IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags nuclear physics

Reply
Old 27th November 2021, 07:19 AM   #81
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,983
Originally Posted by wlad View Post
wow, tusenfem
go to the crank journal, and come back to tell us that there is not any error in the procedure of paper published by Physical Review Letters

The Editor-in-Chiefof the European Physical Journal A, Prof. Maria Borge, did not succeed to show that there is not any error in the procedure used by the authors of the paper published by PRL.

Who knows... you are able to show it??
Sorry but I ain`t no paying no $25 for no crank paper.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 07:29 AM   #82
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,511
Originally Posted by wlad View Post
you will understand why
after more than thirty years of trying,
the Tokomak fails to produce nuclear fusion.




Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Except that they have produced fusion.

New record for fusion
Yeah, I was going to mention that as well, in the context of these posts:


Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
If experiments show it works, then why isn't it making energy by now?

Cold fusion was 'announced' in the late 80's and was supposedly easy enough to replicate in your back yard with cheap materials, so where are the functional reactors?
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
A better physics model would be pounced on by corporations and nations. Have you sent it to Elon Musk or China?

While the tokamak design, and well, pretty much all other designs, have failed in the goal of producing enough fusion to produce more energy than they consume, they have clearly demonstrated that fusion is occurring.

But here's the thing: You don't need to reach a "breakeven" point for fusion to be an economically valuable process.

There are several types of neutron sources that rely on fusion as the source of their neutrons.

Quote:
Neutron sources are used in physics, engineering, medicine, nuclear weapons, petroleum exploration, biology, chemistry, and nuclear power.

I'm mostly familiar with the uses for petroleum exploration, in which they bombard the oil-bearing formations around the boreholes with neutrons in order to measure several important variables related to how much oil there is, and how easy it will be to extract. This is a huge business that almost no one outside the industry even realizes exists. There has been a lot of work on compact, on-demand sources of neutrons, that can be deployed down the borehole. And yet none of them seem to be even trying to use cold fusion as such a source, even though the alleged designs for cold fusion reactors (if they worked) would seem to be almost ideal for this purpose.

Another field that I've seen fusion being used for is production of medical radioisotopes.

Quote:
These procedures depend on short-lived radioactive isotopes such as technetium-99m or fluorine-18 as tagging agents since they decay into stable and inert material so quickly that there is no risk of damaging the human body with radiation when ingested or injected into the bloodstream, and all of these isotopes are derived from moly-99. Today, only a handful of facilities produce the entire world’s supply, and a single facility ceasing production for just a few days leads to worldwide shortages. In order to mitigate and prevent future shortages, many companies, such as Phoenix LLC and Shine Medical Technologies, are developing new and more efficient ways to produce massive quantities of moly-99.
This is another huge industry, which is ripe for being taken over by a relatively simple system, if it were capable of actually producing fusion. And yet, again, no one in that field is even trying to use cold fusion, or anything related to it.

Quote:
One of the most promising companies in the race to revitalize moly-99 production is Shine Medical Technologies. Shine’s method for isotope production relies on the extremely powerful fusion neutron generators developed by its sister company Phoenix LLC to break apart uranium into molybdenum-99. These neutron generators are a near-term application of nuclear fusion, in which light elements such as deuterium, a stable hydrogen isotope, are fused to produce helium and neutron radiation. The neutron radiation, when interacting with uranium, causes the uranium atoms to break apart into lighter elements including moly-99. While nuclear fusion’s biggest claim to fame is its potential application as a source of clean energy, it has many other applications related to the production of neutron radiation, including not only isotope production, but also industrial radiography and materials analysis.

Phoenix’s neutron generators in Shine’s system allow for substantial amounts of the medical isotope to be produced out of comparatively smaller and less highly enriched amounts of uranium. This process uses low-enriched uranium (LEU) instead of highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is beneficial
for several reasons including safety and security. Shine’s production facility in Janesville, Wisc., is projected to be capable of supplying one-half of the entire United States’ demand for moly-99 when it comes online.

To believe that cold fusion actually works, and has been demonstrated to work, you must also believe that several large corporations, and all world governments, are choosing to leave money on the table by completely ignoring cold fusion's potential to revolutionize several important industries, even if cold fusion never reaches the "break even" point needed to make it a practical source of energy.

And that just highlights yet another problem with the crank mindset: Science is never just one fact in isolation. Change one thing, and changes propagate outward from there, potentially affecting everything else in science and engineering. Energy production is the Sexy Beast of fusion research, but it's by no means the only area of interest to those who actually know what they're talking about.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 07:35 AM   #83
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,983
Originally Posted by wlad View Post
"Calculate yourself the energy levels of the hydrogen atom " !!!!![/b]
You do know that this is being done by sophomores, right?
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 08:20 AM   #84
Doubt
Philosopher
 
Doubt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,254
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Hey, you guys lay off Wlad the Implier!
That sucks!
__________________
45 es un titere
Doubt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 03:38 PM   #85
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,178
Oh dear. Physics Essays! I was reading a forum comment somewhere a few weeks ago, that said that publishing in that rag was only one step above self publishing. I disagree. It is equivalent. As Tusenfem said, when they 'publish' crackpots like Robitaille and Crothers, you immediately know that it is on the same level as vixra and 'Progress in Physics'. Might as well walk around with a sign around your neck saying "I am a crackpot."
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 27th November 2021 at 03:42 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 03:40 PM   #86
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,178
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
You do know that this is being done by sophomores, right?
I beg your pardon? I did that at high school!
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 27th November 2021 at 03:42 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 03:41 PM   #87
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,718
Originally Posted by wlad View Post
Dear betrayer of the mathematics.

Show any error in the calculation, and I will say you are right
You are wasting your time here. We are not nuclear physicists, nor do we have much interest in playing mathematical games. But many of us have extensive experience with cranks and love putting them down. That's what this forum was created for!

Perhaps you have uncovered some serious errors in scientific papers, and perhaps your ideas on proton structure are correct, but nobody is taking you seriously due to your combative attitude and bad writing style. You can't blame them for that - it's your fault that you come across as a crank.

If you want to be taken seriously then you need to stop writing like a crank and be respectful of real physicists and their work. And don't bother posting your spam here because it just makes you look more like a crank. This isn't a physics forum. Most of us are not qualified to analyze your work in detail. Even if you did manage to convince some of us that you are right, it wouldn't do any good because we are not physicists and are not arrogant enough to think we could influence them.

Many scientists throughout history have discovered things that challenged the consensus of the time, and sometimes it took a while for their ideas to be accepted. But they didn't get there by acting like cranks. No matter how correct your physics might be, you can't expect others to accept your ideas if you don't engage with them in a manner that is conducive to acceptance. This isn't physics - it's psychology - but just as important for success. Perhaps you should look beyond the mathematics and consider improving your social skills.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 04:14 PM   #88
wlad
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
why wait if you have a better solution?
Probably afraid that the mainstream will kill you before your cold fusion machine starts working.
tusenfem
as a skeptic, you had to know what is irony.

Because being a skeptic, you had to know when to trust what somebody says something, and when to detec an irony.

Being someone a skeptic, we hope he be at least inteligent.
wlad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 04:33 PM   #89
wlad
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 21
Many scientists throughout history have discovered things that challenged the consensus of the time, and sometimes it took a while for their ideas to be accepted. But they didn't get there by acting like cranks.

Roger,
That was because there was not internet at that time.

Probably I am wasting my time with 99% of the falses skeptics here. But if there is 1% of true skeptics here , then from what I am exposing they will realize that a new revolution is coming on, then it is not a waste of time.

Galileo was a cranck.
Einstein was a cranck. The became the "good old man" after his theory was recognized.

Before the internet, people had not the chance to know when a new revolution in the field of science was coming on.

I am giving you the chance to take knowledge of the new revolution is coming.

I think here there are not only false skeptics. Probably some of them have good, sense, and intuition to detect when somebody is announcing a new true.

But I am wasting my time in another sense. Because the manager of this skeptic community is trying to shut up my mouth.
wlad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 05:28 PM   #90
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 23,221
Originally Posted by wlad View Post
That was because there was not internet at that time.
The Internet was never a requirement for "crankery". People have been claiming, with the same absolute certainty as you, that they'd squared the circle or perfected perpetual motion since long before the Internet.

Quote:
...
Galileo was a cranck.
Einstein was a cranck. The became the "good old man" after his theory was recognized.
Neither was a crank (note spelling). Neither presented themselves as cranks. Their ideas were definitely not mainstream and met with some resistance initially, but not because of crankery.

So far in this thread, all I have seen from you is a repeated complaint of how the establishment is suppressing the truth you have to offer. So far in this thread, I have not seen any concise presentation of what that truth actually is nor how it predicts new and different things. You know, stuff than can be tested.

Cranks tell us repeated how oppressed they are. Cranks compare themselves to Einstein and Galileo. Real scientists stick to the science, not the melodrama.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 05:35 PM   #91
Doubt
Philosopher
 
Doubt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,254
Originally Posted by wlad View Post
Galileo was a cranck.
The church knew he was right. Their astronomers confirmed his observations. AFAIK, nobody thought he was a crank.

Quote:
Einstein was a cranck. The became the "good old man" after his theory was recognized.
No, he was never considered a crank. His explanation of the photovoltaic effect was not in doubt once he was done with the work.

Quote:
Before the internet, people had not the chance to know when a new revolution in the field of science was coming on.

I am giving you the chance to take knowledge of the new revolution is coming.
Nothing new here. People show up here all the time claiming they were going to turn science upside down for as long as this board has existed. Not one of them was right. You are not either. Putting forward ideas that were refuted based on the total lack of proof where the proof would have been found already enlightens nobody and indicates a lack of actual knowledge on your part. From what I have seen none of ideas put forward are even new.

When people point out facts to you, you ignore the facts.

Quote:
But I am wasting my time in another sense. Because the manager of this skeptic community is trying to shut up my mouth.
No. And discussing moderation issues outside of the moderation section will also cause you problems.
__________________
45 es un titere

Last edited by Doubt; 27th November 2021 at 05:38 PM.
Doubt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 06:11 PM   #92
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,995
I have yet to see anyone who describes Einstein as a crank explain when in his career that would have been true.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 06:39 PM   #93
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,351
Originally Posted by wlad View Post
In the book Subtle is the Math

are presented 16 papers,

among which a paper published in Physics Essays.

The calculation of the proton magnetic moment,
exposed ahead, belongs to the Paper Three (of the book) entitled

"Calculation of proton’s radius from the well-known equation α = Ke²/ħc".


5. Structure of the proton

Proton structure is at Figure 5. Gluons are not shown, because there is no need to consider them as contributors for the proton asymmetric structure (indispensable for the explanation of production of W boson in polarized beam of protons in scattering experiments) as will be shown. The down quark crosses orthogonally the magnetic lines of the magnetic field induced by the rotation of the two up quarks. As is known, when an electric charge is moving rectilinearly, but suddenly it enters in a magnetic field, in a way that it crosses orthogonally the lines of the field, the charge starts to move with circular motion. That’s why the down quark gets its orbital angular momentum inside the structure of the quark, L= m.v.R. The same happens with the up quarks, since they cross orthogonally the magnetic lines of the magnetic field induced by the down quark.

Fig 5. Structure of the proton, with the three quarks moving in circular trajectory around the Z-axis. Each u-quark is formed by one fermion of the quantum vacuum with charge +2e/3, and the d-quark is formed by one fermion with charge –e/3.




Analyzing the proton structure in the Figure 5, we note that:

a) At the top (inside the green rectangle) is shown that positive spin s=+½ of quarks has counter-clockwise rotation

b) Inside the big yellow down arrow, the spin of d-quark is due to its rotation around the Y-axis. The unity of positive spin s= +½ is due to the d-quark moving with counter-clockwise rotation (if d-quark would have clockwise rotation, its spin would be negative, s= -½).

c) Inside the structure of proton (blue sphere), d-quark has counter-clockwise orbital motion around the X-axis, and negative spin s= -½ around Y-axis. If it had positive spin s= +½, its contribution for the proton magnetic moment would be negative. But because it has s= -½, its contribution is positive.

d) Regarding up quark U1 and d-quark:

· Both them have orbital motion around the Z-axis in counter-clockwise direction.

· They have contrary spins

· So, if they had the same sign of charge, they would have tendency to cancel each other their magnetic moments.

· But as U1 has positive charge, and d-quark negative, both them contribute for a positive magnetic moment.

e) Up quarks U1 and U2 have contrary spins. Then:

· If they were moving in the same direction around the Z-axis, they would cancel each other their magnetic moments.

· But as they move in contrary direction, they add their contribution for a positive magnetic moment.

f) Therefore, all the three quarks contribute for a positive magnetic moment.

g) The two u-quarks have contrary spins, and contrary orbital angular momentum, and therefore they do not contribute for the total spin of the proton.

h) The d-quark has rotation with radius Re(-) around its own spinning center (Y-axis), and it with radius Rd= 2Re(-) around the Z-axis of the proton.


6. Calculation of the proton magnetic moment from the mass defect

The masses of the u and d quarks, measured by experiments, are respectively 2,3+0,7;-0,5 and 4,8+-,5;-0,3 MeV/c². Will be used 2.45 and 5.35 MeV/c².

As the two u-quarks cancel each other their contribution for the spin of the proton, there is no need to know what are the values of their orbital angular momentum. However, their orbital motions contribute for the magnetic moment, and so there is need to know what is the value of their orbital radius Ru. This is calculated ahead.

The equilibrium between the magnetic and centrifugal forces on the d-quark is given by:


Fail, Quarks can not move in perfect Circles.

This violates the Laws of Quantum Mechanical interaction with Newtrinos and other zero point particles in space time, sorry the math looks good but it's just Rubbish with a lack of understanding Quantum physics.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 07:14 PM   #94
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,762
Not so well versed as to parse your physics and math or your lack thereof, I'm more what might be called a back yard or shade-tree skeptic. I suggest you would get more credibility for your theory if you could boil water with it. Until then, to update an old saying, "that and the price of a cup of coffee will buy a cup of coffee."
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 08:03 PM   #95
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Posts: 732
Originally Posted by wlad View Post
Galileo was a cranck.
Einstein was a cranck.
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” ― Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science
jrhowell is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 08:30 PM   #96
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 25,429
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I have yet to see anyone who describes Einstein as a crank explain when in his career that would have been true.
Newton is easier.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 04:46 AM   #97
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,983
Originally Posted by wlad View Post
Probably I am wasting my time with 99% of the falses skeptics here. But if there is 1% of true skeptics here , then from what I am exposing they will realize that a new revolution is coming on, then it is not a waste of time.
But you don´t expose, you dump some text in giant font, and then say that it is all in your book.
Basically this whole thread is one big commercial for your book.
Indeed a waste of time.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 05:58 AM   #98
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,237
Where can I buy this book? Can I buy 20 copies, too, for all my friends?
Do I get a discount if I buy 1,000 for distribution at fairs and christmas markets?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 06:51 AM   #99
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,511
Originally Posted by Doubt View Post
No, he was never considered a crank. His explanation of the photovoltaic effect was not in doubt once he was done with the work.


And another key difference is that, for the work in which the results were not immediately obvious, such as his work on relativity, he simply published his work, made a few predictions about what later experimental results might show as a means of proving or disproving his work, and then let others get on with it.

He didn't spend years spamming scientific journals and conferences with diatribes about how "You'll see I'm right just as soon as we can observe the orbit of Mercury with sufficient accuracy, you fake "scienticians"!"
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 07:01 AM   #100
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,572
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
To believe that cold fusion actually works, and has been demonstrated to work, you must also believe that several large corporations, and all world governments, are choosing to leave money on the table by completely ignoring cold fusion's potential to revolutionize several important industries, even if cold fusion never reaches the "break even" point needed to make it a practical source of energy.
That's not as unbelievable to me as you make it seem. Corporations leave money on the table all the time, because the stability of their business model is more important than extra profit fraught with unknowns. No one wants to be the first to use a new doohickey and end up looking like fools when it's a hoax or get sued or libelled by an astroturfing rival, even if they'd all happily line up to be the second user once another guy takes the risk.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 10:08 AM   #101
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26,359
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Oh dear. Physics Essays! I was reading a forum comment somewhere a few weeks ago, that said that publishing in that rag was only one step above self publishing. I disagree. It is equivalent. As Tusenfem said, when they 'publish' crackpots like Robitaille and Crothers, you immediately know that it is on the same level as vixra and 'Progress in Physics'. Might as well walk around with a sign around your neck saying "I am a crackpot."
I believe Physics Essays came up when the recent Relativity crank started spamming their nonsense to support his nonsense.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 10:14 AM   #102
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26,359
Originally Posted by wlad View Post
Many scientists throughout history have discovered things that challenged the consensus of the time, and sometimes it took a while for their ideas to be accepted. But they didn't get there by acting like cranks.

Roger,
That was because there was not internet at that time.

Probably I am wasting my time with 99% of the falses skeptics here. But if there is 1% of true skeptics here , then from what I am exposing they will realize that a new revolution is coming on, then it is not a waste of time.

Galileo was a cranck.
Einstein was a cranck. The became the "good old man" after his theory was recognized.

Before the internet, people had not the chance to know when a new revolution in the field of science was coming on.

I am giving you the chance to take knowledge of the new revolution is coming.

I think here there are not only false skeptics. Probably some of them have good, sense, and intuition to detect when somebody is announcing a new true.

But I am wasting my time in another sense. Because the manager of this skeptic community is trying to shut up my mouth.
Let's see that's:
40 crackpot points for comparing yourself to Galileo Galilei
10 crackpot points for comparing yourself to Galileo Galilei
5 crackpot points for "cranck"

If we add this to the earlier 10 points, that's a score of -5+10+40+10+5=60.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 10:38 AM   #103
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Let's see that's:
40 crackpot points for comparing yourself to Galileo Galilei
10 crackpot points for comparing yourself to Galileo Galilei
5 crackpot points for "cranck"

If we add this to the earlier 10 points, that's a score of -5+10+40+10+5=60.
I am a little bit surprised by your post, you said:
Quote:
40 crackpot points for comparing yourself to Galileo Galilei
10 crackpot points for comparing yourself to Galileo Galilei
Did you mean:
Quote:
40 crackpot points for comparing yourself to Galileo Galilei
10 crackpot points for comparing yourself to Albert Einstein
?

Also, why this "-5" in your:
Quote:
that's a score of -5+10+40+10+5=60.
?

wlad, this (split) thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=355598
is about you, and the protection of your rights on this forum.

I hope you have seen it. Feel free to defend yourself if you disagree.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 08:34 PM   #104
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,511
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
That's not as unbelievable to me as you make it seem. Corporations leave money on the table all the time, because the stability of their business model is more important than extra profit fraught with unknowns. No one wants to be the first to use a new doohickey and end up looking like fools when it's a hoax or get sued or libelled by an astroturfing rival, even if they'd all happily line up to be the second user once another guy takes the risk.

Except that, in the examples I posted, they're all using "new doohickeys" to try to do new(ish) things.

Medical isotope production is a well-established industry, but it's very vulnerable to disruption if one of just a few current producers have to shut down for some reason. Also, there are strict time limits on how long the isotopes are viable, due to the nature of atomic decay. Trying to come up with economical ways to produce these isotopes in smaller batches, closer to where they are used (maybe in even the same hospital) is a major area of research right now, and no one has yet to come up with the Killer App that will clearly dominate the industry.

This is exactly the sort of competitive atmosphere in which one company might at least try some new pie-in-the-sky technology, just to see if it gives them that little extra boost they need to beat out the others.

And yet, no one, in the entire world, including the people who claim they think cold fusion works, is doing anything in this area.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 09:26 PM   #105
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,995
It's never a good sign when promulgation of an idea is stalled by text layout requirements.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 07:32 AM   #106
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 23,898
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's never a good sign when promulgation of an idea is stalled by text layout requirements.
Do you know of any medium that doesn't have layout requirements?

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 08:30 AM   #107
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,995
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Do you know of any medium that doesn't have layout requirements?
Some are more stringent than others. Screenplays, for example. But having to write left-justified paragraphs at default font size isn't something that should slow wlad down in the communication of his idea. The fact that it does slow him down is a bad sign for his idea.

Your question is kind of weird. What did you think I meant?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 10:03 AM   #108
paiute
Graduate Poster
 
paiute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,387
This guy's postings remind me of this:

Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled “211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull.” We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents “conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago.” Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the “Malibu Barbie”. It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to it’s modern origin:

1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.
2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.
3. The dentition pattern evident on the “skull” is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the “ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams” you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that:

A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.
B. Clams don’t have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in it’s normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating’s notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation’s Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name “Australopithecus spiff-arino.” Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn’t really sound like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard. We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation’s capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the “trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix” that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,

Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities
__________________
A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine
Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong?
Now free for download!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine
paiute is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 10:19 AM   #109
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,995
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I am a little bit surprised by your post, you said:

Did you mean:
?

Also, why this "-5" in your:
?
The Crackpot Index starts with a five-point credit.

And yes, it's ten points for Einstein, forty for Galileo:

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 08:37 AM   #110
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26,359
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I am a little bit surprised by your post, you said:

Did you mean:
Yes, the second point should have been Einstein, another favourite of crackpots to compare themselves to.
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Also, why this "-5" in your:
If you'd clicked on the Crackpot Index link you'd see that everyone starts with -5 points
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 09:17 AM   #111
Armitage72
Philosopher
 
Armitage72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,571
Originally Posted by paiute View Post
This guy's postings remind me of this:

(Snip)

Don't forget that we're living in a world where an old damaged sparkplug embedded in a lump of hardened mud can be passed of as mysterious prehuman technology encased inside an ancient geode.
Armitage72 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 10:04 AM   #112
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,995
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Cold fusion was just a scam to make money on speculating on the prices of certain rare elements.
I read this as you saying that Pons and Fleischman were scam artists who faked up a claim of cold fusion while quietly making a profit trading rare elements or rare element futures.

Is that what you meant?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.