A small problem for legendary JamesR on Relativity

Lol, sure MacM. Dumbass, you photcpied the text you were covering. Anybody who wants to can go play with the contrast on your image and get the text out.... but nice try...

So when can we buy your solar powered fusion reactor?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hope they do dumbass because it will show your are a fucking liar. If you could bring out the text then why the hell did you post something different than what the letter stated? Asshole.

BTW: Perhaps you should consult you Webster and learn what the term "Augmentation" means.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah sure, what's it say then?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for acknowledeging you don't know.

 

I know, and so does everyone else with some rudimentary skill. You seem intent on denying it however.... which is kind of funny.

 

I'm not denying anything. There is nothing to deny except your posted horseshit.

The letter was simply acknowledgment of receipt. As I stated earlier subsequently the Chief Nuclear Engineer from Fusion came from NY to El Paso and spent a week at my Research Corp, reviewed it and found no errors in theory. His conclusion was it merits further study.

I'll obvoiusly will not give away details here but do want to clarify in general.

It consists of a unique concentrator which causes the solar energy to be focused spherically creating a zone (volume) within the chamber suitable for Muon Catalyzed Fusion. MCF has a unique problem achieving breakeven. It is called "Sticking". The solar input therefore is the link that allows continuous subcritical fusion output.

The device takes a few watts of solar input and outputs multiples of that input as heated gaseous output of the fusion fuel circulating through the device.

The fact is breakeven is not necessary to enjoy the benefits of fusion energy since the input is free - green power. It is like an amplifier for solar power.

So stick your snide remarks in your ear you twit.

 

So what exactly did the letter not say? Hmm? You just confirmed most of the details.

And over the past 12 years they just forgot about it? Even notice how many people agree with you just to get you out of their hair?

 

So that is why they came at their expense and spent a week? LOL Fool.

I could post a host of correspondance, etc showing just how many people have come and are encouraged by my work, or the fact that my work in other areas appear in College Engineering Text Books. But this is not about me, it is about your continuous personal attacks as worthless commentary to scientific discussion.

 

You brought it up as 'support'. Not us.

 

I have skipped many many many useless personal attacks. Paul T does not post anything that does not contain, distortion, innuendo, insults, lies, fabrications, slander, unsupported horseshit. Enough is enough. Left unchallenged such posts leave the reader with an incorrect sense that perhaps I do not have an education and have achieved things in physics.

Don't want to see my resume, then stop the outright lies and slander.


[post=698127]Distortion[/post]

Silly. Do the math. Didn't you see that the 13.5 billions to 1 is not the product of SR, huh. Pete is showing the computation basing on Newtonian mechanics only (no SR). Just have a nice look on it. As I suggested you before, think with your brain not with your butt.

My posted ratio was to James R's calculations in a different problem. Here he tries to make it seem it was in response to Pete's problem and that I somehow am way off target. I wasn't.

[post=700600]innuendo[/post]

There was just your stupidity. Should I push everything into your brain...[deleted]. Come, on...[deleted], you were not just born a few years ago. Think...think...[deleted]. Should I tell you that too? So that you will not come back and tell me that I never told you what to use...use your brain to think, okay.

Here he tries to appear to be the superior and that he is teaching me. He isn't.


[post=701058]Innuendo[/post]

Sorry, I cannot make this computation any clearer for people like MacM to grasp.

More innuendo.


[post=701438]Slander[/post]

Hope you have a little inteligence to grasp this as I am really not interested to waste my time to explain this to a dumb boy.

Mor unwarranteed name calling, insults and assumptions of superiority which are unwaranted.


[post=702326]Slander[/post]

I agree, nobody needs to explain relativity to you. You don't even know enough basic physics and you want to know relativity? Learn the basic physics first then ask somebody to explain relativity to you.

More unwarranted and wrong assaults on my understandings, not just of Relativity, but even basic physics. This is horseshit and cannot be left unresponded to.

As we know he is not the only one here guilty of this conduct. You don't want to see my actual training, experience or achievements, then don't LIE about them in the first place. Stick to the scientifc issues and post meaningful rebuttal.

 

Your posts do a good enough job supporting Pete's claims. No reason for you to post letters about how you are bugging the Feds.

 

The challenge was made that no such invention had been achieved. He obviously had absolutely no knowledge to support that false allegation.

 

And he is quite correct. Your unsolicited proposal does not make the thing achieved.

 

Correct only in the sense it has not yet been built. But the theory holds and was not found grossly lacking which was his assumption. My knowledge of physics and nuclear power exists, if he likes it or not.

The fact that we disagree about Relativity and its true meanings and status has nothing to do with lack of education or understanding of what it claims. Just the opposite, I surpass his ability to rationalize the consequences of such claims and do not therefore just blindly recite the theory as its own proof.

 

Well, it isn't showing. In fact, in this field you very obviously don't know even the basics. Your continued attempt to assert that you do because you know about nukes is laughable.

 

Would you really like me to start posting a long list if information showing your are full of shit? Keep it up. Then don't complain when I do.

BTW: [post=703574]This post proves my assualt on Time Dilation Correct for two years-Sorry[/post]

Also as I recall you were one that argued for Pi to change for an observer that was in motion with the Merry-Go-Round.. This is two down many to go.

 

Actually, yes. I've posted similar list to educate you and back up my claims. You have yet to do this, although you keep claiming you will.

Yet again wrong... but nice try.

Come on now... it's another example of you misinterpreting what the theory says.

 

You failed to follow the logic. You said you designed fusion reactor. I said, if you just designed but did not build it then you don't know if it really works. You cannot start with premise that you know physics and therefore your theoretical "fusion reactor" would work since you have already applied "your physics" in your design. We all here witness that your physics knowledge is full of holes (should I say shit?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) and therefore is not trustable for ensuring a working "fusion reactor" could be built without it is actually being built. That's why, once it was apparent that your "fusion reactor" was just your theoretical dream...I asked your to drop the topic, since it would not prove that you know physics anyway so why bother pursuing the matter. If you want to talk about your dream "fusion reactor" you should open a new thread for that.

Actually, if you really build your "fusion reactor" and it works exactly as predicted by you, then I would be the first to acknowledge that you know physics more than many physicists (including those involved in thermonuclear experiment)! Fair enough? But, for now...your "fusion reactor" is still imaginary and therefore you can forget about it as something that could prove your physic comprehension.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You fail to follow logic when you make derogatory remarks about me since you have no idea what the nuclear engineers that have reviewed it had to say.

You have no idea what the device looks like and how it is supposed to work.

While it has not been built, on paper it looks good and your comments are outright horseshit.

 

This is the same defense MacM has used many times. The so-and-so research people from the so-and-so institute have shown interest, and we have no idea how greatly they think of it, blah blah blah.

Get a new defense MacM. You've had years to cultivate your methods of deception.

- Warren