1995.06.03 / Vertner Vergon / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) 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: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 06:04:04 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) In article <3qn32i$efq@hawk.le.ac.uk>, M.D. O'Leary wrote: >In article , >Vertner Vergon wrote: >[discussing Wallaces theories] >Ah, *thats* the point. So, the reason he ignores the questions posed by >physicists is that they are part of this global conspiracy that is hiding 'true >physics' so they can keep their research grants in the old 'false' physics, >right? And they falsify the data from the accelerators they build based on this >'false' physics (which obviously can't work, right?) just to keep up their >champagne lifestyle... > >The really clever part, outlined above, is that they are *all* doing this >independantly. Theres no global conspiracy, just a global collection of >'conspiracies of one' - every scientist is actually secretly terrified of being >found out by his peers as a fraud, and all the others are _also_ terrified. >Fortunately, until Wallace, no _honest_ men or women have ever given any >thought to physics, just this collection of neurotics, so the conspiracy has >never broken. Aren't you exaggerating? They don't have to cringe in fear of exposure -- but they *do* resist change because the poor things cannot bear the thought that they had placed their faith in something that is 'wrong'. Sounds silly put in words -- but that's the way it works. They will twist and squirm, become abraisive and abusive because (to them) their world is threatened. >Errr, who is it that he quotes to support his theories? Oh yes, these >conspirators, right. I guess he must quote them from the days when they slip up >and let a little bit of the truth out, before they get the mask back in place >and hope no-one noticed... > >If I've these two options - a) accept that all current science is fraud, or >b) Wallace is paranoid, then you must excuse me if I make the choice that >seems more reasonable to me. I can see his point because in a sense its fraud in as much as there is no *honest* attempt to evaluate something new. >Of course, I'm a scientist, therefore by definition part of this conspiracy. My >payment for writing this misinformation post is even now waiting for me in the >hollow tree on Victoria Park, along with my next set of instructions from my >control at the Council for the Repression of All Physics. I see no smiley. Are you losing control? >>It seems to me the "conspiricy" theory is all that makes Wallace's work >>extreme -- the way you interpret it. Stated the way I interpret it, it is >>simply the truth. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Not in the world I live in. It may be in yours, I can't say... I can say. Have you developed and tried to introduce something new -- and a little radicle? Try it and you will have an eye opener. >>You have to be kidding. You must be living in a different universe than I >>do. I have presented A VERY COGENT thesis that is self consistent AND >>consistent with empiricism. It is sraightforward and explains much that >>cannot be explained by the present model. > >We werent talking about your thesis, but it had to creep in somewhere, yes? >And because it is VERY COGENT (in caps, yet), it _must_ be true. >Cogent to whom? Falsifiable? See? You are typical. You sneer at and are snide about something you know nothing about -- accept that it might rock your little boat. Where's that open, magnanimous scientific attitude? Consider this. it is *you* that is the fraud. >A question occurs: Are your ideas and Wallaces consistent? If you mean with each other, I don't know. But we seem to be pretty much on the same track. >>The biggest respone? Ignore it. > >i.e. read it, see what it is worth, treat it appropriately. >(but let the author think its still true) > >>The second biggest respone? Ridicule it -- speciously. > >i.e. read it, see what its worth, and try to convey to the author your opinion >of the sort of mental gymnastics required to beleive this kind of drivel (i.e. >start from a universal repressive conspiracy and work up) > >>The third biggest respone is to ignore a superior explanation of the >>universe and to say, "where are the predictions? A theory is no good that >>doesn't predict." > >Superior to whom? Well it can't be superior to some smug closed minded mini-brain that won't read it. >i.e. read it, and decide to deal politely with the author and allow him to >defend his theory as any other scientific idea is tested: through predictions, >or agreements with existing repeatable results etc. Yes, exactly. That's all *I* ask. >>There are predictions, you simply must look closely for them. > >List 'em. Maybe someone will get funding and do the test. >>A challenge: Why don't you take a look at my thesis (ON THE QUANTUM AS A >>PHYSICAL ENTITY) "take it to pieces and see how it works" and let's take >>it from there. (I don't mean to be disrespectful, but we have a saying in >>Colonies: "Put you money where your mouth is" :-) ) > >I certainly shall - but better physicists than me (I'm a biologist) have done >so and posted their conclusions... and been ignored. There are a few who skimmed with the intent of finding something to (speciously) denigrade it. They have NOT (that's caps) been ignored (unless they flamed abusively). >>If you're too busy for that, I have posted an out of context description >>of the mechanism of the strong force along with the natural developing >>equation. So far, every answer to that post criticised and questioned >>ALL OTHER ASPECTS of the post and did not address itself to the subject >>of the post, i.e., the description of the force and its equation. If you're going to talk physics, criticize physicists then be prepared to do a little physics -- or retire. I can tell you this, the thesis is very simple. easy to follow. >Again, you need physicists for this. Any takers out there? > >>Regards, >> >>New Paradigm Vergon > >M. > >-- >.sig test cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.03 / Vertner Vergon / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) 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: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 06:21:48 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) In article <3qlg16$dmb@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, KAnko wrote: >V.V., > >Sorry I didn't get back to you. I would have to read your thesis before >commenting in detail. Is it archived anywhere?? I think it is but I >can't remember where. However, > >Point one. The idea of a single particle and single force is not new. I >assume your treatment is. I naturally think so. >Point two. My probelm with Mr. Wallace is his hypocracy. I, and I assume >others, have given him experimental results which we wish to see explained >by his theories, and his answer, in my case at least, is to say I changed >the subject. If a theory can't stand up or gives the same reults and is >overly complicated, it is rejected. Yet he says that main stream >sciencists are doing that exact thing. He needs to make his theory fit >observations, not the other way around. > >Point three. As for the ridicule you have recieved, I am surprised. Not >that you have recieved the ridicule but that any credible scientist would >heep such junk. However being new to this thread I don't want to throw >stones at anyone yet. However, if your responses are anything like Mr. >Wallace's responses, that may be the problem. No, I will admit that in the beginning, when I was flamed -- and flamed *first* I did loose my cool. But after a while I reassesed the situation and concuded it was not worth the effort. I'm here to talk science, not personalities. >Anyway, I look forward to reading your thesis, I had posted it here but it has rotated off the board. With your permission I will e-mail it to you. Regards V.V. >Dr. Kevin Ankoviak cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.03 / Vertner Vergon / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) 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: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 07:10:33 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) In article , Michael Hofmeister wrote: >In article , vergon@netcom.com (Vertner >Vergon) wrote: > >> "Conspiricy" is in the eye of the beholder. There can be forces that >> individually add up to a de facto conspiricy in which the parties >> never conspired to conspire but their actions total up as though they had. > >[chatter deleted] "CHATTER" ? >> I have presented A VERY COGENT thesis that is self consistent AND >> consistent with empiricism. It is sraightforward and explains much that >> cannot be explained by the present model. >> >> The biggest respone? Ignore it. >> The second biggest respone? Ridicule it -- speciously. >> The third biggest respone is to ignore a superior explanation of the >> universe and to say, "where are the predictions? A theory is no good that >> doesn't predict." >> >> There are predictions, you simply must look closely for them. >> >> A challenge: Why don't you take a look at my thesis (ON THE QUANTUM AS A >> PHYSICAL ENTITY) "take it to pieces and see how it works" and let's take >> it from there. (I don't mean to be disrespectful, but we have a saying in >> Colonies: "Put you money where your mouth is" :-) ) >> >> If you're too busy for that, I have posted an out of context description >> of the mechanism of the strong force along with the natural developing >> equation. So far, every answer to that post criticised and questioned >> ALL OTHER ASPECTS of the post and did not address itself to the subject >> of the post -- the description of the force and its equation. >> > >[more chatter deleted] "Chatter"? >> >> New Paradigm Vergon >> > >Vertner: > >Well, this is truly GOOD NEWS. The theory that explains everything. >Since I'm way too busy to read the book or read an "out of context >description of the mechanism of the strong force along with the natural >developing equation," please be so kind as to answer these simple direct >questions: [ Nonsene deleted ] If you're too busy to read what I wrote, why should I read what you wrote? Since you are such a busy man, I certainly wouldn't want to take up your precious time with any more chatter. I'm surprised you took the time to deliver the snide affront above. It *is* an affront, you know. At any rate I'm much too busy to waste any time on arrogance and selfcenteredness. New Paradigm Vergon cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.03 / Scott Little / $700 will do just fine Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: $700 will do just fine Date: 3 Jun 1995 16:54:41 GMT Organization: EarthTech Int'l Despite what some folks have said, $700 might be about right to get a P device purchased and delivered to the US. In any case, the $700 is more of a token than actual compensation, although it would definitely go towards the costs. I estimate (from previous experience) that we will spend several thousand dollars just testing the device (that's after we get it in the door). We're ready and willing to do this without payment from the group. It's part of our charter to test such devices. At this point, Tom should hang on the $700 for a while longer until we figure out how, what, and when. No, Dieter, I don't speak Russian...but I can find someone who does! cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.03 / A Plutonium / Re: Room temperature superconductors already exist Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium Subject: Re: Room temperature superconductors already exist Date: 3 Jun 1995 18:38:29 GMT Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation In article <3qog6n$7kr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: > Room temperature superconductors already exist in the bioworld, in > eyes, in plants, in cells awaiting to be discovered. I predicted that > superconductivity is the changing of photon carriers to that of > neutrino carriers. > Any day now someone will discover some living matter which > superconducts. The nonliving and the living world move in tandem. It could be that spider webs or the hairs of some plants or animals are room temperature superconductors. And this is to be expected since according to my theory superconductivity is just the decomposition of photon signalers to that of neutrino signalers for the electrons to move. That would be splendid and great if room temperature superconductors existed in the bioworld of spider web or hairs from plants or animals because we can weave those materials into practical wire devices. I expect any day now for some report that a room temperature superconductor is discovered from the Bioworld. Any day now , . . cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jun 4 04:37:03 EDT 1995 ------------------------------