Switch off at the socket?

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

The point is, I'm not having a philosophical argument but a
scientific one.
The point is, you don't understand either, nor their inextricable
connection.

You are stuck in a limited 17th century worldview, that has proved
to be inadequate.

So really there is no help for you, since your arrogance precludes a
rational converation.

You just can't accept I'm right, can you?

ROFLMAO.

I am sure a 16th century person would agree that you were. This is the
21st century.

If you are going to quote science, get it right. Its not me you are up
against: Its the whole body of modern physics. I cant fix your problem
mate. You want to be right about matters scientific, but you are not.
Philosophically you are in a hole of your won making. I didn't put you
there, and you have bitten my helping hands.

Boy, you sure are a sore loser!

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

every reactor problem has actually resulted in a serious FIRE as well
with the graphite moderators catching alight, and the general mess
that results more or less stops fissioning as well. Its nasty, its
dirty, but it wont melt its way to the center of the earth, although
if it did, it would be pretty safe, cos the evidence is that that is
where all the fissile uranium sits, helping keep your world warm,
anyway.

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.

How concentrated the reactions are, where they are, and how ,much they
contribute to global warming, is a highly debatable subject. Possibly
the best evidence is taht most models of the earth show it OUGHT to be
cooler than it is, unless some slight nuclear warming is posited.


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.


Radioactivity and nuclear fission is a totally natural phenomenon and
doesn't need Man to set it going.On a global scale all that uranium is
going to decay anyway, so we might as well concentrate it, speed it up
and use it to light fires with.

... if and only if you are living in cold regions....
You are posting to four newsgroups tagged "UK" (United Kingdom). It
_is_ cold for all of us. Not like HK...

There is hot weather in UK, isn't it?

--
@[email protected] Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 9.04) Linux 2.6.30.7
^ ^ 20:22:01 up 1 day 8:37 1 user load average: 1.24 1.34 1.34
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

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

The point is, I'm not having a philosophical argument but a
scientific one.
The point is, you don't understand either, nor their inextricable
connection.

You are stuck in a limited 17th century worldview, that has proved
to be inadequate.

So really there is no help for you, since your arrogance precludes a
rational converation.

You just can't accept I'm right, can you?

ROFLMAO.

I am sure a 16th century person would agree that you were. This is the
21st century.

If you are going to quote science, get it right. Its not me you are up
against: Its the whole body of modern physics. I cant fix your problem
mate. You want to be right about matters scientific, but you are not.
Philosophically you are in a hole of your won making. I didn't put you
there, and you have bitten my helping hands.

Boy, you sure are a sore loser!

I am not the one who has lost

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:03:50 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Well, Alexander, that turned out to be a brilliant thread!

SteveT

Most of it was like watching chimpanzees arguing over the contents of an
electricians toolbox.

I have read all the messages in this thread.

Was insurance coverage ever mentioned by the audience (that you
deliberately leaving electrical appliances in standby mode, increasing
the fire risk)?

--
@[email protected] Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 9.04) Linux 2.6.30.7
^ ^ 20:23:01 up 1 day 8:38 1 user load average: 1.31 1.34 1.34
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

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

every reactor problem has actually resulted in a serious FIRE as
well with the graphite moderators catching alight, and the general
mess that results more or less stops fissioning as well. Its nasty,
its dirty, but it wont melt its way to the center of the earth,
although if it did, it would be pretty safe, cos the evidence is
that that is where all the fissile uranium sits, helping keep your
world warm, anyway.

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.

How concentrated the reactions are, where they are, and how ,much they
contribute to global warming, is a highly debatable subject. Possibly
the best evidence is taht most models of the earth show it OUGHT to be
cooler than it is, unless some slight nuclear warming is posited.


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.

"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.

"Ian" wrote in message
...
:
: "Steve Thackery" wrote in message
: ...
: Well, Alexander, that turned out to be a brilliant thread!
:
: What makes you so sure the thread has finished? Although I
would agree that
: every response now is totally off topic.
:

....in any of the cross posted groups, that takes some doing,
especially one including uk.d-i-y!

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:34:04 +0100, Norman Wells continued to troll:

contrary to all the evidence.

Where is all this evidence to which you refer?

Please provide details of the source.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:22:53 +0800, Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B)
wrote:

There is hot weather in UK, isn't it?

Yes, for a couple of days in either June or July.

Of course this does depend on where in the UKofGB&NI one is located.