Are you slow or something? What part of "WITHOUT USING PLANCK'S CONSTANT" don't you understand?
This is something that the world of science says is impossible. They say that Planck's constant is an elementary constant. Frank has shown that its not at all, its an aggregate constant. Now that it's proven that it is indeed possible, you laugh at it and say "but what's the point? I mean, it's not like mathematics is the language spoken by the universe or anything, right? /sarcasm And it seems as if your logic would dictate that every single physicist currently working is also retarded for studying m/string-theory. Instead of using our brain and coming to new realizations its better to stick our head in the sand and act like we have all the answers already, I guess... That plan of action worked pretty well for the 5-10,000 years of civilization before Newton, didn't it? On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Dr. Z, > > > > ROTFL. With this list you are surely the Rodney Dangerfield of physics. No > doubt about it. BTW how did all those Nobel prizes get bestowed on others, > who somehow got the credit for your fantastic 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 special relativity > > 5. the frequency and the energy of a photon > > > > I am absolutely blown away by this list of your accomplishments, which have > somehow been attributed to others. You should sue those pretenders and > reclaim your multiple honors … cough, cough. > > > > You sure this is not an audition for the Comedy Channel? > > > > If not, all I can say is that your arrogance is only exceeded by an > unbelievable lack of touch with reality. And in order to not take up any > more of the valuable time of one of the World’s greatest minds, I am going > to bow out of this discussion. > > > > Oh by the way - don’t quit your day job. > > > > Jones > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State > > > > > > > > Let’s be specific – what I am saying is that there is no universal speed of > transition applicable to all of quantum mechanics, and more specifically > that the Znidarsik value does not hold up under close scrutiny, especially > not to LENR, and offers zero predictive value that I can see. > > > > Can you step out on a limb and make any prediction based on it? > > > > > > snip lets try to see what came out of it. > > > > 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 special relativity > > 5. the frequency and the energy of a photon > > 6 the velocity of sound in the nucleus. > > 7 and the list goes on. > > 8 the lentr result predicts and increase in the strength of the spin orbit > force. How do get past the > > coulombic barrier at low energy? > > > > If that is not enough I calculated the radius of the universe in 1989 in my > book ELementary Antigravity. > > that was before the space telescope and the radius was then given as > between 8 and 20 billion light years. > > I got 13.6 billion light years and that was published and it was proven to > be correct > > > > Johns lift you head out of the 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:* seattle truth > > > > Ø I agree that the statement you listed makes no sense… But your criticism > that speaking of the speed of transition as a speed is ridiculous > is unfounded. > > > > Let’s be specific – what I am saying is that there is no universal speed of > transition applicable to all of quantum mechanics, and more specifically > that the Znidarsik value does not hold up under close scrutiny, especially > not to LENR, and offers zero predictive value that I can see. > > > > Can you step out on a limb and make any prediction based on it? > > > > BTW – I do admire what you have put together in terms of fine videos which > can explain clearly many aspects of physics to a broad audience, most of > which is based on a litany of the Great Men of science. Good work there, but > when it comes to tying all that back to Frank’s hypothesis, “where’s the > beef?” > > > > Sorry, but I must admit that I do not see anything of value in > megahertz-meter, and would normally be content 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 – some of whom may not see it as > much more than fluff. And it is not that I haven’t tried, over the years. > > > > Jones >
