Weitter Duckss Posted July 8, 2014 Author #26 Share Posted July 8, 2014 OK. You want to say that this is the holy grail, and there is no need to question? The project at CERN and was based on that knowledge! They did not uninformed there in conventional science. Or they make a mistake or do not wallow information that led to the failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmakazi Posted July 8, 2014 #27 Share Posted July 8, 2014 You have 300 of engineers who are incorrectly connected cable. OK. They checked and correct the problem. OK. Why, then, has been a "rushed" disinformation to the public? Accidentally or intentionally? Defective happens to everyone, lightheadedness or laity, or a third something comes to? It is the same with God's particle. If there are events, they must be represented within each 5%. The U.S. stopped in time and stopped the construction of the accelerator. I don't understand what you are trying to say. As for the "rushed disinformation" it's all in the wording... most of what I read said the results were promising or they "thought" they may have found certain things... but that doesn't mean they've finished analysis of the data or verified the findings. But sometimes the average person reads headlines like that and assumes there is confirmation. It seems like you're suggesting some kind of conspiracy - or mass stupidity - in this subject but I can't tell because of the language differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmakazi Posted July 8, 2014 #28 Share Posted July 8, 2014 OK. You want to say that this is the holy grail, and there is no need to question? The project at CERN and was based on that knowledge! They did not uninformed there in conventional science. Or they make a mistake or do not wallow information that led to the failure. I don't think its the holy grail, it's just another tool. Our history is full of the various tools that were very enlightening... until something better was invented. Years in the future we'll have something that makes CERN look like child's play... but right now CERN is what we have. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted July 8, 2014 #29 Share Posted July 8, 2014 I think if anyone reads this whole Thread (and several others) without thinking about its content, it may seem very similar to what Savaldor Dali was trying to achieve in his surrealist paintings, or maybe similar to a disconnected stream-of-consciousness novel. I'm sorry if I don't understand what's going on here (the reason for my above comment). Maybe I'm just thick. As I don't have a comment as to the subject, maybe this post should be deleted, as it may be considered a form of accidental or intentional disinformation. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted July 9, 2014 Author #30 Share Posted July 9, 2014 We create powerful missile weapon in public we capture the moon. We investigate metals and minerals on Mars, we ask the public life, as he disappeared atmosphere (which it is not, and that was not there). We are looking for a new way of getting energy, public we rush God Particle. It's not a conspiracy, "normal" form of communication with the public. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rlyeh Posted July 9, 2014 #31 Share Posted July 9, 2014 We create powerful missile weapon in public we capture the moon. We investigate metals and minerals on Mars, we ask the public life, as he disappeared atmosphere (which it is not, and that was not there). We are looking for a new way of getting energy, public we rush God Particle. It's not a conspiracy, "normal" form of communication with the public. What are you babbling about? The LHC was never about finding a new source of energy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted July 9, 2014 #32 Share Posted July 9, 2014 What are you babbling about? The LHC was never about finding a new source of energy. It's stream of consciousness poetry. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Supertypo Posted July 9, 2014 #33 Share Posted July 9, 2014 LHC failure? what failure...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted July 9, 2014 #34 Share Posted July 9, 2014 We create powerful missile weapon in public we capture the moon. We investigate metals and minerals on Mars, we ask the public life, as he disappeared atmosphere (which it is not, and that was not there). We are looking for a new way of getting energy, public we rush God Particle. It's not a conspiracy, "normal" form of communication with the public. I...really cannot understand what your claim is. What do you think CERN was supposed to do, and what do you think it failed to do? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted July 9, 2014 Author #35 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I...really cannot understand what your claim is. What do you think CERN was supposed to do, and what do you think it failed to do? The circumstances in which they found CERN could not do more. I'm sorry that you have understood (or so I wrote) this is not a complaint CERN, CERN is already a tool for starting discussions about the things that have brought us here. This criticism is: you should are be more careful with statements prior results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted July 9, 2014 #36 Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) This criticism is: you should are be more careful with statements prior results. If you are talking about the neutrino/lighspeed failure here you maybe dont know that the (wrong) results were reviewed over a time period of six month and also the CERN scientists provided the (wrong) results from the beginning on to scientists and institutes outside CERN for external examination. Later on it has been discovered that the results were wrong due to measurement error and the error was published immediately. Thats the way how reliable scientists work and its wrong to say that the results were published without care. Edited July 9, 2014 by toast 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted July 9, 2014 Author #37 Share Posted July 9, 2014 OK. How do you defend stories: Revealing the very beginning of the universe ... we and only god can do it ... originate black hole ... enter the beginnings of Bing Bang ... ... Is not there too much bragging for one so serious project? I would like to discuss about the atom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted July 9, 2014 #38 Share Posted July 9, 2014 The circumstances in which they found CERN could not do more. More than what? I'm sorry that you have understood (or so I wrote) this is not a complaint CERN, CERN is already a tool for starting discussions about the things that have brought us here. So, you aren't complaining about CERN? This criticism is: you should are be more careful with statements prior results. If you are referring to the faster-than-light incident, it may be a problem with translation. In the U.S., in the science publications, they were very cautious. In this forum, we have threads where we discussed the announcement, and warned people that they were not definite. It was not the scientist claiming the discovery; it was the newspapers. OK.How do you defend stories: Revealing the very beginning of the universe ... we and only god can do it ... originate black hole ... enter the beginnings of Bing Bang ... ... Is not there too much bragging for one so serious project? I'm not sure what god has to do with it, as he hasn't made any scientific contributions ever. As far as determining the beginning of the universe, I don't see why it would be considered bragging. After all, that was the entire purpose of the billion dollar project. If we think of it as bragging, it is on the same level as bragging about how fast your new car is. I would like to discuss about the atom. Okay. What would you like to discuss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted July 10, 2014 Author #39 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Connecting atoms pair (H2. .. O2 ..). I tried spin a small and very fast speeds magnets of the same pole. They did not get the desire to merge. I've tried all ways and the result is the same. The same poles to bounce only to attract different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted July 10, 2014 #40 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Are you trying to construct an antigravity generator? You might want to check out the work of Boyd Bushman, he's the acknowledged expert. Or a flux capacitor, perhaps? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted July 10, 2014 #41 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Connecting atoms pair (H2. .. O2 ..). I tried spin a small and very fast speeds magnets of the same pole. They did not get the desire to merge. I've tried all ways and the result is the same. The same poles to bounce only to attract different. Well...yeah. I mean, the reason covalent bonds form between atomic pairs is because it results in a stable and complete outer shell of electrons. How would they "merge" at all? There are no free electrons to join them together. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted July 10, 2014 #42 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I tried spin a small and very fast speeds magnets of the same pole. They did not get the desire to merge. I've tried all ways and the result is the same. The same poles to bounce only to attract different. And you think that this is analogous to the process involved in constructing molecules from atoms? All I can really say is "WOW!" (And I don't mean that in a good way). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted July 10, 2014 #43 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I tried spin a small and very fast speeds magnets of the same pole. They did not get the desire to merge. I've tried all ways and the result is the same. The same poles to bounce only to attract different. Well done, Weitter Duckss, well done. Todays science do need more ppl like you, performing such extraordinary and self endangering experiments like you did. Marie Curie e.g. would had loved you. You are doing right, we need to get back the wild spirit that was standard in science in the past. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepulchrave Posted July 10, 2014 #44 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Connecting atoms pair (H2. .. O2 ..). I tried spin a small and very fast speeds magnets of the same pole. They did not get the desire to merge. I've tried all ways and the result is the same. [Emphasis mine.] You seem to have put a lot of effort into this experiment. Have you ever thought of applying a similar level of effort in understanding quantum mechanics? Playing with magnets will not provide fundamental understanding of the nature of atoms and molecules, but learning quantum mechanics just might... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted July 10, 2014 Author #45 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Important was to stress the to be the same charges particles bounce as protons and electrons. In particular, the electrons which have a speed of 30,000 km / sec. Probably a little bit of running and connecting. Furthermore the amount of mass equivalent to the amount of the charge. It does not help to add another round to the heliocentric system. The mass of one electron does not satisfy the mass of one proton by charge. 1 Not 1836. I'm not saying that you provide experiments are not good quality, but the general concept does not hold water. In addition to the atom acquaintance what CERN experiments and a host of others, when you say that you know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted July 10, 2014 #46 Share Posted July 10, 2014 How did you perform these experiments? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted July 10, 2014 Author #47 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Simple. Two rounds with magnets, the same pole with both sides. Circuit length 1.2 m, quality, grading of more powerful engines lead to circuit has 120-240000 speed. The meter to measure the repulsive force. Of course, the bunker serial production of the Balkans, because of the 673 trials the system has blew 116 times (as a 1000 machine gun). I do not advise making a home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted July 10, 2014 #48 Share Posted July 10, 2014 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted July 10, 2014 #49 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) Simple. Two rounds with magnets, the same pole with both sides. Circuit length 1.2 m, quality, grading of more powerful engines lead to circuit has 120-240000 speed. The meter to measure the repulsive force. Of course, the bunker serial production of the Balkans, because of the 673 trials the system has blew 116 times (as a 1000 machine gun). I do not advise making a home. How does this system detect electron pairing? Why would it result in electron pairing, actually? Edited July 10, 2014 by aquatus1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted July 11, 2014 Author #50 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Looking from a distance, is nothing to. Poles remain unchanged. Rotation does not affect them, the atoms remain static and do not show signs of wavering. That the atom is similar to solar systems and associated electrons there would be changes. Connecting electrons can not replace a valence bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now