Re: REAL FUSION...Caradache ---NOT!

Sorry I spoke. I did read you web page. I must have failed to understand
it. Have you generated any power yet?

Chris.

"Charles Cagle" <skybolt99@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BF54BA6D.92B0%skybolt99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On 9/19/05 17:06, in article YnIXe.1198$MD4.619@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> "Chris" <nimbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hello Charles,
>>
>> I read your web pages about the skybolt project. You seem to have ideas
>> similar to mine as regard to elementary particle structure. This led to
>> the
>> incorrect interpretation of my work in string theory.
>
> Wrong. Our ideas are not similar.
>
>
>>
>> It has experimentally been demonstrated that magnetic monoples cannot be
>> found and do not appear in bubble chamber experiments (I have looked for
>> them).
>
> Fallacious argument. Even though your conclusion may be correct it isn't
> determined to be correct by any argument or experiment that you've
> conducted. The failure to find evidence is not equivalent to the
> non-existence of that evidence. For you to suggest that they do not
> appear
> in experiments conducted by you isn't related to their existence or
> non-existence.
>
>
>>
>> In the attraction of like currents and the repulsion of unlike currents
>> the
>> important thing is that there is relative motion between the fixed
>> charges
>> and the moving charges.
>
> You're simply irrational here. Fixed charges...? Pray tell how one might
> 'fix' a charged particle.
>
>
> When the moving charges are in the same direction
>> the electrons repel each other, the fixed charges repel each other, the
>> moving charges see the fixed charges in the distant conductor as
>> shortened
>> by length contraction (special relativity) and thus are attracted more
>> than
>> the total forces of repulsion. Similarly with unlike currents.
>
> This is just so much nonsense and so ill thought out. Beams of electrons
> diverge but this is only because the very best such beams are not
> monoenergetic in nature.
>
>
>>
>> There is no need of magnetism. Cut it out by occums razor, it is
>> unecessary.
>> Magnetic fields do not exist.
>
> Would that be Occam's Razor... Please cut your self out as an obfuscating
> irrationality.
>
>
>>
>> Like you, I believe that elementary particles are in reality an electric
>> wave
>
> Don't compare anything you say to what you may think I believe because if
> you had gotten anything right...you'd see the light. Belief is not part
> of physics. Data, logic, and rational thought...that begins to approach
> physics.
>
>
> (remember to magnetic field) that does not propagate because the energy
>> given by hf (plancks law) makes a gravitational field so high that the
>> space
>> is bent and the electric wave (a photon) travels in a circle with the
>> frozen
>> electric vector pointing outwards (e+) or inwards (e-). The integral
>> number
>> of waves (at higher frequencies) gives higher mass particles. Neutrons
>> are
>> waves with a node so one end is positive the other negative. The spin is
>> related to the so called magnetic dipole. This is related to the
>> integral
>> winding up of the wave.
>
> You're just so damn looney... 'space is bent'? Please... Go take a course
> in logic...learn the meanings of epistemology... Get some training
> critical
> analysis.
>
>
>>
>> If two protons approach closely they become polarised forming a polaron
>> this
>> glues them together by simple dipole attraction to another dipole. After
>> a
>> short time the stablity is increased by the emission of a positron which
>> is
>> the polaron with enough energy to be real. A positive polaron is a
>> "virtual" positron. It entirly a wave effect. Just an electric wave.
>
> More nonsense. Please... Don't ever respond to another of my posts. I'd
> like to be nice to you but we're supposed to be discussing physics
> here...not simply woolgathering or being in an intellectual circle jerk.
> Please... Be rational and consider what you're saying.
>
>
> If no one can do any better than that... Please don't try and respond to
> my
> posts.
>
> Damn it you people... Truth has survival value and falsehood does not and
> as
> long as you are involved in ego driven make it up on the fly ad hoc
> explanatory physics then you simply don't have what it is going to take to
> survive as an intellectual being. And what is more if you can't find a
> love
> of the Truth in your heart then you don't deserve to survive.
>
>
> Sincerely, Charles Cagle
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: REAL FUSION...Caradache ---NOT!
    ... > and the moving charges. ... > the electrons repel each other, the fixed charges repel each other, the ... > There is no need of magnetism. ... > is bent and the electric wave travels in a circle with the frozen ...
    (sci.physics.fusion)
  • Re: photons
    ... > The charges in a candle flame, have a Coulomb coupling to the charges ... A transformer with a Faraday shield, ... > If magnetism is a perturbation of electric fields then clearly it isn't ... Electric fields to point out that you had not explained what electric fields ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physics Lessons for Seto, Retic, Sefton, Thomson, etc.
    ... How come they still can't learn physics? ... Obviously a conversion factor with proper dimensional attributes is ... permittivity and permeability, ... electrostatic and magnetic forces between charges, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Wheres that champagne?
    ... The Ukrainian beef against him stems from him ... the UK that made the charges. ... Bible verses like alextangent was suggesting? ... Actually he's got tons of discussions of scientific matters, look at the threads "Time" (all of physics is wrong because we can't define "time"), "Mass and the Universe", "Scientist", maybe a few others. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OBarr>Reality!
    ... explanations, and reject a theory that is completely ... >> the weak interactions are the way they are. ... Are charges associated with leptons? ... >> known and observable physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)