On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do not know that I intended to provoke. > ***Weasel words from a weasel. You know your own intention, but here you say "you do not know". It is your OWN intention, of COURSE you know. But someone from a "strategic leadership" background and thin skin and a record right here on this thread is compelled to write like you do. Weasel. > I do have a technical question about howmany states there are (unanswered). > ***What a bunch of horse manure, in light of your previous response. Geez, why don't you just give it up? > How you mix that with the name of my business I cannot understand. > ***Yup. I know you don't understand. And I know you cannot understand. That's why you write in such a ridiculous manner. Perhaps some day you will make some positive contribution to Vortex, one can only hope. > Even more do I think your unqualified, wrongful and mean evaluation of my > person is insulting and uncalled for. > ***Like I said before, if you don't want the alligator to snap at you, quit throwing rocks at him. Preschoolers know the wisdom of this. Evidently, you are not smarter than a preschooler. > I have told you to contact me privately if you have a grudge to settle > ***I have no grudge to settle. Perhaps some day you will learn to be a "strategic leader". But I doubt it. > . I do not think that being the case you just enjoy being judgemental. > ***You're so full of bowlsheeite. You've engaged in judgementalism since your first post on this thread, and throughout. You just like to hide behind weasel terms so that no one will call you out. Once they do, we all see what an incredible weasel punk you are. Why did you start your interactions with invective if you didn't want invective to ensue? Because you are a weasel, that's why. > I.suggest you stick to the issues instead of dabble in evalutions you have > neither qualifications nor informations to do. > ***And I suggest you go back to "strategic followership"... oops, that's supposed to be strategic leadership, but with your approach there is no discernible difference. > On Aug 10, 2014 7:56 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Lennart: >> >> Why don't you just leave me alone? You started out on this thread >> intending to provoke, so you've achieved provocation. Now that you don't >> like the result you wanna backtrack. I get it. So then back track. Get >> lost. Go and teach someone about your supposed "strategic leadership" >> which is neither strategic nor leadership. >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Kevin, l googled you and I can see we life rather close to each other. I >>> cannot remember ever doing any busines with you. If you find yourself >>> holding rudges , vortex is hardly the place to sttlethat. If you have any >>> hard feeloings , please address me via email and or telephone. I ensure you >>> that we can find a satisfactory answer or solution. If you rather keep >>> whatever feelings you have please keep them out of vortex. I personally >>> think one need to clear the airand not go around holdinggrudges, which in >>> the long runhurts nobody but yourself. I am as I said fine talking about >>> your problems whatever they are. >>> On Aug 8, 2014 9:55 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I know enough about your life that you need to get one. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Kevin, you know nothing about my life. Even if you did your advice is >>>>> the sand box argument. It is totally withour references so as an >>>>> analtyical >>>>> engineer you should stay away from such poorly founded arguments. If that >>>>> is not enough to motivate your way of behaving, I will give you the >>>>> ultimate reason to keep your opinion to yourself: if I have not figured >>>>> out >>>>> how to have life at my age I will unlikely be motivated or educated by >>>>> your >>>>> floskel. >>>>> On Aug 7, 2014 9:30 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>
