Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop throwing rocks at him. Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> wrote: > Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. Inhave not > asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you think you can > make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any personal vendetta. I > admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the beginning an > engineer as well. > On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about >>> management/leadership. >>> >> ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either. >> >> >> >>> We had a talk about my subject not long ago. It did not go very well. >>> >> ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid argument >> together and are basically a follower not a leader. >> >> >> >>> I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason I try is >>> because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me that state of >>> matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an infinite number >>> of states. >>> >> ***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style: You follow a >> crowd. Not only that but you did not understand the original contention. >> So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't be barking in the >> first place. >> >> >> >>> First of all help me understand what is more accurate. >>> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new states. >>> >> ***Your friends are not correct. You THINK we are looking for new >> states, but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what has been >> agreed in science. >> >> >> >>> Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for reasons >>> beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding of more hard >>> to describe/understand states is required. >>> >> ***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning. Recall my >> prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it reflects on your >> "leadership". >> >> >> >>> The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in my >>> opinion. >>> >> ***You do not know what you are talking about, so your opinion isn't >> worth much. >> >> >>> It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a wide >>> group of scientists. >>> >> ***What you don't seem to realize is that the whole field of LENR is not >> accepted by a wide group of scientists. >> >> >> >>> I think a more humble aproach where taking pieces from all theories >>> would propel the search for a solution forward much faster than the attempt >>> to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones own up to theology level.. >>> >> ***I didn't say that AT ALL. I don't see how you get that from what I >> wrote. >> >> >> >>> What I say is that there might be many forms of LENR. >>> >> ***Okay, nothing controversial here in terms of current LENR observations. >> >> >> >>> They might be depending on which state of matter they are working in. >>> >> ***POTO. (Pointing Out The Obvious). But not only that, you are saying >> something DIRECTLY in agreement with my original contention but acting as >> if you're arguing against it. >> >> >>> So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil, >>> Jones, etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the reason >>> one is better? >>> >> ***Sounds good to me. But how you got to the point that you somehow >> thought I was saying something different than this is utterly baffling. >> >> >>> On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, there are >>>> only 4 sates of matter (traditionally): solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. >>>> Trying to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so far has proven >>>> fruitless, although plasma is a state of matter that I simply do not >>>> understand. >>>> >>>> Is an arc a plasma? My readings tell me: sometimes. >>>> >>>> I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come from one >>>> of these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of them). >>>> >>>> Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet >>>> mind-numbingly complex all at the same time. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter: >>>>> >>>>> Solid >>>>> Liquid >>>>> >>>>> Gas >>>>> >>>>> Plasma >>>>> >>>>> Bose-Einstein Condensate >>>>> >>>>> It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would >>>>> occur as the newest & least understood state of matter….Especially >>>>> when plasma might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special >>>>> case of Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other states of >>>>> matter being postulated at this point? Some of the Zero Point >>>>> Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in >>>>> mainstream physics. >>>>> >>>>> Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be partly >>>>> or wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence that >>>>> electrons exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the candidates to >>>>> macro reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here are a >>>>> few more. >>>>> >>>>> Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether >>>>> >>>>> Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars >>>>> >>>>> PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki most likely >>>>> already has such a list, and indeed it can be found here >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>
