eu-152
1553.1 Kev Possible Nuclides: Bi-205, V-50
2103.0 Kev Possible Nuclides: Pt-188, Ir-188
Identified isotopes for Scan 1 (Pd X-3):
Isotope Net Counts Total Counts Adjusted Atoms Ratio to Rh-99
High Probability
Ru-103 3,299 12,952,458 1.161E+09 2.2
Rh-99 1,221 14,678,113 5.384E+08 1.0
Rh-101 13,087 24,280,931 6.666E+10 123.8
Rh-102m 2,013 4,222,468 1.981E+09 3.7
Rh-102 2,315 4,310,143 1.042E+10 19.4
Ag-105 65,124* 246,502,574 2.320E+10 43.1
Ag-106m 1,120 73,214,758 1.414E+09 2.6
Ag-110m 842 1,721,605 9.799E+08 1.8
Low Probability
Ta-182 754 1,779,193 4.650E+08 0.9
Ir-192 4,966 13,562,812 2.286E+09 4.2
Possible's
Pt-188
Pt-191
Au-196
Unknown Peaks
560.8 Kev Nuclide: Ag-105 (Identified)
568.5 Kev Nuclide: Au-196 (Identified)
911.4 Kev Possible Nuclides: Bi-205, Te-132, Br-77, Pm-148, Pm-148m, Lu-172, Hf-172
1384.5 Kev Nuclide: Ag-110m (Identified)
=========================================================
Now, unless all of these 'measured' isotopes just magically
appeared something nuclear was going on...
>>> Also as far as I know, the use of radioactive material in
>>> luminescent clock and watch hands was discontinued in the
>>> 1950's, but was probably unregulated up until that time.
>>
>> You are incorrect twice. Luminescent clocks dials continue to
>> be produced.
>
> Possibly. Can you name a manufacturer, or a distributor, or a
> nation in which they are made, or describe the intended purpose
> of what I presume would be special-purpose clocks? A URL to a
> manufacturer's web site describing their product would help.
>
>> Where did the 1950's come from?
>
> Personal observation. I haven't seen any radioluminescent clock
> dials/hands that were made after the 1950's, nor advertisements
> for such clocks or watches.
>
>> We were discussing the NRC (which was created in 1975).
>
> Yes. But of course there was regulation and licensing long
> before that.
Yeah, the AEC... Which wasn't a reguatory body.
Paul Stowe
Sam Wormley
http://www.singtech.com/various.html
http://www.singtech.com/contents.html
http://www.crank.net/fusion.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Singularity+Technologies%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
Cagle claims
o gravity can be masked
o neutrons from arc welding
o neutrons from lightning bolts
o mass is generated in the center of the Earth
o has a fusion reactor
o neutron generation in poloidal current phase of the earth's core
o magnetotoroid current vector rotation
o etc.
Cagle's got all the insight and understanding, Paul.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
[Snip ... of irrelevant material (again)]
> Cagle claims
> o gravity can be masked
> o neutrons from arc welding
> o neutrons from lightning bolts
> o mass is generated in the center of the Earth
> o has a fusion reactor
> o neutron generation in poloidal current phase of the earth's core
> o magnetotoroid current vector rotation
> o etc.
>
> Cagle's got all the insight and understanding, Paul.
It is NOT important what Charles thinks, it IS important what we
can see and measure... Anomalies are the areas that lead to NEW
knowledge. Now, relevant reference to the topic of anomalous
neutrons is,
http://www.padrak.com/ine/ELEWIS2.html
http://www.lenr-canr.org/PPub0.htm
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChiceaDlowintensi.pdf
http://www.uap.co.jp/uap/Publication/SERIES/DATA/00013/
http://web.gat.com/pubs-ext/AnnSemiannETC/A22550.pdf
Now, perhaps you could 'blow off' one claim but multiple instances?
The question isn't Charles, or his theories, but data & observations.
I don't buy Charles ideas BUT, if he can show relevance and reproducable
results then even if his concept is wrong he's got something. Does
he? I don't know but without looking (and that means more than armchair
quarterbacking) I can't say. As I pointed out with Wolf's experiments,
som'in strange is going on and we seem to be clueless as to what. Thus
the logical thing to do is to keep an open mind and REALLY LOOK instead
of blowing it off!
As for gravity, if we don't know what its cause is, how in the hell
can we claim ANYTHING about its processes?
Paul Stowe
Sam Wormley
>
> In article <3ED8158A...@mchsi.com>,
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> [Snip ... of irrelevant material (again)]
>
> > Cagle claims
> > o gravity can be masked
> > o neutrons from arc welding
> > o neutrons from lightning bolts
> > o mass is generated in the center of the Earth
> > o has a fusion reactor
> > o neutron generation in poloidal current phase of the earth's core
> > o magnetotoroid current vector rotation
> > o etc.
> >
> > Cagle's got all the insight and understanding, Paul.
>
> It is NOT important what Charles thinks, it IS important what we
> can see and measure... Anomalies are the areas that lead to NEW
> knowledge. Now, relevant reference to the topic of anomalous
> neutrons is,
>
> http://www.padrak.com/ine/ELEWIS2.html
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/PPub0.htm
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChiceaDlowintensi.pdf
> http://www.uap.co.jp/uap/Publication/SERIES/DATA/00013/
> http://web.gat.com/pubs-ext/AnnSemiannETC/A22550.pdf
Woah... some of this is pretty bad... been debunked.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22cold+fusion%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
>
> Now, perhaps you could 'blow off' one claim but multiple instances?
> The question isn't Charles, or his theories, but data & observations.
> I don't buy Charles ideas BUT, if he can show relevance and reproducable
> results then even if his concept is wrong he's got something. Does
> he? I don't know but without looking (and that means more than armchair
> quarterbacking) I can't say. As I pointed out with Wolf's experiments,
> som'in strange is going on and we seem to be clueless as to what. Thus
> the logical thing to do is to keep an open mind and REALLY LOOK instead
> of blowing it off!
>
> As for gravity, if we don't know what its cause is, how in the hell
> can we claim ANYTHING about its processes?
>
> Paul Stowe
We don't know what gravity's cause is, but we sure have learned how it works and
can make calculations accurate enough to place a probe within a few km
on a distant planet. Although it is the weakest force, gravity governs
the organization of the universe on the largest distance scales of astrophysics
and cosmology.
There are lots of things of which we don't know the cause, but that doesn't mean
they can't be mathematically modeled and improve our understand. Quantum Mechanics
comes to mind.
Then there is the ultimate free lunch--the universe. Where did that come from? And
why? We don't know. Physics is plenty fascinating without having to ignore what we
have really learned and are learning.... There is not enough time in a life time to
learn all the cool stuff in textbooks. I don't understand where the likes of you,
Paul, lose the fascination with real physics. How did that happen?
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Now Sam, please tell us the difference between a debunker and a skeptic.
As for the above OK fine, please pick one, and then provide the specific
criticisms (point or points) that defines, scientifically & technically,
the problem or problems. There is a great deal more to 'debunking' than
placing something on a website. Talk about crackpot-ish behavior...
Most times it takes much more work to properly critique something that
it took to do the original work. Most people want to shortcut that
process, especially if they have a strong bias(es) against it.
>> Now, perhaps you could 'blow off' one claim but multiple instances?
>> The question isn't Charles, or his theories, but data & observations.
>> I don't buy Charles ideas BUT, if he can show relevance and reproducable
>> results then even if his concept is wrong he's got something. Does
>> he? I don't know but without looking (and that means more than armchair
>> quarterbacking) I can't say. As I pointed out with Wolf's experiments,
>> som'in strange is going on and we seem to be clueless as to what. Thus
>> the logical thing to do is to keep an open mind and REALLY LOOK instead
>> of blowing it off!
>>
>> As for gravity, if we don't know what its cause is, how in the hell
>> can we claim ANYTHING about its processes?
>>
>> Paul Stowe
>
> We don't know what gravity's cause is, ...
Right
> ... but we sure have learned how it works ...
We have? If we don't know what it is and what causes it now how do you
know this? We do have models (Newtonian, Le Sagian, Metric, ...etc.)
But they only speak there own language and if there are element(s) NOT
modeled correctly we can't know that using the model, EXCEPT that its
predictions won't match observations. Now how about galactic rotations
Sam? I know, let's just throw in another 'epicycle' (dark matter) to
'make it fit'! The Pioneer Effect Sam... There are other anomalies,
like the 1999 Lunar eclipse measurements...
> ... and can make calculations accurate enough to place a probe within
> a few km on a distant planet. ...
We can do that with Newton's model, we don't need GR for that. Does that
mean Newton's model is totally 'right' or complete? Of course not!
> Although it is the weakest force, gravity governs the organization of
> the universe on the largest distance scales of astrophysics and cosmology.
So we GUESS! How 'bout those galactic rotation profiles Sam?
> There are lots of things of which we don't know the cause, but that doesn't
> mean they can't be mathematically modeled and improve our understand.
Improve yes, complete, NO!
> Quantum Mechanics comes to mind.
The twentieth century's greatest failure, yup. I know, I'll catch alot
of flak for that but, while it does provide a modeling method it explains
nothing. Thus we don't and can't know what else could be hanging in the
shadows. We get inklings and whisper such things as 'Higg's field', ZPE,
etc. Correlational modeling is a very poor substitute for actual
understanding.
> Then there is the ultimate free lunch--the universe.
There is? How can you possible know this? The book "The Gods Themselves"
comes directly to mind.
> Where did that come from?
Good question. Not answerable, YET
> ...And why? We don't know. Physics is plenty fascinating without having
> to ignore what we have really learned and are learning....
What we should have learned is, over the centuries people haven't changed!
We still have the 'know it alls', those that don't have to 'look through
that new fangled telescope' because, by God, our current theories tell them
what they'd have to see!
> There is not enough time in a life time to learn all the cool stuff in
> textbooks. I don't understand where the likes of you, Paul, lose the
> fascination with real physics. How did that happen?
Ditto Sam. You may be content to be spoon fed what others think, and
follow lock-step 'their' logic. I was deliberately TAUGHT to take
no-one's word, but to instead, look at the data, believe its indications,
UNTIL you can actually discount it. I'll tell you this Sam, NOTHING
in those textbook will give you anything new.
Now here's what I see, as exampled in the recent Red shift thread. We
have a cadre of people that believe and think alike. They form a clic
and like all such, reinforce their common views. I doubt that many have
been trained in formal QA practices, or or engage in such activities.
They most certainly cannot formally take on the role of the Devil's
Advocate. If you cannot do that, then you most certainly cannot
adequately 'debunk' anything. I think perhaps, legal training might
help would-be scientist in this regard.
This became quite evidence when I probed for someone, anyone, that bought
into the so-called disproof of attenuation generated CMBR to defined and
state the specific 'assumptions' that went into the analysis. That' ALL
I asked for, simply to explicitly state all specific assumptions. To even
know if the analysis is valid one MUST AT LEAST know these. You know what,
I NEVER got an answer. There was no overt evidence that even suggested
ANYONE knew these, even after throwing out several significant hints.
There is an old saying, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
This is just as true in the practice of science. One must both understand
current accepted ideas as well as any proposed alternatives. If you do not,
then you have just fallen victim to the problem leveled at crackpots,
critcizing that which they truly do not understand, or comprehend! The
plain FACT IS, they simply don't want to! Just like the crackpots they
seem to so disdain. Perhaps this is because those crackpots represent a
dark mirror which is realized on the sub conscious level.
It has been my observation that open-minded, objective, and scientist are,
for the most part, mutually exclusive.
Paul Stowe
Rain
writes
Yes, good point! However, you have failed to realise that it is only now
that many people are starting to think, "...Hey, what the hell is this
Universe-thing?" This realisation has come from the present amount of
accumulated knowledge which has been brought to us by Science over the
past "few" years.
The maps we have so far are of the country but as yet we have no map of
the inner sanctum - we wouldn't have known there was an inner sanctum
without our maps of the country.
We are living at the dawn of a new age of thinking and everything is as
it should be.
--
The Universe
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
Paul Schlyter
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <3ED83DAD...@mchsi.com>,
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Quantum Mechanics comes to mind.
> The twentieth century's greatest failure, yup. I know, I'll catch
> alot of flak for that but, while it does provide a modeling method it
> explains nothing. Thus we don't and can't know what else could be
> hanging in the shadows. We get inklings and whisper such things as
> 'Higg's field', ZPE, etc. Correlational modeling is a very poor
> substitute for actual understanding.
Quantum Mechanics, because without Quantum Mechanics the Internet
wouldn't work....
The Internet works because a large number of computers are connected.
Computers are mostly made of VLSI circuits.
A VLSI circuit contains a large number of transistors -- sometimes millions.
And transistors wouldn't work if Quantum Mechanics didn't work.
So even if Quantum Mechanics doesn't provide the kind of
"understanding" you're looking for, you'll have to admit it does
provide an enormous amount of utility. It's useful to you too,
since you're using the Internet!
Now, if you think the Internet is a "useless piece of crap" or
something, why not stop using it? There are other ways to distribute
your opinions - you can print a book or a magazine for instance...
(except that almost all print shops nowadays use electronics, so
they too depend on Quantum Mechanics... <evin grin>)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://www.shell.linux.se/pausch/
http://home.tiscali.se/pausch/
Paul Schlyter
either myths, misinterpretations, or erroneous measurements. Yep,
avoiding making errors is actually quite hard.
And, while we're at it, yes, Galileo Galilei was persecuted for
telling the truth, however the vast majority of those who feel
like some "persecuted Galileo Galilei" have no new knowledge to
offer but are simply crackpots.
> As for gravity, if we don't know what its cause is, how in the hell
> can we claim ANYTHING about its processes?
claimed here, didn't know "ANYTHING about its processes", then we
would also be unable to predict planetary positions and celestial
phenomena like solar and lunar eclipses. Our ability to predict
these events, with high accuracy, clearly shows we know at least SOME
properties of gravitation. No, we don't know everything about it,
but we know SOMETHING. Therefore your claim is false.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>In article <bba4bq$12m$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>,
> <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <3ED83DAD...@mchsi.com>,
>> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> ....................
>>> Quantum Mechanics comes to mind.
>
>> The twentieth century's greatest failure, yup. I know, I'll catch
>> alot of flak for that but, while it does provide a modeling method it
>> explains nothing. Thus we don't and can't know what else could be
>> hanging in the shadows. We get inklings and whisper such things as
>> 'Higg's field', ZPE, etc. Correlational modeling is a very poor
>> substitute for actual understanding.
>
> It's pretty ironic that you use the Internet to try to debunk
> Quantum Mechanics, because without Quantum Mechanics the Internet
> wouldn't work....
One wonder how the heck they get debunking from the above. Debunking
by its definition is,
- to expose the sham or falseness of <debunk a legend>
- To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:
- expose while ridiculing; esp. of pretentious or false claims and ideas
Now I have NEVER claimed QM false, a sham, or ridiculed it. I simply
said a failure. It IS a failure in any explanatory sense.
The key ingredient to debunking is, as indicated by the definition above,
ridiculing the proponent/idea. There is really no place in science for
ridicule, that is a strictly human trait. It is in fact, counterproductive.
> The Internet works because a large number of computers are connected.
>
> Computers are mostly made of VLSI circuits.
>
> A VLSI circuit contains a large number of transistors -- sometimes millions.
>
> And transistors wouldn't work if Quantum Mechanics didn't work.
>
> So even if Quantum Mechanics doesn't provide the kind of
> "understanding" you're looking for, you'll have to admit it does
> provide an enormous amount of utility. It's useful to you too,
> since you're using the Internet!
>
> Now, if you think the Internet is a "useless piece of crap" or
> something, why not stop using it? There are other ways to distribute
> your opinions - you can print a book or a magazine for instance...
> (except that almost all print shops nowadays use electronics, so
> they too depend on Quantum Mechanics... <evin grin>)
All of this from a basic false deduction. Thanks for a great example of
what I am talking about...
Paul Stowe
Bill Foley
If the work Cagle appears in it anywhere, it is based on bullshit and should
just be ignored.
Clear, Dark, Steady Skies!
(And considerate neighbors!!!)
Charles Cagle
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> I'm recalling S. Shah, H. Razdan, C. Bhat, and Q. Ali, "Neutron Generation
> in Lightning Bolts," NATURE, 313, 773 (1985).
>
> That article DOES NOT say lightning bolts produce bursts of neutrons!
> ^^^^^^^^
> Now you have talked to a "fellow in Scotland" just happend to notice
> "neutron emission from arc welding". I wonder how he did that!
Wonder all you want, prick. Or if you'd get off your ass and search
the internet maybe you'd find http://www.aw-el.com/weld.htm and you can
stop wondering.
Charles Cagle
Charles Cagle
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
You're just a liar Wormley. Where'd I write that gravity can be
masked? Where'd I ever write that I have a fusion generator? You're
just a lying son of a bitch.
I've given you the reference for neutron generation from lightning
bolts.
and above is the one for neutrons from arc welding.
Never have I ever claimed to have a fusion reactor. Not once you lying
son of a bitch. Not once. Enough is enough you lying prick.
Charles Cagle
Sam Wormley
Charles Cagle wrote:
>
> In article <3ED8158A...@mchsi.com>, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Ref: http://www.singtech.com/history.html
> > http://www.singtech.com/various.html
> > http://www.singtech.com/contents.html
> > http://www.crank.net/fusion.html
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Singularity+Technologies%22+site%3Awww.crank.
> > net
> >
> > Cagle claims
> > o gravity can be masked
> > o neutrons from arc welding
> > o neutrons from lightning bolts
> > o mass is generated in the center of the Earth
> > o has a fusion reactor
> > o neutron generation in poloidal current phase of the earth's core
> > o magnetotoroid current vector rotation
> > o etc.
> >
> > Cagle's got all the insight and understanding, Paul.
>
> You're just a liar Wormley.
You are right -- Cagle DOES NOT have insight and understanding.
Where'd I write that gravity can be
> masked? Where'd I ever write that I have a fusion generator? You're
> just a lying son of a bitch.
>
> I've given you the reference for neutron generation from lightning
> bolts.
>
> http://www.aw-el.com/weld.htm
>
> and above is the one for neutrons from arc welding.
>
> Never have I ever claimed to have a fusion reactor. Not once you lying
> son of a bitch. Not once. Enough is enough you lying prick.
>
> Charles Cagle
Ref: http://www.singtech.com/features.html#anchor656032
"The SKYBOLT(TM )'s unique operating principles have made it possible
to design and build a home reactor that is less than 6.5 cubic feet
in total volume". The implication is that you did it... or so you
would like people to believe!
Folks can read for themselves:
http://www.singtech.com/features.html#anchor656032
My apologies Cagle--You didn't say that gravity can be shielded... But you
did respond to an article about gravity from "New Scientist" back in 2002.
My error--and apologies to the newsgroup. Had you actually said that gravity
could be shielded, I would have nailed your butt!
Sam Wormley
>
> In article <3ED8158A...@mchsi.com>, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Ref: http://www.singtech.com/history.html
> > http://www.singtech.com/various.html
> > http://www.singtech.com/contents.html
> > http://www.crank.net/fusion.html
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Singularity+Technologies%22+site%3Awww.crank.
> > net
> >
> > Cagle claims
> > o gravity can be masked
> > o neutrons from arc welding
> > o neutrons from lightning bolts
> > o mass is generated in the center of the Earth
> > o has a fusion reactor
> > o neutron generation in poloidal current phase of the earth's core
> > o magnetotoroid current vector rotation
> > o etc.
> >
> > Cagle's got all the insight and understanding, Paul.
>
> You're just a liar Wormley.
You are right -- Cagle DOES NOT have insight and understanding.
Where'd I write that gravity can be
> masked? Where'd I ever write that I have a fusion generator? You're
> just a lying son of a bitch.
>
> I've given you the reference for neutron generation from lightning
> bolts.
>
> http://www.aw-el.com/weld.htm
>
> and above is the one for neutrons from arc welding.
>
> Never have I ever claimed to have a fusion reactor. Not once you lying
> son of a bitch. Not once. Enough is enough you lying prick.
>
> Charles Cagle
Ref: http://www.singtech.com/features.html#anchor656032
Sam Wormley
>
>
> The key ingredient to debunking is, as indicated by the definition above,
> ridiculing the proponent/idea. There is really no place in science for
> ridicule, that is a strictly human trait. It is in fact, counterproductive.
>
Some key ingredients to debunking include
o research both sides of claims
o provide educational resources
o make use of empirical data whenever possible
o give something back... to balance the "taking away"
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Really? 'You' certainly have a very different view of this than is
standard, which BTY I gave three straight from www.onelook.com...
If one peruses the literature, it says otherwise. To 'debunk', one
has already concluded that what they are critiquing IS bunk! Debunking
is, by definition, circular. One is setting out to 'prove' that which
they have already decided is 'proved'. It is most definitely NOT an
unbiased starting point.
This leads back one of my many unanswered simple requests, namely
"Tell us the difference between a debunker and a skeptic."
Again, I've all but spoon fed the answer... Sigh,
Paul Stowe
Charles Cagle
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> "The SKYBOLT(TM )'s unique operating principles have made it possible
> to design and build a home reactor that is less than 6.5 cubic feet
> in total volume". The implication is that you did it... or so you
> would like people to believe!
You lying son of a bitch. What the hell is wrong with you that you
can't tell the truth? I have never desired that people believe that I
have build a reactor. Specifically to debunk liars like you I write in
the introduction:
"Patience! It's not here yet!" (in big bold letters)
"Now please don't jump to conclusions and think that we have already
built an operating prototype of the SKYBOLT TM reactor and are offering
them for sale. We haven't and we are not. However, although we have not
yet built a working prototype, the physical experimental proof now
exists which demonstrates that the operating principles upon which the
SKYBOLT TM design is founded represents a major breakthrough in modern
physics and will lead to the successful construction of the world's
first operating nuclear fusion reactor. "
Listen, you evil lying son of a bitch, why don't you just cut out
trying to suggest what I would like people to believe? I keep catching
you lying. Then you apologize. Don't you realize that it is easier to
just get the facts right in the first place? But you don't give a fig
about the facts, do you? Not so long as you can spew your lies.
Charles Cagle
Sam Wormley
>
> "Now please don't jump to conclusions and think that we have already
> built an operating prototype of the SKYBOLT TM reactor and are offering
> them for sale. We haven't and we are not. However, although we have not
> yet built a working prototype, the physical experimental proof now
> exists which demonstrates that the operating principles upon which the
> SKYBOLT TM design is founded represents a major breakthrough in modern
> physics and will lead to the successful construction of the world's
> first operating nuclear fusion reactor. "
>
Ref: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=reactor+group:sci.physics+author:cagle
Some Charles Cagle quotes--sound pretty serious about this [cold]
fusion reactor!
1998/04/25
"It should be apparent by now that to achieve nuclear fusion that
the meansto accomplish this would be to create and maintain a large
standing wave bosonic structure and to inject fusion fuel nuclei
toward the total time dilation boundary. My SCYBOLT(tm) reactor is
designed to accomplish this".
2001-01-16 03:52:22 PST
"Raising the temperature of a hot gas can raise the number of fusion
reactions which occur per fixed unit of time but cannot change the
ratio between the types of pairs per small increment of time which
is approximately equal to the mean free path flight time. This is a
fact. One can either accept it and design a reactor system which can
alter the ratio in favor of producing pairs which are compact in
momentum space or one can continue to build reactors that will never
go to the continuously operating ignited state (which is needed to be
commercially useful)".
2001-03-01 02:00:02 PST
"The design of the SKYBOLT(tm) reactor system provides for
the presence of a massive macroscale standing wave boson (a confined
current loop singularity) as that momentum sharing partner so that the
alpha particle, being hundreds of millons of times less massive, gets
the lion's share of the energy and is not forced to decay in the
process".
2001-03-20 11:39:41 PST
"There is no way to build a working nuclear fusion reactor except by the
design principles I've laid out. The price tag to get a proof of concept
reactor built? A mere $10 million. If you want it faster than two years
the price goes to $100 million. But we will eventually build a SKYBOLT(tm)
system and it will work".
2001-04-23 05:16:27 PST
"This gravitational charge separation effect is real and because it is
real my SKYBOLT(tm) reactor design, concerning which I have shared some
details, indeed, will work as designed. Naturally, there will be a
tweak and fiddle stage bringing the proof of concept reactor on line
but I believe that with proper funding we'll have a working model in a
year, perhaps less".
2002-06-07 13:37:12 PST
"I've only claimed that I could build it if I had the capital
resources".
2002-06-07 13:37:12 PST
"I've taken great pains to give detailed information on the model. A
number of people who have taken the time to study the details
understand the model quite well".
2002-06-18 15:02:21 PST
"Eventually, the SKYBOLT(tm) reactor design will get funded. Eventually
it will be built and it will work, the predictions of idiots like you
notwithstanding".
From Your Web page 2003-05-31
nightbat
nightbat
It takes a good researcher to admit when he is wrong. But your
outright admission that you were only out to try to nail another
scientist of Mr. Cagle's prominence, places you dangerously close to
automatic self nomination for crank net inclusion. Putting false words
or allegations in a scientist's mouth is an absolute no no.
That you had the the proper mental presence, dignity, and respect to
publicly apologize, in this science physics newsgroup, to your brilliant
fellow poster, Mr. Cagle, is duly noted. The loss of World class runner
up or inclusion of physics Aluminati status is a serious one not to be
taken lightly. Pray that Mr. Cagle does not ask for the Physics
Aluminati barring or kill file gagging of any further of your posts.
Sam, Mr. Cagle is entitled to post said request for this gross violation
of scientific protocol.
Let this be a lesson and warning that any posting of false or non based
derogatory information against any sci.physics Aluminati for the
purposes of defaming or bring disrepute onto said respected poster or
scientist will not go without consequences or be permitted. This is a
premiere non moderated World class forum for scientific discussion and
presentation of pre Nobel prize caliber physics enlightenment and
related insight, not false information. May the Honorary Fellow
sci.physics Aluminati support any decision of Mr. Cagle's for either,
1st warning abstention, temporary, or permanent, censoring of
sci.physics posts of under fellow Sam Wormley.
the nightbat
P.S. Sam, you will never hope to get our mutual beautiful mind physics
collective pen clicks, if you don't stop these mouse and bad mouse
games.
Sam Wormley
How hard is it to get the mutual beautiful mind physicscollective pen click?
What do I have to do to get one?
nightbat
> S.Wormley
nightbat
Sam, the elusive beautiful mind collective pen click comes only
when you have met the highest of scientific standards of this physics
newsgroup. Many try for that lofty status but fall short due to their
petty bias, false and repetitive crank posting after advisement,
attempts at character flaming, or repugnant groundless text retribution
and cross posting where none is warranted. Constructive criticism is
permitted and encouraged but not outright trolling. Your infraction
while a serious one can be overcome and your public apology to Mr. Cagle
goes a long way to reinstatement. The honorary physics group collective
pen click goes only to those in the runner up standing for respective
valued contribution and Scientific Committee acknowledgment or Nobel
Prize nomination and award.
cheers,
the nightbat
hanson
news:310520031229295871%c...@singtech.com...
> In article <3ED8158A...@mchsi.com>, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > Ref: http://www.singtech.com/history.html
> > http://www.singtech.com/various.html
> > http://www.singtech.com/contents.html
> > http://www.crank.net/fusion.html
> > o gravity can be masked
> > o neutrons from arc welding
> > o neutrons from lightning bolts
> > o mass is generated in the center of the Earth
> > o has a fusion reactor
> > o neutron generation in poloidal current phase of the
> > o etc. [Sam, that "etc" must have impressed you - hanson :-)]
>
[Cagle]
> You're just a liar Wormley.
> Where'd I write that gravity can be masked?
> Not once you lying son of a bitch. Not once.
> Enough is enough you lying prick.
>
> "Neutron Generation in Lightning Bolts," NATURE, 313, 773 (1985).
>
"Neutron Generation in Lightning Bolts. -- Google 11 hits
#1: a take on it from Ace Schallger, which is your own alias, Charles.
#2: Edward Lewis says: "I'm speculating that neutrons are...."
#3: Archimedes Plutonium gets in the act, but that post like all the
other hits are essentially referring to the one single source: S. Shah.
>
>
[Cagle]> Charles Cagle
>
[hanson]
Not raining on your neutron parade, Charles, I think that whether
Sam lies or is a SOB or a prick will have little influence onto neutron
generation itself.
However, I do appreciate that you are trying to push the envelope.
You are a bit too gauche for may taste but that does not have any
influence onto neutron generation neither. Never the less I must
commend you for your Herculean efforts.
However, I feel that you fell victim to a jerk off with the welding neutrons.
Or with/by neutron generation from any industrial process for that matter.
Welding carried out at say 30 Amps and 12-30 Volts gives you less than
1 KW of power. If normally stable nuclei could be shaken apart by 1 KW
then there would be all kinds of radioactivity happen everywhere.
The enviro-shits would be laying their green turds all over the place.
Larger jolts of electrical power were applied following the Fleischmann
Ponds cold fusion/neutron rush. A number of folks banged at my door
with neutron emission/generation claims. Some of the more imaginative
approaches were the guys who dunked a pallet full cast-iron ingots
into a NaOH solution and electrolyzed the 2 tons of Fe/C with 1000 A at
75 V DC. That's 75 KW. They ran it cathodic and anodically and they too
claimed radioactivity but were not able to substantiate their claims.
Then consider the industrial Alu production: The Soderberg or prebaked
Kondradty Carbon anodes reduction process of Al2O3 in Cryolitic Melts at
1000°C do operate at 150+ kA per cell. At ~ 20 Volts that requires a
thru-put of 3000 kW. --- Nobody there has bitched about neutron problems
since its invention ca 1886.
Then the particle boys at their accelerators. Do they complain about all
kinds of unwanted radioactivity showing up in unexpected places? They
are working with el power jolts which dwarf that of the Alu production dudes.
All in all, Charles keep at it. Remember, no matter what they say about
the chances in lottery (a tax for morons). There always beckons that lure
that the right combination will bring the prize, hence is worth the pursuit.
So, have fun Charles,
hanson
Bill Foley
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> The key ingredient to debunking is, as indicated by the definition above,
>> ridiculing the proponent/idea. There is really no place in science for
>> ridicule, that is a strictly human trait. It is in fact, counterproductive.
>>
Fine Sam, now here's 'some beef' ON TOPIC... It is a basic briefing
document on Le Sage's hypothesis. Your challenge, find and specify the
behaviors this model predicts and the problems (if any) with current
observations.
The basic idea is that, there is some form of energetic media (some have
proposed light, neutrinos, [Le Sage's idea was neutrino-like] or other
basic particles or some form of waves) that are relatively uniform and
isotropic throughout space. This in turn interacts with matter in a fashion
as to lose or deposit some of their momentum into the matter, resulting in
a pressure being exerted on the matter. This is illustrated below by
vectors A & A':
---
--- ---
-- --
- -
- -
A'---------------><-----------><------- A
- C - P
- -
- -
-- --
--- ---
---
We see that, if these vectors represent the proposed field's momentum potential
along A[<-] & A'[->].
At point C, the vectors are equal and opposite (assuming that the field was
isotropic to begin with, and the body [represented by the sphere] is of uniform
density). Thus A - A' = 0, and we have no net residual.
However, at point P, A has not encounter the body yet while A', has passed
through the body, enduring any attenuation that might take place. Thus the net
A - A' = a, which is the residual vector and points inward towards C. The
magnitude of A' is of the standard liear attenuation form Ae^-ux where u is the
characteristic linear attenuation coefficient, and x is the distance traveled
through the attenuating medium (in this particular case, 2r). This equation is
not new or radical, it is the general solution to problems of this type,
including those involving ionizing radiation.
We can thus re-write A - A' = a to the general form:
a = A(1 – e^-ux)
To obtain the total magnitude of the residual vector we've called a, we must
integrate over all possible paths that involve encountering the body and arrive
at the point of interest (in our case, P). If we are dealing with a sphere, this
integration becomes independent of the spatial position of our point of evaluation,
as long as it is external to the body, it is a constant. The vector a then
represents a 'pressure potential' exerted by the gradient produced in the field by
the presence of the body in the original uniform field.
Now this concept comes in two distinct 'flavors', the strong attenuator and the
weak attenuator.
The weak attenuator is the case where very little impinging fluence attenuates
(as would be the case for neutrinos striking the earth). In this case, our problem
above becomes a = Aux, since ux is much less than unity, we can 'linearize' our
problem and use the first two terms of the Taylor expansion [1 – ux].
The strong attenuator is the case where all impinging fluence is attenuated (as
would be the case for visible light striking the earth). In this case, our problem
above becomes a = A since the exponential becomes e^-oo.
Of course there are the cases where we have neither a 'strong' or 'weak' attenuator
(as defined above) but are in the transition zone between the two.
Now comes the interesting part, when we have two bodies in proximity to each other
as illustrated below:
--- ---
--- --- --- ---
-- --. .-- --
- - . .- -
- - . . - -
- x - . . - y -
- - . . - -
- - . . - -
- - . . - -
-- --. .-- --
--- --- .--- ---
--- ---
the area between them (as indicated by the dotted X region) will have a reduction in
the field pressure due to the mutual attenuation of both bodies. This is colloquially
called 'shadowing' because it is due to a shadow cast by each body. This will then
cause the two bodies to move together due to a 'relative' increase in the pressure on
the opposite, or far sides of each body. Thus the term, pushing gravity...
Again the form of the equation which will correctly describe this effect is dependent
on whether we are dealing with weak or strong attenuators. For weak attenuators it
can be shown that the 'apparent' force generated by the field is:
F = (P[s(rho_x)4pir_x^3/3][s(rho_y)4pir_y^3/3]) / R^2
Where s[x/y].. is the characteristic 'mass attenuation coefficient' of the body
rho_[x/y].. is the density of the body
r_[x/y].. are the radii of the bodies
R........ is the measured distance between the centers of the bodies
P........ is the 'maximum' pressure that the field can exert
We'll note here that the linear attenuation coefficient mentioned earlier is simply
the product of the mass attenuation coefficient (m^2/kg) and the density of the
material (kg/m*3) such that u = s(rho). We'll now group terms into a more familiar
form...
F = (P[s_x]s_y)(rho_xV_x)(rho_yV_y) / R^2
Where V is volume = 4pir^3/3
We see that rhoV is mass so, let body x be M and body y be m, and assuming s_x = s_y,
indeed, for all matter s is the same, we get:
F = (Ps^2)Mm/R^2
Replacing (Ps^2) with a term designated G, we come to a familiar equation:
F = GMm/R^2
And work it out, the term G does indeed have requisite units of m^3/kg-sec^2.
For strong attenuators the force generated simply is:
F = P(pi[r_x^2])(pi[r_y^2])/R^2
Since pi(r^2) is cross-sectional area [A], then
F = PAA'/R^2
Where A is body X area and A' is body Y area...
Which is NOT the Newtonian force equation, and is in no way related to the mass of
the bodies.
OK Sam show your stuff...
Paul Stowe
Charles Cagle
hanson <han...@quick.net> wrote:
You assume that neutron creation has to do with shaking stable nuclei
apart. You miss the point. It has to do with creating, at the
microdomain scale intense gradients which produce quantum scale flux
loops which essentially are the same thing as neutrons. Even during
Project Sherwood where pinch experiments were producing 10^8 neutrons
at a burst they *assumed* that the neutrons were being stripped from
the deuterium but they never showed that this was the case.
<Begin of Sci. Amer. article>
Curious Phenomenon In Venezuela
Cowgill, Warner; Scientific American, 55:389, December 18, 1886
During the night of the 24th of October last, which was rainy
and tempestuous, a family of nine persons, sleeping in a hut a few
leagues from Maracaibo, were awakened by a loud humming noise and a
vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of
the house.
The occupants, completely terror stricken, and believing, as
they relate, that the end of the world had come, threw themselves on
their knees and commenced to pray, but their devotions were almost
immediately interrupted by violent vomitings, and extensive swellings
commenced to appear in the upper part of their bodies, this being
particularly noticeable about the face and lips.
It is to be noted that the brilliant light was not accompanied
by a sensation of heat, although there was a smoky appearance and a
peculiar smell.
The next morning the swellings had subsided, leaving upon the
face and body large black blotches. No special pain was felt until the
ninth day, when the skin peeled off, and these blotches were
transformed into virulent raw sores.
The hairs of the head fell off upon the side which happened to
be underneath when the phenomenon occurred, the same side of the body
being, in all nine cases, the more seriously injured.
The remarkable part of the occurrence is that the house was
uninjured, all doors and windows being closed at the time.
No trace of lightning could afterward be observed in any part
of the building, and all the sufferers unite in saying that there was
no detonation, but only the loud humming already mentioned.
Another curious attendant circumstance is that the trees around
the house showed no signs of injury until the ninth day, when they
suddenly withered, almost simultaneously with the development of the
sores upon the bodies of the occupants of the house.
This is perhaps a mere coincidence, but it is remarkable that
the same susceptibility to electrical effects, with the same lapse of
time, should be observed in both animal and vegetable organisms.
I have visited the sufferers, who are now in one of the
hospitals of this city; and although their appearance is truly
horrible, yet it is hoped that in no case will the injuries prove
fatal.<End of Sci. Amer. article>
<Begin C. Cagle's comments>
*** C. Cagle's notes*** Cowgill was attached to the U.S. Consulate at
Maracaibo. This remarkable event has many of the features of a
"classic" Ball Lightning (BL) event. Humming is frequently reported as
being associated with many other BL events and the humming itself is a
clue to some oscillatory process associated with BL. I'm presently
convinced that the BL was a large flux loop structure which was
oscillating between modes (E-loop to H-loop and back and forth) The
physiological effects, however, both on plant and human life, are
evidence of exposure to radioactive particles. I believe that the
particular effects are consistent with exposure to a strong neutron
flux in the near region of the phenomenon attendant with possible
related products (such as beta particles, alpha particles, and various
daughter products from thermal or epithermal or perhaps even fast [over
.1 Mev] neutron induced decays) as might be expected from exposure to
such a flux. The severe skin burns associated with this event could be
taken as evidence of hydrogen or nitrogen capture (of neutrons) and the
recoil related to the interaction of neutrons and hydrogen in the water
in the skin of the victims (or with nitrogen in tissues). It is worth
noting that in 1886 radioactivity was unknown. Likewise, electrons,
protons, alpha particles, and neutrons were years away from discovery.
Taking into account that this was obviously particulate radiation (not
photonic) one has several choices which might be limited to alpha
particles, beta particles and perhaps neutrons. Thermal neutrons
could certainly deposit energy into the outer layers of skin as could
beta or alpha particles but there's a limited propagation (in air) and
penetration of alpha particles and beta particles. Neutrons, on the
other hand could penetrate the walls of the house and possibly undergo
neutron capture by the hydrogen in the water in the tissues of the
surrounding flora or in the nitrogen of plant tissues. There also
remains the question of the origin of the rapid onset of nausea which
led to the vomitings mentioned in the report. I understand that some
radiation therapy can induce nausea but I don't know the details of the
mechanism (or even if it is true). <end of C. Cagle's comments>
Sam Wormley
>
>
> Fine Sam, now here's 'some beef' ON TOPIC... It is a basic briefing
> document on Le Sage's hypothesis. Your challenge, find and specify the
> behaviors this model predicts and the problems (if any) with current
> observations.
>
> The basic idea is that, there is some form of energetic media (some have
> basic particles or some form of waves) that are relatively uniform and
> isotropic throughout space. This in turn interacts with matter in a fashion
> as to lose or deposit some of their momentum into the matter, resulting in
> a pressure being exerted on the matter.
Hold it right there Stowe. Let's use the CMB as an example and a mass M of
finite, non-zero volume that absorbs and emits photons. We further assume
that the mass M is in thermal equalibrium with the surrounding CMB which
has anisotropy on the order of on 1 part in 100,000--in other words fairly
isotropic.
A body in thermal equilibrium would emit roughly the same number of photons
it absorbs. No net pressure as far as I can tell.
Radiation Pressure
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html
From Dennis May:
Source: A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity - Sir
Edmund T. Whittaker.
In the late 1700's La Sage proposed an explanation for Newton's
gravity. It took the form of a proof that an inverse square
attractive force can be generated by two bodies shadowing each other
from an all pervasive background of smaller bodies impacting them.
Using the new calculus he showed that as the smaller bodies get
arbitrarily small and the size of the shadow bodies get small
relative to their separation an inverse square relation is produced.
This background of small impacting bodies constitutes an aether.
In relation to the explanatory power of General Relativity:
La Sage produced a mechanism for Newtonian gravity. Once Special
Relativity was in play there developed a differential form of Special
Relativity for accelerating frames prior to Einstein's General
Relativity. Later Einstein produced the Equivalence Theorem whereby
gravity was proposed to be equivalent to an accelerating frame of
reference (matter affects the hypothetical space-time).
La Sage did not live to put in his two-cents but his answer would be
that gravity alters the path of particle photons in the same manner
as it otherwise acts. Three spatial dimensions and the variable of
time means that curved photon trajectories and the early differential
form of general relativity produces effects attributed to curved
space time. La Sage "updated" generates the results of General
Relativity without resorting to new spatial dimensions while using
only 3-D geometry, the conservation of momentum, and the old
differential general relativity.
Sorting out the many other details will require a cashiers check made
in the amount of ...
Sam Wormley
Cagle is referring to a letter-to-editor which has nothing to do with
neutrons.
Ref: http://www.nuforc.org/GNSciAm.html
"Preface: One of the questions frequently asked in ufology is how
long the UFO phenomenon has been around. This letter-to-editor of
Scientific American, although proof of nothing, seems highly
suggestive of some of the more recent, and well-documented sightings,
e.g. the Cash-Landrum Case of December 29, l980, near Houston, Texas.
The letter was published in the December 18, 1886, issue of that
magazine".
AntiCrank Information
http://www.csicop.org/cgi-bin/search/search.cgi?q=UFO
http://www.csicop.org/articles/sse-ufo-report/
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Fine Sam, now here's 'some beef' ON TOPIC... It is a basic
>> briefing document on Le Sage's hypothesis. Your challenge,
>> find and specify the behaviors this model predicts and the
>> problems (if any) with current observations.
>>
>> The basic idea is that, there is some form of energetic media
>> (some have proposed light, neutrinos, [Le Sage's[sic] idea was
>> neutrino-like] or other basic particles or some form of waves)
>> that are relatively uniform and isotropic throughout space. This
>> in turn interacts with matter in a fashion as to lose or deposit
>> some of their momentum into the matter, resulting in a pressure
>> being exerted on the matter.
>
> Hold it right there Stowe. Let's use the CMB as an example and a
> mass M of finite, non-zero volume that absorbs and emits photons.
> We further assume that the mass M is in thermal equalibrium with
> the surrounding CMB which has anisotropy on the order of on 1 part
> in 100,000--in other words fairly isotropic.
Yeah, and I honestly think you don't get it. I suggest Feynman's
Lectures, Volume I, Chapter 7, Section 7 page 7-9 & 10... (Shucks,
what I BIG hint).
Poor choice, the CMBR. It is a 'strong' attenuator in matter, won't
match observations right out of the gate... Didn't you read through
to the end?
BTW, you're not answering the one question posed...
> A body in thermal equilibrium would emit roughly the same number of
> photons it absorbs. No net pressure as far as I can tell.
>
> Radiation Pressure
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html
So???
I don't get your point here...
Paul Stowe
Sam Wormley
>
> In article <3EDA66F5...@mchsi.com>,
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Fine Sam, now here's 'some beef' ON TOPIC... It is a basic
> >> briefing document on Le Sage's hypothesis. Your challenge,
> >> find and specify the behaviors this model predicts and the
> >> problems (if any) with current observations.
> >>
> >> The basic idea is that, there is some form of energetic media
> >> (some have proposed light, neutrinos, [Le Sage's[sic] idea was
> >> neutrino-like] or other basic particles or some form of waves)
> >> that are relatively uniform and isotropic throughout space. This
> >> in turn interacts with matter in a fashion as to lose or deposit
> >> some of their momentum into the matter, resulting in a pressure
> >> being exerted on the matter.
> >
> > Hold it right there Stowe. Let's use the CMB as an example and a
> > mass M of finite, non-zero volume that absorbs and emits photons.
> > We further assume that the mass M is in thermal equalibrium with
> > the surrounding CMB which has anisotropy on the order of on 1 part
> > in 100,000--in other words fairly isotropic.
>
> Yeah, and I honestly think you don't get it. I suggest Feynman's
> Lectures, Volume I, Chapter 7, Section 7 page 7-9 & 10... (Shucks,
> what I BIG hint).
Feynman concludes section 7-7 from "The Feynman Lectures on Physics
Vol. 1", Addison-Wesley (1963) with this paragraph:
"It is a fact that the force of gravitation is proportional to the MASS,
the quantity which is fundamentally a measure of INERTIA--of how hard
it is to hold something which is going around in a circle. Therefore
two objects, one heavy and one light, going around a larger object in
the same circle at the same speed because of gravity, will stay together
because because to go in a circle REQUIRES a force which is stronger
for a bigger mass. That is, the gravity is stronger for a given mass in
JUST THE RIGHT PROPORTION so that the two objects will go around
together. If one object were inside the other it would STAY inside; it
is a perfect balance. Therefore, Gagarin or Titov would find thing
"weightless" inside a space ship; if they happened to let go of a piece
of chalk, for example, it would go around the earth in exactly the same
way as the whole space ship*, and so it would appear to remain
suspended before them in space. It is very interesting that this force
is EXACTLY proportional to the mass with great precision, because if it
were not exactly proportional there would be some effect by which
inertia and weight would differ. The absence of such an effect has been
checked with great accuracy by an experiment done first by Eötvös in
1909 and more recently by Dicke. For all substances tried, the masses
and weights are exactly proportional within 1 part in 1,000,000,000, or
less. This is a remarkable experiment".
*This of course assumes the same orbital distance of their centers of
mass. I use capitalization, to represent Feynman's italicized words.
>
> Poor choice, the CMBR. It is a 'strong' attenuator in matter, won't
> match observations right out of the gate... Didn't you read through
> to the end?
>
The CMBR fit your description:
Charles Cagle
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
More dishonest bullshit from Wormley. I found that letter to the
editor from Cowgill, long before there was that website that attempts
to link Cowgill's report with UFO's. I've never stated that the
Cowgill report mentions neutrons you deceptive son of a bitch and in my
posting I draw my own conclusions and quite openly post them as my own
comments. You're such a lying son of a bitch that you would attempt to
manufacture a connection between UFO's and a Ball Lightning report and
then conflate my comments about neutrons as if I were claiming a report
of neutrons in 1886. Neutrons were not discovered until the 1930's
you evil son of a bitch. But an analysis of the report certainly does
have to do with neutrons because the injuries to the nine persons and
plants and trees around the house effected by the presence of the ball
lightning are consistent with an intense neutron flux.
How many ways doth Sam Wormley lie?
I'm sure I can't count them but let me try.
Let a man speak and he'll twist it around.
Like a young pup at the city pound
He barks and he yips and follows you around.
He sucks on the tit of concensus all day
And comes to the Internet at night just to bay.
If he hasn't a fact he'll make one right up
Keys in his lies and grins like a pup.
He'll take his own words and assign them to you
On and on his lies doth he spew.
Abandoning sound argument logic and reason
What he can't grasp he immediately pees on.
:-)
Charles Cagle
Charles Cagle
Tom Potter
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.com> wrote in message
news:79094630.03053...@posting.google.com...
> "Starlord" <star...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:<JvKBa.294$oL5...@news.inreach.com>...
> > Not me, never belived in the use of it, saw to many in Nam end up DEAD
after
> > using it.
> >
> > Besides, never had a basement, and that would have made a nice place for
a Photo
> > Darkroom if I had one.
> [snip]
> > Arthur C. Clarke "The City & The Stars"
>
>
> You mean for developing those snapshots that might get you in trouble
> if you took them to the drugstore?
The nice thing about digital cameras,
is that your pictures are your private property,
and you can throw away the bad shots.
And as you can store thousands pictures
on a CD, you can snap away and save all the
stuff that seems trivial today, for later years.
It would nice to have a record of all the trivial views
of one's home, community, city, environment, schools,
friends, Army buddies, construction, demolition, etc.
and all the changes to one's world.
Who remembers what that old Philco "cathedral" radio,
or that old ice box, or that Ford with the rumble seat,
or the corner drug store, or the 5 and 10 cent store,
or one's kindgarten classmates looked like.
Get out the digital camera and start snapping!!!
You will have a fortune in value and memories in fifty years.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
Jeff Relf
" Save all the stuff that seems trivial today ,
for later years . "
I like that idea ... don't be so discriminating ,
who knows what the future value might be .
So long as you don't become too much of a pack rat .
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
[Snip... of long quote]
> *This of course assumes the same orbital distance of their centers of
> mass. I use capitalization, to represent Feynman's italicized words.
And what's your point?
>>
>> Poor choice, the CMBR. It is a 'strong' attenuator in matter, won't
>> match observations right out of the gate... Didn't you read through
>> to the end?
>>
>
> The CMBR fit your description:
>
> The basic idea is that, there is some form of energetic media
> (some have proposed light, neutrinos, [Le Sage's[sic] idea was
> neutrino-like] or other basic particles or some form of waves)
> that are relatively uniform and isotropic throughout space. This
> in turn interacts with matter in a fashion as to lose or deposit
> some of their momentum into the matter, resulting in a pressure
> being exerted on the matter.
The ZPE also 'would' fit but my point was a general description
of a model NOT any source for any specific one.
You still haven't even attempted to provide the information
requested above. In fact, your responses so far are not on the
topic of the thread.
Note, I'm not even attempting to argue the truth or falsehood
of the model, I just provided the general discription and
supporting mathematics. Then asked you to provide the behaviors
this model predicts (static & dynamic) and the problem(s) (if any)
with current observations. Consider it a 'test' ol' teacher on
your ability to follow a logical procession and determine physical
consequences. Hell, Feynman told you a couple...
Paul Stowe
Paul Curran
>In article <3ED83DAD...@mchsi.com>,
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>>pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <3ED8158A...@mchsi.com>,
>>> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [Snip ... of irrelevant material (again)]
>>>
>>>> Cagle claims
>>>> o gravity can be masked
>>>> o neutrons from arc welding
>>>> o neutrons from lightning bolts
>>>> o mass is generated in the center of the Earth
>>>> o has a fusion reactor
>>>> o neutron generation in poloidal current phase of the earth's core
>>>> o magnetotoroid current vector rotation
>>>> o etc.
>>>>
>>>> Cagle's got all the insight and understanding, Paul.
>>>
>>> It is NOT important what Charles thinks, it IS important what we
>>> can see and measure... Anomalies are the areas that lead to NEW
>>> knowledge. Now, relevant reference to the topic of anomalous
>>> neutrons is,
>>>
>>> http://www.padrak.com/ine/ELEWIS2.html
>>> http://www.lenr-canr.org/PPub0.htm
>>> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChiceaDlowintensi.pdf
>>> http://www.uap.co.jp/uap/Publication/SERIES/DATA/00013/
>>> http://web.gat.com/pubs-ext/AnnSemiannETC/A22550.pdf
>>
>> Woah... some of this is pretty bad... been debunked.
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22cold+fusion%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
>
> Now Sam, please tell us the difference between a debunker and a skeptic.
A debunker is a skeptic wit hattitude and an urge to tell you you're
wrong.
Sam Wormley
>
> The ZPE also 'would' fit but my point was a general description
> of a model NOT any source for any specific one.
>
> You still haven't even attempted to provide the information
> requested above. In fact, your responses so far are not on the
> topic of the thread.
>
> Note, I'm not even attempting to argue the truth or falsehood
> of the model, I just provided the general discription and
> supporting mathematics. Then asked you to provide the behaviors
> this model predicts (static & dynamic) and the problem(s) (if any)
> with current observations. Consider it a 'test' ol' teacher on
> your ability to follow a logical procession and determine physical
> consequences. Hell, Feynman told you a couple...
>
> Paul Stowe
Paul--I can't find the beginning of the thread "gravity masking" or
who the first poster was. My first posting was in response to Cagle'
bullshit about the accelerating expansion of the Universe NOT being
true... I cited observational evidence (WMAP data) that confirms
previous data of accelerating expansion.
Later I pointed out that gravity is unscreened. There are no
negative gravitational charges to cancel positive ones, and
therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational
interaction. Gravity is always attractive.
Recently you posed some arguments made by La Sage (not Le Sage) in an
attempt [my persception] to try to trip me up about about General
Relativity. I'm not going there--instead I cited from Dennis May:
GTR is an extremely valuable tool that has yet to fail a test of its
predictions. You can probably argue much more skillfully than me. Why
waste time trolling and being a crank? Physics is plenty fascinating
without having to ignore what we have really learned and are learning.
Paul, I don't understand where you lost the fascination with real
physics. What turned you off to what the physics community is learning?
th...@thadlabs.com
| [...]
| Later I pointed out that gravity is unscreened. There are no
| negative gravitational charges to cancel positive ones, and
| therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational
| interaction. Gravity is always attractive.
I wonder (re: "Gravity is always attractive"). Frankly, "we" don't
know enough about gravity to state that unequivocally given some
other recent "zingers" such as monopoles (re: magnetism) and the
recently-posted fact that only 4% (yes, that's f-o-u-r) of the Universe
comprises baryonic matter (atoms, electrons, protons, etc. -- the stuff
we can see, feel, touch, measure, etc.) with the remaining 96% comprising
dark matter and the elusive "dark energy".
Working in only 3 (perhaps 4 depending on point of view) dimensions, there's
a lot we don't "see".
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>| [...]
>| Later I pointed out that gravity is unscreened. There are no
>| negative gravitational charges to cancel positive ones, and
>| therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational
>| interaction. Gravity is always attractive.
>| [...]
>
>I wonder (re: "Gravity is always attractive"). Frankly, "we" don't
>know enough about gravity to state that unequivocally
The statements you get from science, at any given moment, are
regarding the state of the the knowledge *at the given moment*. Not
some "revealed truth". Is this clear enough? So yes, we can state
*unequivocally* that as far as we know at the moment gravity is always
attractive. Furthermore, we can state that that statements along the
lines of "but there is so much we don't know yet" ("look Ma, I'm so
profound, I'm stating that there is so much we don't know yet") bring
you zero, zip, nada brownie points in science. If and when you've a
better model, we'll be happy to hear. Till then, you've nothing to
say.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Richard Herring
<ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>>You are incorrect twice. Luminescent clocks dials continue to be produced.
>>Where did the 1950's come from? We were discussing the NRC (which was
>>created in 1975).
>>
>>greywolf42
>>ubi dubium ibi libertas
>
>I beleive he meant the use of radium as the source of luminesense.
>They use phosphorus today.
I hope not. "Phosphors" have nothing to do with phosphorus except that
both, under certain conditions, emit light.
For things that don't need "recharging" by exposure to light, they use
tritium as the energy source.
--
Richard Herring
Charles Cagle
<me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
As far as you know gravity is always attractive because you damn well
are not paying very good attention. How about monolithic sources,
quantum sources? Do you understand the difference between the
gravitational field generated by a single monolithic source and one
generated by a conglomeration of multiple monolithic sources? Meron,
you believe in a space-time continuum, in the continuous structures
which are assumed by GR (and QM) yet such structures cannot by any
experimental means be proven to exist. So, you end up believing them
as an act of faith just as if you were believing in a Divine Being that
you can neither see nor hear nor touch nor smell nor cause to show up
on any experimental measurement device. You're surely a religionist
believing in a religious idea that has been called a 'scientific' idea
when it is nothing of the kind. In fact, once that one has unified
electromagnetism and gravity by having a correct idea of the nature of
charge then one can deduce that a gravitational field must produce a
charge separation effect. Is there evidence of such an effect? Of
course there is. Plenty of it too. But do you have the wit to grasp
it or see it? I would suspect that you do because it is obvious that
you're not a low IQ fellow so I'd give it that you have the wit. But
is more required than wit? Sure. You have to want to know the truth
more than anything else and if you think you already have the truth
when you really don't then how can you let the truth in your door? You
can't. It is a testimony to your blindness and stiffneckedness that
you can be handed some facts on a silver platter and then reject them.
It seems that if I can claim that I can provide substantive reasonable
solutions to a wide spectrum of astronomical and cosmological mysteries
and can tie a broad range of phenomena together using just the fact
that a monolithic gravitational field produces a charge separation
effect that you'd be willing to listen. Let me call it gravitational
charge separation effect or GCSE.
1) GCSE is the most dominate cause of redshifting of cosmological
sources.
2 anf 3) GCSE then eliminates the notion of an acceleration in the
expansion of the universe and hence eliminates the notion of the Big
Bang itself.
4) GCSE is responsible for the formation of the 'dark matter' that an
analysis of the orbits of stars indicates must exist in the cores of
galaxies.
5) If the monolithic gravitational field of a star which produces the
GCSE is caused to fluctuate or is displaced from the 'dark matter' from
which electrons are excluded by the GCSE then the 'dark matter' (which
I have called 'Isaacium') can immediately acquire electrons and will
then differentiate into a variety of atomic species. As the Isaacium
acquires electrons it emits a broad spectrum of photons and gains
atomic volume which is many orders of magnitude greater than the volume
occupied by the neutrons and protons which compose Isaacium. Thus one
gets a tremendous flux of light and a catastrophic explosion. This is
the essence of a supernova.
6) Flux loop systems are gravitational sources and flux loop systems on
the sun also display the GCSE which strips electrons away from atoms
which are occupying the gravitational terminus (toroidal axis) of the
flux loop. The collapse of a large flux loop on the sun then permits
the cascade of electrons from outside of the electron exclusion zone
and the acquistion of electrons by the matter which has been residing
along the terminus line produces an increase in atomic volume and a
huge flux of radiation. We call these events 'solar flares'.
7) A single oscillation of a large scale flux loop system which has an
Isaacium core can allow the acquisition of electrons (as in a supernova
event) and can cause a gamma ray burst.
8) The collapse of the main flux loop field of a planet can cause its
Isaacium ring core to acquire huge numbers of electrons which then is
translated into a catastrophic explosion of the planet. The asteroid
belt components which orbit between Jupiter and Mars are the remnants
of a planet which detonated in this manner.
9) The GCSE means that the foundational postulate of GR which is the
equivalence principle can't be true. Thus, GR is shown to be a hot air
balloon sort of castle in the sky theory as Einstein himself began to
suspect in his latter years and GCSE is the pin that lets the air out
of it all.
One simple discovery. So many problems solved.
GCSE is deducable from first principles regarding the relative motion
of quanta and Maxwell's equations.
Mati, you're at least a hundred years behind times. What is coming is
known now. But not by you.
Charles Cagle
Charles Cagle
As far as you know gravity is always attractive because you damn well
Tom Potter
At about 50K per JPG,
you can pack 20,000 shots into a gigabyte of storage.
To fill up one 30 Gig hard drive,
you'd have to take 600,000 shots,
and if you took one shot every minute,
and worked an ten hour day,
it would take you 10,000 hours, or 1000 days
to fill up the drive.
As over ten thousand pictures can be put on a CD,
I think it would be profitable to sell CD's featuring
all the municipalities and places of interest in a state,
random high school and college shots of sports, events,
random scenes of groups of students,
the changing face of a city, clouds, trees, flowers,
random shots of traffic and people, etc.
I always wanted a CD or video with pictures of trips
from coast to coast on roads like Route 66, 101, etc.
and I dare say many other people would buy this CD.
It would be great to have a few thousand
(Or even a few hundred) shots of places along the
old Route 66. Before the advent of digital cameras,
I planned to mount an automatic camera on the roof of a car,
and drive various interesting roads taking pictures,
but I gave up on the idea because of the cost of film,
scanning, etc.
Tom Potter http://tompotter.ws
Sam Wormley
Bullshit terms
o monolithic gravitational field
o gravitational terminus (toroidal axis)
o Isaacium
o GCSE
Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Singularity+Technologies%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3ACC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3ACagle
Volker Hetzer
> "greywolf42" replied to Jeff Root:
> Possibly. Can you name a manufacturer, or a distributor, or a
> nation in which they are made, or describe the intended purpose
> of what I presume would be special-purpose clocks? A URL to a
> manufacturer's web site describing their product would help.
I'd love to see the answer to that too. All the night-visible
watches I've seen, are just storing light for a few minutes.
At least after a year or so. Before that they store it for a few
hours at most.
Greetings!
Volker
--
While it is a known fact that programmers
never make mistakes, it is still a good idea
to humor the users by checking for errors at
critical points in your program.
-Robert D. Schneider, "Optimizing INFORMIX
Applications"
John Sefton
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Bullshit terms
> o monolithic gravitational field
> o gravitational terminus (toroidal axis)
> o Isaacium
> o GCSE
>
> Crank Information
> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Singularity+Technologies%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3ACC
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3ACagle
'If and when you've a
better model, we'll be happy to hear. Till then, you've nothing to
say.' (Mati)
Hmm. They weren't happy to hear.
I guess it wasn't a better model.
Oh well.
I guess gravity still sucks forever.
(How does it do that without blowing out once in awhile?)
John
nightbat
nightbat
Mr. Cagle reminds me of a mental top heavy weight prize fighter
in his prime. Very much like former, float like a butterfly, sting like
a bee, Cassius Clay now Muhammed Ali. Who always was boastful, arrogant,
witty, intellectually piquant, friendly, strong willed and good
character, high morals, fallible, professional, obnoxious, plain,
opinionated, true sparing athlete, non bias, worldly, not totally
mathematically versed, extremely versatile, original and creative,
brilliant, literate, poetic, helpful, and more.
It shows in all his original forefront science pronouncements and
attitude towards respondents. The man is a walking net physics theorist
and researcher of the first caliber without exception. There is no
telling what great scientific advancements could be had with just a
little support from academia and science fellows on his behave. What,
brilliant Edison was practically uneducated, but because of his
excellent staff and friends of scientists, researchers, math elicit
engineers, and technicians, he was able to bring forth enormous
advancements in science technology not otherwise possible isolated from
the main stream. Tesla found Edison a powerhouse of untiring
determination and what Edison lacked in education he made up for in
sheer tenacity. Let's hope Mr.Cagle stays in there swinging, we need
intelligent men, despite any of their human short comings, with the guts
to be in the science front trenches. Who bravely spit the dirt thrown in
their faces and are willing to go the distance.
Anyway, didn't those bicycle boys already teach us how to mask gravity
at Kitty Hawk? Something all the math brains couldn't do and what
Einstein said was more important, imagination?
the nightbat
Jim
You might find this interesting:
http://www.roadsidepeek.com/index.htm
Jim
nightbat
> Crank Information Wormley
> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Singularity+Technologies%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3ACC
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3ACagle
nightbat
Sam, respectfully, you have been already warned and advised
about spamming a distinguished original poster like Mr. Cagle and about
your false lying in sciphysics newsgroup. Try to control yourself and if
you receive a third warning you will self nominate yourself for
inclusion into the crank net listing voluntarily. You ask for
reinstatement into the exclusive beautiful mind collective physics
fellow pen click yet you continue to conduct yourself in a manner
unbecoming a distinguished World class scientist and physics researcher.
the nightbat
Charles Cagle
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
How many ways doth Sam Wormley lie?
I'm sure I can't count them but let me try.
Let a man speak and he'll twist it around.
Like a young pup with a shoelace at the pound
He barks and he yips and follows you around.
He sucks on the tit of concensus all day
And comes to the Internet at night just to bay.
If he hasn't a fact he'll make one right up
Keys in his lies and grins like a pup.
He'll take his own words and assign them to you
On and on his lies doth he spew.
Abandoning sound argument logic and reason
What he can't grasp he immediately pees on.
:-).
Charles Cagle
Jeff Relf
My favorite " Googie " is the Space Needle here in Seattle .
Here's " My " picture of it :
Paul Curran
wrote:
My bad. The point I was ,aking was that radium is no longer used .
Paul Curran
>nightbat
>
> Sam, respectfully, you have been already warned and advised
>about spamming a distinguished original poster like Mr. Cagle and about
>your false lying in sciphysics newsgroup. Try to control yourself and if
>you receive a third warning you will self nominate yourself for
>inclusion into the crank net listing voluntarily. You ask for
>reinstatement into the exclusive beautiful mind collective physics
>fellow pen click yet you continue to conduct yourself in a manner
>unbecoming a distinguished World class scientist and physics researcher.
>
>
> the nightbat
Nightbat,
Are practicng to be a bad comedian?
Paul Curran
wrote:
> Mr. Cagle reminds me of a mental top heavy weight prize fighter
>in his prime. Very much like former, float like a butterfly, sting like
I see you spent to much time sparring in the ring without protective
headgear.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> The ZPE also 'would' fit but my point was a general description
>> of a model NOT any source for any specific one.
>>
>> You still haven't even attempted to provide the information
>> requested above. In fact, your responses so far are not on the
>> topic of the thread.
>>
>> Note, I'm not even attempting to argue the truth or falsehood
>> of the model, I just provided the general discription and
>> supporting mathematics. Then asked you to provide the behaviors
>> this model predicts (static & dynamic) and the problem(s) (if any)
>> with current observations. Consider it a 'test' ol' teacher on
>> your ability to follow a logical procession and determine physical
>> consequences. Hell, Feynman told you a couple...
>
> Paul--I can't find the beginning of the thread "gravity masking" or
> who the first poster was. My first posting was in response to Cagle'
> bullshit about the accelerating expansion of the Universe NOT being
> true... I cited observational evidence (WMAP data) that confirms
> previous data of accelerating expansion.
That's funny, the only 'direct' observational evidence is shown in
http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/290E/sld018.htm
They rest is a house of cards, pure speculation based upon one
assumption stacked on another. I'll ask you again, define the
assumptions. Then ask a rather obvious question, are there
alternatives?
> Later I pointed out that gravity is unscreened. There are no
> negative gravitational charges to cancel positive ones, and
> therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational
> interaction. Gravity is always attractive.
>
> Recently you posed some arguments made by La Sage (not Le Sage) in an
> attempt [my persception] to try to trip me up about about General
> Relativity. I'm not going there--instead I cited from Dennis May:
If I wanted to trip you up Sam I could have. That was NEVER my
objective. Now a little lecture, teacher...
The term screen, mask, & shield have general meaning. The only model
of gravity that deals with these is Le Sage (NOT La Sage) as in
George Louis Le Sage! Do a search, or just perhaps, READ an authorative
scholarly article like "Gravity in the Century of Light", James Evans
starting on page 9 of Matt Edward's "Pushing Gravity".
As for Whittaker's book (a great read BTW, try READING IT!), in Volume
I pages 31,32 we find,
"Even during this age, however, the hope of understanding
interphenomena was never entirely abandoned. A curious
attempt to Cartesianise Newtonianism was made by a
French-Swiss, George Louis Le Sage,[2] who proposed to
account for gravitation by means of an aether of Descartes'
original type, that is to say, a cloud of excessively
minute particles, ultra-mundane corpuscles as he called
them. These, which resembled the neutrinos of the modern
atomic physicist, he supposed to exist in great numbers in
all parts of space, and to be moving with great speed in
all directions ; their diameters were further assumed to
be so small in comparison with their distances apart that
collisions between them were exceedingly rare. Then two
particles of ordinary matter would to some extent screen
each other from bombardment by the corpuscles, each
particle receiving fewer impacts on the side facing the
other than on the reverse side ; and Le Sage showed that
this effect would be equivalent to a force of attraction
between them, varying inversely as the square of their
mutual distance ; which force he identified with that
discovered by Newton."
He is also mentioned in Volume II, page 149 in discussing Lorentz...
What you quote below IS NOT from Whittaker's book. This has been
repetitively your problem. A almost blind dependence on rote
references. It has been my experience that science is ripe with
the equivalence of classroom 'telephone', where rumors are repeated
often, embellished and modified (most times not intentionally) by
the interpretation and biases of the tellers. The result, MANY
falsehoods end up as 'gospel'.
> "Source: A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity - Sir
> Edmund T. Whittaker.
[Snip of inaccurate reference material]
> GTR is an extremely valuable tool that has yet to fail a test of its
> predictions. ...
How about those galactic rotation profiles Sam?
The Pioneer Effect Sam...
The 1999 solar eclipse data Sam...
> You can probably argue much more skillfully than me. Why waste time
> trolling and being a crank?
Crank Sam? What makes a Crank? Is it because one questions the
prevailing views? I'm the 'Show Me' type Sam, so, think I'm a
crank fine, show me where what I have presented is mathematically
wrong! How about the logic flaw Sam? If either or both are present,
that great, BUT SHOW ME! Failing that, what criteria are you using
to define crank Sam?
> Physics is plenty fascinating without having to ignore what we have really
> learned and are learning.
Actually Sam, I ignore NOTHING, but critcally question EVERYTHING! Talk
about investments in time... I've probably explored more avenues, gone
up more dead end pathways than you have searched for references! Along
those long & winding paths I learns some things, one of which is, most
of what is presented as history is BADLY DISTORTED. That you'll realise
if you ever get off you duff and actually seek out the original works.
> Paul, I don't understand where you lost the fascination with real
> physics. What turned you off to what the physics community is
> learning?
Its religion. The fact is, I'm HERE BECAUSE of my interest in physics.
The fact is Sam, I was attempting to get you to actually thinking about
something that, most certainly, was new to you. This WAS a test Sam,
one to see if YOU had an actual fascination in 'real physics'. If you
haven't noticed, physics is modeling mathematically, phenomenological
processes. I provided you with a fascinating one. Right or wrong (I
wasn't even arguing that) it is the ONLY physical model of gravity to
EVEN BEGIN to match observations. Many greats have seriously considered
this model, each rejecting it for several (and not always the same) reasons.
I wanted YOU to THINK, apply reason, and to follow the processes to their
logical ends. Then you'd be able to define, and I hoped discuss, these
elements. Simple things like, for example, the realization that the Le
Sage Newtonian equation DOES NOT involve motion of any sort. It IS,
expressly a static solution. Put one or both bodies in motion and the
speed at which those Le Sagian particle propagate the field gradient have
an effect. Exploring the physical characterisitics would have lead,
inexorably, to the concept of screening and Majorana's ideas & experiments.
I could say more but on this but I won't, I will say this you most certainly
have no HIGH MORAL GROUNDS to denigrate Charles, he may well be dead wrong,
but he IS attempting to push the envelope, and actually thinking about what
it might be going on. As I said, I don't agree with him but science is much
better served with wild eyed free thinkers than with naysayers!
Paul Stowe
Sam Wormley
The crux of this matter is that you think that physics is a religion and that some
physicists (and teachers) blindly parrot what they have learned.... The Iowa
State physics and astrophysics friend of mine are skeptics, every one! They
just don't want to commit to anything without lots of supporting evidence. Just
the opposite of what you see. You obviously think I'm a blind parrot--but I do
try to convey our best understanding of the subject matter. As Charles Kuralt
would say, "There ought to be more of that" in this newsgroup.
In general, the folks that are going to pioneer "new" physics, have learned
the old physics well. You have say Cagle "pushes the envelope". The fact is
that he has contributed absolutely nothing to science... in any form. His
spoutings are just bullshit.
I do try to convey our best understanding of the subject matter. There ought
to be more of that! And you, Paul, should join me.
Double-A
> nightbat wrote
>
[snip]
Who are you? Cagle's mother???
Double-A
Charles Cagle
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
How many ways doth Sam Wormley lie?
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Charles Cagle <c...@singtech.com> wrote:
;Snip ...]
> How many ways doth Sam Wormley lie? I'm sure I can't count them
> but let me try. Let a man speak and he'll twist it around. Like
> a young pup with a shoelace at the pound He barks and he yips
> and follows you around. He sucks on the tit of concensus all day
> And comes to the Internet at night just to bay. If he hasn't a
> fact he'll make one right up Keys in his lies and grins like a pup.
> He'll take his own words and assign them to you On and on his lies
> doth he spew. Abandoning sound argument logic and reason What he
> can't grasp he immediately pees on.
Well Charles you can let me have it to. You're your own worst enemy.
As you well know I don't agree with you views but think all have the
right to present them in open forum. You, nor anyone ELSE has the
right be a total ass, and act out like a raving lunatic constantly.
It is probably not an act...
While I know that many have taken unwarranted ad hominem attacks
on their character just because of their views your uncivilized
behavior is both abhorent and beyond ANY pale of reasonable EVEN
reactionary behavior.
IOW, you are, and have been, acting like a troglodyte. GROW UP!
Paul Stowe
Charles Cagle
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Now you're able to prophesize the attributes of the person who will
make the next breakthrough, eh? On that basis you ought to be able
to make the breakthru yourself. In reality I have a much more
sensitive bullshit meter than you do. You swill it down by the volume
while I sip carefully to filter out the rat turds of absurb logic and
incompetent reason. To me data is much more important than the
interpretation of the data. Without data you're blind and you're
reduced to Aristotian logic which seemed to eschew experiment. I
believe that we're already awash in sufficient data to figure the
universe out. Enemies of reason such as you will always fall short of
the goal.
> You have say Cagle "pushes the envelope". The fact is
> that he has contributed absolutely nothing to science... in any form. His
> spoutings are just bullshit.
And that's the substance of your argument. Your unqualified opinion
based upon your slavish devotion to the status quo explanations of the
universe no matter how void of logic and reason they might be.
> I do try to convey our best understanding of the subject matter. There ought
> to be more of that! And you, Paul, should join me.
You're an evil person, Sam. Paul really is quite a decent fellow. The
better is not blessed by the lesser. You might profit from an
association with Paul but he won't profit by an association with you.
I've added a line to the work in progress below.
How many ways doth Sam Wormley lie?
I'm sure I can't count them but let me try.
Let a man speak and he'll twist it around.
Like a young pup with a shoelace at the pound
He barks and he yips and follows you around.
And runs all you say into the ground.
He sucks on the tit of concensus all day
And comes to the Internet at night just to bay.
If he hasn't a fact he'll make one right up
Keys in his lies and grins like a pup.
He'll take his own words and assign them to you
On and on his lies doth he spew.
Abandoning sound argument logic and reason
What he can't grasp he immediately pees on.
:-)
Charles Cagle