Re: Solid Hydrogen, Sonofusion
From: Michael Davis (mdavis19_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 10/31/04
- Next message: Eric Gisin: "Re: Using nuclear power to make renewables and a hydrogen economy cost"
- Previous message: hanson: "Re: Using nuclear power to make renewables and a hydrogen economy cost effective"
- Maybe in reply to: Franz Heymann: "Re: Solid Hydrogen, Sonofusion"
- Next in thread: quasarstrider: "Re: Solid Hydrogen, Sonofusion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:39:27 GMT
Notorious net kook, ufo nut, and pseudo scientific crank Thomas Lee
Elifritz babbled:
> October 30, 2004
>
> Michael Davis wrote:
>
>
>>>Hydrogen dissociates into protons, the protons ionize,
>>
>>Protons ionize do they?
>
>
> Actually, everything in the stellar interior is already preionized.
So you are contradicting yourself? I note you are also evading my point,
coward.
> Ok, atomic hydrogen.
Atomic Hydrogen is not the same as ionized Hydrogen, ignoramus. Hydrogen
can be atomic but neutral.
> Now tell us, exactly where is that electron?
In atomic Hydrogen? Orbiting the proton of course, silly kook.
>
>
>>Um, hold the phone, kook. Deuterium consists of two protons? Maybe in
>>your own private kook universe, but not here in the real world. What
>>happens after the protons fuse is highly relevant, since it is only
>>after one of the protons decays into a neutron that duterium is formed.
>
>
> It's spelled 'deuterium'. Spelling is critical.
More critical to you than getting the physics right apparently. Typical
kook. When cornered lash out with an evasive spelling lame.
>
> Hint : Electroweak. Electron capture is also at play. I suppose beta decay and capture
> could be the electroweak analogy of ionization and recombination. That is why we have pp
> colliders, to try and figure out exactly what is happening. Since the solar neutrino
> problem still persists, apparently we still have a ways to go with that understanding.
Hint: I'm not buying into your evasive, tangential, tap dancing about
irrelevant side issues, kook. Your inability to stick to the point is a
problem of truly pathological proportions. Simply spewing a paragraph of
random, irrelevant, technobabble doesn't help you make your case. Unless
of course you are trying to make the case that you are a nut.
>
>
>>>The analogy is that the reaction proceeds in steps,
>>
>>The analogy is asinine.
>
>
> But an analogy nevertheless.
Yes, and an utterly asinine one, As pointed out in the part you
shamefully and in craven cowardice snipped out without even
acknowledging. Let's put back the part you took out:
"The analogy is asinine. Fusion and electrolysis have nothing to do with
one another. One is a nuclear reaction and the other is a chemical
reaction. One builds larger things out of smaller parts and the other
breaks larger parts into smaller ones. Where exactly is the analogy?"
So, Little Tommy, do you have the guts and the brains to actually answer
the above question, or are you just going to evade it again?
> Hint : Electroweak,.degenerate matter, reaction, ignition.
Hint: This is just more meaningless technobabble. Try to stick to the point.
>
> http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Degenerate_matter
>
> That is the whole point of these hydrogen discussions,
No, it has zip to do with the discussion you were participating in. It
certainly has nothing to do with electrolysis. Can you even read, Little
Tommy?
> is what happens in degenerate
> superfluids and supersolids, especially in relation to chemical reactions and nuclear
> ignition under degeneracy conditions, especially in cold matter models. Did you even read
> the relevant papers? Since we barely have a handle on the theory and the equations of
> state, and very little experimental accessibility, and only indirect astrophysical
> observations to go on, it's a wide open field, wouldn't you say? That is why I avidly
> read anything and everything that Neil Ashcroft produces. You can either participate in a
> rational manner, or you can make kook comments and unsubstantiated absolutist statements.
Ok, but what does any of that have to do with electrolysis?
>
> How did you get out of your skeptical world where nothing ever changes,
Plenty changes in my world. Kooks like you come and go all the time.
> anything you
> don't understand is gobbledygook to you,
Well, the erratic (dis)funtioning of your so-called mind certainly fits
into the category of things I don't understand. Hint: Simply spouting
meaningless word salads filled with random technobabble and irrelevant
citations doesn't prove you actually have a clue what you are talking
about. In fact it simply makes you look like every bit of the clueless
kook you are.
> where you jump all over every little deviation
The devil is in the details. If you can't even get the easy minor points
right, then what are the odds you have any real clue about the big picture?
> of your perverse conception of the way 'things ought to be', and where you spend your
> entire pathetic lives endlessly debating crackpots,
Oh I don't just debate crackpots like you. I also enjoy baiting,
taunting and poking you with the sharp stick of truth. Dance for me, kook.
> while simultaneously declining to
> participate in a real world where science constantly provides new and interesting,
> usually totally unexpected, surprises?
I don't participate in the world of science? As an astronomer, this news
comes as a shock to me. Get out your Basic Physics for Complete
Imbeciles book and teach me more about all the things you think I don't
know about stellar fusion reactions, Little Tommy. It should be good for
a laugh.
> There appears to be a spectrum of people in
> America,
Uh, oh. Now he is going off on a political tangent. This another prime
example of how not to make a point in science.
> those that think that the universe is totally amazing, those that think the
> universe is boringly normal, and those that don't think about the universe at all.
> America is a nation overrun with the the latter two types, the first kind being in the
> extreme minority. Nothing new there.
Yeah, yeah. We are the Great Satan and all that. The root of all evil in
the world. Yadda, yadda, yadda. But I gotta wonder. How is it our fault
you are an ignorant, evasive, kook who nobody takes seriously?
>
> Is it a particle or a wave? Creation or evolution?
Do you get much spittle on your monitor when you froth away like this,
Little Tommy?
>
> Biology without physics. Amazing.
As an example of biology without a brain, you are far more amazing, kook.
-- The Evil Michael Davis(tm) http://www.mdpub.com/scopeworks/ http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536 Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club "There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often erroneously attributed to P. T. Barnum)
- Next message: Eric Gisin: "Re: Using nuclear power to make renewables and a hydrogen economy cost"
- Previous message: hanson: "Re: Using nuclear power to make renewables and a hydrogen economy cost effective"
- Maybe in reply to: Franz Heymann: "Re: Solid Hydrogen, Sonofusion"
- Next in thread: quasarstrider: "Re: Solid Hydrogen, Sonofusion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
