Who said I was refering neccessarily to anything you said to me?
Besides which, I didn't say that you had said anything offensive.
I referred to them as outbursts, which they are.
Bullshit.
Nothing changes the fact that EMPERICALLY SPEAKING the evidence points to Mercury being a solid at the specified temperature and pressure.
Nothing changes the fact that there is no evidence what so ever of plasmas existing in solids.
The combination of the above imply either that the claims made about the TR-3B are bullshit.
Or that the TR-3B itself is bullshit.
Or that there is a global conspiracy (Out of all the scientests in all the world of all of the opposing nations, not one single one of them has noticed that the equation of state for elemental mercury is wrong).
Bullshit
YOU are speculating about the TR-3B
I was pointing out that at least some of the claims made about the TR-3B are Bullshit.
You're making an awfully big ASSumption there.
Typical.
Crank.
Rhetoric.
"It's not that you can't find it because my claims are wrong, you can't find it because it's classified up the wazoo."
But this is nothing that I've claimed.
I understand enough thermodynamics to understand PT diagrams.
I understand enough plasma physics to understand that a plasma consists of ions.
I understand enough thermodynamics to understand that it takes 1007 kJ of energy to strip ONE electron from every atom in a 200g sample of mercury (14 ml of Mercury).
I understand enough thermodynamics to be able to tell you that pumping 1007 kJ of energy into 200g of mercury (to completely ionize that sample, and turn it into a plasma) is sufficient to heat that sample up to nearly 36,000 k.
I understand enlough of the english language to know that when someone talks about making a plasma flow in a tight helix fast enough that it's doing thousands of RPM, they're talking about something in a liquid or gaseous state, not a solid state, which is contradictary of the stated operating conditions.
I know enough to know that your claims would require the classification of pretty much anything to do with condensed matter physics.
I also know enough to know that your claims would also require classification of Maxwells Equations, and pretty much anything to do with Ferrite, because that would endanger the USAF stealth program (for example the Nighthawk).
I also know enough to know that if your assertions were true, that would result in the classification of the papers of Ufimetsev and Sommerfield.
No. To think or believe that anyone who has the timerity to disagree with you, and consider things from a different perspective to you is egotism, is itself egotism.
Bullshit.
Scientest are inherently emperical skeptics. They will accept new things with proof other wise, for example, we wouldn't be researching met materials, and cloaks of invisibility, now would we?
Yes you are, you're excluding the possibility of it being a conventional aircraft, based on your understanding of modern aviation.
I don't remember teh name of it, but I'll bet that, for example, you're completely unaware of the fact that - I forget if it was NASA or the USAF had an advanced experimental prototype that was capable of hovering by doing a tail stand? It could hover, by going into a vertical climb, and then adjusting its engines. Bloody beautiful aircraft, it crashed becuase some body forgot to take the cover off one of the tubes the aircraft used to gather data about its surroundings, and so the onboard computer made bad decisions based on wrong information.
I've never claimed to have infinite knowledge, and you've proved nothing of the sort. The only thing you've done here is testiculate and make wild emotional appeals.
It's funny, you're berating people for being skeptical, and yet, your posts are bordering on Pyrronhism (in fact, you've explicitly made claims that could be classed as such), which is a harder core form of skepticism then I would ever lay claim to.
You berate me for being skeptical of your claims, and yet you yourself make claims that are pyrrhonistic in nature.
But that's not what you're doing, that's what i'm doing, you're accepting a claim without proof.
That's gullibility, and I really do have a bridge to sell you.
So then they're lazy and unoriginal?
This is just bullshit.
Not to mention bordering on word salad.
