Re: Monkey wrench in gears.
Fact?? Where are you getting this??
The fact is, the most advanced nuclear physicists in the world, on the most advanced particle collider in the world, are just now beginning to understand what quarks behave like, nevermind what they "look" like..
You are absolutely, entirely, without facts at your disposal on this one.
google perfect fluid, jet quenching..
Don't make me ask one of those guys at lunchtime, they have better things to do...like eat..
Cheers, John
KBK said:
Fact?? Where are you getting this??
The fact is, the most advanced nuclear physicists in the world, on the most advanced particle collider in the world, are just now beginning to understand what quarks behave like, nevermind what they "look" like..
You are absolutely, entirely, without facts at your disposal on this one.
google perfect fluid, jet quenching..
Don't make me ask one of those guys at lunchtime, they have better things to do...like eat..
Cheers, John
Frightening, but sometimes it seems even as if David Icke is on the right path. Look at the history of Floride, for example. Recently, the gentleman who made the case for floride in the US had a change of heart and now rails against it as an extrememly evil enterprise, at best. This gentleman was instrumental in it's inception and use, and is now completely horrified by the results. Furthurmore, he states it was not the health issue that created the push. I do find it quite impossible to believe that low levels of rat poison in my water are going to do me any good. Considering the case for homepathic medicines, coloidals, etc, on the others side, it does not look good. Note it is the western world with it's current issues that has adopted floride to the larger degree. I personally have not drank any floridated water in ~15 years. I was not exposed to much of it as a child. Hated the taste.
Fluoride & the Pineal Gland: Study Published in Caries Research
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The wheels of science grind very slowly. Finally, the first half of the work that was the subject of Jennifer Luke's Ph.D. thesis; presentation in Bellingham, Washington (ISFR conference) in 1998 and a videotaped interview I had with her (see www.fluoridealert.org/videos.htm), has been published in Caries Research.
In my view this work is of enormous importance and could be (or should be) the scientific straw that breaks the camel's back of fluoridation.
When Luke found out that the pineal gland - a little gland in the center of the brain, responsible for a very large range of regulating activities (it produces serotonin and melatonin) - was also a calcifying tissue, like the teeth and the bones, she hypothesized it would concentrate fluoride to very high levels. The gland is not protected by the blood brain barrier and has a very high perfusion rate of blood, second only to the kidney.
Luke had 11 cadavers analyzed in the UK. As she predicted she found astronomically high levels of fluoride in the calcium hydroxy apatite crystals produced by the gland. The average was 9000 ppm and went as high as 21,000 in one case. These levels are at, or higher, than fluoride levels in the bones of people suffering from skeletal fluorosis. It is these findings which have just been published."
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/12/30/fluoride_accumulates_in_pineal_gland.htm
Fluoride & the Pineal Gland: Study Published in Caries Research
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The wheels of science grind very slowly. Finally, the first half of the work that was the subject of Jennifer Luke's Ph.D. thesis; presentation in Bellingham, Washington (ISFR conference) in 1998 and a videotaped interview I had with her (see www.fluoridealert.org/videos.htm), has been published in Caries Research.
In my view this work is of enormous importance and could be (or should be) the scientific straw that breaks the camel's back of fluoridation.
When Luke found out that the pineal gland - a little gland in the center of the brain, responsible for a very large range of regulating activities (it produces serotonin and melatonin) - was also a calcifying tissue, like the teeth and the bones, she hypothesized it would concentrate fluoride to very high levels. The gland is not protected by the blood brain barrier and has a very high perfusion rate of blood, second only to the kidney.
Luke had 11 cadavers analyzed in the UK. As she predicted she found astronomically high levels of fluoride in the calcium hydroxy apatite crystals produced by the gland. The average was 9000 ppm and went as high as 21,000 in one case. These levels are at, or higher, than fluoride levels in the bones of people suffering from skeletal fluorosis. It is these findings which have just been published."
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/12/30/fluoride_accumulates_in_pineal_gland.htm
Okay, so the pineal collects fluoride. Does that actually do any harm or affect its operation in any way?
My goodness, we're all over the map, aren't we? Time to readjust the tinfoil.
You mean the record high life expectancy? Or the all-time low infant mortality rate?
You mean the record high life expectancy? Or the all-time low infant mortality rate?
Re: Re: Monkey wrench in gears.
It's always been a consideration of the more evolved mind that a gentler method of communication works best. Perhaps I should learn such. Sometimes I remember to do so. There is also the fact that a good scientist understands the limits of the human condition, with regards to the fact of the inner workings of the human mind, ie the deeper psychology of existence itself. From that, one begins to understand the the mind itself, that which speaks, is also the culprit.
Look it up. You don't have to 'ask those guys'. You have a brain, look it up yourself.
It has always been an axiom of truth that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get a man to believe something that is contrary - if his paycheck and mode of existence itself, depends on his believing otherwise.
jneutron said:
It's always been a consideration of the more evolved mind that a gentler method of communication works best. Perhaps I should learn such. Sometimes I remember to do so. There is also the fact that a good scientist understands the limits of the human condition, with regards to the fact of the inner workings of the human mind, ie the deeper psychology of existence itself. From that, one begins to understand the the mind itself, that which speaks, is also the culprit.
Look it up. You don't have to 'ask those guys'. You have a brain, look it up yourself.
It has always been an axiom of truth that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get a man to believe something that is contrary - if his paycheck and mode of existence itself, depends on his believing otherwise.
SY said:
http://www.spreadshirt.com/shop.php?sid=21435
I will be ordering that t-shirt in the next few days. It's just toooo good. Cracks me up every time I look at it. Second t-shirt logo from the left, in the graphics list .
Re: Re: Re: Monkey wrench in gears.
Another diversionary post. You are a wealth of incongruous pseudoscience. You think that posting some glib scientific sounding blurb is over everybody's head...think again.
Address the issue. You made a second statement which is entirely incorrect, this one concerning quarks. And now, given facts to the contrary, you, what,.divert.
What happened to the answer I asked for regarding electron travel around a solenoidal field??
The fact is, I can ask the world's leading researchers about quarks and what humans currently know about them, if I chose not to read what they have published in the last two years. That would mean disturbing their lunch, which I prefer not to do.
I follow this quark/gluon goop simply because it is all around me, it is part of my job. I make the machines. (ask me about antimatter confinement bottles)
I welcome a scientific dialogue with you, and so far, you have not kept up your end of the bargain. All you do is "try" to look down on us mere mortals.
sheesh.
Cheers, John
KBK said:
Another diversionary post. You are a wealth of incongruous pseudoscience. You think that posting some glib scientific sounding blurb is over everybody's head...think again.
Address the issue. You made a second statement which is entirely incorrect, this one concerning quarks. And now, given facts to the contrary, you, what,.divert.
What happened to the answer I asked for regarding electron travel around a solenoidal field??
The fact is, I can ask the world's leading researchers about quarks and what humans currently know about them, if I chose not to read what they have published in the last two years. That would mean disturbing their lunch, which I prefer not to do.
I follow this quark/gluon goop simply because it is all around me, it is part of my job. I make the machines. (ask me about antimatter confinement bottles)
I welcome a scientific dialogue with you, and so far, you have not kept up your end of the bargain. All you do is "try" to look down on us mere mortals.
sheesh.
Cheers, John
Re: Re: Re: Re: Monkey wrench in gears.
I don't have to prove anything to you, John.
Go find the book, John.
Cheers to you too. (honestly! 🙂 )
jneutron said:
I don't have to prove anything to you, John.
Go find the book, John.
Cheers to you too. (honestly! 🙂 )
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Monkey wrench in gears.
You have provided two examples of really spiffy sounding scientific examples to bolster you stance. Both were terribly incorrect, both I cited why. But you don't respond to the technical. It is very easy to see why, as you are getting this stuff from non technical writings of others.
Honestly, the stuff you've spouted "looks good", but it is worthless.
If you want to say you can violate ohms law, I will ask for proof. Simple as that.
There is no need to. The ones I lunch with write the book. I have the advantage over you in that many of the "chapters" in that book I proofread before they are published. AND, because I build parts of the machines used in this research, I know some of this goop years before you will even hear about it.
So, my answer: I'm part of the authors, your part of the readers. And I'm years ahead of you. (actual calender years, not a figure of speech.)
Cheers, John
KBK said:
You have provided two examples of really spiffy sounding scientific examples to bolster you stance. Both were terribly incorrect, both I cited why. But you don't respond to the technical. It is very easy to see why, as you are getting this stuff from non technical writings of others.
Honestly, the stuff you've spouted "looks good", but it is worthless.
If you want to say you can violate ohms law, I will ask for proof. Simple as that.
KBK said:
There is no need to. The ones I lunch with write the book. I have the advantage over you in that many of the "chapters" in that book I proofread before they are published. AND, because I build parts of the machines used in this research, I know some of this goop years before you will even hear about it.
So, my answer: I'm part of the authors, your part of the readers. And I'm years ahead of you. (actual calender years, not a figure of speech.)
I take that as a nice statement. It's nice to see civility amongst all the discussion and differences of opinion.KBK said:
Cheers, John
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Monkey wrench in gears.
Careful John, You are quite literally venturing deep into (and posturing from within) the area that you are accusing me of resisiding in. Blind arrogance from a position of ignorance or superiority due to personal infomation that is witheld from the masses, etc. This can be (wether it be true or not) interpreted as psychosis.🙂
Note that I am kinder in my descriptives and fairer to myself and others in analysis, even though I get slammed repeatedly. Repeatedly by people who are not attempting to ponder and evaluate, but to merely slam and detract. Even though I am constantly accused of being psychotic myself. Too many people are not willing to understand the complexity of the human animal, for the reasons that I have gone over-more than often enough.
Note that I have no agenda, other than the clear minded and clear headed furthering of the human model. However, science for the main part, does have an agenda. And it can be, and many times is, quite blinkered. Much to it's detriment.
If you want to be truly sane, and understand the base of where you come from, so you can move forward clearly, then you must actually go insane yourself, and dwell within it, to understand the true nature of the human animal. To clear it out, so to speak. To be able to fully recognize it's mechanism and existence. Tha's a quite foreign point for most folks, that few will be able to wrap their head around, which is part of the essence of the problem itself. The hoisting of the personal petard. 🙂 😀
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Everything.
jneutron said:
Careful John, You are quite literally venturing deep into (and posturing from within) the area that you are accusing me of resisiding in. Blind arrogance from a position of ignorance or superiority due to personal infomation that is witheld from the masses, etc. This can be (wether it be true or not) interpreted as psychosis.🙂
Note that I am kinder in my descriptives and fairer to myself and others in analysis, even though I get slammed repeatedly. Repeatedly by people who are not attempting to ponder and evaluate, but to merely slam and detract. Even though I am constantly accused of being psychotic myself. Too many people are not willing to understand the complexity of the human animal, for the reasons that I have gone over-more than often enough.
Note that I have no agenda, other than the clear minded and clear headed furthering of the human model. However, science for the main part, does have an agenda. And it can be, and many times is, quite blinkered. Much to it's detriment.
If you want to be truly sane, and understand the base of where you come from, so you can move forward clearly, then you must actually go insane yourself, and dwell within it, to understand the true nature of the human animal. To clear it out, so to speak. To be able to fully recognize it's mechanism and existence. Tha's a quite foreign point for most folks, that few will be able to wrap their head around, which is part of the essence of the problem itself. The hoisting of the personal petard. 🙂 😀
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Everything.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Monkey wrench in gears.
No problem....I do indeed work in amongst the best in the world. You know, the shorts-t-shirts-sandals-black socks crowd in the middle of the winter.
My job requires I understand what the experimenters are doing and why they are doing it. In that way, I can either build what they need, come up with a better way, or improve what they want.
Sometimes, yes, I do have to reign their desires in to include what is physically possible, but other times, the SOTA is advanced.
You incorrectly assume what I do.
My current work will bear fruit in 10 years...that is typical lead times in my area of expertise. In 15, you will be able to read the results of others using the stuff I build today.
Edit: you added stuff..
Sometimes I get caught between two competing collaborative groups, which prevents my disclosure..then I have to wait for them to publish..again, not personal.
You divert yet again...TWO subjects currently await your discussion. How about adding a third, that of antimatter confinement?
Cheers, John
KBK said:
No problem....I do indeed work in amongst the best in the world. You know, the shorts-t-shirts-sandals-black socks crowd in the middle of the winter.
My job requires I understand what the experimenters are doing and why they are doing it. In that way, I can either build what they need, come up with a better way, or improve what they want.
Sometimes, yes, I do have to reign their desires in to include what is physically possible, but other times, the SOTA is advanced.
You incorrectly assume what I do.
My current work will bear fruit in 10 years...that is typical lead times in my area of expertise. In 15, you will be able to read the results of others using the stuff I build today.
Edit: you added stuff..
I do not withold "personal information". I publish either on my own, with web pages, or as a contributor to others. The time lag involved with widgits that cost a megabuck or so and two to five years effort cause the timelag from what I know to what you know. Tis not a personal thing. sheesh.KBK said:
Sometimes I get caught between two competing collaborative groups, which prevents my disclosure..then I have to wait for them to publish..again, not personal.
You divert yet again...TWO subjects currently await your discussion. How about adding a third, that of antimatter confinement?
Cheers, John
I'm not assuming anything about what you do. That would be presumptuous of me. That I will not do.
Believe it or not, I think that if given the opportunity, I would actually be able to contribute intelligently to what you are doing.
As for editing, sorry. I tend to do that! Thoughts not fully formulated, etc.
Believe it or not, I think that if given the opportunity, I would actually be able to contribute intelligently to what you are doing.
As for editing, sorry. I tend to do that! Thoughts not fully formulated, etc.
KBK said:
You most certainly have.
You presumed I know nothing about quarks or solenoids..
You have presumed I do not think for myself.
You have presumed I withhold "personal information", which I do not.
You presume that by diversion, I will forget that you have made wholly inaccurate scientific sounding statments, which you have been taken to task over. That is incorrect..
So, yes, you are being presumptuous.
KBK said:
Sometimes the most interesting ideas come from the strangest places.
Send me a list of all your peer reviewed publications from places like the American Physical Society, Physica review (A, B, or C), and I'd see what I can do.
Maybe I am already familiar with your work, as I may have refereed a submission or two of yours.
Cheers, John
The cutting edge of technical sciences does not hold as the arbiter of what reality is, of course. I play with the cutting edge of science every day. Simply by existing, breathing, going outside and picking up and dropping rocks etc.
It's like that +90% of the world's population that belive in the worlds of their religious texts. I personally don't believe such 'went down' the way 'it is written'. But that is a great mass of people, no matter how you look at it. It is also illogical and ludicrious to assume that a small group of people living and acting in a bunker like state of science, are the sole arbiters of reality. They very well might, but it is not a given. Descriptive and revealing the work may be, but that does not say or mean that it is the only way. That would relate to or would be a religious fervor itself.
I'm not saying that you are wrong John, not at all. But to assume that it is 100%, that is not a good thing. Always leave room to be wrong.
More than anything, I'm saying the paths are paralell, not divergent. coming together, not moving away. The book mentioned does that. However, there may be an aspect of the book, in terms of it's origins, that does not sit well with you.
I've always found this one facinating. Here's an interesting fact that most don't ponder, but should: Silica.
Great insulator when 'solid' ie, frozen-transparent, etc. (room temp). But high temp liquid? (molten)-- quite conductive.
It's like that +90% of the world's population that belive in the worlds of their religious texts. I personally don't believe such 'went down' the way 'it is written'. But that is a great mass of people, no matter how you look at it. It is also illogical and ludicrious to assume that a small group of people living and acting in a bunker like state of science, are the sole arbiters of reality. They very well might, but it is not a given. Descriptive and revealing the work may be, but that does not say or mean that it is the only way. That would relate to or would be a religious fervor itself.
I'm not saying that you are wrong John, not at all. But to assume that it is 100%, that is not a good thing. Always leave room to be wrong.
More than anything, I'm saying the paths are paralell, not divergent. coming together, not moving away. The book mentioned does that. However, there may be an aspect of the book, in terms of it's origins, that does not sit well with you.
I've always found this one facinating. Here's an interesting fact that most don't ponder, but should: Silica.
Great insulator when 'solid' ie, frozen-transparent, etc. (room temp). But high temp liquid? (molten)-- quite conductive.
I have not stated what reality is.KBK said:
What I have done is taked two of the topics you attempted to impress us with, and completely discounted them using what is common knowledge to some. And so far, you have not addressed that fact, but diverted from the issue. There are two questions still on the table for you.
KBK said:
My life is R & D. I push the envelope. If I am successful 100% of the time, I am not doing my job. 50% is the ideal accuracy rate.
When an author starts with unfounded assumptions, erroneous beliefs, and a pocketfull of scientific words, it can only go downhill.KBK said:
KBK said:
Try superfluid helium. I use two 100 horsepower vacuum pumps to make it.
Try normal liquid helium...There are regimes where gaseous helium is conductive below liquid nitrogen temperatures..my widgits have to withstand 5 kilovolts at room temp to stand a chance cold.
Ever hear of a gas that warms up when it's pressure is reduced?
Many weird things out there. It doesn't mean there's a conspiracy, it doesn't mean the crackpots are right.
Cheers, John
Good points jneutron.
If you make a technical point you should be prepared to discuss the technical aspects of that point. If not it is wise to restrict your comments to matters of metaphysics and philosophy.
An interesting question for you jneutron, have you ever witnessed anything which you would find difficult to accomodate in the scientific cannon as it stands now?
Shoog
If you make a technical point you should be prepared to discuss the technical aspects of that point. If not it is wise to restrict your comments to matters of metaphysics and philosophy.
An interesting question for you jneutron, have you ever witnessed anything which you would find difficult to accomodate in the scientific cannon as it stands now?
Shoog
Have you ever watched a 5 year old on a double black diamond slope? They defy gravity, momentum, conservation of energy, common sense (from my perspective). And yet, I'm the one face down in the snow..Shoog said:
I find everything about electromagnetic field theory to be just...wrong..wrong, wrong..
I hate action at a distance, I hate lack of monopoles, I hate Faraday's law of induction.. I hate free field signal propagation.
The whole ball of wax stinks stinks stinks.
It is of course, the best description of the universe we live in...since it's the only game in town which provides a clear model of our universe (out to at least 14 decimal places), consequently the best predictor, it is the one we have to live with.
(doesn't mean I have to like it, though.)
But to honestly answer your question..I've not seen anything like zeropoint energy or Politnikov or hydrino's (et al) that was not the result of either test methodology error or outright flim flammery.
Doesn't mean it can't happen, just that it hasn't to date.
I love the guys who claim to make electricity, though..If I had a device which was over unity, I'd be selling electricity, or the gadgets to do so with liscensing..imagine a penny a kilowatt hour, and a gigawatt of widgits out there...ten million dollars an hour, with everybody getting electricity at half the price.
When you see people selling a "buy in" at 5 kilobucks a pop, what is one to think?? What are they gonna get, a hundred suckers, at half a megabuck total? Chump change if you owned an over unity device.
Cheers, John
KBK, you have been very brave to express your opinions so openly. You and I have a lot in common. However, you will find that many will use your 'openness' against you, perhaps even twist the meaning of what you have expressed. The quote from 'Prometheus Rising' is VERY appropriate. I have quoted it myself, over the years.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.