Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. Inhave not asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you think you can make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any personal vendetta. I admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the beginning an engineer as well. On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >
