Oh by the way - don’t quityour day job.
Jones
Jones has writtern
We know of one way this strong proximate electric field can be accomplished
efficiently - in fact nature is obliging us part of the way, as we speak, with
a static high gradient (capacitive field) in "acid rain."
The CO2 and sulfur in the atmosphere creates acid rain which can register a pH
of 0 in many parts of the USA!. Now a pH=0 is maximum acidity; 7 is the neutral
point in the middle of the scale; 14 = maximum alkalinity (the opposite of
acidity). The smaller the number on the pH scale, the more acidic the
substance. Rain measuring between 0 and 5 on the pH scale is acidic and
therefore called "acid rain." Small number changes on the pH scale actually
mean large tenfold increase in acidity, which is basically a static capacitive
electric field. It is not really static in the sense of frozen, but there is no
net flux of charge at the macro level.
Is a resultant electric field in water with a pH
<snip>
I was at first worried about you comments as if you were another Ed Storms. I
have read you works and I have also started up SO2 scrubbers for 10 years and
clearly you know nothing about acid rain and by inference know nothing at all.
I no longer in need a day job. Look for my products shortly in the stores.
I'll tell you where in the mall to get them and buy one to help me out.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones Beene <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 7:04 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
Dear Dr. Z,
ROTFL. With this list you aresurely the Rodney Dangerfield of physics. No doubt
about it. BTW how did allthose Nobel prizes get bestowed on others, who somehow
got the credit for yourfantastic advances?
1. the radii of the orbits of the atoms
2. the intensity of spectral emission
3. the Fermi distribution of electrons
4. a possible unification with quantum physics and specialrelativity
5. the frequency and the energy of a photon
I am absolutely blown awayby this list of your accomplishments, which have
somehow been attributed toothers. You should sue those pretenders and reclaim
your multiple honors …cough, cough.
You sure this is not anaudition for the Comedy Channel?
If not, all I can say isthat your arrogance is only exceeded by an unbelievable
lack of touch withreality. And in order to not take up any more of the
valuable time of one ofthe World’s greatest minds, I am going to bow out of
this discussion.
Oh by the way - don’t quityour day job.
Jones
From:[email protected]
Subject:Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
Let’s be specific – what Iam saying is that there is no universal speed of
transition applicable to allof quantum mechanics, and more specifically that
the Znidarsik value does nothold up under close scrutiny, especially not to
LENR, and offers zero predictivevalue that I can see.
Can you step out on a limband make any prediction based on it?
snip lets try to seewhat came out of it.
1. the radii of the orbitsof the atoms
2. the intensity ofspectral emission
3. the Fermidistribution of electrons
4. a possibleunification with quantum physics and special relativity
5. the frequency andthe energy of a photon
6 the velocity ofsound in the nucleus.
7 and the list goes on.
8 the lentr resultpredicts and increase in the strength of the spin orbit
force. How do getpast the
coulombic barrier at lowenergy?
If that is not enough Icalculated the radius of the universe in 1989 in my book
ELementaryAntigravity.
that was before the spacetelescope and the radius was then given as between 8
and 20 billion lightyears.
I got 13.6 billion lightyears and that was published and it was proven to be
correct
Johns lift you head out ofthe sand, some of this may be wrong but not all of it.
Frank Znidarsic
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones Beene <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 11:12 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
From: seattletruth
Ø I agree that the statement you listed makes no sense… Butyour criticism that
speaking of the speed of transition as a speedis ridiculous is unfounded.
Let’s be specific – what Iam saying is that there is no universal speed of
transition applicable to allof quantum mechanics, and more specifically that
the Znidarsik value does nothold up under close scrutiny, especially not to
LENR, and offers zero predictivevalue that I can see.
Can you step out on a limband make any prediction based on it?
BTW – I do admire what youhave put together in terms of fine videos which can
explain clearly manyaspects of physics to a broad audience, most of which is
based on a litany ofthe Great Men of science. Good work there, but when it
comes to tying all thatback to Frank’s hypothesis, “where’s the beef?”
Sorry, but I must admitthat I do not see anything of value in megahertz-meter,
and would normally becontent to remain silent on that issue, except that at
some point – “silence”implies consent, and tends to reflect poorly on all of us
who post here – someof whom may not see it as much more than fluff. And it is
not that I haven’ttried, over the years.
Jones
