Lennart: Why don't you just leave me alone? You started out on this thread intending to provoke, so you've achieved provocation. Now that you don't like the result you wanna backtrack. I get it. So then back track. Get lost. Go and teach someone about your supposed "strategic leadership" which is neither strategic nor leadership.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > Kevin, l googled you and I can see we life rather close to each other. I > cannot remember ever doing any busines with you. If you find yourself > holding rudges , vortex is hardly the place to sttlethat. If you have any > hard feeloings , please address me via email and or telephone. I ensure you > that we can find a satisfactory answer or solution. If you rather keep > whatever feelings you have please keep them out of vortex. I personally > think one need to clear the airand not go around holdinggrudges, which in > the long runhurts nobody but yourself. I am as I said fine talking about > your problems whatever they are. > On Aug 8, 2014 9:55 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>
