1995.05.30 / 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: 30 May 1995 23:37:17 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3qd7f6$4kt@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
fin@maths.tcd.ie (Fionn Quinlan) writes:

> The  universe is an atom thoery is not very new.I read a story by Asimov
> or Heinlein about space explorers who went beyond the edge of the universe
> (don't ask me how) and observed an amoeba like organism crawling.
> Still the exactness is well thought up and I believe you may not be far from
> the truth.

  Sorry, and I do not want to sound harsh in my explanation but you do
not understand the theory yet. It may sound harsh because it aggravates
me to see when someone says my theory is not new when it is very new.
The word Totality means totality. There is not one atom which is the
universe *and surrounded by other atoms outside of it.*  That is a
misconception often made.
  Realize that every electron goes out to infinity.
  The ATOM TOTALITY WHOLE theory which is brand new to the world,
discovered 1990 means that galaxies are pieces of the 94th and 93rd
electrons of 231Pu. Since, I repeat, electron space goes out to
infinity, there is nothing beyond the Atom Whole, it comprises
everything. You can think of this theory as -- the only things that
exist are atoms and all the atoms that exist form one atom whole.
   Fionn, there is noone that had this idea before me, noone. And,
anyone can read into something which is not there. For example, people
have been reading stupid things into the Bible for as long as the Bible
was first made. Someone can look for the word kernel, or early seed or
somesuch and then say that Matthew or Luke or Paul had the idea,---
blithering nonsense. 
   The only valid references to anything of the Atom Totality are two.
One was Lemaitre with his Primeval Atom, but that reference was for his
big bang. He considered the beginning of our universe as a primeval
atom. So then, Lemaitre does not even come close to the idea that our
present day universe and that the universe has always been a structure
which is an atom itself.  Nowhere does Lemaitre even come close.
   The second reference can be found in Sagan's book Cosmos and the TV
series made of it. Sagan discusses it more fully in the TV series. And
he says that that universe may be a subatomic particle and then he
quickly goes into a nested picture-- NOT an Atom Totality.   But, Sagan
attributes this nested unverses, these universes inside universes to
ancient philosophers. Sagan attributes this cosmology to older ideas
and he says he does not know where the idea came from.
   But, in either of these two cases, none says the Atom Totality
Whole. For, it is very obvious to anyone that should they have thought
the idea, then they would have tried to figure out which chemical
element specifically was the Atom Whole that we are living in. Does
Lemaitre or Sagan ever say Hydrogen Atom Totality or Uranium Atom
Totality, hell no. As I repeat, noone in the world had the idea of Atom
Totality Whole before me. But, as the theory spreads and grows
stronger, there will be I suspect many who will try to steal it from
me. They will try to say that within their dumb notes or notebook which
was never published and where they post-written and filled their
notebook with my ideas, just to try to steal it from me.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.31 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: 31 May 1995 04:04:39 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <R8wfctE.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: 
> A few years ago, a Congressman asked me if I could suggest a change to the
> hot fusion funding bill....I suggested that they find some paying customers
> for the tokamak reactors and ask them to put down some earnest money for the
> product. If private industry agrees to pay for 51% of the hot fusion
> program, because private industry intends to buy the product, that is fine
> with me.
> 

First, I'm pretty worried about our leadership if they are asking
Jed his opinion about managing energy R & D :-)

Second, Jed is essentially right that the potential customers should
pay for the fusion R & D---and indeed they do right now. Its called
Taxes. Of course, I suggest there should be an energy tax specifically
that is used to fund future energy research. 1% or so would support all the
needed energy research---even throw in cold fusion---quite nicely.




--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.31 / David Cook /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: dcook@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu (David M. Cook)
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.skepti
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 31 May 1995 04:14:44 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin

In article <vergonD9Bqy1.9Ln@netcom.com>,
Vertner Vergon <vergon@netcom.com> wrote:

>See, I'm having the same problem. How much QED can you explain in 50 
>lines or less? 

Well, give it a shot.  I think you could probably explain how you deal 
with divergent photon-photon scattering diagrams when your calculation 
amplitudes in QED in 50 lines or less.  No need to give calculational 
details.  An outline of the process will do.  Thanks,

Dave Cook
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudendcook cudfnDavid cudlnCook cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.30 / Robert Cormack /  Re: Hiroshima A Bomb
     
Originally-From: URWF21A@prodigy.com (Robert Cormack)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hiroshima A Bomb
Date: 30 May 1995 14:38:18 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

Re:  Simple description/explaination of the Hiroshima A Bomb:

See the Summer 1995 copy of "Invention & Technology" (Vol 11/ #1, page 
29].

This magazine is available in many bookstores.  This edition has about 30 
pages of material on the atomic bomb, including scale cut-away drawings 
on page 29 of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenURWF21A cudfnRobert cudlnCormack cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.31 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jones hypothesis about 3He in E-Quest experiments
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones hypothesis about 3He in E-Quest experiments
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 09:05:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

<jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> writes:
 
>So tell us, Jed, did they find tritium?
>I predict that they did.
 
You don't need to "predict" anything, Steve. You know the answer as
well as I do. Stop playing games.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.31 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Blue comments on Cravens work
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue comments on Cravens work
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 09:09:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>If we are discussing the Cravens demo at ICCF5 isn't the proper
>characterization "an output of one watt for several days" rather
>than "weeks and weeks of output"?  In that case I agree with
>John that the observations may be consistant with some chemical
>process.  No proof of cold fusion occured at ICCF5,
 
Which chemical process? Name one chemical process that can produce 1 watt
for several days from 40 mg of metal.
 
Actually, the proper characterization is that it went for weeks. That's what
Cravens said during the lecture, and what he told me. But it does not matter.
Even if it had only gone for one hour, that would easily exceed the limits
of chemistry.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.31 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CETI device was publicly scrutinzed by scores of experts
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI device was publicly scrutinzed by scores of experts
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 09:04:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Yup. That does take the cake.
 
If you could prove that voltmeters and thermometers do not work by attacking
me and by making stupid comments, you would have won this arguement years
ago.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.31 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Blue comments on Cravens work
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue comments on Cravens work
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 09:11:58 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>I did talk to Cravens one night on the phone and he seemed willing to
>answer any of the questions I could think of -- though I really didn't
>get into preparation details, I was more interested in measuring 
>protocols.
 
Improvements to the previous patent have to be kept confidential until
a newer, updated patent is issued. That is S.O.P. When a person skilled
in the art replicates the old patent he will get the old results. Methods
of getting the newest, best, hotest results are patent pending.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.31 / M D /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary)
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: 31 May 1995 15:33:44 +0100
Organization: University of Leicester, UK

In article <Tarmo.Kaldma-3005952020560001@macbeth.hh.se>,
Tarmo Kaldma <Tarmo.Kaldma@cca.hh.se> wrote:

>Who so nasty ? 

That wasn't me being nasty ;)

Yet.

Seriously, long posts reporting how many people had posted on the subject, as
if that were evidence for how true his theory was, are a waste of resources. As
is prefacing every remark with "In chapter X of my book, I quote scientist Y
saying "Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"... " Especially when the quote is not substantive or
is downright irrelevant.

>People like Wallace make life interesting.

Oh agreed - crackpots are _fun_. But equally annoying.

>How many people had nice possibility to move his brains a bit!
>It is not so important at all is hi correct or not.

Assuming english is your second language I shall do my best to make sense of
this.

Sufficient evidence to change his mind has been posted repeatedly, and
discarded.

And it _is_ important whether he is "right or not": the internet audience
includes many younger readers making decisions concerning their future studies:
If his characterisation of science as close-minded in the face of overwhelming
evidence, with vast conspiracies designed to maintain the status quo is allowed
to remain unchallenged, their decisions will be based on false data. He is in
effect spreading anti-science, or anti-physcis propaganda. A balancing view must
be given.

>And hi got replays in quit a high level, that prove that
>hi is in a high level. Otherway hi will be ignored. I will be not
>surprised if some scientist got ideas hi/she can use at this thread.

The 'level' of the replies he got is a result of the 'level' of the science he
says is wrong, not the quality of his argument. He cant be ignored for the
reason I gave above, amongst others.

And if any scientist got ideas from this thread, I'd very much like to see them
post to confirm it...

>And it is true that scientists are really very conservative. It will be
>impossible to be accepted with perpetum mobile even if you really haw one.

Rubbish. Set the thing going, let a physicist pull one to pieces and see how it
works, if it works, they'll accept it. They just don't _expect_ anyone to be
able to produce one, from what is currently known - if one can be produced, it
may hold advances that will revolutionise all our lives, and we will _all_
benefit. Theres no benefit from hiding things that are real. There is a benefit
in debunking claims that arent.

>Better is to forget it and do something real, as example improve usual
>engine by 0.1%. Therefore it is very good if somebody sheik this pond a
>bit. 

Sorry, lost you there.

>
>     Tarmo

M.
-- 
.sig test
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmdo4 cudfnM cudlnD cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.31 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
Date: 31 May 1995 18:45:44 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <D9E162.IJH@festival.ed.ac.uk> ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)  
writes:
> jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> :  
> : Answers: Yes, it does work. It will be dirt cheap. I don't know when
> : electrical generators will be available but thousands of room heaters have
> : already been sold, primarily in Russian and Eastern Europe. They are a
> : heck of a lot better than heat pumps, gas, oil or coal.
> 
> Wonderful news. Does anyone know which company is selling them? It's a
> savage indictment of the scientific and popular press that a development
> which may well change history has gone quite unreported. Thank goodness
> for Usenet.

Actually, its a savage indictment of Usenet that there is so much
attention payed to rediculous, off the wall ideas versus the
real scientific work that is going on in the world.

(unless of course you realize Usenet is essentially entertainment
for geeks, in which case it all makes perfect sense. Its the geek
version of Geraldo.)




--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.31 / Tom Droege /  Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
Date: 31 May 1995 20:28:29 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3qidgo$1oj@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:

(snip)

>(unless of course you realize Usenet is essentially entertainment
>for geeks, in which case it all makes perfect sense. Its the geek
>version of Geraldo.)
>
Hey!  Us Geeks deserve entertainment too!  I have recognized this
and long ago set out to be the first paid Usenet performer.  Which 
goal, I point out, I have achieved. Where is Guiness when you need
them?  

Some day, some of us will be as highly paid as Geraldo.  Put that in
your sci-fi plot and smoke it.

Tom Droege

>
>
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jun  1 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
