Switch off at the socket?
 

brightside S9 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:45:52 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Besides, just as an example, I've asked him three times now to
define 'mass' and give a source for the definition he uses. Every
time he has been unable to do even that. On the other hand, I gave
the definition I use and quoted the source. So, please don't accuse
me of not doing so.

He is unable to do so, because, as yet, it is an unanswerable
question. Now you are either smart enough to know that, or not.

Are you smart enough to know or not?

Don't be ridiculous. He uses the term, so he should know what it means and
be able to define it.

Einstein used the term too. It's what the m in e=mc^2 represents. I dare
say he knew what it meant. But now you come along and say he must have been
mistaken because it's an unanswerable question.

Does that make you smarter than him, or just wrong?

Switch off at the socket?
 

Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

YOU really just don't get this, *YOU* are the one making the
claims (away from the accepted facts), not me, so it is YOU who
needs to back up YOUR claims...

But I gave you my explanation, which happens to be the correct one.

What's yours?


You really don't get it, I do not have to supply anything as I'm
not the one making any claims, YOU are, it is for YOU to supply
your references - something that you have signally failed to do
in any MEANINGFUL way.

Wells, put up or shut up!

I'll take that as meaning you're incapable of providing any explanation
because of your limited education and intellect then.

Seems a reasonable deduction.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: Jerry wrote:
: "Norman Wells" wrote in message
: ...
:
: YOU really just don't get this, *YOU* are the one making
the
: claims (away from the accepted facts), not me, so it is YOU
who
: needs to back up YOUR claims...
:
: But I gave you my explanation, which happens to be the
correct one.
:
: What's yours?
:
:
: You really don't get it, I do not have to supply anything as
I'm
: not the one making any claims, YOU are, it is for YOU to
supply
: your references - something that you have signally failed to
do
: in any MEANINGFUL way.
:
: Wells, put up or shut up!
:
: I'll take that as meaning you're incapable of providing any
explanation
: because of your limited education and intellect then.
:
: Seems a reasonable deduction.
:

I think that we can all see who is the pot calling the kettle
black here.

One more time, it is for YOU to offer any explanation as it is
YOU who is trying to rewrite accepted scientific fact, if YOU
can't offer any (meaningful) explanation as to how you have come
to YOUR conclusions that until now the accepted scientific fact
is wrong it will be YOU who has failed and it will be YOU who
gets shown up as a 'eccentric crank' at best and an out and out
hapless cretin at worst - all recorded in the annuals of the
Google groups achieve!

Put up or shut up Mr Wells...

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


There is evidence that what amounts to 'open hearth' fission
reactors have existed naturally (without actually making china) in
the past.
http://knol.google.com/k/j-marvin-he...8elf7fue7ro/4#



for an interesting read.

But as Wikipedia says in its article on 'georeactor':

"Herndon's concepts are not accepted by the scientific community".

So, another myth then that you choose to believe, contrary to all the
evidence.

But t is you who said that wikipedia was a bunch of crap when it
refuted your other arguments.

I don't think so. Where was that then?

As I clearly said, fission is clearly taking place.

Well, you said it, but only cited the discredited Herndon's hypothesis
in support which is 'not accepted by the scientific community'. I would
conclude from that that it isn't taking place at all.


So, lets get this straight.

I say that radioactive elements decay, which is fission, and its taking
place.

In another sentence I point out that it may also be taking place in a
chain reaction (reactor) and point you to a link, that posits a
mechanism that demonstrates some evidence to support that.

You find a wiki article, and cite the ONLY line that is in fact contrary
to that propsoition, and use it as CERTAIN evidence of REFUTATION.,

And THEN further extrapolate that to include ALL fission, including
natural radioactive decay.

No wonder you never could make a career in a technical subject.



Whether its a
reactor or not is semantics.

Quite so.

And the earth is warmer than it should be
core wise.

It's as warm as it is. There's no such thing as warm as it should be.

Oh dear.


So the jury ion actual 'recators' is still out, but nuclear fission is
taking place all around us, and gives off SOME heat.

Only in nuclear power stations, my friend. Not in cuckoo clocks, not in
batteries whether charging or discharging, not in springs, not anywhere
else in fact.

Oh dear. Plenty of fission takes place in radioactive elements outside
reactors. Go to Dartmoor with a geiger counter. By a factor of several
thousand to one at least.


Radioactive decay is only one specific measurable example of mass energy
equivalence: It happens to be easiest to measure, because the energy is
vast, but if a charged batteruy is NOT heavier than a flat one, then you
have refuted relativity, well worth a Nobel prize.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:37:47 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

As I clearly said, fission is clearly taking place.

Well, you said it, but only cited the discredited Herndon's
hypothesis in support which is 'not accepted by the scientific
community'. I would conclude from that that it isn't taking place
at all.

And the earth is warmer than it should be
core wise.

It's as warm as it is. There's no such thing as warm as it should
be.

It has been calculated how old the earth should be by assuming it was
once molten and calculating how long it would take to cool to its
current temperature, and without allowing for fission from natural
radio-activity, the numbers don't add up.

I calculate by assuming my income and expenditure that I should be
solvent at the end of every month. However, I observe that I never seem
to have any money. What do _you_ think is wrong?



You cant do sums, or you have left something out.


So the jury ion actual 'recators' is still out, but nuclear fission
is taking place all around us, and gives off SOME heat.

Only in nuclear power stations, my friend. Not in cuckoo clocks,
not in batteries whether charging or discharging, not in springs,
not anywhere else in fact.

No, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Oh, you mean natural decay of radioactive isotopes. Ok, fair enough.
You can have those too, but the effects are utterly trivial.

In terms of background radiation, about 70 times more than the total
world nuclear industry IIRC.

In terms of heating the earth, not much I agree.

Which is why the proposition that there are or have been greater
concentrations of fissile materials that would react faster, now or in
the past, has some supporting evidence.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

snip

[ in reply to The Natural Philosopher ]

Boy, you sure are a sore loser!


Whilst you seem to be a pillock that, even if correct, can't or
won't reference why you concider that you are correct.

But in general that's asking me to prove a negative, which of course
can't be done. If someone makes a ridiculous sounding assertion it is
surely for that person to prove he's right rather than for anyone else
to prove him wrong, isn't it?

No.

That's the normal way after all.

It may be the normal way to you, but its not the way *science* works.

Again, read Karl Popper.




Besides, just as an example, I've asked him three times now to define
'mass' and give a source for the definition he uses. Every time he has
been unable to do even that. On the other hand, I gave the definition I
use and quoted the source. So, please don't accuse me of not doing so.


And you were given a more accurate scientific definition along the lines
of 'the property that resist changes in motion' i.e. inertia.


Mass, energy, velocity, distance and time are precisely defined units in
the Newtonian worldview. I use them in that sense when considering Physics.

The fact that Chanmbers definition is sloppy and unscientific is not my
problem.

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article , Andy
Burns writes
On 20/09/09 04:05, Kennedy McEwen wrote:

I guess you have never heard of or used Joule-Kelvin coolers, but they
are very simple devices, extremely reliable and exceedingly efficient at
condensing atmospheric constituents. I have used them, as one of the
production methods for liquid nitrogen - you know the stuff that is a
little cheaper to make and distribute than the bottled water you get in
Tesco's or Sainsbury's - and guess what, CO2 production is one of the
major side effects

All you have to do is "Pass Go" then, that nice Mr Branson has a
$25,000,000 prize waiting.

http://www.virgin.com/subsites/virginearth/

Thanks for that, I will apply for Mr Branson's cash, but I fully expect
that someone else will have beaten me to it since it is a pretty well
known concept.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Switch off at the socket?
 

[email protected] wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Even Galileo failed to understand that, whereas the Church actually
did. They wanted him to merely state (correctly in my opinion) that
the re normalisation of orbital paths to a heliocentric model, was a
matter of mathematical convenience and that to say it 'meant' the 'the
earth goes round the sun' was unjustified.

Are you saying the earth doesn't go around the Sun (as a first
approximation)?



I am saying that in absolute terms, it is not possible to say.


Heliocentrism merely ,means assuming the sun is fixed, and doing the
maths with that as the axes of rotation. The maths is much simpler. That
doesn't make the assumption true. In fact the nearest that physics can
get to an exact answer with any degree of absoluteness in it, is to say
that everything revolves around the center of gravity of the universe,
and Einstein would deny any revolution is taking place at all. Objects
merely follow straight paths through a curved space-time.

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article , Paul
Martin writes
In article ,
Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Once extracted, the solid CO2 will, off course require containment but,
whilst that has its own problems, it wasn't your question - atmospheric

...which will require an ongoing energy commitment in refrigeration to
stop the dry ice from subliming back into a gas.

Which is why I suggested burying it under impermeable rock layers, like
we currently do with compressed air into oil wells. It doesn't need to
be refrigerated indefinitely, just kept under pressure, and geological
pressures can be enormous.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Switch off at the socket?
 

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
[email protected] wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Even Galileo failed to understand that, whereas the Church actually did.
They wanted him to merely state (correctly in my opinion) that the re
normalisation of orbital paths to a heliocentric model, was a matter of
mathematical convenience and that to say it 'meant' the 'the earth goes
round the sun' was unjustified.

Are you saying the earth doesn't go around the Sun (as a first
approximation)?

To a pedant, that is correct. The earth orbits the centre of mass of
the whole solar system (to a first approximation). That might not
always lie within the Sun.

No it doesn't.

In fact nothing is doing anything. MODELS of a sort of three
dimensional analysis of the solar system, give approximately correct
results if that is _assumed_ to be the case. What is ACTUALLY happening
is anybodies guess.

The map is not the territory.