1995.06.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Announcement of Scientific Breakthrough
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Announcement of Scientific Breakthrough
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 02:06:41 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3ql189$a2u@newsbf02.news.aol.com> rhame@aol.com (Rhame) writes:
>
>                        ANNOUNCING A MAJOR SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH
>
>                                For Release June 1, 1995 via Internet
>
>Clustron Sciences Corporation (CSC) today announced an historic development
>in nuclear physics, discovered by its President, Ronald A. Brightsen, which 
>dramatically changes our understanding of the structure of the nucleus, and 
>which may alter our view of all matter.  For the first time in the long 
>history of nuclear physics, he has deduced a relationship among the 
>approximately 350 stable isotopes (nuclides) known to man.  The relationship 
>demonstrates quite clearly the fundamental characteristics of nature: 
>symmetry, systematics, and periodicity.

>The Periodic Table of Beta Stable Nuclides is analogous to the Periodic 
>Table of Elements, discovered by the Russian scientist Mendeleev in 1869, 
>and may well revolutionize virtually all sciences and technologies in the 
>21st Century.

>The Periodic Table of Beta Stable Nuclides is based on a Nucleon Cluster
>Model (NCM), which describes all nuclei (stable and radioactive) in terms
>of three clusters of neutrons and protons (nucleons).  Numerical values 
>assignable to those clusters lead to elimination of the "Coulomb barrier," 
>and replaces it with a positive-negative attraction, thus explaining 
>otherwise classically inexplicable low-energy nuclear reactions. In 
>addition, the NCM provides for the first time an explanation for thermal 
>neutron fission.

>Based on this new understanding, CSC has filed patent applications on several
>processes, including methods for: (A) Converting radioactive nuclear wastes
>to short-lived or stable nuclides, (B) Converting Pu-239 to U-235 and/or 
>non-fissionable heavy nuclides and (C) Improving the performance of widely
>used silicon semi-conductors.

>In the field of cosmology, it is likely that the long-sought system
>explaining the Origin of the Elements and the "missing mass" issue will
>finally be understood, utilizing the NCM.

>On-line requests for additional information and questions will be routed
>to Mr. Brightsen via this newsgroup or email to rhame@aol.com.  Also, a
>copy of the 40-page paper entitled, "The Nucleon Cluster Model and the
>Periodic Table of Beta Stable Nuclides" is available from Clustron
>Sciences Corporation to technically qualified individuals or
>organizations.  The amount of $5.00 is requested to cover copying and
>postage.  Clustron Sciences Corporation's address is 1917 Upper Lake
>Drive, Reston, VA 22091; Telephone
>Number: 703-476-8731 and Fax: 703-827-4066.  
                                        
Consider that if you have positive negative nucleon attraction, then
the nuclei must contain both positive and negative nucleons.  However,
the problem is that of MASS ACCUMULATION, since in order that the
nuclei contains the proper net positive charge, this suggests that 
positive negative pair particles must be massless.  I would have difficulty
in visualizing this, since by my own conception, multinegative nuclei
are forbidden in spite of the edicts of conventional physics which proclaim
otherwise.   

MASS ACCUMULATION here refers to the fact that each nucleon recieves one
count and this includes species of either charge.  Since the mass of
elements is quite well known and predictable entirely by non-negative
species of nucleons, then we have the problem that including plus minus
pairs would raise the count above measured values or those predicted other-
wise.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.04 / William Shaw /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wshaw@gate.net (William Shaw)
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: 4 Jun 1995 16:16:18 GMT

Van (vanjac@netcom.com) wrote:

: ... when you get the kind of feedback from professional scientists
: that you get here...

	Hahahahaha! Good One!

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenwshaw cudfnWilliam cudlnShaw cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.05 / 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: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 08:48:01 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <vanjacD9nnoq.64M@netcom.com>, Van <vanjac@netcom.com> wrote:
>>vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) writes:
>>
>>>At any rate I'm much too busy to waste any time on arrogance and
>>>selfcenteredness.
>
>"arrogance and selfcenteredness" descibe VV pretty well.

Oooooh, my you're quick!

>When I publish papers, I don't go around saying I'm a genius, I
>am the new Einstein (except I don't make his mistakes), I have
>the foundation or "New Paradigm" for physics, my ideas are great,
>everyone else is biased, bogged down in the ideas of
>the scientific establishment, so they can't see the greatness
>of my new ideas.

The ONLY thing of truth you've said here is -- I *do* say I have a
new paradigm. If this makes you so envious your reasoning gets twisted
and you manners lost -- that's your problem, not mine.

>I consider the feedback to my posts and ideas, and get an idea of how
>good the work was by the feedback. In this way I have had to revise
>my idea of the importance of my work almost everytime (in the upward
>direction a couple of times :).
>
>OTOH the feedback VV gets has no effect on his ideas, nor does its
>internal logical fallacies, or disagreement with well established
>experiment and theory. VV claims to have an intuitive feel for
>physics. I don't believe he has done enough physics to have such a feeling,
>and when you get the kind of feedback from professional scientists
>that you get here, if it were me I would certanly take another look at
>my basic ideas.

I've been taking basic looks for 40 years or more. They have undergone
MANY changes.


>e.g., in spite of the many posts pointing out that the EM spectrum
>is continuous with freq. from 0 to oo, you continue to insist that
>1 cycle/sec is the lowest freq. to get your m_q c^2 = h (1/sec), or
>m_q = h*(1/sec)/c^2, which is 10^12 greater than the experimental
>_upper_ limit on the photon (rest) mass.
>
>Further,  you ignore the fact that there is no reason that m = 0 particles
>can't exist, and the overwhelming evidence that they do, and that
>EM radiation and fields have no (rest) mass, but they do have
>energy and momentum E = Pc from SR and the light or null cone where
>
>g(p,p) = - m^2 = 0 = - E^2 + (Pc)^2
>
>The light or null cone of SR is where photons and m = 0 ptls.
>have their 4-momentum p^a = (E,P^i) {i=1,2,3}, or classically its
>where the wave 4-vector k^a = (w,K^i) resides, giving
>
>g(k,k) = - w^2 + K^2 = 0  ==> phase vel. = group vel = w/K = dw/dK = 1
>= speed of light.
>
>This is basic to all of relativity.
>-- 
>Van  --  Email: vanjac@netcom.com

Excuse me, I just got through yaaawwwwwwnnning. :-)

V.V.     The Ugly Duckling
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.05 / Sven Geier /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: sgeier@bootes.astro.umd.edu (Sven Geier)
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,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 05 Jun 1995 09:29:31 GMT
Organization: U. of Maryland @ College Park, Astronomy


In article <vergonD9oz41.LGD@netcom.com> 
vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) replies to:
Van <vanjac@netcom.com>, who wrote in article <vanjacD9nnoq.64M@netcom.com>:

| >Further,  you ignore the fact that there is no reason that m = 0 particles
| >can't exist, and the overwhelming evidence that they do, and that
| >EM radiation and fields have no (rest) mass, but they do have
| >energy and momentum E = Pc from SR and the light or null cone where
| >
| >g(p,p) = - m^2 = 0 = - E^2 + (Pc)^2
| >
| >The light or null cone of SR is where photons and m = 0 ptls.
| >have their 4-momentum p^a = (E,P^i) {i=1,2,3}, or classically its
| >where the wave 4-vector k^a = (w,K^i) resides, giving
| >
| >g(k,k) = - w^2 + K^2 = 0  ==> phase vel. = group vel = w/K = dw/dK = 1
| >= speed of light.
| >
| >This is basic to all of relativity.
| >-- 
| >Van  --  Email: vanjac@netcom.com
|
| Excuse me, I just got through yaaawwwwwwnnning. :-)
| 
| V.V.     The Ugly Duckling

What a major coup d'etat in debating acuity. Yes, Vertner, we are
truly impressed by your grasp of special relativity.

S (bows to the superior mind)
--
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
/'''	Sven Geier  (http://www.astro.umd.edu/~sgeier/private.html)
c-OO	If you want to know how stupid people really are, just think how stupid
\  > 	the average person is and realize that half of them are stupider.
 \_v 			-- George Carlin
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudensgeier cudfnSven cudlnGeier cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.05 /  VNONINSKI@fscv /  S.Jones' paper in J.Phys.Chem.
     
Originally-From: VNONINSKI@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: S.Jones' paper in J.Phys.Chem.
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 12:34:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

This note is in connection with S.Jones and collaborator's paper on 
"faradaic efficiencies" published recently in the Journal of Physical 
Chemistry (J.Phys.Chem., 99, 6973 (1995)). 

I was astounded to find out that the authors have published a whole 
paper on an effect whose essence they do not even understand. I note 
that the recombination that is quoted as a problem in numerous positive 
and negative papers and in my paper published in Fusion Technology, 21, 
163 (1992) is not the phenomenon S.Jones claims to have studied 
in his paper. I restate 
my concern about the role of recombination when determining "excess heat"
in the electrochemical experiments and my conviction that further study 
of this is necessary when applying open-cell calorimetry. Papers such as the
the one by  S.Jones published in J.Phys.Chem., however, offer little help in 
clarifying this problem.  Surprisingly, S.Jones has has not understood 
that it is not the process described on p.54 of the monograph Fuel Cells 
by McDougall that is the problematic one (Jones cites McDougall's monograph 
as containing the evidence that, contrary to what I have mentioned in 
my Fusion Technology paper, Ni is a good recombiner of H2 and O2). 

The new paper published in J.Phys.Chem. evidently continues 
the fanatic persistence of S.Jones to prove 
that there is no excess heat in a process he claims to have found first. A 
paper that immediately puts a doubt in the priority claim of S.Jones is his 
known Nature paper. The Nature paper of S.Jones is one of the most 
incompetent papers on electrochemistry one can encounter in the 
archival peer-reviewed literature. The level of incompetence in Nature 
paper of S.Jones is such that it is hardly possible that a person with 
this level of understanding of electrochemistry can be the discoverer of 
the phenomenon claimed by Fleischmann et al. Existence of S.Jones' Nature 
paper is a more powerful 
proof for the lack of priority than any signed and notorized notebook. 
The new paper of S.Jones published in J.Phys.Chem. is another serious 
confirmation that S.Jones does not understand the problem he involves 
himself in (one way to study it is to confer with his teachers Fleischmann 
and Pons).
  
Following my usual procedure I will not include here any technical comments 
on the above problem leaving this for a future manuscript which I will 
publish in a peer-reviewed journal. In the follow-up manuscript I am also 
expecting to include data obtained by an experimental method for the 
definitive determination of the reality of excess heat without using 
calorimetry.  

Truly yours,


Vesselin Noninski                         6-JUNE-1995

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenVNONINSKI cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.05 /  Oostrander /  nuclear coolants
     
Originally-From: oostrander@aol.com (Oostrander)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: nuclear coolants
Date: 5 Jun 1995 09:38:18 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I am  a  Middle  school student  and  I am  working  on  a  project   and 
my  team   and  I have  to  go   to  Pluto.  I  need  to  know  a  super 
coolant   for  a  nuclear  engine.  We were thinking of using alcohol, but
we did not know the freezing temperature of alcohol or if it would be a
suitable substance.  We would like to get information from you if we
could.

Thank you, 

John


Please e-mail responses to my teacher at oostrander@aol.com

 --------------------------------------
Peter Ostrander
oostrander@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenoostrander cudlnOostrander cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.05 / Richard Blue /  Re: More misinformation about Pd
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More misinformation about Pd
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 18:24:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

David Schneider, you are sadly off track with your suggestion that
Pd offers some particular potential as a nuclear energy source to
power CF.  Pick any element that has several isotopes such as those
I listed in my previous post on this subject.  As the mass number
is varied by changing the neutron number the binding energy for
the last neutron does vary.  Thus it is generally always the case
that one particular isotope represents an energy minimum.  It will
always be true that in such a system isotopes energy could be released
by taking neutrons from the isotopes where they are less tightly bound
and putting them into isotopes where they are more tightly bound.
That is just no big deal, and there is NOTHING SPECIAL about Pd in
that regard.

What would be a big deal would be if you found a way to encourage
that "neutron flow".  The fact that several different isotopes of
Pd exist in nature and that the relative isotopic abundances don't
vary a lot from sample to sample is a clue that something keeps those
neutrons put in spite of the fact that there is energy to be gained
by moving them around.

There is plenty of data to suggest that the neutron flow you propose
does not occur.  In fact your original assertion that Pd has an
unusually large spread in neutron numbers would say that Pd is unlikely
to exhibit this effect.  David, why don't you investigate why it is
that neutrons don't freely move between assorted nuclei?  Once you
know the answer to that question,  perhaps you can propose some
means to alter the situation.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: $700 will do just fine
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: $700 will do just fine
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 14:53:00 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Scott Little <little@eden.com> writes:
 
>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
 
If you can get a Potapov device delivered to the U.S. for that price,
please purchase an extra one for me. I will pay you the full amount in
advance.
 
Actually, I would like about a thousand of them at that price, because the
add on equipment alone (pumps, pipes and plumbing) is worth more than
$700. I can sell off all those nice new pumps and make quite a profit, even
if the Potapov devices do not work.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.05 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Palladium and Neutron Flow (Originally from 6/94)
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Palladium and Neutron Flow (Originally from 6/94)
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 12:09 -0500 (EST)

winfinity@aol.com (Winfinity) writes:
 
-> Palladium and Neutron Flow
->
-> by David R. Schneider
->
-> For post to: sci.physics.fusion, 6/94
->
-> Abstract: Palladium, the metal used as an electrode in many cold fusion
-> (CF) experiments, has some interesting nuclear properties - specifically
-> its isotope distribution.  Is it possible that neutron flow is responsible
-> for experimental results in support of CF?
 
Thank you for a most informative post.  I find your theory innovative and
quite interesting.  From an engineering standpoint I would rather see the
palladium acting as a catalyst and the deuterium the fuel.  Unfortunately
your theory would "burn" the palladium as well.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.05 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Griggs, Huffman, and Russia
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs, Huffman, and Russia
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 12:11 -0500 (EST)

aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) writes:
 
->    As I checked upon this newsgroup fairly constantly, I noticed a fast
-> drop off any conversation of the Griggs' Hydrosonic Pump shortly after
-> the ICCF-5. Its not that I enjoyed the seeming endless coverage but if
-> memory serves me right, there was to be another visit (self-funded)
-> scheduled among the newgroup participants to the Griggs facility. They
-> were to actively take measurements and arrive at independant conclusions
-> to be announced. Has this taken place?
 
That is correct.  Prior to ICCF-5 Griggs indicated that he did not have time
for us to visit, that we would have to wait until after ICCF-5.  Now
apparently his test bed is apart and many pieces are in other areas.  As soon
as he has it all back together so we can go check it out, I plan on scheduling
the trip.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.05 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 12:17 -0500 (EST)

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
 
-> (Thanks to D. Morrison for providing the article; very interesting.)
 
Did Morrison write the article?
 
                                                              Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.05 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: What has Arnie Frisch seen?
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What has Arnie Frisch seen?
Date: 5 Jun 1995 12:31:41 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <R2x-M56.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>I suggested that arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) examine the scientific
>literature on cold fusion. He responded:
> 
>    "What I've seen does not qualify as "literature" in the scientific sense."
> 
>Uh, huh. Sure. Tell us please, what you have "seen?" Seen in what sense? Do

What I have seen, and see almost every day in this newsgroup, is
your facile attempts to rationalize a bunch of nonsense and your
avoidance of questions about your motives whenever they get near
the mark.  You are in no position to question me about what I read.

I suppose now, that Pons and Fleishmann seem no longer to be working
"in the area", you will have some story about the Japanese deciding to
tranfer their efforts to Japanese nationals so that the technology will
be hidden from us.  Or maybe you will tell us that you always doubted
that P&F were on the right track and there are "newer and better" ways
of "getting heat".

Tell us Jed, why are you so interested in getting others to believe in
this stuff and invest THEIR money in it?  Why don't you just invest
YOUR money and get filthy rich?

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 /  Mike
 /  Good grief (was Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB)
     
Originally-From: Mike
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math
Subject: Good grief (was Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB)
Date: 6 Jun 1995 01:38:00 GMT
Organization: just me

With regard to this rather bizarre exchange (I've removed sources
to protect the innocent and
guilty alike, but you can get their paths from the earlier messages
if you're that desparate)

>	 > The  universe is an atom theory is not very new
	<snip>  [...annoyed reply...]
>	 >	Sorry, and I do not want to sound harsh in my explanation but you do
>	 >	not understand the theory yet. [snip] As I repeat, noone in the world had
>	>	the idea of Atom Totality Whole before me.
	<snip snip snip>


The earliest secondary-source I've read that gives details of a
universe-as-a-single-entity theory is a translation of
ancient greek notions from quite a while BC. Try reading Leucretius'
"The Nature of the Universe".

The modern (in the West) concept of the Universe being a unified
totality has been around certainly since the days
when Einstein to argue incessantly with the 'new' quantum theorists
about the consequences of this totality - these
letters are easily available for consultation. It is not only an
obvious, but also a necessary, property
of quantum mechanical models, that any wave-function descriptions
of the universe must describe
the entire universe at once (to the extent that "at once" means
anything - simultaneity is RELATIVE).
The whole POINT of basing quantum theory on the nature of observation
and measurement is that the
observer cannot be separated from the observed - they are always to be regarded as
two complementary aspects of one and the same total universal system. EVERY qm
description of the universe is BY DEFINITION a description based on the assumption
that the entire universe is a SINGLE entity, and not an entity
made up of bits and pieces; and
certainly not a universe in which it is possible to point to a
localised region and state "this
(e.g. a heavy atom) is THIS", and at another region and state "that
(e.g. a galaxy) is THAT" in anything
other than a colloquial sense. Quantum physicists already KNOW
that the universe is a totality; the
reason they use language that suggests otherwise to the uninitiated
is because students and
other interested parties don't speak the correct language (currently
thought to be maths) sufficiently
fluently; they understand things in terms of the everyday ambiguous
language of daily life, and
theorists have to do the best they can with the inadequate language
at their disposal. Fortunately,
in the low-energy world of daily experience, the approximations
implicit in these colloquialisms
is good enough for most (but not all) purposes.

Moreover, there are also a large number of popular texts which
go into the universe-as-single-totality
notion in great depth. Here's one that might prove useful if anyone
still doubts that this idea has been
around for several centuries - get hold of "The Tao of Physics"
from your local library. This contrasts
the qm notions of what matter actually IS (Shrodinger speculated,
for example, that matter is made up
of nothing more than 'pure shape' - shades of string/superstring
theory?) with the centuries old under-
standing of universe-as-totality developed in the early taoist,
hindu, and buddhist philosophies

Simply saying that the universe is an atom seen in an unusual way
doesn't actually tell us anything.
All it does is introduce a new meaning for the word "atom" - it
is a /linguistic/ development, not a
development in mathematical physics. To be a valid physical theory
it needs to address somewhat deeper
problems - like, what is it that causes the "atom" (using the new
definition of this word) to display
the characteristics it does? As the COBE findings have possibly
done for BigBang, you need to
confirm explanations of the apparent inconsistencies in your model
- when the universe started,
it was sufficiently small that every part of it (again, in the
colloquial sense) was in equilibrium with
every other; consequently, the early universe looked exactly the
same, absolutely everywhere
and everywhen. Why should a wavefunction which has the same properties everywhere evolve
into the universe we now see, which is extremely 'lumpy', and very
far from being "the same everywhere" -
there are immense supersuperclusters of galaxies in some places,
and vast gulfs of empty space in others.

Also, what are the consequences of your model? A model isn't necessarily
wrong simply because
it seems a little bizarre to people who've never seen it before.
But is IS wrong if it has consequences
which are plainly ridiculous. For example, the element cited -
Plutonium - is a metal. This means
that I can take a quantity of plutonium and make some wiring out
of it. If I now connect this to a power supply,
the electrons in the outer shells (which will have left the nuclei
for the friendlier territory of the conduction band)
will start whooshing in a direction determined by my power supply.
I can then reverse this direction
by reversing polarity, and I can cut the flow completely by breaking
the circuit. If galaxies are really
the  "94th and 93rd electrons of 231Pu", this means that any 1.5
volt battery is powerful enough to
make them go charging off first in one drection, then in another,
then stopping still, and
so on.

Do you really believe that galaxies are so flimsy that a 1.5 volt
battery has enough power to
determine their gross behaviour in this way?

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / Thomas Clarke /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
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: 6 Jun 1995 02:59:40 GMT
Organization: Institute for Simulation and Training, Orlando, Fl.

In article <vergonD9JEML.Hrr@netcom.com> vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) writes:
>Let's set that aside. The figure given, 10^-48 gr is *very* interesting.
>As I have stated, in my theory the individual basic constituent of the
>photon is  "*the* quantum". Twenty years ago I worked out that the mass
>of said quantum was 7.37203854 x 10^-48 gr.

How did you arrive at this?  It looks like the energy of a photon
with a wavelength ~10^6 km.  Something to do with the speed of light?
~3x10^5 km/sec?  
I expect this would have observable consequences for planetary
magnetic fields and other large electromagnetic structures.

Tom Clarke

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenclarke cudfnThomas cudlnClarke cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.05 / WALLY SEAG /  Historic / Scientific Documents *** Just Released!!
     
Originally-From: wallyseag@aol.com (WALLY SEAG)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Historic / Scientific Documents *** Just Released!!
Date: 5 Jun 1995 23:18:12 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

 

We share a similar interest in the History/Science.  I have a good friend
who just retired as the Associate Director of Los Alamos Natl Labs in New
Mexico. 

He gave me the plans to the FAT MAN & LITTLE BOY Atomic Bombs. (Unique
commemorative, declassified and "just" released!)
 
This is a "must have" for anyone interested in History or Science. I can
provide a Museum quality reproduction (1st Draft ) of these documents to
you if you are interested. 

If you are willing to cover my costs, I will gladly
send them to you. 

My "cost" of production and 1st class postage is $15.00 plus $3.00
shipping.

I have a limited supply of 1st drafts, so please let me know asap.

( please forward to anyone who might be interested or benifit from these.
)

Make check payable to: Jeff Slaton

Sincerely,
Jeff Slaton
6808 Truchas Dr. NE
Albq., NM  87109
"Support The Sciences"
 







cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenwallyseag cudfnWALLY cudlnSEAG cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jun  6 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
