Because currently 95% of the energy in the universe is missing. I am going with the odds.
Actually I have supplied plenty of testable theories on my blog, like that weakly ionizing plasma channel within a waterspout, many of which appear to defy gravity, is actually a string of vacuum with tension. They are not just whirling wind, that is so god damn stupid we ought to fire every geophysicist and weatherman that says so. Air cannot do that by itself. http://epsppd.epfl.ch/London/pdf/P4_062.pdf http://www.rightthisminute.com/video/ultra-thin-waterspout-spotted-georgia-coastline I have designed lots of heat exchangers and vacuum condensers and been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so in industry and I know a vacuum when I see one, at least within a gas. I can't see in cracks and lattices so I can't say what that is. That is like separating gnat shit from pepper. I think nature and the Earth get their energy primarily from a weakly ionizing, decaying vacuum field, energized from the fun. Which is also why we should not be pumping megawatts of microwave EMF into it 24/7 else you end up with this: http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/01/31/the-killing-fields/ Or take a look at this "ice halo" and "sun dog" which show up before during and after low pressure weather events. Take a look at that horizontal ring closely and you will see condensing and lensing. Geophysicists can't dream up enough hexagonal ice crystals magically aligning themselves to create that thing. In my research that is one bad ass decaying, lensing, closed string of quantum vacuum. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/01/23/the-meek-shall-inherit-the-earth/ You can even hear it pulling a vacuum on the atmosphere. Enough ranting. I agree with you otherwise and have tremendous respect for the work you have done. Stewart On Sunday, February 2, 2014, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: > Chem, > > Why propose something that cannot be tested and is not known to exist in a > chemical structure? > > Ed Storms > On Feb 2, 2014, at 12:41 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote: > > Ed, > > If you escaped from a black hole you wouldn't have much energy left > either...:) > > On Sunday, February 2, 2014, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Feb 2, 2014, at 11:36 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Ed, > > There is no doubt that you know more details about the LENR field than > anyone on this board, and probably anyone on the planet. In fact, I am > often > amazed at your recall for arcane details that go back 20+ years. Staggering > in a way. > > > Thanks Jones, but I have a computer that never forgets.:-) > > > But ... having said that - you have so much information to sort through, > that on occasion, the mere magnitude of that massive databank will mean > that > any mortal will be overwhelmed to a degree, when trying to accurately put > it > all together and frame the "big picture" accurately. The tendency is to > weight all facts in a narrow range - when scientifically there will be one > solitary fact - which is of massively disproportionate significance. > > > That might be the tendency, but it is not what I'm doing. I'm trying to > find the simplest solution possible with the fewest number of assumptions. > > > The homily for this situation is "failure to see the forest for the trees." > > > How about calling a meadow a forest because one tree can be located? > > > There may be some justifiable reason, in the end (when we do finally > understand LENR) which more clearly explains why you choose to minimalize > the importance of the almost complete lack of gammas. But so far, that case > has not been made. > > > I do not minimize. I state very clearly and very often that radiation is > emitted. However, the photons have too little energy to get out and be > detected. Radiation is detected when the detector is placed in the > apparatus. You ignore the fact that photons can have a huge range of > energy. What you call gamma are very energetic because they are emitted all > at once from a single nuclear event. LENR does not do this. The energy is > given off in many small quanta of energy. The mystery is how this energy > is divided into the small units. This is a mechanism that can be tested and > presently is based on evidence. > > Why assume that failure to detect is a failure to exist? The detected > radiation is real and the measured energy shows that most of it would not > escape. This is not unexpected or in conflict with anything. Your approach > is like arguing that because we can get close to a nuclear reactor, the > radiation inside is equally small and not dangerous. > > > To me the lack of gammas is - by far - the overriding and highly > disproportionate consideration for everything which we do not know about > the > field. > > > I agree. This is the smoking gun. The challenge is to explain LENR as > simply as possible and by a mechanism that can be tested. > > > That is why a less competent thinker like myself has no problem in > confronting a superior intellect with this fact, over-and-over it seems - > at > least until that point in time when a better explanation comes along. I'm > looking for the forest, not the trees. > > > I'm looking for a path through the forest. I agree, this is a complex > forest, but a path can be found if cliffs can be avoided. > > Ed Storms > > > Jones > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmund Storms > > Yes Jones, expected the response. > > However, you might consider that I probably know more about this > subject than any one in this discussion group. So, considering what I > propose might be worth your time. I'm not propping or protecting. I'm > simply looking at what is happening and applying the simplest > explanation that is consistent with what is known in science. > > Anything can be explained if novel assumptions are made. I'm trying > to explain without making assumptions that conflict with what is > k > >
