Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Merged: Theory links Newtonian/Quantum the amazing Frank Znidarsic

 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 Bose-Einstein condensates , cold fusion , Coulomb barrier , Eugene Podkletnov , Frank Znidarsic , planck's constant , quantum mechanics , quantum theory , Quantum Transition

 5th February 2011, 08:15 PM #321 Chronopolitan Student   Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 48 Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Wrong, this is a common misconception. You neglect to take into account the expansion of spacetime since the big bang, so the distance this light has traveled is actually closer to 46 billion LY That's why I said "minus the horizon"... anyway, this applies to every POV in the universe, and there is no "center", I think? Beyond spacetime (where no universe has gone before )) there is ....nothing? The future? We can think about it, but it doesn't exist. Anyway, if we argue from a "conciousness of now" POV, there is no space as it is already in the past, even when you watch your hand you are experiencing the past because the signals have to travel to your brain first. The future also does not exist (yet). The moment you are experiencing as NOW is already gone. So there is no past (it's in its nature... it's already gone), no future (not yet) and no NOW. But conciousness is not a physics realm. (Although people like Brian Josephson and Roger Penrose seem to work on it ;-)) As for FZ: it seems there's a lot to do for him... Still, I think I know what he wants. It's like stimulating a glass with the right frequency to make it break. My question: do you need more or less energy to break a glass using sound than using your hand? Or maybe let's switch to a bridge collapsing due to unfortunate stimulation. If we could do that to an atom, it might help fusion to occur...
 5th February 2011, 11:54 PM #322 khan2012 New Blood   Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 21 Chronopolitan, phonons do not appear to be required for the phenomena of high-temp superconductivity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-te...y_and_progress Quote: In a conventional superconductor, Cooper pairs are created as follows. When an electron moves through the system, it creates a depression in the atomic lattice through lattice vibrations known as phonons. If the depression of the lattice is strong enough, another electron can fall into the depression created by the first electron—the so-called water-bed effect—and a Cooper pair is formed. When this effect becomes strong enough, Cooper pairs win over the creation of holes behind the electrons, and the normal conductor turns into a superconductor through an unlimited supply of electrons by the creation of Cooper pairs. In a high-Tc superconductor, the mechanism is extremely similar to a conventional superconductor.Except, in this case, phonons virtually play no role and their role is replaced by spin-density waves. As all conventional superconductors are strong phonon systems, all high-Tc superconductors are strong spin-density wave systems, within close vicinity of a magnetic transition to, for example, an antiferromagnet. When an electron moves in a high-Tc superconductor, its spin creates a spin-density wave around it. This spin-density wave in turn causes a nearby electron to fall into the spin depression created by the first electron (water-bed effect again). Hence, again, a Cooper pair is formed. Eventually, when the system temperature is lowered, more spin density waves and Cooper pairs are created and superconductivity begins when an unlimited supply of Cooper pairs, denoted as a phase transition, happens. Note that in high-Tc systems, as these systems are magnetic systems due to the Coulomb interaction, there is a strong Coulomb repulsion between electrons. This Coulomb repulsion prevents pairing of the Cooper pairs on the same lattice site. The pairing of the electrons occur at near-neighbor lattice sites as a result. This is the so-called d-wave pairing, where the pairing state has a node (zero) at the origin.
 6th February 2011, 06:24 PM #324 MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator     Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 15,948 Originally Posted by Chronopolitan That's why I said "minus the horizon"... anyway, this applies to every POV in the universe, and there is no "center", I think? Beyond spacetime (where no universe has gone before )) there is ....nothing? The future? We can think about it, but it doesn't exist. Anyway, if we argue from a "conciousness of now" POV, there is no space as it is already in the past, even when you watch your hand you are experiencing the past because the signals have to travel to your brain first. The future also does not exist (yet). The moment you are experiencing as NOW is already gone. So there is no past (it's in its nature... it's already gone), no future (not yet) and no NOW. But conciousness is not a physics realm. (Although people like Brian Josephson and Roger Penrose seem to work on it ;-)) As for FZ: it seems there's a lot to do for him... Still, I think I know what he wants. It's like stimulating a glass with the right frequency to make it break. My question: do you need more or less energy to break a glass using sound than using your hand? Or maybe let's switch to a bridge collapsing due to unfortunate stimulation. If we could do that to an atom, it might help fusion to occur... *Sigh* What Dancing David said. __________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
 23rd February 2011, 02:51 PM #325 JCM Muse   Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 651 Quote: The variable 1/r remains the same. The strength of the electric field varies with distance r away from the electron Wrong, the electric field varies as 1/r2 around an electron (or any other point-like source charge). I thought Lane's youtube video explained why 1/r2 was instead 1/r but I am not sure maybe it is a mistake __________________ " You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson Last edited by JCM; 23rd February 2011 at 02:52 PM.
 23rd February 2011, 06:35 PM #326 Simon Bridge Critical Thinker     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 331 Puzzled: I cannot be the first to spot this... $h=\dfrac {Q^{2}} {4e_{0}v_{t}}$ [edit - OK: how do I get fractions to come out?! - hah: needed \dfrac] Surely everything in this relation is a constant except Q ... doesn't that show right away that the relation is junk? The only way this can be made to work is if the transmission speed is a function of the accumulated charge ... But even before that point, the equation for the "transmission speed" $v_{t}=f\lambda$ ... while it is, indeed an equation for a speed (the propagation speed for wave motion), the dimensions for the transmission speed turn out to be frequency-length ... which does not match the RHS which is length-over-time as befits a physical speed. This error junks every equation that follows. Demand the author balances his equations and sit back - what further discussion is there to be had? Last edited by Simon Bridge; 23rd February 2011 at 06:46 PM.
 24th February 2011, 08:53 AM #327 Cuddles Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 18,560 Originally Posted by Simon Bridge But even before that point, the equation for the "transmission speed" $v_{t}=f\lambda$ ... while it is, indeed an equation for a speed (the propagation speed for wave motion), the dimensions for the transmission speed turn out to be frequency-length ... which does not match the RHS which is length-over-time as befits a physical speed. This error junks every equation that follows. I don't get it. The units of frequency are 1/time, so frequency*length is length/time.
 28th February 2011, 08:38 AM #328 fznidarsic New Blood   Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 6 its 1/rr fpr force its 1/r for energy Frank Z
 28th February 2011, 09:13 AM #329 Dancing David Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: central Illinois Posts: 39,699 Frank, that is cryptic, how about expanding? __________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
 28th February 2011, 09:57 AM #330 edd Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,120 I think Frank is just saying that forces drop off from a point source as 1/r^2, and potentials drop off as 1/r. That said, if someone said "strength of the electric field" I would assume they meant the magnitude of the force per unit charge. I'd consider it wrong to talk of the potential as the strength. __________________ When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
 9th March 2011, 03:11 AM #331 eh? Student   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 37 i tried....I really did, but so many repeated questions, so much 'word salad'. What about that sound wave inside the nucleus? was that ever pointed out? if sound is a kinetic vibration of gas molecules, how could any sound exist within the nucleus of an atom? There's nothing small enough to vibrate within it. Unless there's some kind of quantum sound I've never heard of. I'm probably out of my depth.
 10th March 2011, 07:00 PM #332 Simon Bridge Critical Thinker     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 331 Originally Posted by Cuddles I don't get it. The units of frequency are 1/time, so frequency*length is length/time. Which is a speed so ... Ah amnday! You are right ... I added that last bit in a bit of a hurry. And this, kind folks, demonstrates the importance of peer review . Anybody check the first one?
 10th March 2011, 07:11 PM #333 Simon Bridge Critical Thinker     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 331 Originally Posted by edd I think Frank is just saying that forces drop off from a point source as 1/r^2, and potentials drop off as 1/r. That said, if someone said "strength of the electric field" I would assume they meant the magnitude of the force per unit charge. I'd consider it wrong to talk of the potential as the strength. The "electric field" would be the energy field so that F=qE It is not unusual to work with the "electric potential" instead, and refer to it, sloppily, as an electric field. Note that the "strength of the electric field" is often used imprecisely and may refer to the potential (the speaker may give field strength in volts) or the intensity (the square of the field strength.) In these forums (fora?) we should be aiming for more precision. Deliberate and constant use of ambiguous terms is a good sign of trolls.
 10th March 2011, 07:42 PM #334 Simon Bridge Critical Thinker     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 331 Originally Posted by eh? i tried....I really did, but so many repeated questions, so much 'word salad'. What about that sound wave inside the nucleus? was that ever pointed out? if sound is a kinetic vibration of gas molecules, how could any sound exist within the nucleus of an atom? There's nothing small enough to vibrate within it. Unless there's some kind of quantum sound I've never heard of. I'm probably out of my depth. Well, you also get sound in liquids and solids too - no gas involved there. So your idea of what sound is, is not quite complete enough. Also, protons and neutrons are small enough to vibrate inside a nucleus. There is a liquid-drop model for the nucleus which works quite well. We would not normally think of these as sound like you can get from sterio speakers ... more as vibrational modes in the LDM. I'd look sideways at suggestions of playing sounds at a bunch of atoms to induce a nuclear reaction through some sort of resonance.
 24th March 2011, 02:14 AM #335 JCM Muse   Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 651 Frank how did your presentation go? Quote: 3:30 – 5:30PM OTHER FUTURE ENERGY SOURCES Chair: Thomas Valone Integrity Research Institute, Beltsville MD 20705, 301-220-0440; IRI@starpower.net Co-Chair: Len Danczyk, Energetics Technology, LLC, Santa Barbara, CA 93109-1506, 805- 966-1234; Len@energeticstech.com 4:00-The Flow of Energy (Abstract) Frank Znidarsic and Glen A Robertson 4:30-Department of Energy (DOE) R&D Programs Dave Goodwin Was anyone able to record it or the one after? What did the person speaking after you have to say about your ideas/theory/presentation? Did anyone from JREF view the talk? __________________ " You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson Last edited by JCM; 24th March 2011 at 02:20 AM.
 28th March 2011, 07:19 AM #336 fznidarsic New Blood   Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 6 The conference went very well a friend made a home quality video of my lecture. Chief Scientists for NASA and the DOE were there. .angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/movies/cofe_3_2011.wmv add www to the beginning of the link as this site will not allow me to post URL's. I would like to appear on SCI-FI, however, this is not going to happen. I invite questions and comments. Frank Znidarsic
 28th March 2011, 09:18 AM #337 Dancing David Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: central Illinois Posts: 39,699 __________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
 28th March 2011, 06:33 PM #338 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,453 Originally Posted by fznidarsic The conference went very well a friend made a home quality video of my lecture. Chief Scientists for NASA and the DOE were there. .angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/movies/cofe_3_2011.wmv add www to the beginning of the link as this site will not allow me to post URL's. I would like to appear on SCI-FI, however, this is not going to happen. I invite questions and comments. Frank Znidarsic The quality of that video is rather low. I assume you had an assistant with a small camcorder shooting it for you. Could you not get a copy of what UMD was recording with its equipment in the back of the room? I got to believe it would be easier to hear whats been said and see the slides. __________________ 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
 28th March 2011, 07:12 PM #339 dafydd Banned   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398 Originally Posted by JCM what I meant was and that to get the equating to the Equating to gibberish.
 28th March 2011, 07:15 PM #340 dafydd Banned   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398 Originally Posted by Mister Earl Can you answer my questions without resorting to childish tantrums and personal attacks? Always the mark of the crank.
 28th March 2011, 07:19 PM #341 dafydd Banned   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398 Originally Posted by Chronopolitan I knew it. Should have placed a bet on that one... Every truther argument has been totally debunked here.It gets boring. Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
 28th March 2011, 07:21 PM #342 dafydd Banned   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398 Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Take it to the 9/11 sub-forum, where a whole bunch of us will be more than happy to explain to you how idiotic the above rant is. Dave Again.
 28th March 2011, 07:22 PM #343 dafydd Banned   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398 Originally Posted by Chronopolitan Please explain why there can be gravity from neutrinos. Lol,you come here pontificating about science and you know nothing about neutrinos.
 29th March 2011, 12:49 PM #344 Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 21,611 Who were the 'Chief Scientists for NASA and the DOE'?
 29th March 2011, 03:51 PM #345 ben m Guest   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,387 Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Who were the 'Chief Scientists for NASA and the DOE'? I would make a comment. This "conference" is organized by Glen Robertson, who also coauthored FAZ's talk and two other talks. So this isn't "acceptance into a conference shows that this isn't a crackpot", nor is it even "a crackpot snuck past the conference committee". It's "the conference organizer is a crackpot and invites whoever he wants." Robertson's fancy-sounding organization, IAS-SPES, appears to be run out of a suburban Alabama home---which, not surprisingly, is also the headquarters of "Gravi Atomic Research". Imagine that! Two independent physics research centers in the same house! IAS-SPES publishes its finances, which consist of nothing but the $44K income from running this conference, minus the$20K expense of running ... this conference. Geez, I wonder what the registration fee was? It's funny, too, that FAZ's session is chaired by another person affiliated only with an obscure foundation---Valone's "Integrity Research Institute" is, like IAS-SPES, basically a web page's worth of crackpottery ranging from cold-fusion to Tesla to "electrogravitics" (which is what they seem to be calling "lifters".) And the cochair is, amazingly, ANOTHER obscure-foundation affiliate, this time with "Energetics Technology, LLC" whose mission is to apply for grants to study Podkletnov's gravity-shielding.
 4th April 2011, 08:09 AM #346 fznidarsic New Blood   Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 6 Yes the conference had faults The proceedings of the conference were rejected by the AIP. The conference lost many speakers due to this. Notably Martin Tjimar of the ESU was not there this year. I enjoyed meeting him last year. The natural healing group was invited to make up for the lost presenters. It detracted from the conference. Never the less it was a place to start looking at ways forward in addressing some of the most difficult problems the confront our society and the planet. Dave Goodwin Chief Scientist from the DOE was at my lecture. I believe that Chief Scientst Langley of NASA was also there. Dr. George Miley and I met for supper. They all have my papers. Obama wants answers. I gave them one. I hope things start to progress more rapidly. Tune into my radio show on April 12 for a review of what is going on. .angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html as before add the www I am trying to make a difference. For those of you who stomp me, Do you have any better ideas? Frank Znidarsic
 7th April 2011, 11:51 AM #347 Chronopolitan Student   Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 48 New look at THIS!!! http://www.newscientist.com/article/...our-force.html "The physics world is buzzing with news of an unexpected sighting at Fermilab's Tevatron collider in Illinois – a glimpse of an unidentified particle that, should it prove to be real, will radically alter physicists' prevailing ideas about how nature works and how particles get their mass." Maybe we already used this force in "Cold Fusion" or "Anti Gravity"! Let's hope there's some new inspiration for real physics.
 7th April 2011, 12:01 PM #348 Dancing David Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: central Illinois Posts: 39,699 And maybe it will fall out as a new type of a known force, or it won't be replicated. Have you read : Strange Beauty: Murray Gell-Mann and the Revolution in Twentieth-Century Physics ? It is somewhat sensationalized but it discusses how the process could just involve a new layer to particles. ETA: the collsion energies at Fermilab are way beyond the energy of possible cold fusion claims. __________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar Last edited by Dancing David; 7th April 2011 at 12:03 PM.
 18th April 2011, 01:29 AM #349 JCM Muse   Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 651 Originally Posted by fznidarsic The proceedings of the conference were rejected by the AIP. The conference lost many speakers due to this. Notably Martin Tjimar of the ESU was not there this year. I enjoyed meeting him last year. The natural healing group was invited to make up for the lost presenters. It detracted from the conference. Never the less it was a place to start looking at ways forward in addressing some of the most difficult problems the confront our society and the planet. Dave Goodwin Chief Scientist from the DOE was at my lecture. I believe that Chief Scientst Langley of NASA was also there. Dr. George Miley and I met for supper. They all have my papers. Obama wants answers. I gave them one. I hope things start to progress more rapidly. Tune into my radio show on April 12 for a review of what is going on. .angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html as before add the www I am trying to make a difference. For those of you who stomp me, Do you have any better ideas? Frank Znidarsic Thanks for the show link and the video Frank. I hope the skeptics here can be a resource to refine your theories. They are intriguing and I am sorry for having butchered them here. Like someone said earlier with friends like these.... Quote: I would make a comment. This "conference" is organized by Glen Robertson, who also coauthored FAZ's talk and two other talks. So this isn't "acceptance into a conference shows that this isn't a crackpot", nor is it even "a crackpot snuck past the conference committee". It's "the conference organizer is a crackpot and invites whoever he wants." Robertson's fancy-sounding organization, IAS-SPES, appears to be run out of a suburban Alabama home---which, not surprisingly, is also the headquarters of "Gravi Atomic Research". Imagine that! Two independent physics research centers in the same house! IAS-SPES publishes its finances, which consist of nothing but the $44K income from running this conference, minus the$20K expense of running ... this conference. Geez, I wonder what the registration fee was? It's funny, too, that FAZ's session is chaired by another person affiliated only with an obscure foundation---Valone's "Integrity Research Institute" is, like IAS-SPES, basically a web page's worth of crackpottery ranging from cold-fusion to Tesla to "electrogravitics" (which is what they seem to be calling "lifters".) And the cochair is, amazingly, ANOTHER obscure-foundation affiliate, this time with "Energetics Technology, LLC" whose mission is to apply for grants to study Podkletnov's gravity-shielding. Being serious scientists, I doubt Dave Goodwin and Dr. George Miley would involve themselves with nonsense at least not in their own fields. I don't known about his acquaintances, but I don't see Frank as doing this for money __________________ " You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson Last edited by JCM; 18th April 2011 at 01:31 AM.
 18th April 2011, 04:06 AM #350 dafydd Banned   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398 Originally Posted by Chronopolitan http://www.newscientist.com/article/...our-force.html "The physics world is buzzing with news of an unexpected sighting at Fermilab's Tevatron collider in Illinois – a glimpse of an unidentified particle that, should it prove to be real, will radically alter physicists' prevailing ideas about how nature works and how particles get their mass." Maybe we already used this force in "Cold Fusion" or "Anti Gravity"! Let's hope there's some new inspiration for real physics. What would you know about real physics?
 25th April 2011, 05:49 AM #351 fznidarsic New Blood   Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 6 I thought my radio show went well. add the www angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html A caller from Buffalo mentioned my work on Coast to Coast. I thank him. groups.yahoo.com/group/NewWorldOrderWhistleBlowers2/message/48636 I make no money on any of this stuff. Glen Robertson just broke even on this years conference. Frank Z
 25th April 2011, 08:42 PM #352 MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator     Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 15,948 Originally Posted by JCM I thought Lane's youtube video explained why 1/r2 was instead 1/r but I am not sure maybe it is a mistake Around a point charge, the electric field strength varies as 1/r2 and the electrical potential & electrical potential energy vary as 1/r. Not only is the mathematics different, one is a vector quantity while the other two are scalars - that is a fundamental & important difference. Any competent physicist worth their salt will not mix these things up __________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
 26th April 2011, 05:02 PM #353 JCM Muse   Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 651 Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Who were the 'Chief Scientists for NASA and the DOE'? Mr. Robertson and Mr. Goodwin. Originally Posted by ben m I would make a comment. This "conference" is organized by Glen Robertson, Here is his bio listing credentials. Quote: NASA - Aerospace Engineer: From Jan 1987 - Present, Mr. Robertson has been performing research and development tasks for NASA - Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama as an Aerospace engineer, Inventions: Piezoelectrostatic Generator, US Patent # 4,952,836 Electromagnetic Meissner Effect Launcher, US Patent # 5,017,549 Bladder Operated Robotic Joint, US Patent # 5,245,885 Spiral Fluid Separator, US Patent # 5,248,421 Pressure-Driven Magnetically Coupled Conveyance, US Patent # 6,170,404 B1 (Magnetic Launcher Concept) NASA Tech Brief Articles: Piezoelectric Power Generator - March 1989 Electromagnetic Meissner Effect Launcher - March 1989 Meissner Stepping Motor - February 1990 Meissner Bearing - October 1992 Spiral Fluid Separator - November 1992 Robotic Bladder Joint - Apr 1993 Permanent Magnet Launcher - Apr 1994 Five Channel Polychromator Head - Apr 1994 Collapsible Geostrut Structure - November 1994 Fabrication of Bulk High Temperature Superconductors using Ba(NO3)2 in the Precursor Mixture - May 2000 Pressure-Driven Magnetically-Coupled Conveyance - September 2000 __________________ " You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson Last edited by JCM; 26th April 2011 at 05:06 PM.
 26th April 2011, 05:09 PM #354 ben m Guest   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,387 Originally Posted by JCM Mr. Robertson and Mr. Goodwin. Here is his bio listing credentials. Those are engineering credentials. There is nothing whatsoever surprising about someone being a physics crackpot *and* a qualified engineer. Actually, I dare say MOST physics crackpots I've come across have some sort of engineering background. Similarly, there are plenty of medical doctors who are also creationists.
 26th April 2011, 07:15 PM #355 TubbaBlubba Knave of the DudesModerator   Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 12,888 Originally Posted by ben m Those are engineering credentials. There is nothing whatsoever surprising about someone being a physics crackpot *and* a qualified engineer. Actually, I dare say MOST physics crackpots I've come across have some sort of engineering background. Similarly, there are plenty of medical doctors who are also creationists. Salem hypothesis, as it would happen. __________________ "The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
 27th April 2011, 02:28 AM #356 Mojo Mostly harmless     Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 31,215 Originally Posted by Chronopolitan Ok, so QM describes the world as we can see it, and predict probabilities. But it doesn't explain why. That is the criticism. 10 points. __________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
 10th August 2019, 10:25 PM #357 trevorjjj New Blood   Join Date: Aug 2019 Posts: 11 Originally Posted by Dancing David Considering that none of the cold fusion claims have been well replicated this is a bad place to start. Wrong - at one point NASA issued/leaked its' response to these claims, the impression I got was that they ACCEPTED the reality - if not the processes involved. They were EXCITED! NASA needs to know everything about the physical mechanisms as a FIRST STEP. Last edited by trevorjjj; 10th August 2019 at 10:27 PM.
 11th August 2019, 03:35 AM #358 Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 24,925 Well, that's a hell of a bit of thread necromancy. I'd love to see a NASA statement that they accept the reality of cold fusion. __________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
 11th August 2019, 04:49 AM #359 catsmate No longer the 1     Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 20,688 Originally Posted by trevorjjj Wrong - at one point NASA issued/leaked its' response to these claims, the impression I got was that they ACCEPTED the reality - if not the processes involved. They were EXCITED! NASA needs to know everything about the physical mechanisms as a FIRST STEP. Citations Required __________________ 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.
 11th August 2019, 05:49 PM #360 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 24,880 Originally Posted by trevorjjj Wrong - at one point NASA... We can almost stop this thread necromancy there because this is NASA and NASA itself really only does space-related research. Some NASA scientists did test Fleischmann & Pons cold fusion experiment and produced a NASA technical memo in December 1989 (PDF). The result was no neutrons over the background count = no fusion. As the memo says, the scientists were excited at the prospect of cold fusion if it existed so they looked to see if it existed and found no sign of fusion. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 11th August 2019 at 05:55 PM.

International Skeptics Forum