Get a life, Lennart
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> wrote: > I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox logics. > I call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . .". > On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>
