Do me a favor? See if you can find alternate wording for this. I've been thinking about asking a similar question, but have not because I'm still looking for wording that avoids the personal attack aspect.
LB
[/quote]
I think we have both underestimated nonneta's knowledge and critical faculty.
I am in agreement with "orange juice rules" but if another person violates it, I do not feel duty bound to pretend there has been not an insult.
I do not presume to know what nonneta's objective is. But, he has indicated that answers of substance would come from him if we reach that intellectual point. This might be true.
The original subject was Physical Axioms as defined by Dr. Van Flandern in his article "Physics has Its Principles" versus the idea of Attractive Forces. I have accepted his presentation. So, I do think that my question is rational and objective.
I began with introducing the gravitational flux and then the light carrying medium. I postulated that with these two mediums only, there was no apparent cause for waves or mass movement in either medium. I then began to put in the proton to see how it would interact with the two mediums. You suddenly jumped in with a proton or a star (you claim there is no difference) traveling at 1% the velocity of light and decreed that the proton and its geometry were physically irrelevant since the proton can push its way through the lcm. That is quite a leap of faith. How did the proton or star acquire such a speed?
I will get to the central point. Is this board for exploratory debate or are you Defending The Faith? If it is the latter, then I am wasting my time.
Let's step back in history a bit. By 1900, the gravitational medium and the light carrying medium had been judged to be nonexistent. IMHO, this left theoretical physicists 2/3rds blind. They began to invent a host of fundamental particles for which there is no positive proof.
To the credit of Dr. Van Flandern, et al, these two fundamental particles and mediums have been reintroduced back into the realm of theoretical physics. I have accepted his logic and evidence. However, Metaresearch has openly admitted that the realm of molecules, atoms, nuclei are virgin territory for Metascience.
You have dismissed the proton out of hand by declaring it is nothing more than an accidental, small comet, etc. This declaration ignores an immense level of knowledge (facts) in chemistry and nuclear physics. IMHO, Metascience is 1/3rd blind when it does this.
I work as an engineer in the business of extracting oil, bitumen, oil shale, coal, etc. This source of energy is reaching a dead end in the following sense: at the end of WW II, the technology of propeller driven aircraft had reached its maximum. Any further progress would have to be done by a different technology. We are at this point in regard to general energy sources. I recognise that what I am doing is supporting the status quo and it is not real progress.
It is a safe assumption that a high majority of Metaresearch members are for going to Mars. A manned expedition will never happen with chemical rocketry. There has to be a new energy source. Conventional nuclear fission is not the answer. It is actually very inefficient and carries are very high burden of radioactive waste.
My aiming point is to investigate the potential of fissioning deuterium. This would be 50 times more efficient then plutonium fissioning and there is no radioactive waste. Mainstream science declares that the mechanism is nuclear fusion. However, there has been no progress in this idea for half a century. Perhaps they are 180 degrees out of alignment with Reality.
The route to this possibility is to investigate the proton. My idea may turn out to be completely wrong. If it is, I will admit to it. Since the established nuclear physics crowd "already knows everything", appealing to them is pointless. I have come to Metaresearch because of tts claim that it will look at unconventional ideas.
enuf said.
Gregg Wilson
