There you are with your signature 'Uh. no.' Written stuttering to kick off your condescension?
That's not a stutter. A stutter would be "Uh uh uh uh... n-n-n-no."
That's amazing that you should develop such a habit and show it here in the blindness of your exceedingly profound and yet correctable ignorance about the nature of Ball Lightning. Ball lightning is a mass of burning silicate nanoparticles...????!!!
Yes.
"Production of Ball-Lightning-Like Luminous Balls by Electrical Discharges in Silicon",
Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 048501 (2007)
"Evidence for Nanoparticles in Microwave-Generated Fireballs Observed by Synchrotron X-Ray Scattering",
Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 065001 (2008)
Obviously, you've not spent much time really studying the phenomenon. I've spent 35 years studying it not only through eyewitness reports but also by creating it and filming it in the lab via high current high voltage discharge experiments.
So have the people I linked to above. Got a peer-reviewed journal article to back up your picture of what's going on?
Pace Van de Vender (sp?) who until about 2 years ago was head of Los Alamos Fusion projects... has also been keenly interested in this powerful phenomenon and sent me an 1858 eyewitness report from a newpaper published in Ireland of a two foot diameter ball that emerged out of a violent thundercloud... It, moving about the pace a man walks, plowed into the ground and cut a trench; and in the process excavated about 200 cubic yards of wet peat in less than 20 minutes! That is over 200 tons of wet peat moved in under 20 minutes and you would dismiss this as a slowly burning mass of silicate nanoparticles?
I would dismiss this as an unreliable eyewitness report from 150 years ago with no physical evidence to back it up. Perhaps there was a bit too much
involved, perhaps it was all a joke, don't know, don't care. But what it is
not is actual evidence.
These things have been written about since the time of Aristotle
So have
and
and
and
and
and
and
. Well, OK, that last one is more recent, but it's largely just a replacement for the earlier ones. Do you believe every account you read?
As for your confession of being a jerk...I certainly agree that you are.. but how does that benefit you, either to confess or to continue to behave in that manner?
It benefits me by keeping my blood pressure low. I have limited patience for your brand of insanity.
Why don't you simply make an effort to be a nicer person?
Because I'm not. And you're not worth the effort to try.
Your arrogance blinds you, destroys potential friendships, and cuts off possible sources of information about the universe.
I doubt it. You see, I don't think there was ever a chance you and I were going to be friends. And I'm quite capable of being friendly, just not with people who are so delusional about these sorts of things. Call it a personal failing on my part if you wish, I don't really care, because your opinion of me personally is of no consequence. I don't
care if you don't like me, because I don't like
you.
I see that few people here really seem to get what I have been proposing. I'm suggesting that the data that we presently possess in the world is sufficient information to unify electromagnetism and gravity
And yet, you cannot write equations which show what such a unified theory looks like.
People believe in an 'electrostatic' field that they ideate as emerging from and surrounding a charged particle and yet don't really have an appropriate conception of the nature of the 'field' of a charged particle, nor an appropriate conception of the origin of charge itself. The problem is that they think that they do. They think that there will be a Coulombic repulsion between two like charged fundamental particles that are at rest with respect to each other and yet there isn't any data in existence to confirm that assumption.
Not so. Chemical bonding energies of hydrogen molecules involve exactly such a repulsion between the two protons. So your fundamental assumption is completely wrong, and none of your ideas following that make any sense. Figure out a way to
accurately predict the bonding energies of hydrogen molecules using the assumption that the protons don't repel, and we'll talk.
They do their calculations with that repusion figured right into their equations and so think that two charged particles that have parallel and equal magnitude velocity vectors will still experience Coulombic repulsion.
They do. Your analogy with the Lorentz force on parallel currents doesn't work, because if all you've got is currents, then the Coulomb repulsion is screened because of the presence of both kinds of charge carriers. There is definitely an attractive Lorentz force for co-moving like charges, but it is
always smaller than the Coulomb repulsion. I've done the calculations. And the
only way those calculations are wrong is if either Maxwell's equations are wrong or relativity is wrong. So which is it?
So, I presented this question to him and he finally admitted that what I was proposing was a very interesting thing. He was a reasonable man because he didn't care what the textbooks were saying.. or what they assumed but rather what data there was to back up such assumptions and finally he admitted that he knew of no such data that substantiated the majority opinion on this subject.
I can't quite tell if this is an argument from authority, or an argument from
lack of authority. In any case, I have no particular reason to believe your account of this encounter, or to think that he was trying to do anything other than get some loony to leave him alone.
All I'm asking is that you display a little manners and grace and hold your peace if you don't really know for sure...
But I do know for sure. I know for quite certain that you're wrong.
Even in the operation of a fusion weapon I can use the exact same arguments to show that our concept of the fusion process and conditions that lead to fusion is wrong.
Your arguments are nonsensical. Let's see some calculations.
The weapons work and who can argue with such success...but the reality is that lots of technology can work and work very well and the operational principles behind how it works may be quite different that the reigning belief system.
That's conceivable. Problem is, we didn't get them to work by simple trial and error. So we've got no real reason to think that our current models are wrong, and YOUR model (such as it is) has yet to produce any actual calculations. So why should we abandon a successful,
quantitative model for fusion with one which has not produced any testable predictions? And you think
I'm arrogant. I'm not telling an entire class of highly successful people to throw out all their accomplishments and jump on to some "theory" that has not produced a single calculation.
Superconduction is real...but how it works is subject to debate. The BCS theory reigned for years and now has been openly scoffed at by Nobelist Phillip Anderson who has called it "a catalog of failures." Yet you'll still find people teaching that crap because Bardeen, Cooper and Schreiffer won the Nobel prize for it.
I'm afraid you merely demonstrate your cluelessness. BCS theory doesn't work for high temperature superconductors. But it's been, and
remains, a phenomenal success for conventional superconductors like elemental lead.
Your response is so arrogant and uninformed ... Entropy is about the increase of disorder and Negentropy is about the increase of order.
Which means that they're just the negatives of each other.
Lower energy states are more ordered...
Often but not always. A paramagnet in a magnetic field is a cannonical example of a case where the highest energy state has very low entropy. The entropy depends upon the number of accessible microstates. But if you're talking about a classical field, there's no degenerate microstates accessible. There's only one state, it's got zero entropy, and changing the energy doesn't change anything.
And as a side note... I never said cancelled each other out.
Then define "null point", because otherwise you just appear to be making up terminology, which anyone can do.
When you consider that the field of a charged particle is a continuous structure and then superimpose an opposite charge in the same space ...running the numbers you get zero charge... and that is just the problem with letting numbers take the place of the actual physics and that is why you cannot unify electromagnetism and gravity using your present intellectual processes and misconceptions of the nature of charge and the nature of gravity.
So are you trying to say the equations are
wrong? Where's the evidence? What equations should they be replaced with? Where are the quantitative predictions from such replacement equations?
Or are you contending that physics shouldn't be a mathematical science to begin with?
I want to openly declare this so that anyone reading this can get a good laugh at your expense; at least as good of a laugh as I have gotten.
Yeah, um... look around. I'm not the one everyone's laughing at.
There is the classic example of the problem of doing physics with a pencil or a calculator or computer because you replace fields with numbers and then forget about the actual physics...
So you're claiming that fields cannot be quantified or expressed mathematically? Or that they do not obey mathematical relationships?
Fortunately, it seems that you have no moral compass
That's funny, I thought we were talking about physics, not morality.
Clean up your act and behave with more restraint and less arrogance or I'll put your posts on the ignore list.
Boo friggin hoo. I don't consider that a threat, so go ahead and ignore me if you like. I think it will become clear to everyone that the real reason you are doing so is because you have no answer to my challenges.
I had hoped to find more restraint and better manners here than I can find on the unmoderated usenet newsgroups.
My initial responses were more restrained. When it became obvious that you are not interested in actually examining the facts, I stopped bothering. I do not regret that decision.
And you really haven't seen me be rude. This is nothing. I've only been truly rude to one person on this board, and it wasn't over a matter of physics.
You cannot get much more null content than that... you seriously ought to restrict yourself from posting for about 5 years..
!