Kevin, l googled you and I can see we life rather close to each other. I cannot remember ever doing any busines with you. If you find yourself holding rudges , vortex is hardly the place to sttlethat. If you have any hard feeloings , please address me via email and or telephone. I ensure you that we can find a satisfactory answer or solution. If you rather keep whatever feelings you have please keep them out of vortex. I personally think one need to clear the airand not go around holdinggrudges, which in the long runhurts nobody but yourself. I am as I said fine talking about your problems whatever they are. On Aug 8, 2014 9:55 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know enough about your life that you need to get one. > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> > wrote: > >> Kevin, you know nothing about my life. Even if you did your advice is the >> sand box argument. It is totally withour references so as an analtyical >> engineer you should stay away from such poorly founded arguments. If that >> is not enough to motivate your way of behaving, I will give you the >> ultimate reason to keep your opinion to yourself: if I have not figured out >> how to have life at my age I will unlikely be motivated or educated by your >> floskel. >> On Aug 7, 2014 9:30 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Get a life, Lennart >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox >>>> logics. I call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . .". >>>> On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop >>>>> throwing rocks at him. Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros < >>>>> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. Inhave >>>>>> not asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you think you >>>>>> can >>>>>> make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any personal >>>>>> vendetta. I >>>>>> admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the beginning an >>>>>> engineer as well. >>>>>> On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros < >>>>>>> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about >>>>>>>> management/leadership. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We had a talk about my subject not long ago. It did not go very >>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid >>>>>>> argument together and are basically a follower not a leader. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason I >>>>>>>> try is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me that >>>>>>>> state >>>>>>>> of matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an infinite >>>>>>>> number of states. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style: You follow a >>>>>>> crowd. Not only that but you did not understand the original >>>>>>> contention. >>>>>>> So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't be barking in the >>>>>>> first place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First of all help me understand what is more accurate. >>>>>>>> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new >>>>>>>> states. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ***Your friends are not correct. You THINK we are looking for new >>>>>>> states, but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what has been >>>>>>> agreed in science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for >>>>>>>> reasons beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> more hard to describe/understand states is required. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning. Recall >>>>>>> my prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it reflects on >>>>>>> your "leadership". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament >>>>>>>> in my opinion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ***You do not know what you are talking about, so your opinion isn't >>>>>>> worth much. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a >>>>>>>> wide group of scientists. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ***What you don't seem to realize is that the whole field of LENR is >>>>>>> not accepted by a wide group of scientists. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think a more humble aproach where taking pieces from all theories >>>>>>>> would propel the search for a solution forward much faster than the >>>>>>>> attempt >>>>>>>> to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones own up to theology >>>>>>>> level.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ***I didn't say that AT ALL. I don't see how you get that from what >>>>>>> I wrote. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What I say is that there might be many forms of LENR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ***Okay, nothing controversial here in terms of current LENR >>>>>>> observations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They might be depending on which state of matter they are working >>>>>>>> in. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ***POTO. (Pointing Out The Obvious). But not only that, you are >>>>>>> saying something DIRECTLY in agreement with my original contention but >>>>>>> acting as if you're arguing against it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil, >>>>>>>> Jones, etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the >>>>>>>> reason >>>>>>>> one is better? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ***Sounds good to me. But how you got to the point that you somehow >>>>>>> thought I was saying something different than this is utterly baffling. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, there >>>>>>>>> are only 4 sates of matter (traditionally): solid, liquid, gas, and >>>>>>>>> plasma. Trying to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so far >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>> proven fruitless, although plasma is a state of matter that I simply >>>>>>>>> do not >>>>>>>>> understand. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is an arc a plasma? My readings tell me: sometimes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come from >>>>>>>>> one of these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of them). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet >>>>>>>>> mind-numbingly complex all at the same time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Solid >>>>>>>>>> Liquid >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gas >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Plasma >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bose-Einstein Condensate >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR >>>>>>>>>> would occur as the newest & least understood state of >>>>>>>>>> matter….Especially >>>>>>>>>> when plasma might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very >>>>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>> case of Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other >>>>>>>>>> states of matter being postulated at this point? Some of the Zero >>>>>>>>>> Point >>>>>>>>>> Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> mainstream physics. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be >>>>>>>>>> partly or wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some >>>>>>>>>> evidence that >>>>>>>>>> electrons exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the >>>>>>>>>> candidates to >>>>>>>>>> macro reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here >>>>>>>>>> are a >>>>>>>>>> few more. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki most >>>>>>>>>> likely already has such a list, and indeed it can be found here >>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
