Why does nobody want fusion energy?

Uhn,

Gee, if I pray that you die soon, you will die sooner. Or if I pray
that you live long you will live longer. These are scientifically
proven facts based on bacteria and prayer.

The fact is that mineral assets are based on owning land - so mineral
asset energy is favored by the folks with huge money and big lawyers
that can buy any land at any price to make more huge money (ask the
Native Peoples).

The reality that all the methane resources for energy humanity would
ever need could be easily harvested off every coastline in the form of
frozen methane is not to be argued. Nor is the way free energy could be
derived from some simple methods manipulating space-time at tidal nodes
between the earth and moon. The human race will be destroyed by greedy
folks like the Bush family, who were Germans but traveled to Saudi
Arabia in the 1890's to get an interest free loan to start a dynasty in
America.

Thanks,

Rick


Charles Cagle wrote:

In article , Paul Curran
wrote:


On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:42:06 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:


Charles Cagle wrote:


Getting on with it, you ignorant twit, requires funding. Are you going
to come up with the money or just sit there like a big assed big mouth
bird squawking but doing nothing? When the funding becomes available
then I'll build a working reactor.


Funding is a problem, not because the money is not available, but
because nobody is going to fund some half baked pseudoscience crap
that has no physical or mathematical base

You forgot to mention Charles' winning personality. His propensity to
start insulting people who question hinm is probablyte key factor in
his inability to raise funds. Besides the fact it is psedoscience
crap that has no basis in reality.


I don't insult people for merely questioning me. I insult liars like
you who say that I do this. And then I also might insult pricks like
you who exist merely to be pricks. :-).

Charles Cagle

Rick Nelson wrote:

Gee, if I pray that you die soon, you will die sooner. Or if I pray
that you live long you will live longer. These are scientifically
proven facts based on bacteria and prayer.

No they aren't.

Paul

In article ,
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
Rick Nelson wrote:

Gee, if I pray that you die soon, you will die sooner. Or if I pray
that you live long you will live longer. These are scientifically
proven facts based on bacteria and prayer.

No they aren't.

Analyze his declaration again. He's admitting none of his prayers
are getting answered. IOW, short is not equivalent to shorter.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article , Sam Wormley
wrote:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

That author writes:

" Honesty
The evidence offered in support of any claim must be evaluated without
self-deception.

The rule of honesty is a corollary to the rule of comprehensiveness.
When you have examined all of the evidence, it is essential that you be
honest with yourself about the results of that examination. If the
weight of the evidence contradicts the claim, then you are required to
abandon belief in that claim. The obverse, of course, would hold as
well."

The problem is that self deception is rampant in modern academia.

In the area of self deception the author dives right in to his own
brand in order to criticize others by writing:

"Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than
10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars
that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the
light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which
proves that the universe must be billions of years old. "

First of all the author makes an attempt to mislead people by putting
all 'creationists' in the same basket. Perhaps some creationists claim
that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. There's a subtle
dishonesty in attempting to or claiming that you can get or did get all
the fish with one hook.

He believes that we can observe stars that are billions of light years
distant but in fact there is no reliable means that does not depend
upon agreed upon standard candles to guestimate distances of light
sources. When an entire discipline agrees to a self deception then to
be outside that agreement makes one a pariah. It is not difficult to
disassemble the illogical concoctions of modern science but it is
nearly impossible to bring minds that are set like concrete back to a
more fluid state.

A good example where his 'rule of honesty was violated' took place
early in the 20th century when physicists discovered that Coulomb's law
was violated by the existence of atoms with multiple protons in their
nuclei. To that point in history, Coulomb's law with regard to the
interaction of charges was accepted as the 'General Case'. Once data
was found which violated that 'General Case' the author's 'rule of
honesty' would mandate that Coulomb's Law be reduced in rank to a
'special case'. But history shows us that such a thing did not take
place. Instead a new force was concocted which the physicists who
proffered it declared must be at least two orders of magnitude stronger
than the Coulomb repulsive force at distances considered to be that of
a nuclear diameter (around 5e-13 cm).

Here's a place in history where the physicists because of inept
thinking subtly put honesty on the back burner in order to promote a
fiat prevarification. In other words they flat invented the 'strong
force' out of thin air in the same way that a pathological liar
concocts a storyline that keeps himself out of trouble. An ad hoc lie
got incorporated into modern science and to keep this lie alive one had
to make physics more and more complex. This follows the pattern of a
lying because one must tell more lies to cover up a primary lie and
then each of those must be covered by more and more and thus the
pathological liar lives in a complex web of deception. The modern
particle physicist and the modern astrophysicist are operating from
such a web in this day and age.

In reality, physics is much like the geometry discovered by Euclid. He
started with a few axioms and from those deduced over one hundred
theorems. What are the basic axioms of physics? Scientists don't want
to know nor do they want to be forced to acknowledge the validity of
this approach because it would toss all their intellectual fabrications
which now have become their stock in trade and their means to a
livelihood into the flames. So, how can these people be expected to be
honest with themselves when turns in that direction places them outside
of the mainstream belief system and outside of the job market? The
fact is that the moral honest man is one in a million. The modern
academic scientist is a faithless flake for the most part. I say
"faithless" because he doesn't really believe that pursuit of the truth
has the redeeming feature of keeping him and his family fed and out of
the cold. But he does see the value of staying in tune with the
general consensus because he can stay employed and stay in good
standing in any societies associated with his particular subdiscipline
(of physics). I say 'flake' because he doesn't possess the character
to pursue truth in physics.

Now we have a discipline (physics) that has a dozen or so
subdisciplines attached to it. Some approach their work in a
straightforward practical and pragmatic manner using their discoveries
to allow them to manipulate matter and produce new technological
wonders. The invention of new technology does not validate all
subdisciplines of physics yet when some aspect of science is attacked
then the mainstream defense is to recount all the technological wonders
that 'science' has brought us in an attempt to lend credence to the
particular beliefs of his own subdiscipline. A modern cosmologist may
be very expert in his use of certain instruments and in fact he may
even be able to design and build various data gathering instruments but
that does not then somehow validate the rest of the things that he
believes in. He could be loony as hell and still be able to do
certain types of technological development.

I've been sitting on the unification of electromagnetism and gravity
now for some years and I have no fear that someone might publish what
I've found before I do and somehow cover themselves in glory. The
journey to the discovery of the unification of EM and gravity came
directly from using the axiomatic approach which is to say that the
basic axioms are first found and then the deductions or natural
extrapolations are found. I'm not worried about mainstream physicists
believing me or not believing me. But I do know that they will never
get to unification unless they take the same path I have taken. You
can't get to where they want to go from where they presently are at.

CC.

In article , Sam Wormley
wrote:

Charles Cagle wrote:


I've been sitting on the unification of electromagnetism and gravity
now for some years and I have no fear that someone might publish what
I've found before I do and somehow cover themselves in glory. The
journey to the discovery of the unification of EM and gravity came
directly from using the axiomatic approach which is to say that the
basic axioms are first found and then the deductions or natural
extrapolations are found. I'm not worried about mainstream physicists
believing me or not believing me. But I do know that they will never
get to unification unless they take the same path I have taken. You
can't get to where they want to go from where they presently are at.

CC.

Spoken like a true crank!

As if you weren't at the top of a pseudoscientist crank list yourself.

CC. :-).