Re: Real or another dream

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:10:47 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:15:18 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:52:24 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Cliff:

It was just a simple illustration that refuted the claim that "H2
forever is H2".

It is. A=A.

Cliff:

"H2 forever remains H2"? That's a pretty silly claim to try and
seriously support.

What a relief !!!
As that's not what I stated.

Cliff:

Who said YOU stated it?

Your implication. Did you forget?

Cliff:

I implied no such thing.

You objected to it just as you objected to "Only the oversized dowels
are oversized" and so many other statements.


Leo is the one who stated it, you just agreed
with it.

Did I?

Are you now saying you disagree with it?

Do you? Why?

Fusion reactions can take many forms.

Deuterium-Deuterium,
Tritium-Deuterium, Tritium-Tritium, Deuterium-3Helium, 3Helium-3Helium,
Tritium-3Helium, Deuterium-Lithium, Proton-Lithium, etc. etc.

You seem to be off track.

Those are all fusion reactions, mostly involving different isotopes of
hydrogen (with the exception of 3Helium-3Helium).

How odd.
I thought they were mostly isotopes.

They are mostly hydrogen isotopes. And those isotopes are involved in
fusion reactions.

So you are going on about cold fusion after all?



How odd. Deuterium only had one proton I thought.
Do we learn something new each day?

Let's step through the proton-proton reaction that runs most lower
temperature stars them. First, TWO protons combine to form deuterium
(one of the protons changes to a neutron with the release of a positron
and a neutrino).
Then the deuterium can fuse with another proton to form 3 helium (an
isotope of helium).
Then helium 4 can come from fusing two helium 3 nuclei, plus
byproducts.

The net result being, that 4 protons can end up being fused into a
helium 4 nucleus with some of the protons changing to neutrons and some
particles being ejected.

It's not a nice little quick chain reaction.
Events are very rare. And you need multiple events to get from H to He.

I didn't realize there was a Cliff imposed time limit to the fusion
reactions that occur within the core of stars.

It's not a simple 4H ==> He a few femtoseconds later as you implied.

A little photon *time* curiosity; It supposedly takes up to a million
years for a photon created in the core of a star to reach the surface.

Any clues what they are talking about there?
A very slow speed of light in Lintland?


Is this akin to your prior claims that nuclear reactions produced
energy only in the form of EM radiation?
Per BottleBob & the mighty Lint (http://i4.tinypic.com/166ki7m.jpg):
"The release of energy in nuclear reactions starts out as "radient energy"
from the nucleus."

Ejected fission products are propelled by a force. Just what do you
think that force IS, if not energy?

Force is NOT energy !!!

I wouldn't get too excited about a little shorthand comment.

You'd not want to be misinforming everyone, now would you?

Whenever
a force acts upon an object, work is being done.

Is it?

For work to be done,
energy is transferred to do that work.

Force is not energy nor is energy force.


Well, you don't believe the conservation laws or in vectors &
suchlike. Not much mentioned by Aristotle & the nuns I expcet.

Hmmm, yet ANOTHER Cliffabrication. I've never said the conservation
laws are not valid. I just tried to correct your conceptual boo-boo in
thinking the conservation laws are always valid, even in OPEN systems.

More of your nun-based 8th grade "science" stuff?

Yeah, "The conservation laws are valid in closed systems and NOT open
systems" is pretty much 8th grade science stuff. Didn't I try to help
you out on this already?

You just got yourself confused I fear.

Well it seems you STILL don't understand the difference between
a
"closed" and an "open" system as it relates to the conservation of
linear momentum. Here, let me try to help you out once again.
Closed systems are systems with arbitrary boundaries that are
isolated
and don't interact with the environment outside the boundaries. Open
systems may be influenced by forces, objects, and energy beyond the
arbitrary boundaries.
Momentum is conserved in a CLOSED system, NOT in an open system
that may have outside forces influencing it.

<Sheesh>

Momentum IS conserved. None of it just "vanishes" into Lintland.

=================================================================
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

The momentum of a system is the vector sum of the momenta of the objects
which make up the system. If the system is an isolated system, then the
momentum of the system is a constant of the motion and subject to the
principle of conservation of momentum.
=================================================================

Please note where it says: "If the system is an ISOLATED system"
i.e. a
closed system.

You don't even know what vectors are.
This is an ACCOUNTING problem, not a flaw or loophole in the
conservation laws.

=================================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

Conservation law

In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable
property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system
evolves.
=================================================================

Please note where it says: "...an ISOLATED physical system" i.e.
a closed system.

Skip the lint.

=================================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation_of_momentum

Conservation of momentum

In an isolated system (one where external forces are absent) the total
momentum will be constant: this is implied by Newton's first law of
motion.

DANG !!
And here you kept claiming it was about your beloved little green
pecks of "inertia" !!

No magical lint, sorry, BB.

=================================================================

Please note where it says: "In an isolated system (one where
external
forces are absent)" i.e. a closed system.

=================================================================
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9053290/conservation-of-momentum

Conservation of momentum

General law of physics according to which the quantity called momentum
that characterizes motion never changes in an isolated collection of
objects; that is, the total momentum of a system remains constant.

Proper accounting. So what?

=================================================================

Please note where it says: "...in an isolated collection of
objects"
i.e. a closed system.

Do they teach accounting in Lintland?


As far as vectors go, they are spatial entities.

BS. You don't know what vectors are.

Then you'll have no problem providing a credible science source clearly
stating that they are NOT spatial entities.

I don't need to.

I await your references
with baited breath. LOL

You missed reading some of your own posted links?

Try a few new ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_algebra
http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node50.html

Time is not a vector
since it has NO spatial component. You obviously haven't found a
credible physics site or source that says otherwise, or you would have
posted it long ago.

I've posted links to many examples (probably over nun-based 8th grade
"science") <G>.

You've posted irrelevant information showing you've *conflated*
coordinate space-time with time.

Unless you know what vectors are. And clearly you don't as you kept
trying to do things that implied adding scalars to vectors while
ignoring clear pictures of vector quantities.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/6/68/Feynman_EP_Annihilation.png

Up/down is a vector direction.

Nothing I've ever seen you post on
this subject supports, or supported, your claim that time was a vector
quantity. I've posted numerous physics sites that clearly state that
time is a scalar NOT a vector.

You need to pass on that 6th grade stuff.


A dimensionless point with no length, width, or height.

Such as (2,2,2)?

That's a location.

It's a mathematical point, BB.
Or a vector ....

Locations are mathematical points? The location of 5th street and
Main is a mathematical point?

With zero width streets, yes.

And a vector to boot?

From where you are to there? Yes.
Just choose the proper coordinate system.

LMAO!

Well, if you knew what vectors OR mathematical points are ....

More Cliffasion? Please post where I stated that there was more than
ONE integer between 1 & 3, like you've been implying I said.

When you claimed that there could be about any number of mathematical
points at any location.
Pretty simple, really.

You still haven't posted an instance where I stated that there was more
than ONE integer between 1 & 3 like you've been implying I said. Why is
that?

Because you are confused?

Yet you claim that there can be many mathematical points there ... each
of the form (a,b,c) where a, b & c are members of the set of integers
between 1 & 3 exclusive.
If N1(a) is the number of such numbers for a, N2(b) the number of such
numbers for b and N3(c) the number of such numbers for c then the number
of such mathematical points (your claim) can be, at most, N1*N2*N3.
As you claim that this number can be greater than 1 it follows
that *at least* one of the set [N1(a),N2(b),N3(c)] is greater than 1.

Which one or ones is it?
What are the integers between 1 & 3 exclusive that you counted?

Post some evidence that "1" has any other value than it's normally
accepted value.

You were just arguing against yourself in another post to this very thread.

Nope. Post it, and I'll try to correct your misconception.

See above.

Still can't support your claim that integers don't have set values, eh?

Look at your counting problems <G>.

Still can't support your claim that integers don't have set values, eh?

Did I ever claim that?
When & where?

BTW, Can you prove that they do?
--
Cliff (STILL WAY behind !!)
.

Relevant Pages