Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

The point is, I'm not having a philosophical argument but a
scientific one.
The point is, you don't understand either, nor their inextricable
connection.

You are stuck in a limited 17th century worldview, that has proved
to be inadequate.

So really there is no help for you, since your arrogance precludes a
rational converation.

You just can't accept I'm right, can you?

ROFLMAO.

I am sure a 16th century person would agree that you were. This is the
21st century.

If you are going to quote science, get it right. Its not me you are up
against: Its the whole body of modern physics. I cant fix your problem
mate. You want to be right about matters scientific, but you are not.
Philosophically you are in a hole of your won making. I didn't put you
there, and you have bitten my helping hands.

Boy, you sure are a sore loser!

I am not the one who has lost

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:03:50 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Well, Alexander, that turned out to be a brilliant thread!

SteveT

Most of it was like watching chimpanzees arguing over the contents of an
electricians toolbox.

I have read all the messages in this thread.

Was insurance coverage ever mentioned by the audience (that you
deliberately leaving electrical appliances in standby mode, increasing
the fire risk)?

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 9.04) Linux 2.6.30.7
^ ^ 20:23:01 up 1 day 8:38 1 user load average: 1.31 1.34 1.34
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

every reactor problem has actually resulted in a serious FIRE as
well with the graphite moderators catching alight, and the general
mess that results more or less stops fissioning as well. Its nasty,
its dirty, but it wont melt its way to the center of the earth,
although if it did, it would be pretty safe, cos the evidence is
that that is where all the fissile uranium sits, helping keep your
world warm, anyway.

Are you saying now that the earth has a nuclear reaction going on at
its centre, and that's the reason it's pretty warm down there?

Yes, and no, that's not the only reason. Not even the biggest reason.
Of course it has nuclear reactions going on down there..where else
would all the radon come from? and all the uranium is still decaying
whether we use it in reactors or not.

How concentrated the reactions are, where they are, and how ,much they
contribute to global warming, is a highly debatable subject. Possibly
the best evidence is taht most models of the earth show it OUGHT to be
cooler than it is, unless some slight nuclear warming is posited.


There is evidence that what amounts to 'open hearth' fission reactors
have existed naturally (without actually making china) in the past.

http://knol.google.com/k/j-marvin-he...8elf7fue7ro/4#

for an interesting read.

But as Wikipedia says in its article on 'georeactor':

"Herndon's concepts are not accepted by the scientific community".

So, another myth then that you choose to believe, contrary to all the
evidence.

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
: Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:
:
snip
:
: You just can't accept I'm right, can you?
:
: No, because you just sit there making assertions repeatedly
without
: attempting to back them up or producing credible refutations of
citations
: that other people use to back up their claims.
:

....and quoting from a Wikipedia page, that 'you' wrote, is citing
credible (independent) evidence?

"I can prove I'm right as I'm citing my own work..."

Foot, mouth, ability! ;~)
--
Regards, Jerry.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

snip

[ in reply to The Natural Philosopher ]
:
: Boy, you sure are a sore loser!
:

Whilst you seem to be a pillock that, even if correct, can't or
won't reference why you concider that you are correct.

"Ian" wrote in message
...
:
: "Steve Thackery" wrote in message
: ...
: Well, Alexander, that turned out to be a brilliant thread!
:
: What makes you so sure the thread has finished? Although I
would agree that
: every response now is totally off topic.
:

....in any of the cross posted groups, that takes some doing,
especially one including uk.d-i-y!

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:34:04 +0100, Norman Wells continued to troll:

contrary to all the evidence.

Where is all this evidence to which you refer?

Please provide details of the source.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:22:53 +0800, Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B)
wrote:

There is hot weather in UK, isn't it?

Yes, for a couple of days in either June or July.

Of course this does depend on where in the UKofGB&NI one is located.

Jerry coughed up some electrons that declared:


"Tim S" wrote in message
...
: Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:
:
snip
:
: You just can't accept I'm right, can you?
:
: No, because you just sit there making assertions repeatedly
without
: attempting to back them up or producing credible refutations of
citations
: that other people use to back up their claims.
:

...and quoting from a Wikipedia page, that 'you' wrote, is citing
credible (independent) evidence?

"I can prove I'm right as I'm citing my own work..."

Foot, mouth, ability! ;~)

WTF are you babbling about?

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

every reactor problem has actually resulted in a serious FIRE as
well with the graphite moderators catching alight, and the general
mess that results more or less stops fissioning as well. Its nasty,
its dirty, but it wont melt its way to the center of the earth,
although if it did, it would be pretty safe, cos the evidence is
that that is where all the fissile uranium sits, helping keep your
world warm, anyway.

Are you saying now that the earth has a nuclear reaction going on at
its centre, and that's the reason it's pretty warm down there?

Yes, and no, that's not the only reason. Not even the biggest reason.
Of course it has nuclear reactions going on down there..where else
would all the radon come from? and all the uranium is still decaying
whether we use it in reactors or not.

How concentrated the reactions are, where they are, and how ,much they
contribute to global warming, is a highly debatable subject. Possibly
the best evidence is taht most models of the earth show it OUGHT to be
cooler than it is, unless some slight nuclear warming is posited.


There is evidence that what amounts to 'open hearth' fission reactors
have existed naturally (without actually making china) in the past.

http://knol.google.com/k/j-marvin-he...8elf7fue7ro/4#


for an interesting read.

But as Wikipedia says in its article on 'georeactor':

"Herndon's concepts are not accepted by the scientific community".

So, another myth then that you choose to believe, contrary to all the
evidence.

But t is you who said that wikipedia was a bunch of crap when it refuted
your other arguments.

As I clearly said, fission is clearly taking place. Whether its a
reactor or not is semantics. And the earth is warmer than it should be
core wise.

So the jury ion actual 'recators' is still out, but nuclear fission is
taking place all around us, and gives off SOME heat.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:23:52 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

And this is just one of a growing number of water crises with
international reprcussions, some of which threaten international
stability.

Yes, a number of commentators have remarked that the next time Middle
East states go to war against each other, it will not be over land or
oil, but over water rights.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:57:16 +0100, Jerry wrote:

...in any of the cross posted groups, that takes some doing, especially
one including uk.d-i-y!

So there is no room for discussing creating an atomic pile in the basement
or a fusion reactor down in the garden shed?

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news : On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:57:16 +0100, Jerry wrote:
:
: ...in any of the cross posted groups, that takes some doing,
especially
: one including uk.d-i-y!
:
: So there is no room for discussing creating an atomic pile in
the basement
: or a fusion reactor down in the garden shed?
:

Technically speaking, yes, assuming it was a DIY project! :~)
--
Regards, Jerry.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


There is evidence that what amounts to 'open hearth' fission
reactors have existed naturally (without actually making china) in
the past.
http://knol.google.com/k/j-marvin-he...8elf7fue7ro/4#


for an interesting read.

But as Wikipedia says in its article on 'georeactor':

"Herndon's concepts are not accepted by the scientific community".

So, another myth then that you choose to believe, contrary to all the
evidence.

But t is you who said that wikipedia was a bunch of crap when it
refuted your other arguments.

I don't think so. Where was that then?

As I clearly said, fission is clearly taking place.

Well, you said it, but only cited the discredited Herndon's hypothesis in
support which is 'not accepted by the scientific community'. I would
conclude from that that it isn't taking place at all.



Whether its a
reactor or not is semantics.

Quite so.

And the earth is warmer than it should be
core wise.

It's as warm as it is. There's no such thing as warm as it should be.

So the jury ion actual 'recators' is still out, but nuclear fission is
taking place all around us, and gives off SOME heat.

Only in nuclear power stations, my friend. Not in cuckoo clocks, not in
batteries whether charging or discharging, not in springs, not anywhere else
in fact.

J G Miller wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:23:52 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

And this is just one of a growing number of water crises with
international reprcussions, some of which threaten international
stability.

Yes, a number of commentators have remarked that the next time Middle
East states go to war against each other, it will not be over land or
oil, but over water rights.

Indeed. Hopefully I'll be able to sell one of those states the contents of my
garden water butt for about a hundred quid ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip
: But t is you who said that wikipedia was a bunch of crap when
it
: refuted your other arguments.
:
: I don't think so. Where was that then?

Actually I think it was I who questioned the relevance/worth of
Wikipedia citations, hence one of my sig-lines goes like this...
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

snip

[ in reply to The Natural Philosopher ]

Boy, you sure are a sore loser!


Whilst you seem to be a pillock that, even if correct, can't or
won't reference why you concider that you are correct.

But in general that's asking me to prove a negative, which of course can't
be done. If someone makes a ridiculous sounding assertion it is surely for
that person to prove he's right rather than for anyone else to prove him
wrong, isn't it? That's the normal way after all.

Besides, just as an example, I've asked him three times now to define 'mass'
and give a source for the definition he uses. Every time he has been unable
to do even that. On the other hand, I gave the definition I use and quoted
the source. So, please don't accuse me of not doing so.

"Andy Furniss" wrote in message
...
J G Miller wrote:

Is it not the case that without the Hoover Dam, the bright lights of Las
Vegas would not be possible?

I went on a tour at the hoover dam aged 14 and one of the things the guide
said was that Vegas didn't get it's power from them and "They pay a pretty
price for those pretty lights".

It was nearly 30 years ago though, so it may be different now.


Vegas has a coal fired plant that produces about 50% of what it uses, the
rest comes from the "grid".

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Even Galileo failed to understand that, whereas the Church actually did.
They wanted him to merely state (correctly in my opinion) that the re
normalisation of orbital paths to a heliocentric model, was a matter of
mathematical convenience and that to say it 'meant' the 'the earth goes
round the sun' was unjustified.

Are you saying the earth doesn't go around the Sun (as a first
approximation)?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

Steve Thackery wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

sigh

Education today.

Norman, you are making yourself look a prat. You need to do a
little
reading about mass-energy equivalence. Then you will understand.

Energy and mass are _not_ freely interconvertible. You require
absolutely
extreme conditions for it to happen. On earth, you will only find it
happening in nuclear reactions.

Do you accept that an object increases in mass as it approaches
light
speed?

Yes.

Looks like a perfect demonstration of mass/energy equivalence to me.
Kinetic
energy, which is itself a relative phenonemum appears to manifest as
increased mass. Where's the problem?

Lets take a rechargeable battery..

you claim that the bonds made while charging it store energy because
the subatomic particles move faster and hence absorb the energy.
So when I discharge the battery the bonds change and the particles slow
down and release the energy.
Now explain why the battery gets hot when you discharge it

It has internal resistance. A completely different effect.

Its getting hot, so the molecules are moving faster so its getting more
mass according to you.


Indeed, but since its kicking more energy into the load than its gaining
as heat, there is a net loss.

Not if I choose the load carefully.

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news : On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:57:16 +0100, Jerry wrote:
:
: ...in any of the cross posted groups, that takes some doing,
especially
: one including uk.d-i-y!
:
: So there is no room for discussing creating an atomic pile in
the basement
: or a fusion reactor down in the garden shed?
:

Technically speaking, yes, assuming it was a DIY project! :~)

If you happen to have 19kg or plutonium I can find the stuf to make the
fusion bit work.
PS don't keep all the plutonium together or it will be spoilt.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:57:56 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:

Are you saying the earth doesn't go around the Sun (as a first
approximation)?

To a pedant, that is correct. The earth orbits the centre of mass of the
whole solar system (to a first approximation). That might not always lie
within the Sun.

Please don't confuse this thread with physics... it's too funny watching
it unfurl without the introduction of science.

BW

Java Jive wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:37:47 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

As I clearly said, fission is clearly taking place.

Well, you said it, but only cited the discredited Herndon's
hypothesis in support which is 'not accepted by the scientific
community'. I would conclude from that that it isn't taking place
at all.

And the earth is warmer than it should be
core wise.

It's as warm as it is. There's no such thing as warm as it should
be.

It has been calculated how old the earth should be by assuming it was
once molten and calculating how long it would take to cool to its
current temperature, and without allowing for fission from natural
radio-activity, the numbers don't add up.

I calculate by assuming my income and expenditure that I should be solvent
at the end of every month. However, I observe that I never seem to have any
money. What do _you_ think is wrong?


So the jury ion actual 'recators' is still out, but nuclear fission
is taking place all around us, and gives off SOME heat.

Only in nuclear power stations, my friend. Not in cuckoo clocks,
not in batteries whether charging or discharging, not in springs,
not anywhere else in fact.

No, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Oh, you mean natural decay of radioactive isotopes. Ok, fair enough. You
can have those too, but the effects are utterly trivial.

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:57:56 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:

Are you saying the earth doesn't go around the Sun (as a first
approximation)?

To a pedant, that is correct. The earth orbits the centre of mass of
the whole solar system (to a first approximation). That might not
always lie within the Sun.

Please don't confuse this thread with physics... it's too funny
watching it unfurl without the introduction of science.


Thank you. Your comment made me smile.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:20:18 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Norman, I suggest you wander off and do some in depth reading
about
the advancements in the scientific theories relating to Quantum
Mechanics that have taken place in the last 30+ years. You appear
to
be stuck in the theories of 50+ years ago.

Unfortunately that won't help at all with situations that don't involve
quantum mechanics in the slightest.

The physics of sub-atomic particles has no relevance unless you're
considering sub-atomic particles. Winding a cuckoo clock doesn't.

OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

--
Cheers
Dave.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


8

Are you saying now that the earth has a nuclear reaction going on at its
centre, and that's the reason it's pretty warm down there?



Yes, and no, that's not the only reason. Not even the biggest reason. Of
course it has nuclear reactions going on down there..where else would all
the radon come from? and all the uranium is still decaying whether we use
it in reactors or not.

You do know that there is a difference between radioactive decay and
fission?

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:58:25 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:

No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.

The abilty for the people to pay or not isn't particularly relevant.
The root problem was that the underlying value of the asset wasn't
enough to cover the debt on it.

If you are being charitable you say the banks took a gamble on the
asset values continuing to rise and by the time the debt was due
their value would cover it. A gamble they lost big time.

IMHO the reality is the banks got greedy, seeing lots of income from
the interest on massive loans, the mere fact that the value of the
loan was far more than the value of the asset was ignored.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message
...
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
Few homosexuals would want to admit to "cottaging", even
today, as it's still an illegal act...

No-one's ever propositioned me in a public toilet. I can't understand
why.


Lucky you.

No, unlucky me. I believe that we should try everything once except incest
and morris dancing.

Bill

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


8

Are you saying now that the earth has a nuclear reaction going on
at its centre, and that's the reason it's pretty warm down there?



Yes, and no, that's not the only reason. Not even the biggest
reason. Of course it has nuclear reactions going on down
there..where else would all the radon come from? and all the uranium
is still decaying whether we use it in reactors or not.

You do know that there is a difference between radioactive decay and
fission?

Actually, radioactive decay _is_ a form of nuclear fission.

However, it is not a nuclear 'reaction', which necessarily involves
bombardment with neutrons.

Nuclear reactions do not produce radon. Radon comes about as a result of
radioactive decay of naturally-occurring radium. It's existence therefore
is no indication at all of 'nuclear reactions going on down there'.

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:04:29 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:

We either do it voluntarily, or the planet will do it for us or cause us
to do it to ourselves. The first signs of the planet doing it are in
evidence now. It wouldn't take much for there to be global war once the
first real wobble occurs.

There were food riots in some parts of the world when the price of
oil shot up and food prices along with it. The financial crisis
doesn't greatly affect those who don't have much money...

The financial system will go first (like it nearly did last year) and
once that has gone everything else goes downhill rapidly.

*Very* rapidly, days, weeks if we are lucky. Look how rapidly the
supermarket shelves emptied during the last fuel blockades a few
years back. Our society is balnced ona very sharp knife edge it
wouldn't take much to knock it off.

Lots of people will die though starvation or being killed by someone
else in competition for resources.

Yep, I wonder how many of the UK population will survive 1%? or less?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:20:18 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Norman, I suggest you wander off and do some in depth reading
about
the advancements in the scientific theories relating to Quantum
Mechanics that have taken place in the last 30+ years. You appear
to
be stuck in the theories of 50+ years ago.

Unfortunately that won't help at all with situations that don't
involve quantum mechanics in the slightest.

The physics of sub-atomic particles has no relevance unless you're
considering sub-atomic particles. Winding a cuckoo clock doesn't.

OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

By mechanical strain of the crystalline structure of the spring steel whose
lowest energy, and therefore most stable, conformation is 'unwound'.
Whenever displaced from that conformation it will tend to revert to it when
the strain is removed.

No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.

Norman Wells wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


8

Are you saying now that the earth has a nuclear reaction going on
at its centre, and that's the reason it's pretty warm down there?



Yes, and no, that's not the only reason. Not even the biggest
reason. Of course it has nuclear reactions going on down
there..where else would all the radon come from? and all the uranium
is still decaying whether we use it in reactors or not.

You do know that there is a difference between radioactive decay and
fission?

Actually, radioactive decay _is_ a form of nuclear fission.

However, it is not a nuclear 'reaction', which necessarily involves
bombardment with neutrons.

Nuclear reactions do not produce radon. Radon comes about as a
result of radioactive decay of naturally-occurring radium. It's
existence therefore is no indication at all of 'nuclear reactions
going on down there'.

"Norman, this is dennis."

"dennis this is Norman."

"I'm sure that you will have lots in common to discuss."

(Creeps out - stage left rapidly).

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: Dave Liquorice wrote:
snip
:
: OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
: atomic/sub-atomic effects?
:
: By mechanical strain of the crystalline structure of the spring
steel whose
: lowest energy, and therefore most stable, conformation is
'unwound'.
: Whenever displaced from that conformation it will tend to
revert to it when
: the strain is removed.
:
: No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.
:

Wells, you're a right pillock! :~(

Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
snip

OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

By mechanical strain of the crystalline structure of the spring
steel whose lowest energy, and therefore most stable, conformation
is 'unwound'. Whenever displaced from that conformation it will tend
to revert to it when the strain is removed.

No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.


Wells, you're a right pillock! :~(

What's _your_ explanation then? Let's hear it.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: Jerry wrote:
: "Norman Wells" wrote in message
: ...
: Dave Liquorice wrote:
: snip
:
: OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
: atomic/sub-atomic effects?
:
: By mechanical strain of the crystalline structure of the
spring
: steel whose lowest energy, and therefore most stable,
conformation
: is 'unwound'. Whenever displaced from that conformation it
will tend
: to revert to it when the strain is removed.
:
: No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.
:
:
: Wells, you're a right pillock! :~(
:
: What's _your_ explanation then? Let's hear it.

To suggest that there is "No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all"
is plain daft, considering that just about (if not) everything on
earth and in outer-space (that we know of) has it's origins at
the atomic or sub atomic level. A spring is a spring because of
it's atomic structure, the act of deflation is a result of
atomic/sub-atomic effects, what do you think is the building
blocks of the underlying crystalline structure you mention?
--
Regards, Jerry.

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.

So nothing to do with the interactions of the electrons then?

What do you think allows atoms to form a crystalline structure then. Magic?

Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
snip

OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

By mechanical strain of the crystalline structure of the spring
steel whose lowest energy, and therefore most stable, conformation
is 'unwound'. Whenever displaced from that conformation it will
tend to revert to it when the strain is removed.

No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.


Wells, you're a right pillock! :~(

What's _your_ explanation then? Let's hear it.

To suggest that there is "No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all"
is plain daft, considering that just about (if not) everything on
earth and in outer-space (that we know of) has it's origins at
the atomic or sub atomic level. A spring is a spring because of
it's atomic structure, the act of deflation is a result of
atomic/sub-atomic effects, what do you think is the building
blocks of the underlying crystalline structure you mention?

I asked what _your_ explanation was. What is going on in your scenario? Is
energy being converted to, and stored as, mass, or what?

Tim S wrote:
Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.

So nothing to do with the interactions of the electrons then?

No.

What do you think allows atoms to form a crystalline structure then.
Magic?

No. Shape mainly.

Pour a large number of marbles onto a tray. Do they form a completely
random pattern, or is there some symmetry in the arrangement they naturally
adopt?

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

Tim S wrote:
Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.

So nothing to do with the interactions of the electrons then?

No.

What do you think allows atoms to form a crystalline structure then.
Magic?

No. Shape mainly.

Pour a large number of marbles onto a tray. Do they form a completely
random pattern, or is there some symmetry in the arrangement they
naturally adopt?

Do the marbles form any sort of bond?

If not, then how do you propose to store energy by distorting such a
structure?

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
snip
:
: I asked what _your_ explanation was. What is going on in your
scenario? Is
: energy being converted to, and stored as, mass, or what?
:

No, you are the one making the claims that everyone else in the
history of modern science is wrong, YOU prove that your are the
next Einstein and winner of a Nobel prize for your (literally)
earth shattering discovery...