>From Jones ...
> My apologies if this does not constitute arrogance, as it may only have been > said out of frustration. After all, it must be very frustrating to speak to > physicists > about a speed of sound in the nucleus and wonder why you are getting a cold > shoulder ... On this point I can certainly sympathize with your commentary. ;-) I can not speak for Frank nor his decision to have chosen to use the term "sound" to describe what I gather are interesting "vibrations" occurring within the nucleus of atoms. It is in fact extremely unfortunate precisely because the original meaning of the word tends to get in the way of what I suspect Frank was actually attempting to convey to his audience - that there may exist interesting vibrations and harmonics at play. Not only that, such vibrations can perhaps be understood and mapped using simple algebraic formulas. While it is obvious to all who may be studying Frank's theory - the fact that there is no actual "sound" implied, I suspect it is nevertheless tempting for most skeptics to focus on the original meaning of the word and glibly conclude that his use of the word (to describe dynamic states of an atom's nucleus) must mean Dr. Z is nothing more than a unformed deluded kook. It's almost a kind of cultural bias! Therefore... cased closed. How unfortunate. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
