I know enough about your life that you need to get one.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > Kevin, you know nothing about my life. Even if you did your advice is the > sand box argument. It is totally withour references so as an analtyical > engineer you should stay away from such poorly founded arguments. If that > is not enough to motivate your way of behaving, I will give you the > ultimate reason to keep your opinion to yourself: if I have not figured out > how to have life at my age I will unlikely be motivated or educated by your > floskel. > On Aug 7, 2014 9:30 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Get a life, Lennart >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>
