I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox logics. I call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . .". On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop throwing > rocks at him. Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this. > > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> > wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >
