I appended a conclusion to my original reply from last night.
Stephen,
thank you for the answer. It appears relativistic velocities like
the muon are not as common as I imagined but even these lesser velocities
you mention would accumulate into time dilation like the protracted decay of
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
If lattice resonance is a factor, then some depth may be required to build
up a strong enough resonance effect that the mechanism can operate.
(analogous to adding more dipoles to a TV antenna)
Hi Robin,
Lattice resonance and depth below the
On 02/08/2010 11:41 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
I have lost the citation from a few weeks ago that claimed that below a
threshold of about 10 nm, the expected blackbody frequency is upshifted for
nanostructures, in general.
If I understand you, and if this is true, then it's a violation of the
'T'-- *From Holraum to Relativistic-Gravity to Casimir tofrom the Big Bang*
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:50:23 -0500
Subject: Re: FW: [Vo]:The Hohlraum Works
From: hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Kewl! Let's build one!
*If you build it . . . STAND BACK!: The
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
Jones Beene wrote:
I have lost the citation from a few weeks ago that claimed that below a
threshold of about 10 nm, the expected blackbody frequency is upshifted
for
nanostructures, in general.
SAL: If I understand you, and if this is
On 02/08/2010 01:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence
Jones Beene wrote:
I have lost the citation from a few weeks ago that claimed that
below a threshold of about 10 nm, the expected blackbody frequency is
upshifted for nanostructures, in
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
I'm not going to pretend I can follow the reasoning here. Sorry...
Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
If it helps to slake your thirst for nano-insight on this subject, here is
the same story from a
This sounds very cool.
http://www.physorg.com/news184310039.html
Ron
On 02/08/2010 03:38 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
I'm not going to pretend I can follow the reasoning here. Sorry...
Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
If it helps to slake your thirst for nano-insight
I think you may be confusing two effects here.
On 02/08/2010 01:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence
Jones Beene wrote:
I have lost the citation from a few weeks ago that claimed that
below a threshold of about 10 nm, the expected blackbody
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:44:23 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
This was not an MeV/He-4 chart, actually, and it was not, contrary to
Krivit's assertions, used to prove the 24 MeV correlation. What the
paper was asserting was that there was a correlation between excess
Stephen
It's clear that you are trying to re-characterize a mistaken understanding
on your part, in order to try to win an argument that can only be won if you
get to rephrase it your own terms.
For instance: CoE has *nothing* to do with the issues here. CoE is first
law. We're
talking about
On Feb 8, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
I'm not going to pretend I can follow the reasoning here. Sorry...
Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
If it helps to slake your thirst for nano-insight on
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
My comments all addressed the issue of a BB spectrum shift, and were not
related to superradiance.
Aha. I see, this is a miscommunication more than just being argumentative.
I'll take that as an unintended apology, since you must have
On 02/08/2010 05:01 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
Stephen
It's clear that you are trying to re-characterize a mistaken understanding
on your part, in order to try to win an argument that can only be won if you
get to rephrase it your own terms.
Totally false.
For instance: CoE has
At 04:55 PM 2/8/2010, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:44:23 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
This was not an MeV/He-4 chart, actually, and it was not, contrary to
Krivit's assertions, used to prove the 24 MeV correlation. What the
paper was asserting
On 02/08/2010 05:10 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
My comments all addressed the issue of a BB spectrum shift, and were not
related to superradiance.
Aha. I see, this is a miscommunication more than just being argumentative.
I'll take
17 matches
Mail list logo
