Jerry wrote:
"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...

I'll take that as you don't know then.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:07:58 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

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.

From which one can therefore conclude that the people buying the asset were

a) being ripped off by having to paying far more than the asset was worth

and/or

b) incredibly stupid

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:29:41 +0100, 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?

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

I wonder how Norman Wells considers that television cathode ray tubes work?

Presumably there are no atomic or sub-atomic (electron) processes involved?

And no sub-atomic processes are involved in electric currents
either no doubt.

Perhaps it is a case of, if you cannot see it with the naked eye,
or under an optical microscope, it has no relevance.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: Jerry wrote:
: "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...
:
: I'll take that as you don't know then.

If ever there was a case of the pot trying to call the kettle
black!

YOU really just don't get this, *YOU* are the one making the
claims (away from the accepted facts), not me, so it is YOU who
needs to back up YOUR claims...

In article , Norman Wells
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Norman Wells
writes

Atmospheric extraction is totally unfeasible. Have you _any_ idea
how big the atmosphere is, and how small in comparison any man-made
extractor would be?

Yes, at surface density, it is equivalent to a uniform layer a little
less than 5 miles thick over the surface of the globe, some 200million
square miles, making the atmosphere approximately 1billion cubic miles
at surface density.

How many would we need do you think?

That depends on how fast you think we need to do it. The argument,
whether you believe it or not, is that we have managed to cause the
problem simply by a few hundred large CO2 producers over a couple of
hundred years. So a similar number of capture units should be capable
of sweeping it all up in a similar time, probably faster.

At a few hundred feet per minute a single atmospheric extraction unit
with a scrubber area of only 1 square mile, would take around 20,000
to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, so a distributed system of 50
such systems around the planet would clear the problem in less time
that it took to create it in the first place - and we don't WANT to
get rid of all of the CO2 or we'd be in for a very cold future.

And wouldn't it be better to use trees as we always have?

No, because trees rely on natural air movement to access the
atmosphere, not forced air movement. And they tend to decay or be
burned, releasing their captured CO2 in the timescale.

How much energy do you think that will involve? How will these
'scrubbers' work exactly, and how will they be powered? To extract
anything that constitutes just 0.04% of the atmosphere by passing it
_all_ through scrubbers, at speeds sufficient to suck in all the
atmosphere of the planet rather than wait for it to come to you, seems
enormously wasteful.

Not so! It is completely naive to suggest it is impractical or not cost
effective! You don't need to chemically recombine carbon to hydrogen,
which would, of course, require reinvestment of much of the extracted
energy and thus be impractical. Just condense the CO2! Guess what the
highest condensation point of the atmosphere's highest constituent is
after water? CO2! So condense the damn stuff and take it out of
circulation - you yourself note that it is only 0.04% of the atmosphere,
so it has a relatively small intrinsic energy content!

I guess you have never heard of or used Joule-Kelvin coolers, but they
are very simple devices, extremely reliable and exceedingly efficient at
condensing atmospheric constituents. I have used them, as one of the
production methods for liquid nitrogen - you know the stuff that is a
little cheaper to make and distribute than the bottled water you get in
Tesco's or Sainsbury's - and guess what, CO2 production is one of the
major side effects, a problem when you are trying to produce liquid
nitrogen, and something that current designs go to some lengths to
avoid!

The basic concept of the J_K cooler and liquefaction process is to
compress the gas, expand it through a nozzle, resulting in cooking if
above the curie point and heating if below it. Ever felt how cold an
aerosol spray is? That isn't just "The Lynx Effect" - its fecking cold!

The colder, in the case of air, exhaust gas is then used to pre-cool the
incoming air trough a heat exchanger - a series of static vanes in the
gas flow. Once started, the process continues indefinitely until
liquefaction forms, assuming adequate thermal isolation is achieved.

Using such technology as an atmospheric carbon extraction system only
requires the gas volume brought in through an input area to be
compressed by a series of fans and turbines and fed to a simple, no
moving parts, adiabatic expansion nozzle, or array of nozzles. The
compression of the gas releases heat, a proportion of which is used,
initially together with external energy sources, to drive the
compression turbines. The expanded gas on the other side of the
nozzle(s) is lower in temperature, since the major constituent of air
(Nitrogen) is well above the curie point at the triple point of CO2.

This expanded, cold, exhaust atmospheric gas is then used to cool the
incoming compressed gas through a heat exchanger. The whole process
continues until it is either stopped by closing the expansion nozzle or
until liquid nitrogen forms, well below the triple point of CO2.
Furthermore, the expansion of the CO2 free exhaust gas also provides
most of the energy to drive the input compression turbines, external
supplies of power only being necessary to overcome frictional and Van
der Waals forces lost in the system. By a relatively simple control
procedure this is maintained just below the triple point of CO2,
resulting in the condensation of CO2 from the outgoing gas flow - onto
ready made condensation troughs.

Almost all of the energy used in compressing the atmospheric gas is
recovered from the expansion of the majority of the gas and recycled in
the process so that, once the system has reached equilibrium, the only
external energy required to sustain it is that of maintaining the
relatively small percentage of atmospheric CO2 that is condensed and
removed. That is many orders of magnitude less than the chemical energy
released by burning hydrocarbons in the first place, which is why this
is an existing industrial process.

Once extracted, the solid CO2 will, off course require containment but,
whilst that has its own problems, it wasn't your question - atmospheric
extraction is not only practical with existing technology it is
exceedingly cheap to implement. If you can contain the solid CO2
produced by large J-K compressors then is it certainly feasible and any
small country could sell these vats of solid CO2 back to energy
consuming, CO2 generating countries for them to contain and store under
international CO2 trading schemes.

All that is required is the political will and the investment in plant.
North Sea oil voids are currently filled with compressed air to get
extract the last drops of black gold - the ideal final resting place for
high pressure, or even solid, CO2. Existing coal mines in the UK are
another potential long term deposition. Of course the Arabs and the
Chinese have even larger potential CO2 reservoirs than we have, but who
said the benefits of such technology was unique to the West, and there
is nothing to stop us selling CO2 back to them.

The real practical problem with this process is that 50 years after its
introduction on this sort of scale (10-100 sq. miles total collection
area distributed on global sites) you would need to implement a "Reverse
Kyoto Agreememt" to stop rogue states from driving the world into the
next ice age!

But, of course, we could always nuke the rogue feckers by then!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:47:36 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:

The root problem was that the underlying value of the asset wasn't

enough to cover the debt on it.

From which one can therefore conclude that the people buying the asset
were

a) being ripped off by having to paying far more than the asset was
worth

and/or

b) incredibly stupid

a) Happened 'cause it was the only way they "could own their own
home".

b) Merkins, need I say more?

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , J G Miller wrote:
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.

From which one can therefore conclude that the people buying the asset were

a) being ripped off by having to paying far more than the asset was worth

and/or

b) incredibly stupid

They were being ripped off by being persuaded to *promise* to pay. As they
didn't have the means to pay the money back, these were promises that would
never be kept. Effectively they were paying with non-existent money.

Some of them may or may not have been stupid as well (because some people
are) but most of us are not fully conversant with financial terminology, and
those who live by it don't usually go out of their way to make it easy to
understand, because then we'd all realise what they're up to. If I had
absolutely nothing in the world and somebody effectively offered me a house
for nothing, I'd probably take it, and so would you. The real villains in
this are the financial institutions who set up these empty promises and then
sold them on to others, because they knew exactly how it all worked and
exactly what they were doing. Now we're all paying the price, even those of
us who have worked for what we have, and had the foresight to save it.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On 20/09/09 04:05, Kennedy McEwen wrote:

I guess you have never heard of or used Joule-Kelvin coolers, but they
are very simple devices, extremely reliable and exceedingly efficient at
condensing atmospheric constituents. I have used them, as one of the
production methods for liquid nitrogen - you know the stuff that is a
little cheaper to make and distribute than the bottled water you get in
Tesco's or Sainsbury's - and guess what, CO2 production is one of the
major side effects

All you have to do is "Pass Go" then, that nice Mr Branson has a
$25,000,000 prize waiting.

http://www.virgin.com/subsites/virginearth/

Andy Burns wrote:
On 20/09/09 04:05, Kennedy McEwen wrote:

I guess you have never heard of or used Joule-Kelvin coolers, but
they are very simple devices, extremely reliable and exceedingly
efficient at condensing atmospheric constituents. I have used them,
as one of the production methods for liquid nitrogen - you know the
stuff that is a little cheaper to make and distribute than the
bottled water you get in Tesco's or Sainsbury's - and guess what,
CO2 production is one of the major side effects

All you have to do is "Pass Go" then, that nice Mr Branson has a
$25,000,000 prize waiting.

http://www.virgin.com/subsites/virginearth/

I couldn't have put it better myself.

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

I'll take that as you don't know then.

If ever there was a case of the pot trying to call the kettle
black!

YOU really just don't get this, *YOU* are the one making the
claims (away from the accepted facts), not me, so it is YOU who
needs to back up YOUR claims...

But I gave you my explanation, which happens to be the correct one.

What's yours?

Tim S coughed up some electrons that declared:

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 is definately Dribble's brother. Or has Dribble re-incarnated again?

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: Jerry wrote:
: "Norman Wells" wrote in message
: ...
: Jerry wrote:
: "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...
:
: I'll take that as you don't know then.
:
: If ever there was a case of the pot trying to call the kettle
: black!
:
: YOU really just don't get this, *YOU* are the one making the
: claims (away from the accepted facts), not me, so it is YOU
who
: needs to back up YOUR claims...
:
: But I gave you my explanation, which happens to be the correct
one.
:
: What's yours?
:

You really don't get it, I do not have to supply anything as I'm
not the one making any claims, YOU are, it is for YOU to supply
your references - something that you have signally failed to do
in any MEANINGFUL way.

Wells, put up or shut up!

Can't help thinking that Mr Wells might also belong to the "Flat
Earth Society"...
--
Regards, Jerry.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:07:58 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

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.


Did any banks really lose actual tangible spendable cash on their UK
private house mortgage business?

They may have potentially lost on B. T. L. mortgages but these
customers had been paying premium interest rates for their business.

IMV apartment blocks left half finished represent a greater likelyhood
of losing money for the bank, but not as bad for the banks as the
early adopters who paid top dollar only to see the environment they
bought into go down the gurgler.

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.

Derek

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:

But I gave you my explanation, which happens to be the correct one.

You've not given us an explanation yet, merely waving a single formula
around, which relates the rest mass of a body to the energy released
in its annihilation.

Not me.

You've failed to explain (other than "I guess so") by what mechanism
the mass of a cuckoo clock weight would change when it releases its
potential energy as it slowly falls.

Not me. I'm the one saying there's absolutely no change in mass at all, not
even infinitessimally.

brightside S9 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:45:52 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

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.

He is unable to do so, because, as yet, it is an unanswerable
question. Now you are either smart enough to know that, or not.

Are you smart enough to know or not?

Don't be ridiculous. He uses the term, so he should know what it means and
be able to define it.

Einstein used the term too. It's what the m in e=mc^2 represents. I dare
say he knew what it meant. But now you come along and say he must have been
mistaken because it's an unanswerable question.

Does that make you smarter than him, or just wrong?

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

YOU really just don't get this, *YOU* are the one making the
claims (away from the accepted facts), not me, so it is YOU who
needs to back up YOUR claims...

But I gave you my explanation, which happens to be the correct one.

What's yours?


You really don't get it, I do not have to supply anything as I'm
not the one making any claims, YOU are, it is for YOU to supply
your references - something that you have signally failed to do
in any MEANINGFUL way.

Wells, put up or shut up!

I'll take that as meaning you're incapable of providing any explanation
because of your limited education and intellect then.

Seems a reasonable deduction.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: Jerry wrote:
: "Norman Wells" wrote in message
: ...
:
: YOU really just don't get this, *YOU* are the one making
the
: claims (away from the accepted facts), not me, so it is YOU
who
: needs to back up YOUR claims...
:
: But I gave you my explanation, which happens to be the
correct one.
:
: What's yours?
:
:
: You really don't get it, I do not have to supply anything as
I'm
: not the one making any claims, YOU are, it is for YOU to
supply
: your references - something that you have signally failed to
do
: in any MEANINGFUL way.
:
: Wells, put up or shut up!
:
: I'll take that as meaning you're incapable of providing any
explanation
: because of your limited education and intellect then.
:
: Seems a reasonable deduction.
:

I think that we can all see who is the pot calling the kettle
black here.

One more time, it is for YOU to offer any explanation as it is
YOU who is trying to rewrite accepted scientific fact, if YOU
can't offer any (meaningful) explanation as to how you have come
to YOUR conclusions that until now the accepted scientific fact
is wrong it will be YOU who has failed and it will be YOU who
gets shown up as a 'eccentric crank' at best and an out and out
hapless cretin at worst - all recorded in the annuals of the
Google groups achieve!

Put up or shut up Mr Wells...

Norman Wells wrote:
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.


So, lets get this straight.

I say that radioactive elements decay, which is fission, and its taking
place.

In another sentence I point out that it may also be taking place in a
chain reaction (reactor) and point you to a link, that posits a
mechanism that demonstrates some evidence to support that.

You find a wiki article, and cite the ONLY line that is in fact contrary
to that propsoition, and use it as CERTAIN evidence of REFUTATION.,

And THEN further extrapolate that to include ALL fission, including
natural radioactive decay.

No wonder you never could make a career in a technical subject.



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.

Oh dear.


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.

Oh dear. Plenty of fission takes place in radioactive elements outside
reactors. Go to Dartmoor with a geiger counter. By a factor of several
thousand to one at least.


Radioactive decay is only one specific measurable example of mass energy
equivalence: It happens to be easiest to measure, because the energy is
vast, but if a charged batteruy is NOT heavier than a flat one, then you
have refuted relativity, well worth a Nobel prize.

Norman Wells wrote:
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?



You cant do sums, or you have left something out.


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.

In terms of background radiation, about 70 times more than the total
world nuclear industry IIRC.

In terms of heating the earth, not much I agree.

Which is why the proposition that there are or have been greater
concentrations of fissile materials that would react faster, now or in
the past, has some supporting evidence.

Norman Wells wrote:
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?

No.

That's the normal way after all.

It may be the normal way to you, but its not the way *science* works.

Again, read Karl Popper.




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.


And you were given a more accurate scientific definition along the lines
of 'the property that resist changes in motion' i.e. inertia.


Mass, energy, velocity, distance and time are precisely defined units in
the Newtonian worldview. I use them in that sense when considering Physics.

The fact that Chanmbers definition is sloppy and unscientific is not my
problem.

In article , Andy
Burns writes
On 20/09/09 04:05, Kennedy McEwen wrote:

I guess you have never heard of or used Joule-Kelvin coolers, but they
are very simple devices, extremely reliable and exceedingly efficient at
condensing atmospheric constituents. I have used them, as one of the
production methods for liquid nitrogen - you know the stuff that is a
little cheaper to make and distribute than the bottled water you get in
Tesco's or Sainsbury's - and guess what, CO2 production is one of the
major side effects

All you have to do is "Pass Go" then, that nice Mr Branson has a
$25,000,000 prize waiting.

http://www.virgin.com/subsites/virginearth/

Thanks for that, I will apply for Mr Branson's cash, but I fully expect
that someone else will have beaten me to it since it is a pretty well
known concept.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

dennis@home wrote:


"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)?



I am saying that in absolute terms, it is not possible to say.


Heliocentrism merely ,means assuming the sun is fixed, and doing the
maths with that as the axes of rotation. The maths is much simpler. That
doesn't make the assumption true. In fact the nearest that physics can
get to an exact answer with any degree of absoluteness in it, is to say
that everything revolves around the center of gravity of the universe,
and Einstein would deny any revolution is taking place at all. Objects
merely follow straight paths through a curved space-time.

In article , Paul
Martin writes
In article ,
Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Once extracted, the solid CO2 will, off course require containment but,
whilst that has its own problems, it wasn't your question - atmospheric

...which will require an ongoing energy commitment in refrigeration to
stop the dry ice from subliming back into a gas.

Which is why I suggested burying it under impermeable rock layers, like
we currently do with compressed air into oil wells. It doesn't need to
be refrigerated indefinitely, just kept under pressure, and geological
pressures can be enormous.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
"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)?

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.

No it doesn't.

In fact nothing is doing anything. MODELS of a sort of three
dimensional analysis of the solar system, give approximately correct
results if that is _assumed_ to be the case. What is ACTUALLY happening
is anybodies guess.

The map is not the territory.

Jerry wrote:

and it will be YOU who
gets shown up as a 'eccentric crank' at best and an out and out
hapless cretin at worst - all recorded in the annuals of the
Google groups achieve!

In the what of the what?

sigh education today.

dennis@home wrote:


"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.


Well if you short it completely, then the net loss of mass
electro-chemically is equal to the net gain thermally I suppose.

However ANY energy transfered outside the battery system must represent
a net loss in mass.

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?


No, I don't, because there is not. Radioactive decay *is* fission.
Elements split spontaneously into other elements and give off energy and
other particles. That happens the same in a reactor as it does
naturally. The only difference is that in a reactor the excess particles
can make it happen faster, and sometimes differently.

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.


I never ever said it was.


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'.


Its evidence of *fission* going on down there, and I am fairly sure it
IS a reactor product at some level, probably tertiary.

Nope. Its primary, and associated with uranium mining mainly, as radium
is found with uranium.,.

Bill Wright wrote:
"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.


Suicide?

Bill

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:07:58 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

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.


Did any banks really lose actual tangible spendable cash on their UK
private house mortgage business?


Yes. And still are.

They may have potentially lost on B. T. L. mortgages but these
customers had been paying premium interest rates for their business.

IMV apartment blocks left half finished represent a greater likelyhood
of losing money for the bank, but not as bad for the banks as the
early adopters who paid top dollar only to see the environment they
bought into go down the gurgler.

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.

Derek

Norman Wells wrote:
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.

ROFLMFAO!

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

I'll take that as you don't know then.

If ever there was a case of the pot trying to call the kettle
black!

YOU really just don't get this, *YOU* are the one making the
claims (away from the accepted facts), not me, so it is YOU who
needs to back up YOUR claims...

But I gave you my explanation, which happens to be the correct one.


There are no correct explanations. There are only ones that work.

And produce testable predictable results.


What's yours?

I'll have a pint, thanks.

Norman Wells wrote:
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?



And what have marbles on a tray got to do with atoms?


I can pour gravy on a plate and it conforms to the plate..is it the same
for clock springs, if not, why not?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells 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?

No answer 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.

So, lets get this straight.

I say that radioactive elements decay, which is fission, and its
taking place.

In another sentence I point out that it may also be taking place in a
chain reaction (reactor) and point you to a link, that posits a
mechanism that demonstrates some evidence to support that.

You find a wiki article, and cite the ONLY line that is in fact
contrary to that propsoition, and use it as CERTAIN evidence of
REFUTATION.,

It's a very good one. After all, you don't very often come across a
statement as categoric as "Herndon's concepts are not accepted by the
scientific community" do you? If anyone refuted that, it's free for them to
edit the page and remove it. That's how Wikipedia works in case you didn't
know.

So, since no-one has, I take it at face value. Herndon's concepts are not
accepted by the scientific community.


And THEN further extrapolate that to include ALL fission, including
natural radioactive decay.

Since then, if you'd kept up, you'd have seen that I actually accepted
natural radioactive decay, which I'd previously overlooked, as fission. I
even corrected someone else here in order to say so.

No wonder you never could make a career in a technical subject.

Already have.


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.

Oh dear.

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.

Oh dear. Plenty of fission takes place in radioactive elements outside
reactors. Go to Dartmoor with a geiger counter. By a factor of several
thousand to one at least.

That'd be why Dartmoor's so warm then.

Radioactive decay is only one specific measurable example of mass
energy equivalence: It happens to be easiest to measure, because the
energy is vast

Well, nuclear reactions are. Natural radioactive decay much less so.

but if a charged batteruy is NOT heavier than a flat
one, then you have refuted relativity, well worth a Nobel prize.

I have not refuted relativity at all in saying just that. It does not
require a refutation of relativity because no conversion of mass to energy
at all is occurring, nor is it required by relativity.

Just as an analogy that might make it a bit more understandable for you,
consider the pound-dollar continuum, or 'money' as we call it. Now this can
exist at any one time either in the form of 'pounds' or in the form of
'dollars', but they're interconvertible.

Some very clever, highly paid people have worked very hard on this over the
years, and have come up with this wonderful relativity equation that 1 pound
is equivalent to 1.63 dollars, or, as mathematicians would put it:

p = 1.63d

This shows how dollars and pounds are related.

Some people think, simply because of this equation, that there is free
exchange between pounds and dollars. You rattle around some pounds (or
dollars) in your pocket and what you get is a mixture of pounds and dollars.
Sadly, however, no-one has been able to demonstrate this effect. Try as
they might, pounds resolutely remain pounds and dollars resolutely remain
dollars. "Ah", they say, "but that's only because the change is so slight,
you can't measure it. It's still occurring though, the formula tells us
that."

Others, who may admittedly be a bit more cynical, say "Sod off, sunshine,
nothing of the sort's happening at all", adding that the only known way of
converting pounds into dollars is by passing them over a complicated bit of
equipment boffins call a 'counter' and then subjecting them to an enormously
complicated scientific process called 'forex exchange' which then results in
a number of dollars which amazingly fits the above formula. They say,
unless you do this, you're stuck with the pounds or dollars you started
with, and that no matter how much you play with them you won't alter that.
They also say that's exactly what happens with mass and energy.

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


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?

You cant do sums, or you have left something out.

Exactly. It's not my poverty that's in doubt, but my assumptions and/or
calculations.

In just the same way, I say it's not the temperature of the earth that's in
doubt, but the assumptions and/or calculations of those who 'calculate' it
should be warmer.



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

In terms of background radiation, about 70 times more than the total
world nuclear industry IIRC.

In terms of heating the earth, not much I agree.

Which is why the proposition that there are or have been greater
concentrations of fissile materials that would react faster, now or in
the past, has some supporting evidence.

In the mind of one person whose "concepts are not accepted by the scientific
community".

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

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?

No.

That's the normal way after all.

It may be the normal way to you, but its not the way *science* works.

Again, read Karl Popper.

It has nothing to do with science, or Popper, but with the logic of
argument.


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.

And you were given a more accurate scientific definition along the
lines of 'the property that resist changes in motion' i.e. inertia.

Not by you, I wasn't.

Is that the definition you use? If so, where is your reference to it?


Mass, energy, velocity, distance and time are precisely defined units
in the Newtonian worldview. I use them in that sense when considering
Physics.
The fact that Chanmbers definition is sloppy and unscientific is not
my problem.

It's a proper, reputable and accurate reference work which is called,
specifically, a 'Dictionary of Science and Technology'. Where better to
find a definition of a scientific term, eh?

On what basis do you descend from your cloud to call it sloppy and
unscientific?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

I never ever said it was.

Yes you did. "Of course it has nuclear reactions going on down there" you
said. You can see that for yourself above.


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'.


Its evidence of *fission* going on down there

No it isn't. It's evidence of naturally-occurring radium, which is actually
in the granite rocks from which Dartmoor is largely composed. That's why
radon is a problem in areas with large amounts of granite lying around, and
not anywhere else. It is no indication of what's happening 'down there', ie
at the centre of the earth, at all.



, and I am fairly sure it
IS a reactor product at some level, probably tertiary.

Nope. Its primary, and associated with uranium mining mainly, as
radium is found with uranium.,.

And there's lots of uranium mining on Dartmoor is there?

You could have fooled me.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
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.

ROFLMFAO!

Cut that out and keep it as a permanent reminder of just how naive,
misguided and gullible you once were. When you actually understand what
Einstein was saying about relativity, it will be a salutary lesson.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

But I gave you my explanation, which happens to be the correct one.

There are no correct explanations. There are only ones that work.

And produce testable predictable results.

So, how do propose to test your explanation that raising the weight in a
clock increases its mass?

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: Jerry wrote:
: "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...
:
: I'll take that as you don't know then.

If ever there was a case of the pot trying to call the kettle
black!

YOU really just don't get this, *YOU* are the one making the
claims (away from the accepted facts), not me, so it is YOU who
needs to back up YOUR claims...


Well he has actually postulated a theory as to how it works, you don't
appear to have.
You have however told him his theory is wrong without offering a reason why.
Its not science to do things that way, its just bullying like the GW group
have been doing for the last few decades.

As it happens I also think some of what he said is wrong, but not the bit
about energy being converted to mass for storage.

For instance we know you can store energy by compressing a gas, it gets hot,
if you let it cool it still has more energy than the uncompressed gas but it
isn't moving faster so e=mc2 doesn't enter into the issue. Yet TNP and other
swear that all stored energy results from e=mc2.