Switch off at the socket?
 

Jerry wrote:

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!

In the what of the what?

sigh education today.

Switch off at the socket?
 

[email protected] wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


8

Are you saying now that the earth has a nuclear reaction going on at
its centre, and that's the reason it's pretty warm down there?



Yes, and no, that's not the only reason. Not even the biggest reason.
Of course it has nuclear reactions going on down there..where else
would all the radon come from? and all the uranium is still decaying
whether we use it in reactors or not.

You do know that there is a difference between radioactive decay and
fission?


No, I don't, because there is not. Radioactive decay *is* fission.
Elements split spontaneously into other elements and give off energy and
other particles. That happens the same in a reactor as it does
naturally. The only difference is that in a reactor the excess particles
can make it happen faster, and sometimes differently.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


8

Are you saying now that the earth has a nuclear reaction going on
at its centre, and that's the reason it's pretty warm down there?



Yes, and no, that's not the only reason. Not even the biggest
reason. Of course it has nuclear reactions going on down
there..where else would all the radon come from? and all the uranium
is still decaying whether we use it in reactors or not.

You do know that there is a difference between radioactive decay and
fission?

Actually, radioactive decay _is_ a form of nuclear fission.

However, it is not a nuclear 'reaction', which necessarily involves
bombardment with neutrons.


I never ever said it was.


Nuclear reactions do not produce radon. Radon comes about as a result
of radioactive decay of naturally-occurring radium. It's existence
therefore is no indication at all of 'nuclear reactions going on down
there'.


Its evidence of *fission* going on down there, and I am fairly sure it
IS a reactor product at some level, probably tertiary.

Nope. Its primary, and associated with uranium mining mainly, as radium
is found with uranium.,.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Bill Wright wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message
...
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
Few homosexuals would want to admit to "cottaging", even
today, as it's still an illegal act...
No-one's ever propositioned me in a public toilet. I can't understand
why.

Lucky you.

No, unlucky me. I believe that we should try everything once except incest
and morris dancing.


Suicide?

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:07:58 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:58:25 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:

No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.
The abilty for the people to pay or not isn't particularly relevant.
The root problem was that the underlying value of the asset wasn't
enough to cover the debt on it.

If you are being charitable you say the banks took a gamble on the
asset values continuing to rise and by the time the debt was due
their value would cover it. A gamble they lost big time.


Did any banks really lose actual tangible spendable cash on their UK
private house mortgage business?


Yes. And still are.

They may have potentially lost on B. T. L. mortgages but these
customers had been paying premium interest rates for their business.

IMV apartment blocks left half finished represent a greater likelyhood
of losing money for the bank, but not as bad for the banks as the
early adopters who paid top dollar only to see the environment they
bought into go down the gurgler.

IMHO the reality is the banks got greedy, seeing lots of income from
the interest on massive loans, the mere fact that the value of the
loan was far more than the value of the asset was ignored.

Derek

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:20:18 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Norman, I suggest you wander off and do some in depth reading
about
the advancements in the scientific theories relating to Quantum
Mechanics that have taken place in the last 30+ years. You appear
to
be stuck in the theories of 50+ years ago.

Unfortunately that won't help at all with situations that don't
involve quantum mechanics in the slightest.

The physics of sub-atomic particles has no relevance unless you're
considering sub-atomic particles. Winding a cuckoo clock doesn't.

OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

By mechanical strain of the crystalline structure of the spring steel
whose lowest energy, and therefore most stable, conformation is
'unwound'. Whenever displaced from that conformation it will tend to
revert to it when the strain is removed.

No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.

ROFLMFAO!

Switch off at the socket?
 

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

I asked what _your_ explanation was. What is going on in your
scenario? Is energy being converted to, and stored as, mass, or
what?


No, you are the one making the claims that everyone else in the
history of modern science is wrong, YOU prove that your are the
next Einstein and winner of a Nobel prize for your (literally)
earth shattering discovery...

I'll take that as you don't know then.

If ever there was a case of the pot trying to call the kettle
black!

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.


There are no correct explanations. There are only ones that work.

And produce testable predictable results.


What's yours?

I'll have a pint, thanks.

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells 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?

No answer 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.,

It's a very good one. After all, you don't very often come across a
statement as categoric as "Herndon's concepts are not accepted by the
scientific community" do you? If anyone refuted that, it's free for them to
edit the page and remove it. That's how Wikipedia works in case you didn't
know.

So, since no-one has, I take it at face value. Herndon's concepts are not
accepted by the scientific community.


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

Since then, if you'd kept up, you'd have seen that I actually accepted
natural radioactive decay, which I'd previously overlooked, as fission. I
even corrected someone else here in order to say so.

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

Already have.


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.

That'd be why Dartmoor's so warm then.

Radioactive decay is only one specific measurable example of mass
energy equivalence: It happens to be easiest to measure, because the
energy is vast

Well, nuclear reactions are. Natural radioactive decay much less so.

but if a charged batteruy is NOT heavier than a flat
one, then you have refuted relativity, well worth a Nobel prize.

I have not refuted relativity at all in saying just that. It does not
require a refutation of relativity because no conversion of mass to energy
at all is occurring, nor is it required by relativity.

Just as an analogy that might make it a bit more understandable for you,
consider the pound-dollar continuum, or 'money' as we call it. Now this can
exist at any one time either in the form of 'pounds' or in the form of
'dollars', but they're interconvertible.

Some very clever, highly paid people have worked very hard on this over the
years, and have come up with this wonderful relativity equation that 1 pound
is equivalent to 1.63 dollars, or, as mathematicians would put it:

p = 1.63d

This shows how dollars and pounds are related.

Some people think, simply because of this equation, that there is free
exchange between pounds and dollars. You rattle around some pounds (or
dollars) in your pocket and what you get is a mixture of pounds and dollars.
Sadly, however, no-one has been able to demonstrate this effect. Try as
they might, pounds resolutely remain pounds and dollars resolutely remain
dollars. "Ah", they say, "but that's only because the change is so slight,
you can't measure it. It's still occurring though, the formula tells us
that."

Others, who may admittedly be a bit more cynical, say "Sod off, sunshine,
nothing of the sort's happening at all", adding that the only known way of
converting pounds into dollars is by passing them over a complicated bit of
equipment boffins call a 'counter' and then subjecting them to an enormously
complicated scientific process called 'forex exchange' which then results in
a number of dollars which amazingly fits the above formula. They say,
unless you do this, you're stuck with the pounds or dollars you started
with, and that no matter how much you play with them you won't alter that.
They also say that's exactly what happens with mass and energy.

Switch off at the socket?
 

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


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.

Exactly. It's not my poverty that's in doubt, but my assumptions and/or
calculations.

In just the same way, I say it's not the temperature of the earth that's in
doubt, but the assumptions and/or calculations of those who 'calculate' it
should be warmer.



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.

In the mind of one person whose "concepts are not accepted by the scientific
community".

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

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.

It has nothing to do with science, or Popper, but with the logic of
argument.


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.

Not by you, I wasn't.

Is that the definition you use? If so, where is your reference to it?


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.

It's a proper, reputable and accurate reference work which is called,
specifically, a 'Dictionary of Science and Technology'. Where better to
find a definition of a scientific term, eh?

On what basis do you descend from your cloud to call it sloppy and
unscientific?