Water burns!
 

John Smith I wrote:
John Smith imagines a caveman shading a fire (newly developed
technology) with a palm frond, jumping in glee, pointing, and declaring,
"Look, I am modulating light! I just wonder what I can do with a
campfire and a blanket?"

Strangely enough, since the use of fire seems to
date back some 790,000 years, that "caveman" may
not have been a homo sapien.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:21:32 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

Jim Higgins wrote:

...
This invention will never withstand strict scientific review because
it will be trivial to demonstrate that it doesn't produce more power
than is input in the form of RF. No net excess power produced means
no new power source.
...
At no time did I ever think it was over unity. The law of conservation
of energy is just another law awaiting to be "broken", i.e. a new "law"
found which acts to the contrary ... after experiencing the insanity of
quantum physics, it leaves ones belief system shattered!


If quantum physics leaves your belief system shattered, then I'd have
to say you don't understand quantum physics on even a superficial
level... or else you're exaggerating your reaction to it. The math
is a real bitch, but the generalized concepts are easily grasped by
those who understand classical physics. But that aside, the real
point is that quantum physics doesn't leave classical physics as a
broken law to be tossed aside. NASA will continue to use classical
physics to plot trajectories to the Moon or to Mars.


perhaps we should talk a while on the interesting effects that will be
realized if the law of conservation of energy is "broken".

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

How about the "Theory of Evolution"? Is it right or wrong?

How about all the JFK "Conspiracy Theories"? Are they all
"logically self-consistent"?


Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of
thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of
lumping the two together.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

John, N9JG wrote:
1. What do you mean when you state that entangled particles have
"communications"?
2. Entangled particles can not be used to send _information_ at a speed
greater than the speed of light.

From:
http://www.socialtext.net/wired-mag/...es_communicate

--Quote: How do entangled particles communicate?
One of the zanier notions in the plenty zany world of quantum
mechanics is that a pair of subatomic particles can sometimes
become “entangled.” This means the fate of one instantly affects
the other, no matter how far apart they are. It’s such a bizarre
phenomenon that Einstein dissed the idea in the 1930s as “spooky
action at a distance,” saying it showed that the developing model
of the atomic world needed rethinking.

But it turns out that the universe is spooky after all. In 1997,
scientists separated a pair of entangled photons by shooting
them through fiber-optic cables to two villages 6 miles apart.
Tipping one into a particular quantum state forced the other
into the opposite state less than five-trillionths of a second
later, or *nearly 7 million times faster than light* could travel
between the two. Of course, according to relativity, nothing
travels faster than the speed of light - not even information
between particles.

Even the best theories to explain how entanglement gets around
this problem seem preposterous. One, for example, speculates
that signals are shot back through time. Ultimately, the answer
is bound to be unnerving: According to a famous doctrine called
Bell’s Inequality, for entanglement to square with relativity,
either we have no free will or reality is an illusion. Some choice.
--end quote
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
perhaps we should talk a while on the interesting effects that will
be realized if the law of conservation of energy is "broken".

We could start with: Where did all that energy come from
that caused the Big Bang? Why did it wait until the time
of the Big Bang to explode? How long was a second before
the Big Bang? :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
perhaps we should talk a while on the interesting effects that will be
realized if the law of conservation of energy is "broken".

We could start with: Where did all that energy come from
that caused the Big Bang? Why did it wait until the time
of the Big Bang to explode? How long was a second before
the Big Bang? :-)

You might add:

What set it off?

Where did all of that matter come from?

Where did all of the empty space come from?

Dave K8MN

Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
For instance:
The laws of physics based on non-empty space (ether)
were discarded only to be revived in different form
by the discovery that empty space is far from empty.

This was more akin to replacing the wheel covers on a car than it was
to replacing the whole car.

More like taking away the entire car, replacing the wheel
covers, and then bringing the car back.

Pre-1887 1. There is a substance filling empty space.
1887 2. There is nothing filling empty space.
Present 3. There is a quantum structure filling empty space.

Incidentally, the shortening and lengthening effects
that Michelson and Morley were looking for were actually
there but rendered undetectable by relativity effects
of which they were, of course, ignorant in 1887.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of
thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of
lumping the two together.

My Southern Baptist Mother (rest her soul) always said that
the theory of evolution was an atheist conspiracy. :-)

And it seems that the theory of evolution has been proved
not to be 100% correct. Man is already, or soon will be,
capable of creating designer species. That's certainly not
random selection. How does manufacturing human blood within
a pig's body fit with the theory of evolution? :-)

How about "string theory", something that cannot even be
tested? Last I heard, there were seven or so competing
string theories - all "logically self-consistent"????
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Empty and nothing are synonyms.

Hardly! A box can be empty, but a box isn't nothing.

I should have said that the definition of
"empty" is "containing nothing".
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Dave Heil wrote:
You might add:
What set it off?

Chaotic conditions? One last electron encountering
the singularity?

Where did all of that matter come from?

A small plasma singularity?

Where did all of the empty space come from?

It's not empty, i.e. not absolute nothing.
Dark matter? Dark energy?

Presumably, the Big Bang was more energetic than
a Supernova. Heavy elements are created during
a Supernova. Why were no heavy elements created
during the Big Bang?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com