1995.10.08 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: Sun, 08 Oct 1995 01:22:38 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <1995Oct5.232209.17369@nosc.mil>, north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North) wrote: > I saw my name on another post in this thread so I've had to resurrect > Jones from my kill file temporarily ***{Mark, I doubt seriously that anybody ever thought you had put me in your kill file. I certainly didn't. If you had done that, you wouldn't have been able to read my response to your last contentless diatribe! In fact, that's why I ignored you name calling and your insults: so you could scan this group, for weeks and weeks, waiting for a response that never came! Ha! --Mitchell Jones}*** so I can stomp on him one more time. ***{You love to post violent metaphors, don't you, Mark? And I believe you are also the guy who posted a message, awhile back, claiming to fraudulently cancel the posts of persons whom you deemed to be "off topic." Do you remember that, perhaps? Those two things, taken together, suggest to me that (a) you know for a fact that you lack the intelligence and the knowledge to debate ideas on equal grounds with anyone, and (b) you believe that others hold opinions for the same reasons as you--i.e., in order to "fit in" with some group of "significant others," rather than as a consequence of a reasoning process. Result: you are reduced to the posting of contentless flames, in the vain hope that, by threatening those who disagree with you with rejection, you can induce them to conform to your beliefs and behaviors. It's really sad, Mark. You were just born too late: better would have been Spain in the early 1500's, where you could have joined the Dominican order and spent your time torturing heretics and burning them at the stake! Today, however, your rage doesn't evoke fear: it merely evokes laughter. It's a sad, sorry state of affairs, isn't it, old buddy? --Mitchell Jones}*** > No charge, it's my pleasure. ***{I doubt that you are capable of pleasure, Mark. In free countries, would-be censors are for the most part frustrated. The norm is for them to wallow in impotence and misery for their entire lives. It is only on those rare occasions when, for a moment, they hold power over others, that they can feel any sense of self-worth. What they need is a frightened face looking back at them. That's why they beat their wives and children, and glare at the achievements of others through hate-filled pig eyes. But then, of course, their misery is thoroughly deserved. They are purely evil, and do not deserve our sympathy, but rather our contempt. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > > >In article <448898095wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk>, Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk wrote: > > >> In article: <21cenlogic-0110951059300001@austin-1-1.i-link.net> > >> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > >> > This strikes me as a way for you to duck the issue, Barry. Rather than > >> > step up and grapple with the principle of continuity, you want to > >> divert > >> > me off onto a complex and irrelevant topic. Well, it happens that I > >> can, > >> > in fact, answer your question about what a photon is and how to > >> visualize > >> > it, and I am willing to do so. However, not wanting to discourage any > >> bad > >> > habits on your part, here's the deal: if you will first explain to me > >> why > >> > you believe that the principle of continuity is invalid, and defend > >> that > >> > view, then I will tell you exactly what a photon is, so you can > >> visualize > >> > its acceleration. Fair enough? > >> > >> Your 'principle of continuity' is no principle at all - simply a > >> statement of admission by you of your total failure to understand > >> physical reality. > >> > >> A photon is a packet of eletromagnetic radiation and, as I have tried to > >> point out to you on a couple of occasions - unsuccessfully, as I should > >> have anticipated when dealing with somebody as resolutely attached to > >> his own faulty imagination as you are - it *can* only travel at the > >> speed of propagation of electromagnetic radiation. It simply cannot > >> exist, travelling at any lesser speed, and remain within the > >> universally accepted and confirmed laws of physics. There never has been > >> any experiment in physical science which might even momentarily be > >> considered to suggest that photons travelling slower than c might have > >> any place in physical reality. If they did, almost the entire corpus of > >> 20th century theoretical and observational physics would have to be > >> declared a total illusion, and we would have to admit total ignorance of > >> all aspects of the physical world, from the cosmological to the > >> subatomic scale. > >> > >> Offered the option of accepting that, or the alternative that you are a > >> lone and sadly deluded idiot, there is absolutely no contest. Archimedes > >> Plutonium consistently makes substantially more sense than you. > >> > >> -- > >> Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) > >> > >> I am his Highness' dog at Kew > >> Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? > >> [Alexander Pope] > >> > >> PGP Public Key available on request. > > >Alan, why do you waste bandwidth posting dogmatic assertions and > >contentless flames? > > (I left in Alan's comments because I thought they were quite good and > to the point.) Proclaiming your so-called 'principle of continuity' > as the saviour of all mankind's knowledge (or whatever the hell you said) > is *not* dogmatic assertion? ***{Wrong again. When I stated my belief in the principle of continuity, I explained why I believe it, and I invited those who wanted to dispute it to do so. The fact that I stated reasons for my belief precludes it being correctly labeled an assertion; and the fact that I encouraged others to argue the point precludes its being correctly labeled as dogmatic. Alan, on the other hand, merely made a series of statements affirming generally accepted beliefs in physics, without attempting to argue for them. Thus they were assertions. He then concluded with an attempt to intimidate me into accepting his assertions by stating that if I did not, then I must be "a lone and sadly deluded idiot." This, obviously, is an attempt to discourage reasoned disagreement. Thus his post can be appropriately classified as a series of "dogmatic assertions," and I did so classify it. --Mitchell Jones}*** Claiming that a photon accelerates against > all evidence to the contrary on your say-so alone is *not* dogmatic > assertion? ***{It sure wasn't. I have posted a number of comments giving evidence of photons traveling at less than the speed of light. For example, I mentioned Wolfgang Pauli's explanation of the Biot-Savart field. According to him, moving charges carry with them a cloud of "bound photons" that move as they move, and account for the magnetic field associated with a moving charge. I also mentioned an explanation of double slit electron "self-interference" experiments in these terms--to wit: I said that I believe that as the lone electron passes through one of the slits, a portion of the associated cloud of "bound photons" is diffracted through the other slit, and that the resulting pattern of interference influences the probability of the electron being detected at particular locations on the other side. Alan simply ignored those posts, and claimed in spite of them that "There never has been any experiment in physical science which might even momentarily be considered to suggest that photons travelling slower than c might have any place in physical reality." As such, I consider his behavior to be both ignorant and dishonest. And ditto for you. --Mitchell Jones}*** >As for flames, I'm afraid for your sake that his was > contentful. ***{He was as "contentful" as you, though that isn't saying much! --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >Surely you are not so feeble minded that you do not > >realize, at some level, that I wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire. > > No, but you'll spend the time and effort to make this silly 'response.' ***{I'm a fast typist, Mark. Believe me, I did *not* "spend a lot of time and effort" producing that response! Sorry, buddy: the odds are you will get something right eventually, but you aren't doing very well so far! --Mitchell Jones}*** > I guess your words are worth less to you than a bucket of warm spit, eh? ***{Actually, I think you are confusing your words with my words! --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >And the same goes for Mark North and all the other would-be censors who > >seek to stifle debate and thereby protect their contentless beliefs. > > Listen, you obnoxious little shit: ***{Gee, that's an impressive argument! I didn't think of that! Why, silly me, I must be wrong about the principle of continuity after all! --Mitchell Jones}*** Nobody is preventing you or > attempting to prevent you from spewing your bullshit anywhere you want. ***{Yup. Name calling isn't an attempt at intimidation! Why, everybody knows that! Those who post contentless flames are just sincere fellows who want to participate in the discussion of ideas! Why, they would never think of, or hope to, discourage anyone from participating in usenet! How silly of me to have suggested otherwise! --Mitchell Jones}*** > But if you do it here you'll have to accept the criticism and ridicule > it so richly deserves. ***{Actually, those who politely post unconventional ideas and encourage reasoned discussion do *not* deserve to have to deal with contentless flames from airheads and would-be censors. However, as Paul Newman said, many years ago in the movie *Hud*, "There's an awful lot of crap in the world, boy, and no matter how hard you try you are eventually going to step in some." That's how I classify you, and Alan, and all those who post contentless flames in an attempt to impede discussion. You guys are just some of the crap in the world which, no matter how hard I try, I occasionally step into! But that's OK. I'll just wipe you guys off my boots and move on! --Mitchell Jones}*** Unless, of course, you wish to censor me. ***{What's there to censor, Mark. I don't see any evidence that you have any ideas! --Mitchell Jones}*** > And by the way, I think I see one of your big problems: we don't > debate science, we do it. ***{Ha! --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >You > >need to wake up, guys! This is the internet, and at the moment you have no > >power here. If you want to do more than put out an unpleasant smell, go to > >Washington D.C., or London, or whatever cesspool of oppressive criminality > >exists in your native land, and openly participate in the struggle for > >power. Perhaps if you work hard you can obtain a position of authority > >from which you can begin to evoke fear in others. In the meantime, > >however, all you are evoking is laughter and contempt. > > It sounds to me like you've got some sort of problem with authority > and it's affecting your thinking. ***{Wow! That's about as delusional as it gets! The "problem" that I have with you and Alan isn't a problem with authority, because you guys don't *have* any authority! The "problem," instead, is that you guys waste bandwidth in this group by posting contentless flames. --Mitchell Jones}*** Your obvious bitterness towards > anyone who might know more than you or have some sort of power over > you makes me think you've got a screw loose. ***{Oops, another cow plop on the information superhighway! Step carefully, lads! --Mitchell Jones}*** Lot's of people are > smarter than you are and lot's of people and institutions have > power over you. The same goes for me. Deal with it. > > Mark ***{Since you are giving advice, here's some advice for you: recognize that your flames are off topic and, worse than that, that they make you look like a brain dead fool. Nobody who matters is intimidated by you, Mark. If you have some content to contribute to the threads in this group, then you are welcome to do so. Otherwise, you are exactly as impressive as a bad smell, no more and no less. --Mitchell Jones}*** =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy08 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.07 / Mike Denton / How to Get Free Cable Premium TV .. LEGIT Originally-From: md@goodnet.com (Mike Denton) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: How to Get Free Cable Premium TV .. LEGIT Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 12:21:31 GMT Organization: GoodNet First I want to say I am sorry that this has nothing to do with the topic of this group. You may see this message in other newsgroups, the reason is I am subscribed to those too so please don't flame me. I have been posting and reading to this group for a while. I just wanted to let you people out know there is a way to get Cable TV for FREE. I recieve this letter in the mail from a friend that had told me it works. I gave this to one of my friends and he had free cable in his house within 20 mins. I have not tried this method yet but may soon try if my cable goes up in price. If anyone would like a copy send the following to the address below. Address Envelope to: FreeStuff 9393 N. 90th St. Suite 102-289 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Enclose in the envelope: Send... $1.00 U.S MONEY *** NO COINS *** NO CHECKS *** inside a sheet of carbon paper or construction paper, and send a *self-addressed*,*stamped* envelope to the address above. Thanxs, Just think if you pay 30$ + a month. 1$ will save you 359 + dollars a year. cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenmd cudfnMike cudlnDenton cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.07 / Jim Bowery / Re: One For RF HEETER (cc p kolok) Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: One For RF HEETER (cc p kolok) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 17:38:16 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) guiness.mv.att.com!gfp (gfp@docunet.mv.att.com) wrote: : Sept 1995. If there is anything to alternative concepts, they will likely : be the only work being done in the field in 5 years.(As privatly funded : enterprises). Yes. The government's involvement in fusion might have been salvaged with my proposed legislation, but as things stand, only a miracle will save the program. I even had 5-years of no-obligation pay going to all those who currently work on fusion, to help them in the transition. They opposed this legislation then and are now paying the price. However, their price is nothing compared with the price civilization paid for their hubris. : The last 20 years of national fusion funding were an : anomaly, a reaction to the first oil crisis. It played a part but it was not the dominant part of the problem. The Russian Tokamak was an embarrassment to the U.S., like Sputnik, and there were rather foolish people who believed that the way to make fusion happen was to take advantage of this political climate and start an "Apollo-like" crash program. That was 1969, 4 years before the oil shocks. -- The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population. The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival. Change the tools and you change the rules. cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.07 / Jim Bowery / Re: One For RF HEETER (cc p kolok) Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: One For RF HEETER (cc p kolok) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 17:44:04 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Matt Austern (matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU) wrote: : It's a pity, because I do think there are things that take several : decades to do that are worth doing. I marvel when I realize that in : the Middle Ages it sometimes took centuries to build a cathedral; In a book I'm writing, there is a chapter titled "Technosocialism and the New Inquisition" that essentially makes the point you just, inadvertently, made. Technosocialism is a social control device, much like the pyramids and cathedrals. Technosocialism builds monuments, whose chief purpose is to awe the population that might, otherwise, advance technology at a pace that outstrips the bureaucracy's ability to adapt. These monuments have all the trappings of technically functioning devices, but their primary function is ritualistic, mythic, political and social -- not economic. -- The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population. The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival. Change the tools and you change the rules. cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.07 / Jim Bowery / Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m sc.industry.utilities.electric Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 17:47:36 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Bruce Scott TOK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote: : Paul, does that mean you're giving up already? What a shame... What gave you the impression that Paul is "giving up"? Giving up what? He's certainly not giving up on the PLASMAK(tm). Nor is he giving up on finding talent that can help him model his PMK configuration. -- The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population. The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival. Change the tools and you change the rules. cudkeys: cuddy7 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.07 / Martin Gelfand / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Martin Gelfand) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: 7 Oct 1995 17:02:54 -0600 Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 In response to Mitchell's dislike of my use of "into the breach again": I can only say that this discussion *is* an unpleasant task in many ways, but one that I found myself fascinated by. By now, though, the unpleasantness is beginning to exceed the fascination. In the post preceeding this MJ revealed a bizarre "classical" atomic theory (which still fails to explain why atomic "orbits" are _completely_ stable, as Bill Rowe pointed out in another message). This time, he reveals ... In article <21cenlogic-0610951933080001@austin-1-14.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > >(2) If he had revealed his assumption, he would have focused the attention >of his students on one of the oozing canker sores on the body of "modern" >physics: the fact that gravitational force, by whatever theory, *must >propagate through space at velocities millions of times that of light.* >You see, Martin, LaPlace's reasoning doesn't just apply to the LeSage >theory: it applies to all intelligible theories of gravitation. Regardless >of whether you endorse push theories of gravitation such as that of >LeSage, or pull theories such as that endorsed by many of those who are >busy looking for "gravity waves" that supposedly accompany supernova >explosions, it is an inescapable mathematical fact that the force must >propagate through space at velocities millions of times that of light. The >reason: at lightspeed, gravitational aberration would either cause the >earth, in a paltry few hundred years, to spiral into the sun (for the push >theories) or else to accelerate out of its orbit (for the pull theories). >Since the earth, by all measures, has persisted in its orbit for more than >four billion years, it follows that gravitational force must propagagte at >millions of times the speed of light. (And this result, of course, rends >Einstein's "universal speed limit" to shreds.) > >Why do most "modern" physicists such as Feynmann skate past such issues? >The answer: for the same reason that con men do not focus on weaknesses in >their own presentations--i.e., because they don't want to scare away the >"mark." That is what the student is, Martin: the mark. He is the sucker in >the fraud of "modern" physics. --Mitchell Jones}*** The only problem with this dramatic demonstration that modern physics is rotten at the core is that it is based on a demonstrably incorrect assumption. General relativity does not require forces to "propagate" at speeds greater than the speed of light. Yet at the same time, it does _not_ imply orbit-destabilizing aberrations. You may not believe it, Mitchell, but it's true. The reason Feynman "skates past such issues" is presumably for pedagogical reasons: he was trying to explain Newtonian physics in that section of his lectures, and indeed he never discusses general relativity in detail in the lectures because there's no way to give a proper treatment at a level that first-year students could understand. As I said at the start, I'm grown rather sick of this thread, so good-bye, and good wishes. Martin Gelfand Dept of Physics, Colorado State University cudkeys: cuddy7 cudengelfand cudfnMartin cudlnGelfand cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.07 / SoBernardo / Re: Newsgroup Archives? Originally-From: sobernardo@aol.com (SoBernardo) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Newsgroup Archives? Date: 7 Oct 1995 20:35:03 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Try the Deja News archive at web site http://www.dejanews.com/. It contains postings to all all but alt., soc., and talk. newsgroups since last April. Click on a posting & it appears on your screen. Click on its heading & you get the entire message thread. Click on the author of a post & you get a listing of his/her postings all over the Usenet. I've been accessing this archive, and it's well worth the effort. sobernardo@aol.com cudkeys: cuddy7 cudensobernardo cudlnSoBernardo cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Oct 9 04:37:04 EDT 1995 ------------------------------