1995.05.18 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Joule-Thomsen PPS
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Joule-Thomsen PPS
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 09:21:04 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 17 May 1995, John Logajan wrote:

> Dieter Britz (britz@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
> : The formation of PdD(0.72), i.e. what you get when you put Pd in a 1 atm
> : pressured D2 gas, is exothermic; they like each other. This is obvious from
> : the enthalpy of formation of PdD(0.72), about -30 kJ/mol.
> 
> One thing I was never clear on -- what happens when you remove the D2
> surrounding atmosphere and replace it with normal air or water.
> 
> Does the PdD spontaneously unload endothermically and draw heat from the
> surrounding environment?  Or is the PdD stable and require heating or some
> electro-chemical input to drive out the D?
> 
The short answer is "yes". Thermodynamics gives you equilibrium information
but none about how fast it takes to reach it. When you remove the hydrogen
from around the PdD, the D inside the sample starts to diffuse out. At 
the surface, the reaction
   Pd + 0.5*D2 <==> PdD
goes into reverse (reactions can always go both ways, depending upon the 
"driving force", i.e. concentrations of the various components. The rate of
the reverse reaction would be limited by the diffusion of deuterium 
within the sample - just as the charging process (forward reaction in effect)
is limited, which is why it takes quite along time to charge up a chunky 
Pd sample (work it out from the SQRT(D*t) formula, the diffusion path length
for time interval t, quite a short length it turns out). The driving 
force would also get smaller as the sample is depleted, so this could 
take a long time.

Unless: as observed by, e.g. Kreysa, you get the cigarette
lighter effect. If you do this in air, the Pd surface catalyses the 
burning of deuterium, as it comes out from the sample, and that generates 
heat. As the sample heats up, diffusion speeds up, and this will then 
rather quickly lead to complete outgassing. Kreysa found that a chunky 
PdD sample burnt a char mark in a lab bench. I don't know about holes in 
concrete, though...

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / Graham Morse /  A Bomb question
     
Originally-From: Graham Morse <100613.1004@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Bomb question
Date: 18 May 1995 08:46:34 GMT
Organization: via CompuServe Information Service

Can anyone tell me how the A Bomb that destroyed Hiroshima worked. I
am researching this for a newspaper graphic so it needs to be in a 
language that my gran can understand. Thanks, Graham.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1004 cudfnGraham cudlnMorse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 /  hench@utia.cas /  Thorium Fission Progress
     
Originally-From: hench@utia.cas.cz ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thorium Fission Progress
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 12:31:08 +0000

I haven't heard any news about the progress of (in any)
research on the Rubia thorium reactor design. I'm not sure
that this is the right group to ask this question, but what
is the present status of this line of research?

Cheers, John
--
***********************************************************
** John Hench  Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic **
** Institute of Information Theory and Automation (UTIA) **
***********************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenhench cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 /  PURNELLP /  Re: the standards of science
     
Originally-From: PURNELLP@CHARLIE.aston.ac.uk (PURNELLP)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
Subject: Re: the standards of science
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 11:59:21 GMT
Organization: Aston University

In article <051795223927Rnf0.79b6@ps2.xs4all.nl>, root@ps2.xs4all.nl (Chris Jacobs) says:
>
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
>>  In physics, chemistry or you name it science, all of those journals
>>claim "academic freedom" but none possess it. They all go by who is an
>>insider and everyone else is outside. If you have a post office address
>>and not a Cambridge address forget it. If you at all rock the boat,
>>forget it, because your ideas would place doubt on the current
>>insiders. Why is this important to the current insiders, well of course
>>their fame is chipped away at, and their millions of money made easily
>>for stupid books which line the shelves of bookstores is called into
>>question.
>
>I think an important part of the problem is that the current insiders only
>care for the value of the peer-reviewed scientific publications.
>
>If you have written some peer-reviewed scientific publications and you have
>a big mouth you can write popular 'science' books for the masses and the
>people who have the capacities of checking if they are correct will just
>not bother to do so.
>
>In particular I think 'A brief history of time' is utter crap.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>--
>Chris Jacobs <cjacobs@xs4all.nl>

	With such succint, considered and comprehensive reviews as this
	available from eloquent 'outsiders' (?), why should the 'insiders'
	waste their precious time reviewing popular publications ? ;-}

Regards,

          .------------------.  .---------------------.              
          |              /\  |  | SNAKE EYES WATCHING |
          |      .___.  /--\ |  |        YOU....      |
          |    __ \:/ __     |  |                     |
          |   /::\ Y /::\    |  |    Phil  Purnell    |
          |  (::::`v'::::)   |  |  purnellp @charlie  |
          |   \:::::::::/    |  |    .aston.ac.uk     |
          |     \:::::/      |  |                     |
          |       \:/        |  | Purveyor of quality |
          |        Y         |  |  venereal diseases  |
          |  \--/            |  |  to the gentry for  |
          |   \/             |  |      24  years      |
          `------------------'  `---------------------' 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPURNELLP cudlnPURNELLP cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / Super Lee /  cmsg cancel <f22_9505180742@super.uuserv.net.tw>
     
Originally-From: superlee@super.uuserv.net.tw (Super Lee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <f22_9505180742@super.uuserv.net.tw>
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 14:10:17 GMT
Organization: OpenVision Technologies, Inc.

Cancelling spam.  See explanation in news.admin.net-abuse.announce.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudensuperlee cudfnSuper cudlnLee cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / Elliot Kennel /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: Elliot Kennel <71756.3025@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: 18 May 1995 14:06:35 GMT
Organization: Space Exploration Associates

PMFBI, but I think there is a mistake in calculating the pumping 
power.  You have to know the pressure DROP, not the gauge 
pressure.  The gauge pressure doesn't make any difference.
	If the flow rate is 10 ml/minute  or .17 g/sec = 1.7e-4 
kg/sec, then pumping power is

	Q 	= (Mdot) * (Delta p)/ rho
		= (Mdot) * g * H 

where Mdot is mass flow rate, delta p is the CHANGE in pressure 
between inlet and outlet; rho is the density of the fluid (=1000 
kg/m^3) for water.  H is the hydraulic head or equivalent height 
of the water column that would give you the appropriate pressure 
drop, for those who like to think in those terms.  
  	Now 0.17 g/sec is something you could suck through a 
straw (on the order of a pop bottle per hour), so the pressure 
drop has to be very low.  Let's guess it's around 1% of an 
atmosphere, or 1000 Pa.  The equivalent head is around 0.1 meter. 
 	Q is thus 1.7e-4 * 9.8 * 0.1 = 170 microwatts.  Let's 
assume that the pump is not very efficient.  I'll guess 3% 
efficiency, so the input power to the pump is maybe 5 milliwatts. 
Best regards, 
Elliot Kennel

-- 

Elliot Kennel
Yellow Springs OH
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden3025 cudfnElliot cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / Bill Page /  Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
Date: 18 May 1995 14:43:56 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950518090113.10007C-100000@kemi.aau.dk>,
Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> says:
>
>On Tue, 16 May 1995, Richard Schroeppel wrote:
>
>> Please, Scott, Dieter, let's get that moderated mailing list going?
>> 
>> Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
>> 
>
>Well, Bill Page already has something like it. All he really has to do is to
>get hold of some decent software (listserv or majordomo) to make it easier
>for him (I think he does it by hand at the moment, must waste a bit of his
>time). How about it, Bill?

Yes, I've thought about this. It also requires a suitable host system...
Any offers? Actually doing it manually isn't all that hard. Over the
last couple of weeks the amount of message traffic has dropped right off.
I am told that this is symptomatic of almost all moderated news groups/
mailing lists. And actually I haven't had to really do any moderating at
all. My plan was to stop the ICCF5 mailing list one or two months after
the conference. Looks like that is happening by fiat.

Anyway, Rich Schroeppel (and others), you are welcome to contribute to
the ICCF5 discussion group while it still exists. Just drop me an
email at:

  wspage@ncs.dnd.ca

and you can also check-out the archives of the discussion group at URL:

  http://xfactor.wpi.edu:8080/iccf5.html

Cheers,

Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / M Hofmeister /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mike_hofmeister@qmail4.sp.trw.com (Michael Hofmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 18 May 1995 15:25:54 GMT
Organization: TRW

In article <dougD8qpr2.7nD@netcom.com>, doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt) wrote:

> In article <3pdbkk$3nh@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov writes:

[blah blah blah]

> But there's a fine line here, because this Fourier issue goes
> very, very deep in constraining the set of possible physics; it
> would be a mistake to think that there is an accidental coincidence
> going on here.

I disagree that it is anything but an accident.  Here is my universal
theory that explains all of Physics.

Theory:  Sh*t happens.

This has been experimentally verified to a high degree of precision.

Unfortunately, the theory has little predictive value.  Darn!

-- 
** Zero times Infinity is One.
** This is my only religious belief.
** Without this belief, Quantum ElectroDynamics makes no sense.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmike_hofmeister cudfnMichael cudlnHofmeister cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: 18 May 1995 16:23:46 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Elliot Kennel (71756.3025@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: You have to know the pressure DROP, not the gauge 
: pressure.  The gauge pressure doesn't make any difference.

Well, I might be misusing the term, but I always thought "gauge pressure"
meant pressure measured starting from ambient atmospheric pressure as
zero.  So a gauge pressure of 180PSI is really 194.7PSI absolute.

If we assume worst case, that the Patteson fluid reservoir is unpressurized,
then the 180PSI pressure would have to be dropped between the pump outlet
and the reservoir.  During worst case analysis, we can put all the 
pressure drop in the Patterson cell.

Jed tells us that the demo unit at ICCF5 was running with a gauge pressure
of 14.7 PSI (that'd be 29.4 PSI absolute.)  So at a 10 ml/minute flow
rate, the worst case (most) power developed by this "friction" effect
would be about 1/60th of a watt.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / Tom Potter /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: tdp@id.net (Tom Potter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math
Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
Date: 18 May 1995 16:31:17 GMT
Organization: Earth

In article <3pe1lq$3pn@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) says:

>  Ask anyone, anyone at all who has a working logic. Ask them-- since
>everything is made of atoms. Ask them if it is logical to go another
>step, might not the whole be an atom? The congruity, not irony, but
>rather the natural flow of idea of--- everything is made of atoms, then
>all the atoms are a structure itself. The only logical and reasonable
>thing that that structure could be is another atom itself. Conclusion:
>the whole, the totality is a single atom. A single atom with many atoms
>inside it. The space of atoms is the space of electrons. Our night sky
>is merely the space of the 93rd and 94th electrons. The mass of
>everything we see is just the mass of the 93rd and 94th electron. The
>missing mass of the universe is the nucleus, but we will never see it
>for it is in a atom node. 
>
>  I especially thank this TV organization for spending over an hour
>with me 14:30-16:00 interviewing me and making a TV film of me. I
>especially give kind thanks to two very nice people, both Lyn and Art
>who made this thing happen!

1. As you perhaps know, Feynman suggested that perhaps there was
   only one electron in the universe.

2. I hope that these TV people are not going to make you look bad.
   As you know, media is more interested in creating heat than light.
   Heat sells more ads. I hope Lyn and Art are as "nice" as they
   seemed to be. From my observation, most media people would sell
   their mothers for an ego trip.

Keep up the interesting posts.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / A Plutonium /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math
Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
Date: 18 May 1995 17:59:56 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3pe1lq$3pn@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   Tune in to (our) Tues 23 May 1995 to a program called CHRONICLE
> "Slice of Life in Hanover" shown in Boston 7:30 and for those in the
> armed forces (military) that is 19:30 hour. (I just did not want the
> armed forces to miss this treat.)
> 
>        In Boston  7:30 PM on Channel 5   WCVB
> 
>        In Hanover carried on New England Cable News Channel, channel 34
> at
>                   8:30 PM
> 
>   I especially thank this TV organization for spending over an hour
> with me 14:30-16:00 interviewing me and making a TV film of me. I
> especially give kind thanks to two very nice people, both Lyn and Art
> who made this thing happen!

  If anyone wants to see three pictures of me, here is the address. The
direct address is

 http://coos.dartmouth.edu/~elnitsky/AP.html

  I thank Serge for making that web page for me. My time is the most
valuable thing I have and so I did not want to spend a day in doing
that. Thanks again Serge.
  Two of those pictures were made by another friend of mine in winter
shortly after I discovered the Plutonium Atom Totality Whole Theory. He
made those on an Olympus camera which I grew fond of because I could
make pictures of book pages. I later bought a "waterproof" type of
Olympus to go with my own Zeiss camera for the Plutonium Atom
Foundation pictures archive. When I first discovered it in 1990 I
called it Plutonium Atom Universe. But as time went on I realized that
universe is misleading, for each electron goes out to infinity and is a
island universe inside of a atom.
  As you can see from those three pictures that my front teeth were all
my original whites. If that TV show CHRONICLE shows me on Tues 23May
then you will see me as what I appear currently. My two front teeth are
gold. In accordance with my Brain Locus Theory, our minds are mere
telescopic reflectors of photons shoot from the Protons Nucleus of
231PU. Thus, my gold crowns and mercury fillings, especially mercury
since it is liquid metal and able to move in photon reception helps me
to think better. So, if that TV show shows me on 23May you will not
fail to see a mouth full of glittering gold. My next gold crown will be
red gold. Does anyone out there know what red gold is? Is it a copper
additive to make red gold?
   And, you will not fail to see that I write on my shirts, parkas and
hats. I usually take a black magic marker permanent black and write our
Maker 231PU and whatever physics or math interests me. All of my white
shirts are marked. And I like to buy white cotton just so that I can
mark them. Recently I bought two North Face light parkas and I
proceeded to mark over their name tag with something of real importance
231PU. Do that to your clothing, instead of advertising something
silly, advertise our Maker 231PU. One of my favorite markings is the
spontaneous fission rates of PU isotopes.
  And, the Dartmouth College newspaper has a pretty front page photo of
me celebrating Plutonium Day, 7Nov a few years ago. Students here at
Dartmouth will remember that I wore pictures of elements and had a
blazing orange overalls with all the elements marked on it. I stood on
the Dartmouth Green and hollered at the top of my lungs until my voice
failed me. I am particularly fond of that photo.

  The biggest mistake people make when they first learn this theory is
that they picture one atom of plutonium surrounded by other things, say
other atoms, furniture, a glass jar containing the atom whole.  They
are mindboggled.  But,  they ,   soon realize that an Atom Whole means
just that it is all and it is one. They soon realize that every
electron stretches out endlessly in space. That is our night sky--- the
endless stretch of our 93rd and 94th electron.
   The correct picture is that ONE atom is the totality, the whole
which contains many atoms inside it. This is a most beautiful thought.
For it is a natural flow, a congruity of ideas --- all things are made
up of atoms, hence itself is a structure, it is not a onion or a human
for that would be ugly and awkward in congruity.  The only natural
thing it could be is of course an atom.  And, only plutonium fits best
all the special numbers of math and physics. There you have it. Our
Maker is an atom of PU.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / Steven Piet /  Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
     
Originally-From: RXFN56A@prodigy.com (Steven Piet)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
Date: 18 May 1995 18:53:04 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

Can't say anything about the moderation/software idea - only that an 
intelligent socio-technical discussion of fusion energy (hot, cold, 
whatever) would seem to be useful somehow, somewhere.  I'm in the fusion 
energy business myself, part of the ITER team (International 
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), going along the hot, tokamak route - 
but I try to understand the broader range of possibilities.  My basic 
judgment is that mother nature is a bitch and that fusion does not happen 
easily or magically as P-F would have had us believe.


-
  STEVEN PIET  RXFN56A@prodigy.com


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenRXFN56A cudfnSteven cudlnPiet cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / A Plutonium /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math
Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
Date: 18 May 1995 20:12:24 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3pfsol$rrk@kilroy.id.net>
tdp@id.net (Tom Potter) writes:

> 
> 1. As you perhaps know, Feynman suggested that perhaps there was
>    only one electron in the universe.
> 
> 2. I hope that these TV people are not going to make you look bad.
>    As you know, media is more interested in creating heat than light.
>    Heat sells more ads. I hope Lyn and Art are as "nice" as they
>    seemed to be. From my observation, most media people would sell
>    their mothers for an ego trip.

  Thanks Tom, that is a big concern of mine. They may just try to make
things look bad. Like showing me only washing some pots at the Hanover
Inn. And cut all of me explaining the Atom Totality Whole. Or, they may
buckle to anti-plutonium or protestors of my theory, buckle to that
pressure, and subsequently not show any of me. They may cave-in under
pressure just as that South African Astronomy journal caved-in under
pressure after they had in writing reserved a spot in their Aug 1994
issue of their journal. What does it take to persecute me? I suspect
just one church person or just one journal editor of a prestigious
magazine with influence can persecute me so that that TV station will
not air me. 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / Lev Gorenstein /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: Lev Gorenstein <lev@chem.purdue.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math
Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 16:34:26 -0500
Organization: Purdue University

On 18 May 1995, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


>   And, the Dartmouth College newspaper has a pretty front page photo of
> me celebrating Plutonium Day, 7Nov a few years ago. 

Oh, no, not that date!  This date is spoiled...  This was one of 2 major
political hollidays in Communist Russia - the Revolution day back in
1917...  Nice neighbourhood.


__________________________________________________________________________
  Lev Gorenstein                      
  Dept. of Chemistry, Purdue University      *~~~~ ____   |~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
  W.Lafayette, IN 47907, USA                 Y_,___|[]|   | Go Boilers! |
  (317)494-9150; Fax (317)494-0239          {|_|_|_|PU|_,_|_____________|
  lev@chem.purdue.edu                       //oo---OO=OO    OOO     OOO
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlev cudfnLev cudlnGorenstein cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / Michael Condict /  Re: Cold Fusion: The Musical
     
Originally-From: condict@ziti.osf.org (Michael Condict)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion: The Musical
Date: 18 May 1995 22:51:04 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation

> The show will be running every night except Monday at eight oÕclock 
> starting June 1st at the Chinook Theatre. 

This is wonderful!  I applaud you, but you forgot to tell us where the
Chinook theater is, so we can make our airline reservations.

-- 
Michael Condict			condict@osf.org
OSF Research Inst.		(617) 621-7349
11 Cambridge Center
Cambridge, MA 02142
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencondict cudfnMichael cudlnCondict cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / Sandra Russell /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: srussell@ix.netcom.com (Sandra Russell)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 18 May 1995 23:45:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3pah2l$cgg@xcalibur.IntNet.net> wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan 
Wallace) writes: 

 Among papers at Norman
>advocating the steady-state alternative to BB is one by Grote Reber, 
the chief founder of radio astronomy.  (In 1937, Grote built the world's 
first radio telescope, and then prepared the first map of cosmic radio 
sources.)  A native of US, Reber will journey to Norman from his present 
home in Tasmania, Australia.<<

   How old IS this guy now?? He must be about ready for the big bang 
himself...

>   Although weaknesses in BB theory have been discussed in various 
books and
>journals (e.g., "Discover",Mar,'95), special relativity has been much 
more
>protected by editors and others from fundamental criticism.


Give us a break!  It's probably the second best tested physical theory 
on Earth.  Everytime they run the big accelerator at Fermilab, SR is 
tested to within a gnat's posterior, otherwise the thing just would not 
work.

>>  Several speakers
>at Norman will present arguments of its logical flaws and against 
claims of
>empirical support for it which involve faulty reasoning from the raw 
data to
>announced results.  For example, a common 'proof' of time dilation 
(involving
>lifetimes of mesons and pions) depends on the relativistic formula for 
mass
>variation, which in turn has never been unequivocally proven.  


Again, if that change in momentum with velocity didn't happen, and 
happen exactly according to Einstein, accelerators would not work. 

An even more simple "proof" of time dilation observes that mu mesons 
from cosmic rays interacting in the upper atmosphere cannot make it to 
the surface of the Earth even at lightspeed, unless their natural 
lifetime of 2.2 microseconds has been lengthened by some weird process. 
 Any suggestions?

   >>Two other speakers will show why atomic energy does not necessarily 
depend on special relativity.<<

   The energy E released is equal to deltaM * c^2 though, no matter what 
theory you like (this is measured and known fact).  Relativity gives E = 
mc^2 quite naturally.  You got another theory that does?

                                   Steve Harris




cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudensrussell cudfnSandra cudlnRussell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.19 / Sandra Russell /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: srussell@ix.netcom.com (Sandra Russell)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 19 May 1995 00:00:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <16MAY199519140446@vxdel1.cern.ch> team6@vxdel1.cern.ch (A.LOPEZ) 
writes: 

>
>  Mr Vergon, in answer to one of my posts in 
alt.sci.physics.new-theories
>  concerning the Doppler effect, you have claimed that the photon mass
>  is NOT invariant. Could you please make up your mind on the subject? 
>  Does a photon's mass depend on the observer, or not?
>
>    Regards,
>           Alfonso Lopez
>


Of course a photon's mass depends on the observer.  That is why the mass 
of one photon is undefined.  The mass of any TWO photons (traveling in 
different directions) is invarient.  That's what the standard model of 
physics holds, at any rate.

                                            Steve Harris



                                      
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensrussell cudfnSandra cudlnRussell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.19 / Sandra Russell /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: srussell@ix.netcom.com (Sandra Russell)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 19 May 1995 00:19:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3pdc2a$3nh@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) 
writes: 

>The fact that it was the first Lorentz invariant gravitation theory 
with a totally unexpected  beautiful mathematical structure, developed 
by one person before any experimental evidence was in makes it an 
exceedingly rare and astonishing accomplishment.

Well, two men.  Actually, D. Hilbert beat Einstein to the first Lorentz 
invariant formulation of GR by two weeks, but he had plenty of 
tutoring and hints from Einstein about how the thing should go (he was 
just a WAY better mathematician).  And Einstein did it independently, 
too, all by himself.  Had neither men lived, somebody else would have 
done it, though no doubt decades later.  Einstein's GR is the least 
complicated and most beautiful formulation of gravity which fits the 
covarient assumptions.  As Einstein said, it would really be a shame if 
it isn't "true." 

                                  Steve Harris




Yep.  Very good!


                                               Steve Harris
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensrussell cudfnSandra cudlnRussell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri May 19 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
