On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:12 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> It is enlightening to consider the structure of the universe and the many > wonders that it reveals to us. Keep asking the right questions and you > will find appropriate answers. > > I have observed the behavior of particles and energies for some time now > and I find that the CoE is an effective way to validate the interactions > among them. > Really? Do you know how the Neutrino was 'Discovered', or should I say Invented? There was an apparent breach of the CoE in nuclear fusion (IIRC) and it was assumed that because they must balance anyway that the missing energy forms into some hard to detect particle. Then they tried to detect them in large pools of liquid and they saw fewer than predicted (assuming the chemicals in the pool were being effected by neutrinos). Somewhere along the line they learnt to detect neutrinos in far more effective ways, enough to question if they were breaking the speed of light. But I am not really sure if the energy of the neutrinos has been verified to fit the gap. But even so, the point must be made that based on energy that could be detected at the time, fusion was not able to be reconciled by the CoE. In the same way another process might tap energy from the Higgs field, or Neutrinos or some other unknown or hard to detect source. I guess it all depends if you want to be at the leading edge or just mopping up after breakthroughs have happened. > Of course I suspect that you are aware of the fact that mass is included > as a component of the law by the rules of special relativity. > Yes, the energy of matter is conserved as such (by known physics, generally apparently), but the mass isn't. Since matter might be energy, but I have never heard the claim that all forms of energy have mass or equal mass. > I have seen no evidence that CoE is breached in LENR type low energy > reactions and if you have any evidence to the contrary please inform me. > Until there is reason to believe otherwise, I will use that measure as a > requirement. If you open your mind too wide, your brains will spill > out...as they say. > They are wrong, since obviously mind does not equal skull. But the brain is like a parachute.... But who cares about such flawed analogies. A more important point is the half life of knowledge and beliefs. If you were trying to communicate a piece of currently accepted knowledge to someone from 50 years ago, they might find it hard to believe. >From 100 years ago they might find it fantastic. >From 150 years ago a lot of things would have you put in a mental hospital. 200 years ago and there would be more you couldn't convince most people of unless they were very open minded. Any further than that and it would become increasingly unlikely. The half life of knowledge in some areas is very very short. You are looking from the current paradigm. There is a lot in physics that is accepted or proposed today that would have you locked up in a mental institute probably just 25 years ago. In fact I think there is some stuff I think people should be locked up for believing today, but that's beside the point. And I believe stuff that has others might think the same of me... Everyone must establish a criteria to evaluate nature and they should > choose wisely. > > You mention Wilczek and his theory as one possible description of > nature. Why would his theory hold more sway than others that compete? > The work he did not it is supurb. I can't relay it accurately as I attended a lecture, but he modelled all the forces on supercomputers, it fit with work he had done at CERN. It was really amazing stuff and seemed to go to proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. I have found a video of him giving the Lecture and I think I will watch it in the hope he covers some of the same info he covered at the lecture I attended.
