David Thomson wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Let me see, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, but none of the
> others items in your list rings a bell when I look over his papers.
Hi,
I'll point out the difference. Einstein's paper was aimed at one thing, "The
Photoelectric Effect." I provide
Hi Paul,
Let me see, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, but none of the
others items in your list rings a bell when I look over his papers. I have
written a 27 page basic introduction to the theory, which I had to keep as
short as possible but still present the theory. In that paper, I
David Thomson wrote:
> I think I'm getting tired of trying to show people the Aether Physics Model.
> I'm ready to just turn within and work on my own development and let people
> discover the answers to physics for themselves.
Sorry to jump in, as my time only permits me to follow my own threa
Hi Steven,
> The Fe (iron) "energy well" explanation where "energy" (as elaborated by
Mr. Lawrence) seems to be released from the fission of heavier than Fe
elements still strikes me as a plausable explanation - not that I care to
cast dispersions on the Aether theory.
There is no "dispersion" ca
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:55:17 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Finally, uranium itself may seem to be a puzzle: Where did it come
>from? What reaction formed it? The universe started with hydrogen; how
>did atoms like uranium "climb the energy hill"? The answer, as
Hello Dave,
>
> Hi Stephen, [Lawrence]
>
> > Finally, uranium itself may seem to be a puzzle: Where did it come
> from? What reaction formed it? The universe started with hydrogen; how
> did atoms like uranium "climb the energy hill"? The answer, as I
> understand it, is supernova explosions:
Hi Stephen,
> Finally, uranium itself may seem to be a puzzle: Where did it come
from? What reaction formed it? The universe started with hydrogen; how
did atoms like uranium "climb the energy hill"? The answer, as I
understand it, is supernova explosions:
The supernova explosion theory
Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
There has been lively debate in regards to whether E=mc^2 is an accurate
mathematical equation to describe whether energy is actually being converted
back and forth between mass and energy. No doubt many are likely to consider
it outrageous to challenge considering
Hello David,
>> When these smaller atomic nuclei are created wouldn't
>> that also mean that the individual protons and neutrons
>> within these lighter elements have to suddenly regain
>> lost mass if their atomic number is less that Fe?
> This is exactly what I have been saying. I'm glad
> so
Hi Steven,
> When these smaller atomic nuclei are created wouldn't that also mean that
the individual protons and neutrons within these lighter elements have to
suddenly regain lost mass if their atomic number is less that Fe?
This is exactly what I have been saying. I'm glad somebody is listen
10 matches
Mail list logo