Prev: groups.google.com advanced search
Next: Space aether must exist
From: Just Me on 18 Apr 2010 00:46
On Apr 17, 5:34 pm, Just Me <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 3:58 pm, John Ashby <johnashb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > So much bad physics, so little time. Suffice it to say that the dynamics
> > of an orbiting satellite is independent of the mass of the satellite,
> > whether it is a weather satellite, a weather satellite of twice the mass
> > or a weather satellite of the mass of the moon.
>
> Absolute, total and utter nonsense. This contradicts Galileo, Newton
> AND Einstein. It is complete rubbish as any high school physics
> student would know, or as any rational thinker would immediately
> perceive from the fact that these are nothing but statements with no
> support, either logical or empirical. "Suffice it to say" he says.
> Well, it DOESN'T suffice to stand there pedantically spouting jingoist
> jive like "the dynamics of an orbiting satellite" without describing
> the so-called "dynamics".  What dynamics? There are no dynamics
> outside of mass, distance and for whatever the purpose, angular
> velocity. What the hell does he think he's boogalooing about?
> --
> JM

From: Cwatters on 18 Apr 2010 10:08

"Just Me" <jpdm45(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f6c4a99-316c-411e-be0f-eacaa297e4f1(a)5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> the respective potential for a polar opposite magnetic
> charge from the iron core of the earth would be far greater

What do you mean by "respective potential"?

Cern uses a lot of energy but isn't it small compared to say the tidal
energy from the moon?






From: Cwatters on 18 Apr 2010 10:14

"bert" <herbertglazier79(a)msn.com> wrote in message
news:4869fce1-1603-4ab6-9138-c69f4fbeb487(a)h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>On Apr 17, 3:12 am, "Tom Potter" <xprivatn...(a)mailinator.com> wrote:
>Reality is Cern is over engineered. That is the reason I predicted a
>melt down. 10 years ago we accelerated electrons up to 99.0000 of c
>It was easy,and the laser used was under a million bucks.

Isn't there a lot more energy in a proton beam than an electron beam?


From: Just Me on 18 Apr 2010 15:48
On Apr 18, 9:08 am, "Cwatters"
<colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> "Just Me" <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1f6c4a99-316c-411e-be0f-eacaa297e4f1(a)5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > the respective potential for a polar opposite magnetic
> > charge from the iron core of the earth would be far greater
>
> What do you mean by "respective potential"?

Poor choice of terms. But let's see it in context . . .

> In quite the same fashion, the respective potential for a polar
> opposite magnetic charge from the iron core of the earth would be far
> greater than that of any bicycle passing near the LHC at Cern.

No need for the term "respective". Or I might as well have said . . .
"Respectively, the potential for a polar opposite magnetic charge from
the iron core of the earth would be far greater than that of any
bicycle passing near the LHC at Cern."

What I mean by "potential" is that the "polar opposite charge" from
the iron core of the earth entirely consists merely as a potential for
magnetic energy, until attractive force of the LHC magnets, causes the
iron molecules in the core to move or i.e. become 'kinetic' as they
align, become magnetized. It is the motion of those molecules which I
suggest is creating the currents, the waves in the sea of iron that
cause all this tectonic disturbance that is presently crippling
commerce over the entire European continent.
--
JM




 While
> the bicycle WILL afford an opposing charge to the LHC, and will be
> minimally attracted to the LHC, it will not be enough to be noticed by
> the rider.  Conversely, the immense iron core of the Earth will be
> affected, just as we are seeing today in the news from China and
> Iceland.


>
> Cern uses a lot of energy but isn't it small compared to say the tidal
> energy from the moon?

From: Just Me on 18 Apr 2010 16:35
On Apr 18, 2:48 pm, Just Me <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 9:08 am, "Cwatters"

> > Cern uses a lot of energy but isn't it small compared to say the tidal
> > energy from the moon?

Two completely different kinds of energy. The amount of energy used by
the LHC is one thing, the output in magnetic energy radiated into the
liquid iron core of the earth is quite another. Tidal forces are
gravitational and because the earth's liquid core is entirely enclosed
no surface wave motion can physically occur. But by force of magnetism
the motion is molecular, the wave motion is sub-surface by electro-
magnetic pulse every time the monstrous thing is turned off and on;
something a tidal force cannot produce.
--
JM

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: groups.google.com advanced search
Next: Space aether must exist