The idiot John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> persisting in being an Off-topic troll... -- John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:> Path: not-for-mail > NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:55:09 +0000 > From: John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Subject: Re: moon race > Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 07:54:41 -0800 > Organization: Highland Tech > Reply-To: xx@yy.com > Message-ID: <k9eclilpcp6hmmm540098u8nf8efje43um@4ax.com> > References: <rak4lipre2a8p4ifagehq2o894ebaakok3@4ax.com> <dfb44dbe-dc95-421f-a74d-e4f88e7ef6a5n@googlegroups.com> <u5n4li11gpbgskqobfr6vpm2hl2jmc2s5n@4ax.com> <67a5b770-9808-45ba-95d1-4410d6a0f706n@googlegroups.com> <6ea5li9jd5v2klac279m4499ocbrfh304t@4ax.com> <uivflg$16958$1@dont-email.me> <u937lipvrvsfuhue2lr5h48558spk4o3v5@4ax.com> <dd5a55aa-050a-4664-a19b-56bd2149f477n@googlegroups.com> <uj4c8b$1imhm$1@solani.org> > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Lines: 96 > X-Trace: sv3-pmlwc/U23kEfms+WcdSto5zTtd6vkm+QLuvwYi+ar7DejtDzieUJcuY0wzrhE8nHO4ywz2FbEjOvCnM!s9vijN0nJBOhlx4TSJ7KdSzIkMbOhwF5M++XlPER4jP0gcOEGGbAOYUhOGxmWFRXkNrkyQydjQZU!hnsf2Q== > X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html > X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html > X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers > X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly > X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 > Bytes: 5076 > X-Received-Bytes: 5276
moon race
Started by ●November 13, 2023
Reply by ●November 16, 20232023-11-16
Reply by ●November 16, 20232023-11-16
On 16/11/2023 15:45, John Larkin wrote:> On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 11:16:37 +0000, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 15/11/2023 20:06, john larkin wrote: >>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:01:06 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:29:10?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >> >>>>> Steam engines inspired thermodynamics, not the reverse. >>>> >>>> Nonsense; thermodynamics was what the steam tables were all about, >>> >>> Newcomen had steam tables? >> >> In the early days it was purely empirical and based on indicator >> diagrams where the work done could be estimated. The jig for doing that >> to optimise a steam engine was a very closely guarded trade secret for >> some considerable time (decades). So closely guarded that there were >> multiple independent inventors of the rick and litigation about it. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicator_diagram >> >> Clapeyron (and Bernoulli) eventually formalised the theory. > > The indicator diagram came along about 80 years after the Newcomen > engine. Another case of science trailing invention. > > Science is shockingly conventional, un-imaginative, and resistant to > new ideas. Or at least the scientific community is.Science is very imaginative but rejects anything that doesn't fit with reality fairly quickly - no point in barking up the wrong tree. Although people like Dirac who invented positrons and posed a solution of -2 fish for the 3 fisherman's dilemma do push the boundaries a bit. Science has a fairly reasonable requirement that any new theory should explain *all* the observed facts so far *and* make some testable predictions that can be used to validate and verify the new theory. Plenty of theoreticians work on stuff that is potentially decades away from being experimentally verifiable with current technology. I was astonished when they got the gravitational wave detectors to work. Detecting dark matter is still proving very hard. Experimentalists look for experiments that would potentially disprove some aspect of current theory. There are examples where the establishment rejected valid science for a while but ultimately science is self correcting since eventually someone else will tread the same path. BZ reaction being a classic example. I always felt very sorry for Belusov - he never really recovered from his paper being rejected. (and his ground breaking chemical clock reaction was easy to reproduce)> "Science progresses one funeral at a time."There is always a rearguard action from the previous encumbent theory. Fred Hoyle's Steady State universe vs Einstein-Lemaitre's "Big Bang" universe (a disparaging term that Hoyle coined and which stuck). The experimentalist Ryle put the final nails in the coffin of Steady State by showing that the universe was different and more active in the past using radio astronomy observations. Some of his rear guard never really accepted that. Hoyle should have had a Noble prize for his work on CNO nucleosynthesis but was a bit too abrasive to get a nomination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle That only goes to prove that scientists are human. He did have some pretty odd and controversial ideas in addition to the good stuff. -- Martin Brown
Reply by ●November 16, 20232023-11-16
The idiot Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> persisting in being an Off-topic troll... -- Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:> Path: not-for-mail > From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Subject: Re: moon race > Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 16:26:25 +0000 > Organization: A noiseless patient Spider > Lines: 75 > Message-ID: <uj5fro$2b9np$1@dont-email.me> > References: <rak4lipre2a8p4ifagehq2o894ebaakok3@4ax.com> <dfb44dbe-dc95-421f-a74d-e4f88e7ef6a5n@googlegroups.com> <u5n4li11gpbgskqobfr6vpm2hl2jmc2s5n@4ax.com> <67a5b770-9808-45ba-95d1-4410d6a0f706n@googlegroups.com> <6ea5li9jd5v2klac279m4499ocbrfh304t@4ax.com> <uivflg$16958$1@dont-email.me> <u937lipvrvsfuhue2lr5h48558spk4o3v5@4ax.com> <dd5a55aa-050a-4664-a19b-56bd2149f477n@googlegroups.com> <qk8ali56addu9bna1iv8hcscb4nou24pii@4ax.com> <uj4tmr$284bt$1@dont-email.me> <pvdclipa3j7gjb13cjhuebhk2sg9d16atk@4ax.com> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 16:26:32 -0000 (UTC) > Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2da3cb937c29cf8f833fe24ff58e8472"; logging-data="2467577"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+r6fwO7kcq9hfKtsSevEGMGq0oUYJpo+xIJBlOcgSjlA==" > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ih3adgn3ehikF7uJFbCy+AMLQlc= > Content-Language: en-GB > In-Reply-To: <pvdclipa3j7gjb13cjhuebhk2sg9d16atk@4ax.com> > X-Received-Bytes: 4896
Reply by ●November 17, 20232023-11-17
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 2:46:00 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:> On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 11:16:37 +0000, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 15/11/2023 20:06, john larkin wrote: > >> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:01:06 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:29:10?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: > > > >>>> Steam engines inspired thermodynamics, not the reverse. > >>> > >>> Nonsense; thermodynamics was what the steam tables were all about, > >> > >> Newcomen had steam tables? > > > >In the early days it was purely empirical and based on indicator > >diagrams where the work done could be estimated. The jig for doing that > >to optimise a steam engine was a very closely guarded trade secret for > >some considerable time (decades). So closely guarded that there were > >multiple independent inventors of the rick and litigation about it. > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicator_diagram > > > >Clapeyron (and Bernoulli) eventually formalised the theory. > The indicator diagram came along about 80 years after the Newcomen > engine. Another case of science trailing invention. > > Science is shockingly conventional, un-imaginative, and resistant to > new ideas. Or at least the scientific community is. > > "Science progresses one funeral at a time."Max Planck was being cynical. Some of his contemporaries were "shockingly conventional, un-imaginative, and resistant to new ideas". He wasn't and there were other exceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_mirabilis_papers Max Planck was the editor of the journal that published all four of Einstein's 1905 papers, and he didn't bother sending them out for review. He wasn't resistant to good new ideas, and good scientists mostly aren't. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●November 17, 20232023-11-17
On a sunny day (Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:00:58 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in <1secli1v0ieq3r5ggru2nccf4r2pqohisf@4ax.com>:>On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:04:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >wrote: > >>On a sunny day (Wed, 15 Nov 2023 07:42:39 -0800) it happened John Larkin >><jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in <0hp9li5qvuutioq03li9d7c78licq4phl8@4ax.com>: >> >>>On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 06:08:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On a sunny day (Tue, 14 Nov 2023 07:34:38 -0800) it happened John Larkin >>>><jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in <nh47li5varc5qv835u57jt3bgr0fgu7l7s@4ax.com>: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 05:53:34 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On a sunny day (Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:31:08 -0800) it happened John Larkin >>>>>><jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in <u5n4li11gpbgskqobfr6vpm2hl2jmc2s5n@4ax.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:15:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs >>>>>>><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 11:45:05?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/concerns-growing-over-the-new-moon-space-race-between-china-and-the-us/ar-AA1jQ6iU >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This makes no sense to me. Who cares if China or India waste a >>>>>>>>> trillion dollars "establishing norms" on the moon? How many kids are >>>>>>>>> going hungry to bring back more boring moon dirt? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And "space" is pretty big. Nobody is going to dominate space. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's 21st century circus for the fools...both of those places are in dire need of freeing up the geniuses distracted by >>>>>>>>that >>>>>>>>waste to work on more pressing down to Earth problems, like feeding themselves. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>One argument is that spending resources on NASA equivalents bootstraps >>>>>>>technology in a poor country. I think they have that backwards. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's tragic how much North Korea spends on missiles and cannons and >>>>>>>nukes. >>>>>> >>>>>>US is the poorest country on the planet, >>>>> >>>>>That's silly. >>>>> >>>>>>its debt is the biggest >>>>> >>>>>As a fraction of GDP, it's not. Look it up. >>>>> >>>>>>It sells weapons to its own people and others, payed for by that debt and their tax payers. >>>>>>The people are poor, homelessness is extreme, people killing each other for automatic weans, >>>>>>they designed things like COVID, many of their products suck >>>>>>and are expensive, >>>>> >>>>>If you don't like american technology, don't use it. >>>> >>>>Right >>>>Chinese stuff is cheaper and works 99% of the time. >>> >>>So a board that uses 300 Chinese parts will work 5% of the time. >> >>You twist the facts >>I buy complete Chinese stuff, satellite receiver, DVB-T reeiver, >>several modules like GPS, motion sensors, temperature and air pressure sensors, >>power supply modules, radios, multimeters, wallwarts, LNBs,the list is much longer. >>All work >>Of all the separate semiconductors I have ordered only one time I got a buch that did not >>do what that chip number implied, got a refund. >>Even my drone is made in China, OLED modules too, flashlighs, UV light, SDcard reader.. just looking around... >>You could not make any of it for that money. >>TV remotes... >>LED srips (not sure if that is from China but I think so), hundreds of LEDs.. >>for your Christmas lighting.. > >I suppose they test their stuff before they ship it, which is why >about 80% of the Chinese electronics works right when it arrives. > >But I don't buy assembled electronics, I design electronics from >parts. This is a design newsgroup.The little modules, like for example the ethernet modules are useful because the pinout is .1 inch so you do not have to solder super small chips or use an adaptor. For small quanities it is great. You do the same with power modules and RF modules I noticed. Saves dremeling :-) https://panteltje.nl/pub/ethernet_modules_from_china_2_ct_img_2891.jpg https://panteltje.nl/pub/ethernet_modules_from_china_ct_img_2890.jpg Or the smaller ones, like in my gas detector now: https://www.ebay.com/itm/314356981186>> >> >> >>>>US men die 6 years before women, as life expectancy gap widens: >>> >>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/11/231114215650.htm >>> >>>Surfing and skydiving and mountain climbing and suntanning with babes >>>on the beach are dangerous. >> >>Yep >>And serving uncle Joe >> High lung cancer rates in naval veterans linked to asbestos: >> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/11/231114143823.htm > >Asbestos wasn't unique to the USA. Nor were cigarettes, except that >americans could afford lots of cigs. > >Hardly anyone around here smokes tobacco any more.In the old house I had asbestos stuff on the floor, walked on it for years. Recently the asbestos roof was replaced back here. I dunno about here, I stopped smoking after my school exams, smoked a lot during the last year Oh and some hash later... Now I see kids smoking dope here at the busstop... Biden was on about China selling drugs, Fentanyl, I did see on the news. Seems it kills more than guns do?
Reply by ●November 17, 20232023-11-17
On a sunny day (Thu, 16 Nov 2023 16:26:25 +0000) it happened Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <uj5fro$2b9np$1@dont-email.me>:>Science has a fairly reasonable requirement that any new theory should >explain *all* the observed facts so far *and* make some testable >predictions that can be used to validate and verify the new theory. > >Plenty of theoreticians work on stuff that is potentially decades away >from being experimentally verifiable with current technology. I was >astonished when they got the gravitational wave detectors to work.I was not, been watching the tides come and go. There is no difference apart from Einstein hysteria. Le Sage theory predicts the same.>Detecting dark matter is still proving very hard.If it exists at all!
Reply by ●November 17, 20232023-11-17
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 2:55:26 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:> On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:18:51 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid> > wrote: > >On a sunny day (Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:01:06 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd > ><whi...@gmail.com> wrote in > ><dd5a55aa-050a-4664...@googlegroups.com>: > > > >>On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:29:10 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrot= > >>e: > >>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 09:46:24 +0000, Martin Brown > >>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> >Science invents and discovers new things that have no apparent > >>> >usefulness at the time of their discovery. It is usually a few decades= > >> > >>> >before industry even gets remotely interested in such breakthroughs. > >> > >> > >>> People built structures and water systems before there was any > >>> corresponding science. > >> > >>That's not clear. The "corresponding science" may just not have been > >>written down; language arts and writing are recent compared to > >>structures and water systems as we know them from archaeology. > >> > >>> Basic concepts of sanitation and medical > >>> hygiene preceded knowledge of bacteria and viruses. > >> > >>That just means we've got a few steps farther in our understanding > >>those things, not that 'science' wasn't present in the early concepts. > >> > >>> We had eyeglasses > >>> and telescopes before there was any theory of optics. > >> > >>Huh? "any theory" cannot have been absent for producing telescopes, thoug= > >>h > >>the optical design of those early years may not have been the rich field of= > >> knowledge > >>that optics later became. > >> > >>>Franklin and Ohm > >>> and Edison and DeForest invented electronics before anyone understood > >>> the physics. > >> > >>They were early researchers, in a sense; obviously "the physics" was what F= > >>ranklin > >>and Ohm were researching. They didn't precede it, they led it. > >> > >>>Steam engines inspired thermodynamics, not the reverse. > >> > >>Nonsense; thermodynamics was what the steam tables were all about, > >>the whole point of science is to have a good grasp of reality even when > >>the apparatus isn't yet built. You cannot call engines an inspiration of = > >>knowledge > >>and deny that knowledge inspires invention. > >> > >>> It's hard to think of a case where science preceded invention, ... > >> > >>They both arise from confusion, which is apparently where John Larkin is dw= > >>elling. > > > >You sound like some other script that used to run here > > > >John is right > >All starts with 'observation' > >when the guy observed the kettle lid pushing up > >he decided to make it turn a wheel. > >When some guy used electrickety on a frog leg... > >Gun powder .. > > > >Then models were made, mamamatical equations were made to APPROXIMATE > >what was observed, so you could sort of scale things or predict things. > >The models were modified over time as more was found out about what was > >really happening. > >This is all still going on. > >Unfortunately many (like Albert E. parrots) take those mamamatical equations > >for reality, and they cannot see... Becomes their religion so to speak. > > > Yes, observations and inventions are usually made by amateur experimenters, and scientists are inspired (actually surprised) and follow up with theory to make things better. Not always, but usually.Not usually, but occasionally.> The airplane is a good example.It's actually a terrible example. There was an aerodynamic community, and the Wright brothers knew what they were doing and came up with a variation that worked well enough for them to sell it to other people. Santos-Dumont wasn't far behind, and quite independent> There are a few cases where scientists really invented something based on theory. The maser is one example, and the bipolar transistor was an accident discovered while investigating solid-state physics with a practical goal. Radar, maybe, but it had hints from accidental observations.As if John Larkin knew enough about science to be a reliable source.> Science education should include courses in thinking crazy.Brainstorming? Management can mostly supply any lunacy that might be needed as well as liberal supplies of unhelpful lunacy. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●November 17, 20232023-11-17
On 17/11/2023 06:17, Jan Panteltje wrote:> On a sunny day (Thu, 16 Nov 2023 16:26:25 +0000) it happened Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <uj5fro$2b9np$1@dont-email.me>: > >> Science has a fairly reasonable requirement that any new theory should >> explain *all* the observed facts so far *and* make some testable >> predictions that can be used to validate and verify the new theory. >> >> Plenty of theoreticians work on stuff that is potentially decades away >>from being experimentally verifiable with current technology. I was >> astonished when they got the gravitational wave detectors to work. > > I was not, been watching the tides come and go. > There is no difference apart from Einstein hysteria. > Le Sage theory predicts the same.Do you have any idea how tiny the length changes they are detecting actually are? Around a ten thousandth of the diameter of a proton! https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-GW150914Calibration/ The mirror suspension method is worthy of a Nobel prize on it's own!>> Detecting dark matter is still proving very hard. > > If it exists at all!Always that possibility. -- Martin Brown
Reply by ●November 17, 20232023-11-17
On a sunny day (Fri, 17 Nov 2023 09:48:26 +0000) it happened Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <uj7ctg$2oe8i$2@dont-email.me>:>On 17/11/2023 06:17, Jan Panteltje wrote: >> On a sunny day (Thu, 16 Nov 2023 16:26:25 +0000) it happened Martin Brown >> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <uj5fro$2b9np$1@dont-email.me>: >> >>> Science has a fairly reasonable requirement that any new theory should >>> explain *all* the observed facts so far *and* make some testable >>> predictions that can be used to validate and verify the new theory. >>> >>> Plenty of theoreticians work on stuff that is potentially decades away >>>from being experimentally verifiable with current technology. I was >>> astonished when they got the gravitational wave detectors to work. >> >> I was not, been watching the tides come and go. >> There is no difference apart from Einstein hysteria. >> Le Sage theory predicts the same. > >Do you have any idea how tiny the length changes they are detecting >actually are? Around a ten thousandth of the diameter of a proton!Sure, the length changes of planet earth over that distance for gravity changes created that far away are small. But the claim 'this proves that gravitational waves exist as predicted by Albert E.' is false. They just look for a higher part of the length changes spectrum, the slow part caused by the moon is much bigger. And the whole Albert E. math is like in those other steam engine examples: just mamamatical babble, an approximation, and worthless without a MECHANISM, and there at least Le Sage makes predictions. Albert E.'s is like Ohms law. We need the electrons to make sense of electrickety. Ohms law breaks down in the Fleming tube. current in a vacuum, and one way only at that! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleming_valve Once we can understand Le Sage type particles a _rectifier_ (so a machine that only lets those Le Sage particles through in one way) then that will give us space propulsion that will put everything else like burning fuels and explosions in the shade. As graffiti seems to travel at the speed of light (was measured?) chances are big that EM radiation is transferred by the same Le Sage particle, possibly a state of it. That than also explains the interaction between graffiti and light. But I am just an alien, you humming beans need to work on this. Spectral widening is also easily explained with Le Sage. This posting was spelled by spell checkers I am still curious about Podkletnow's experiment, and real data from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov and what US DOD really found out with the late Ning Li experiments: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist) Could be a dead end road. but then again, superconductors do funny things with things travelling through them. Experiments are essential to find a way for humming beans to spread across the universe. But then again, would more of us making wars everywhere help? Seems we are just a transient chemical reaction, must be everywhere although in different forms adapted to their local environments.
Reply by ●November 17, 20232023-11-17
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:12:34 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:> On a sunny day (Fri, 17 Nov 2023 09:48:26 +0000) it happened Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <uj7ctg$2oe8i$2...@dont-email.me>: > >On 17/11/2023 06:17, Jan Panteltje wrote: > >> On a sunny day (Thu, 16 Nov 2023 16:26:25 +0000) it happened Martin Brown > >> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <uj5fro$2b9np$1...@dont-email.me>: > >> > >>> Science has a fairly reasonable requirement that any new theory should > >>> explain *all* the observed facts so far *and* make some testable > >>> predictions that can be used to validate and verify the new theory. > >>> > >>> Plenty of theoreticians work on stuff that is potentially decades away > >>>from being experimentally verifiable with current technology. I was > >>> astonished when they got the gravitational wave detectors to work. > >> > >> I was not, been watching the tides come and go. > >> There is no difference apart from Einstein hysteria. > >> Le Sage theory predicts the same. > > > >Do you have any idea how tiny the length changes they are detecting > >actually are? Around a ten thousandth of the diameter of a proton! > > Sure, the length changes of planet earth over that distance for gravity changes created that far away are small. > But the claim 'this proves that gravitational waves exist as predicted by Albert E.' is false.Actually, it isn't - it is merely that you don't understand what is being said.> They just look for a higher part of the length changes spectrum, the slow part caused by the moon is much bigger.Why do you think that?> And the whole Albert E. math is like in those other steam engine examples: just mathematical babble, an approximation, and worthless without a MECHANISM, and there at least Le Sage makes predictions.You don't understand what is being said, and prefer to think that it is meaningless babble, rather than something you might have been able to understand if you had the wit to absorb the necessary education.> Albert E.'s is like Ohms law. > We need the electrons to make sense of electricity.We don't. They explain specific kinds of electrical conduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell worked out his equations without any reference to discrete electrons. Thompson didn't discover the electron until 1897 and Maxwell died in 1879.> Ohms law breaks down in the Fleming tube. current in a vacuum, and one way only at that! > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleming_valveSo what?> Once we can understand Le Sage type particles a _rectifier_ (so a machine that only lets those Le Sage particles through in one way) then that will give us space propulsion that will put everything else like burning fuels and explosions in the shade.The problem with the Le Sage theory is that it doesn't make sense when you try to work out what properties the particles would have to have to do their job.> As graffiti seems to travel at the speed of light (was measured?) chances are big that EM radiation is transferred by the same Le Sage particle, possibly a state of it. > That than also explains the interaction between graffiti and light. > But I am just an alien, you human beings need to work on this.It has been done, and it didn't pay off.> Spectral widening is also easily explained with Le Sage.If you don't know what you are talking about you can think that.> This posting was spelled by spell checkers.We don't have rationality checkers.> I am still curious about Podkletnow's experiment, and real data from > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov > and what US DOD really found out with the late Ning Li experiments: > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)Occam's Razor says that they were both nut cases.> Could be a dead end road. but then again, superconductors do funny things with things travelling through them. > Experiments are essential to find a way for human beings to spread across the universe.But the doing the wrong experiments won't help.> But then again, would more of us making wars everywhere help? > Seems we are just a transient chemical reaction, must be everywhere although in different forms adapted to their local environments.Probably a correct, but unhelpful, point of view. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
