Basically what I believe in is what I can see and measure.
All others must apply to me on a "show me" basis.
I only criticize the patently ridiculous and need not believe in anything and should not believe in anything beyond those things apparent to the senses or to special devices devised to extend the senses to within about one order of magnitude above where consistently observable, repeatble, behavior fades out.
Theories regarding the unseen or mathematically derived from inferred information are just that...theories, based of self consistent mathematics with imagined realities created to fit as needed.
Heisenberg set a standard for the realistically absurd and unknowable based on position and momentum of matter. Any one talking about a reality below this level is truly talking moonshine, indeed.
It is fine to tell of ones dreams and musings, but identify them as that. If they are carefully crafted dreams by savants and annointed fathers of a codified discipline they are still imaginings and dreams, nonetheless.
For me there is matter and charge. the electron and proton are extensive real objects.... in the shadows to be sure, but real. I hold with the charge ring model first advanced in the early 1900s and expounded upon on the common sense science web page, put up by a group of physicists tired or pie-in-the-sky, whacked out ideas built on already shakey foundations.
The ring model and resulting work on same handily explained the electron orbitals in real matter and is 100% predictive of same, whereas the quantum model fails to predict certain elemental isotopic forms.
Richard Hull
While there is limited reference on their website to christian beliefs, I will listen as long as the science is reasonable and stays on track.
http://www.commonsensescience.org
Two things that give me pause when considering nature is someone using God and religion as a reason for believing as they do...... or someone telling me that necessary faith in science and the Men creating it is a reason for believing as they do.
Although the most whacked out biblical tale is no where near the level of sophistication of multi-level whackiness and articles of faith needed to FOLLOW let alone SWALLOW the standard model, virtual particles, Things condensing from the vacuum, etc.
Crazy Design Idea
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15028
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Crazy Design Idea
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
guest
Re: Crazy Design Idea
Richard Hull wrote:
> Basically what I believe in is what I can see and measure.
> All others must apply to me on a "show me" basis.
> I only criticize the patently ridiculous
Things like going to the moon, radios and x-rays all would have been 'ridiculous' before their time. Was it Einstein that said he wanted to keep an open mind, but not so open his brains fell out?
>and need not believe in anything and should not believe in anything beyond those things apparent to the senses or to special devices devised to extend the senses to within about one order of magnitude above where consistently observable, repepeatble, behavior fades out.
Now that is a problem, because some things require a great deal of energy, are very subtle, and must be integrated over long periods before even a crude opportunity to connect the dots is available.
> Theories regarding the unseen or mathematically derived from inferred information are just that...theories, based of self consistent mathematics with imagined realities created to fit as needed.
Nature is often symetrical and regular. People are often sneaky and deceptive. "Once is accident, twice coincidence, but three times enemy action". Those with either abstract mathematical skill or an expert understanding of metaphor systems are able to connect the dots and contrive experiments to confirm or deny their suspicions. Skeptics like you are good for thining literature and cluter for students, but your not likely to be able to exploit something you don't believe in.
Perhaps we don't have viable fusion today because too many can only think in terms of time and temperature, rather than trapping energy in plasma solitons, particle impedance transformation and catalysts.
> For me there is matter and charge. the electron and proton are extensive real objects.... in the shadows to be sure, but real. I hold with the charge ring model first advanced in the early 1900s and expounded upon on the common sense science web page, put up by a group of physicists tired or pie-in-the-sky, whacked out ideas built on already shakey foundations.
According to them an electron is a ring of charge,.charge that must be conjured from the vacuum. Some of the mathematics has elements in common with other theories I have read, such as resonance of charge and mass. Nothing I (with my crude understanding) find incompatible with Einsteins geometrodynamics, or a polarizable, hypergeometric vacuum that supports various soliton modes like a cellular automata lattice supports diverse 'drifters'.
Whenever you see particles and a true vacuum, rather than wave modes in a noisy, energetic quantum vacuum or aether, you have trouble explaining spooky quantum phenomena like the entanglement, tunneling et. Such quantum phenomena can be modeled in nonlinear mediums like a CA lattice.
> Although the most whacked out biblical tale is no where near the level of sophistication of multi-level whackiness and articles of faith needed to FOLLOW let alone SWALLOW the standard model, virtual particles, Things condensing from the vacuum, etc.
Our world views prejudice what we allow our minds to entertain. The Common Sense Science physicists believe God isn't the author of confusion, that God doesn't play dice, and they persue theories they find beautifull. An atheist physicist like Weinburg believes were just one big, meaningless accident. Most don't call him 'wacked out', even though it should be obvious that preaching that human beings are meaningless accidents, rather than the means a pre-conscious mechanical universe has chosen to establish life and the profound spiritual emergent properties of truth, love, justice and purpose, is apt to result in personal and corporate dissolusionment, corruption and disintegration. Perhaps they (typical liberal university atheists) don't take their own meaninglessness too seriously, because they consider the theft of my money by government goons as taxation their mission and purpose in life! Like the deceptive, disgruntled employee we have all worked with, they say discouraging things to you about the company, while they do their best to better you.
But theories of weak and strong forces that lack the beauty of square-inverse electromagnetism and gravity have their uses. I like to think of the weak and strong force particles as soliton phenomena that are manifest only in dense nuclear systems, dense from their electromagnetic and mass/space currents. Maybe that metaphor is too crude? I'm dissapointed we are not hearing from others with stronger physics backgrounds.
Scott
> Basically what I believe in is what I can see and measure.
> All others must apply to me on a "show me" basis.
> I only criticize the patently ridiculous
Things like going to the moon, radios and x-rays all would have been 'ridiculous' before their time. Was it Einstein that said he wanted to keep an open mind, but not so open his brains fell out?
>and need not believe in anything and should not believe in anything beyond those things apparent to the senses or to special devices devised to extend the senses to within about one order of magnitude above where consistently observable, repepeatble, behavior fades out.
Now that is a problem, because some things require a great deal of energy, are very subtle, and must be integrated over long periods before even a crude opportunity to connect the dots is available.
> Theories regarding the unseen or mathematically derived from inferred information are just that...theories, based of self consistent mathematics with imagined realities created to fit as needed.
Nature is often symetrical and regular. People are often sneaky and deceptive. "Once is accident, twice coincidence, but three times enemy action". Those with either abstract mathematical skill or an expert understanding of metaphor systems are able to connect the dots and contrive experiments to confirm or deny their suspicions. Skeptics like you are good for thining literature and cluter for students, but your not likely to be able to exploit something you don't believe in.
Perhaps we don't have viable fusion today because too many can only think in terms of time and temperature, rather than trapping energy in plasma solitons, particle impedance transformation and catalysts.
> For me there is matter and charge. the electron and proton are extensive real objects.... in the shadows to be sure, but real. I hold with the charge ring model first advanced in the early 1900s and expounded upon on the common sense science web page, put up by a group of physicists tired or pie-in-the-sky, whacked out ideas built on already shakey foundations.
According to them an electron is a ring of charge,.charge that must be conjured from the vacuum. Some of the mathematics has elements in common with other theories I have read, such as resonance of charge and mass. Nothing I (with my crude understanding) find incompatible with Einsteins geometrodynamics, or a polarizable, hypergeometric vacuum that supports various soliton modes like a cellular automata lattice supports diverse 'drifters'.
Whenever you see particles and a true vacuum, rather than wave modes in a noisy, energetic quantum vacuum or aether, you have trouble explaining spooky quantum phenomena like the entanglement, tunneling et. Such quantum phenomena can be modeled in nonlinear mediums like a CA lattice.
> Although the most whacked out biblical tale is no where near the level of sophistication of multi-level whackiness and articles of faith needed to FOLLOW let alone SWALLOW the standard model, virtual particles, Things condensing from the vacuum, etc.
Our world views prejudice what we allow our minds to entertain. The Common Sense Science physicists believe God isn't the author of confusion, that God doesn't play dice, and they persue theories they find beautifull. An atheist physicist like Weinburg believes were just one big, meaningless accident. Most don't call him 'wacked out', even though it should be obvious that preaching that human beings are meaningless accidents, rather than the means a pre-conscious mechanical universe has chosen to establish life and the profound spiritual emergent properties of truth, love, justice and purpose, is apt to result in personal and corporate dissolusionment, corruption and disintegration. Perhaps they (typical liberal university atheists) don't take their own meaninglessness too seriously, because they consider the theft of my money by government goons as taxation their mission and purpose in life! Like the deceptive, disgruntled employee we have all worked with, they say discouraging things to you about the company, while they do their best to better you.
But theories of weak and strong forces that lack the beauty of square-inverse electromagnetism and gravity have their uses. I like to think of the weak and strong force particles as soliton phenomena that are manifest only in dense nuclear systems, dense from their electromagnetic and mass/space currents. Maybe that metaphor is too crude? I'm dissapointed we are not hearing from others with stronger physics backgrounds.
Scott
-
guest
Re: Crazy Design Idea
Jim,
I've just recently started a project trying to duplicate some of Bussard's work. I thank you for the links to the Hallbach arrays - extremely interesting stuff.
However, I don't see what the advantages would be to Bussard's magnetic containment of electrons. Granted, have the field cancel out on the outside of the chamber could be advantagous from purely practical considerations of the design, but I don't think it really addresses the fundamental problem. You would still end up with the same point cusp configuration.
Certainly, the Hallbach array is very interesting, but from my point of view, it just looks like more work to get the same results. My chamber design can get the same point cusp trap with a simple arrangement of ceramic permanent magnets (rings and bars) without having to have specially made rare earth magnets.
Just wondering if there's something I'm missing here that I should be thinking about.
Anyways, thanks again for such an interesting and novell field arrangment
I've just recently started a project trying to duplicate some of Bussard's work. I thank you for the links to the Hallbach arrays - extremely interesting stuff.
However, I don't see what the advantages would be to Bussard's magnetic containment of electrons. Granted, have the field cancel out on the outside of the chamber could be advantagous from purely practical considerations of the design, but I don't think it really addresses the fundamental problem. You would still end up with the same point cusp configuration.
Certainly, the Hallbach array is very interesting, but from my point of view, it just looks like more work to get the same results. My chamber design can get the same point cusp trap with a simple arrangement of ceramic permanent magnets (rings and bars) without having to have specially made rare earth magnets.
Just wondering if there's something I'm missing here that I should be thinking about.
Anyways, thanks again for such an interesting and novell field arrangment