On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about > management/leadership. > ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either. > We had a talk about my subject not long ago. It did not go very well. > ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid argument together and are basically a follower not a leader. > I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason I try is > because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me that state of > matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an infinite number > of states. > ***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style: You follow a crowd. Not only that but you did not understand the original contention. So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't be barking in the first place. > First of all help me understand what is more accurate. > If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new states. > ***Your friends are not correct. You THINK we are looking for new states, but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what has been agreed in science. > Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for reasons > beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding of more hard > to describe/understand states is required. > ***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning. Recall my prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it reflects on your "leadership". > The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in my > opinion. > ***You do not know what you are talking about, so your opinion isn't worth much. > It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a wide > group of scientists. > ***What you don't seem to realize is that the whole field of LENR is not accepted by a wide group of scientists. > I think a more humble aproach where taking pieces from all theories would > propel the search for a solution forward much faster than the attempt to > disqualify othe theories while lifting ones own up to theology level.. > ***I didn't say that AT ALL. I don't see how you get that from what I wrote. > What I say is that there might be many forms of LENR. > ***Okay, nothing controversial here in terms of current LENR observations. > They might be depending on which state of matter they are working in. > ***POTO. (Pointing Out The Obvious). But not only that, you are saying something DIRECTLY in agreement with my original contention but acting as if you're arguing against it. > So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil, Jones, > etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the reason one is > better? > ***Sounds good to me. But how you got to the point that you somehow thought I was saying something different than this is utterly baffling. > On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, there are only >> 4 sates of matter (traditionally): solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Trying >> to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so far has proven fruitless, >> although plasma is a state of matter that I simply do not understand. >> >> Is an arc a plasma? My readings tell me: sometimes. >> >> I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come from one of >> these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of them). >> >> Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet >> mind-numbingly complex all at the same time. >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley >>> >>> >>> >>> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter: >>> >>> Solid >>> Liquid >>> >>> Gas >>> >>> Plasma >>> >>> Bose-Einstein Condensate >>> >>> It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would occur >>> as the newest & least understood state of matter….Especially when >>> plasma might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special case >>> of Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other states of matter >>> being postulated at this point? Some of the Zero Point >>> Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in >>> mainstream physics. >>> >>> Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be partly or >>> wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence that electrons >>> exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the candidates to macro >>> reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here are a few >>> more. >>> >>> Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether >>> >>> Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars >>> >>> PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki most likely >>> already has such a list, and indeed it can be found here >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>
