Mark,
Thanks for remembering this thread. It is definitely worth revisiting in the
context of a number of issues related to finding the proper and ultimate
source of gain in Ni-H.
I had actually delayed moving on to a Part 2 of this premise for a number
of reasons including apparent lack of
CERN has spent $ten billion and counting to verify how particles get their
mass from the Higgs field. As I understand the Higgs theory (whose
implications about the acquisition of mass by particles I might not fully
comprehend) the Higgs mechanism is a process that is *universal and constant
*
IMO, the quest to explain origin of inertia (mass) in terms of an
energy field (higgs field) is topsy-turvy, because historically and
logically the concept of inertia is more basic than than the concept
energy. Energy is a derived concept.
It is like trying to explain the origin of Judaism in
Jones:
You might want to follow this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg35942.html
The quote from the PhysOrg article which starts the thread is this:
So you have one set of data that tells you the mass-dependence picture
doesn't
work and another that tells you the
Dam you Jones!!
We have company coming over in 30 mins and I can't read this yet
:-)
BTW, the fact that, your posting earlier that two protons can attract each
other under rare and specific conditions would be *expected* under my
qualitative model expressed this past year.
Man, I
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Man, I hope the dinner guests don't stay too long...
Go salt the food, man.
T
6 matches
Mail list logo
