Has anyone checked to see if Deuterium is really stable at 2.7 Kelvin or below??

During a perfect moment of peace at Sat, 20 Sep 2003 04:31:59 -0700
(PDT), (Bill Sheppard) interrupted with:

I can't see why you are saying that an
unstable Deuterium atom is not a marker of a hot big bang.

Read again. I said it _is_ a (surrogate) marker of a superhot Big Bang.
The existance of deuterium is one of the strongest indicators of the BB.
oc

Bill

You where asked what it would mean if Deuterium is not stable below
2.7K, you replied it *would not* be a surrogate marker of the BB. My
point is that the stability, or otherwise, of Deuterium has nothing to
do with its being used as evidence for the BB.

As you say, the existence, and its ratio to other light elements is
the important point.

Jonathan S. wrote,

It's still wrong, in fact it's "not even
wrong". I'll leave why as an exercise for
the student, as they say.

Aw come on, Jonathan, don't be a tease. What is your take on the 'speed
of gravity'? Enquiring minds would like to know.

oc

Jonathan S. wrote,

It's still wrong, in fact it's "not even
wrong". I'll leave why as an exercise for
the student, as they say.

Aw come on, Jonathan, don't be a tease. What is your take on the 'speed
of gravity'? Enquiring minds would like to know.

oc

In message ,
Bill Sheppard writes
Jonathan S. wrote,

It's still wrong, in fact it's "not even
wrong". I'll leave why as an exercise for
the student, as they say.

Aw come on, Jonathan, don't be a tease. What is your take on the 'speed
of gravity'? Enquiring minds would like to know.

I have no idea. Tom van Flandern thinks it's enormous, but he seems to
have lost the reputation he once had.
Physics for the last hundred years has been based on the idea that
information can't travel faster than light. That might be wrong, but
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" or whatever the
phrase is, and I haven't seen any.
Just saying it's SQRT(PI) x C (simplifying Bob's equation) isn't enough.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In message ,
Bill Sheppard writes
Jonathan S. wrote,

It's still wrong, in fact it's "not even
wrong". I'll leave why as an exercise for
the student, as they say.

Aw come on, Jonathan, don't be a tease. What is your take on the 'speed
of gravity'? Enquiring minds would like to know.

I have no idea. Tom van Flandern thinks it's enormous, but he seems to
have lost the reputation he once had.
Physics for the last hundred years has been based on the idea that
information can't travel faster than light. That might be wrong, but
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" or whatever the
phrase is, and I haven't seen any.
Just saying it's SQRT(PI) x C (simplifying Bob's equation) isn't enough.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan S. wrote, re. 'speed of gravity',

I have no idea. Tom van Flandern thinks
it's enormous, but he seems to have lost
the reputation he once had.

Yes, van Flandern finally concludes that the flowing-space explanation
is the only rational model for the mechanism of gravity. That's probably
why he's 'lost his reputation'. Under that model, there's nothing
'propagating' outbound from the source; therefore gravity's "action" is
instantaneous at any distance. oc

Jonathan S. wrote, re. 'speed of gravity',

I have no idea. Tom van Flandern thinks
it's enormous, but he seems to have lost
the reputation he once had.

Yes, van Flandern finally concludes that the flowing-space explanation
is the only rational model for the mechanism of gravity. That's probably
why he's 'lost his reputation'. Under that model, there's nothing
'propagating' outbound from the source; therefore gravity's "action" is
instantaneous at any distance. oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Jonathan S. wrote, re. 'speed of gravity',

I have no idea. Tom van Flandern thinks
it's enormous, but he seems to have lost
the reputation he once had.

Yes, van Flandern finally concludes that the flowing-space explanation
is the only rational model for the mechanism of gravity. That's probably
why he's 'lost his reputation'. Under that model, there's nothing
'propagating' outbound from the source; therefore gravity's "action" is
instantaneous at any distance. oc


Just in case I guessed Right, the last eight digits of my cable modems mac
address is DAA46260.
And a Mr. David A Smith kind of knows more about what I am proposing. Hope
he doesn't mind me dragging him into this.

I would Put my self at the level of "Kook" right now. but mabye a kook that
guessed right.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Jonathan S. wrote, re. 'speed of gravity',

I have no idea. Tom van Flandern thinks
it's enormous, but he seems to have lost
the reputation he once had.

Yes, van Flandern finally concludes that the flowing-space explanation
is the only rational model for the mechanism of gravity. That's probably
why he's 'lost his reputation'. Under that model, there's nothing
'propagating' outbound from the source; therefore gravity's "action" is
instantaneous at any distance. oc


Just in case I guessed Right, the last eight digits of my cable modems mac
address is DAA46260.
And a Mr. David A Smith kind of knows more about what I am proposing. Hope
he doesn't mind me dragging him into this.

I would Put my self at the level of "Kook" right now. but mabye a kook that
guessed right.

In message ,
Bill Sheppard writes
Jonathan S. wrote, re. 'speed of gravity',

I have no idea. Tom van Flandern thinks
it's enormous, but he seems to have lost
the reputation he once had.

Yes, van Flandern finally concludes that the flowing-space explanation
is the only rational model for the mechanism of gravity. That's probably
why he's 'lost his reputation'. Under that model, there's nothing
'propagating' outbound from the source; therefore gravity's "action" is
instantaneous at any distance. oc

I may be maligning him, but IIRC he also went overboard for the Cydonia
and "face on Mars" nonsense.
He also supports the theory that the asteroids come from an exploded
planet, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the fact that
the only evidence he proposed (moons of asteroids, and specifically a
debris field around Eros - God know why) hasn't appeared
Everyone's entitled to hold unconventional theories about physics,
though.
Gravity _has_ to appear to be instantaneous, an idea that goes back to
Newton, but current theories hate real instantaneous effects.
Slightly related topic; does anyone know how the discovery that the
speed of light was finite influenced Newton's thinking? That was a
revolution as big as any in science.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.