COMIC ZONE ON NOW- WITH NEAL ADAMS

[Neal Adams-migration]

Last try. (Sigh)

 

Look at the map you show. Antarctica is supposed to be AT the South Pole. It is instead 100% EXPOSED ON THIS SIDE.

 

South America is EXACTLY, exactly the same distance from North America as it is today. It's tail is, as I told you, curved to the right, so it may go under Africa, yet it is somehow IN CONTACT with the Antarctic Peninsula. HOW CAN THAT BE? WHERE IS THE SPACE BETWEEN? GONE!

 

North East-Africa is exactly the same distance from Gibraltar as now, while it has pulled away from Asia a small amount. Even so, while the North is the same place, the Southern tip is halfway closer to Antarctica than it actually is....HOW? But geology says 80 MYA Africa and South America was CONNECTED to Antarctica.

 

Its neighbor next door is putting on it's running shoes prepatory to running up the ocean to crash into Asia, going opposite to any land mass. Only Australia is close to its Godswanna position, yet oddly it's unconnected.

 

3000 miles above is Asia. Actually looks more like 4000 miles. But geology says Africa, South America, Australia and Antarctica was one continuous contiguous ISLAND! (Godswanna).

 

P.S. I traced my map from your map and used USGS estimates of Godswanna.

[Rip]

Thanks for the reply, I happen to really like Rockwell also.

I believe Duchamp, Picasso and Rockwell are the three most important artists in the 20th century.

 

All of them had major effects upon the art world in different ways.

 

I like Albrect Durer, Mark Tansey, Da Vinci, Alex Ross, You, Wrightson, Baker, George Perez and others to numerous to name.

 

I understand what your trying to say regarding the map, but its all meaningless without a source to reference your words. No matter what you say, its going to have little impact.

 

Honestly, my favorite part of your project involves the "Virtual Pairs" you were talking about eariler.

 

Best of Luck

Scott (AKA Rip)

[ComicBookGuy]

 

Norman Rockwell is probably the best American artist in the 20th Century. He combined all classical skills with incredible talent and used them to tell the world more about America, it’s past and present and future than any dozen artists, but that’s just my opinion.

 

 

I would agree that Rockwell is probably the best. After seeing his exhibit at the Smithsonian a few years back, I was blown away. Those paintings are breathtaking when seen up close and personal, and I've seen a lot of art galleries in my day. Van Goghs also take on a whole new dimension when seen in person.

 

Neal, it was very humble of you to leave yourself off that list. Make no mistake that you are right up there with the great artists of the century in my opinion. If the cover of Batman #227 or Detective #403 or some other work of similar stature would hit the market, I can only imagine the kinds of prices that would be realized. Your work in comics is amazing, and it's great to see you here. This is not just fanboy talk. I ask you to click on the link below to see a poll that we did earlier this year. We spent some time sharing what we thought were the greatest covers of the bronze age, then we ran a poll of the covers discussed, and your Batman #227 emerged by a wide margin as this forum's favorite bronze age cover.

 

Here is the link:

 

Bronze Age Cover Poll

 

This poll is ongoing, so feel free to vote for five of your own covers.

 

For what it's worth, my all-time favorite comic cover is your cover to Action #419.

 

I've been reading with much fascination about the growing Earth theory you are presenting. When dealing with many of the questions posters are addressing, I think of the quote, "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine." I believe Michael at one point in this thread referred to the limitations of the human mind, and I agree. Consider the breadth of the electro-magnetic spectrum with x-rays, microwaves, gamma rays, uv light, infrared, radio waves, etc., and how little of it is even perceived by the human mind even though we are surrounded by all of it at any given moment. Consider how sub-atomic particles react in many more than the four dimensions we are able to experience. Much of what we call the creation of matter is most likely matter moving in and out of different dimensional planes. This is all science, not mysticism. Personally, while up to 66 dimensions have been theorized and 11 mathematically confirmed, I think at some point we will find that the universe -- or all of existence, rather -- is infinitely small and infinitely large and of infinite dimensions. What can contain it, both at the microscopic and macroscopic levels? Where did it all come from? Did God create it? If so, who created God? Clearly, these problems are beyond the grasp of our current scientific and religious paradigms, but it's certainly inspiring to gaze up at the stars sometimes. Going out west into the desert and seeing the Milky Way in its full glory is something that can give us a perceptible inkling of the universe's true magnificence.

 

Back when I studied physics, the story of Einstein's theory of gravity always struck me. ( I am sure everyone knows the story, but I think it is very analogous to your theory.) When Einstein said that gravity could curve space, many thought he had gone off the deep end. He had a theory based on a conclusion he had drawn from his research and mathematical models. ( It seems that is exactly where you stand with your theory now.) What Einstein needed was a way to PROVE his theory, and it was not easy to do. How could he prove that gravity curved space? That was his challenge. Eventually there was an eclipse in South America that was just right. He traveled down there and photographed it to show that the stars' light that passed through the Sun's gravitational field during the eclipse - which normally could not be seen cause of the brightness of the Sun - showed that the positions of the stars had appeared CHANGED as a result of passing through the Sun's gravitational field. This PROVED his theory. I do not have any ideas about how you might prove your theory, but that will be the challenge: to design an experiment, a repeatable experiment, to prove your theory. Maybe someone has an idea?

 

Ultimately, I sense your theory is not really about the growing Earth so much as how anything can be created at all - matter or otherwise. Isn't this the ultimate question? How can anything possibly exist at all? How did anything get here? And, when the first thing came into existence, where did it come from and how did it get here? And how did "here" get here for something to arrive in it? These questions always lead me back to... The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we CAN imagine!

 

Just curious, did you happen to pick up the latest edition of Scientific American? It's all about "Our Ever-Changing Earth." I got it but haven't read it yet. If nothing else, the graphics look cool and it may provide a quick brush-up for those of us who haven't been studying the issue as intensely as others have.

 

 

I hope you and Michael stick around - very cool to have you here!

 

Joe

[Neal Adams-migration]

 

Dear Joe,

Thanks for your (blush) note.

Since I think about all this stuff all the time, you must realize science to me is like art, just as art is like science.

Nothing pleases me more than taking what’s given to me as, “The way it is”, and showing it’s NOT, and it’s always far more and better! When I got into comics I was told the rules. Immediately after which I proceeded to break them all, to the delight of fans and shock of artists who spun for a moment as I blasted into a world of new ideas. After a moment they got it and rocketed after me and some even passed me running, in certain areas, and today we have a wide open medium with new things happening every day.

No one quite noticed that I did nothing negative to the BASIC FORM and STRUCTURE of comics. What was good and basic, stayed. All that was useless and limiting got trampled. The list is long. I’m not so much a revolutionary as an engineer and re-builder.

The same is true in science. One may think I’m tramping through and trashing randomly, but I’m not at all.

I have entered the chaotic world of science and seen missed opportunities, trashed, theories, truisms ignored, and chaos is the word of the day.

I don’t wish to mess with that which is good, simply examine all of everything again and put it together as it was meant to be, and step back to see how the whole thing works. I expect it’s simple and beautiful and not chaotic or complicated at all. The theme of that Scientific American is exactly, at its core, my theme.

You speak of gravity.

I question if gravity exists at all, as a separate thing. For most folks this statement seems whacky, I know, but to me it’s a basic question.

We know for sure that at the core of every bit of matter there is a negative and positive electro-magnetic attraction and repulsion. Balanced!! +1, -1.

I suspect perfectly. (But actually little is really known ‘cause this is hard to study in terms of how near, how much, and how far.) Putting that aside we have negative and positive.

Now one sweet day nature (or God) comes up with, or evolves, gravity. Another attractive force …..?

Well, mmm, why? Do we need it? Don’t we have an attractive force already? Probably took a lot of time to make it. Can’t be easy. And, it, too is associated with mass though we don’t know totally how. (Actually, I think I figured it out.) Was it that nature/God wasn’t busy and decided to mess with us? “Here’s gravity, you guys, deal with it.”

Because you see gravity defies one of these basic laws we should respect quite deeply. “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” I love that one. It applies to everything …. Except gravity. There is no ‘gravitonic’ repulsion.

It’s true, you know. In fact, if we try to defy gravity, we use electro-magnetic energy.

Kind of like we already know the answer, but we’re stuck in the gravity rut.

Then you have an even bigger problem … unless you have a ‘Big Bang’ driving stuff outward, this gravity thing … having nothing to stop it will/would pull everything toward itself in a big crunch. Thank goodness for the ‘Big Bang’ exploding everything away. …….(and turning it to ……. Hydrogen? Ah…)

Odd, though, you know, this to me looks more like a bunch of broken toys. It has no structure, it’s, again, chaotic.

Worse yet, ‘scientists’ are stunned, these days, by their latest observations of the universe. Turns out galaxies are not only moving away, but are accelerating, or blasting ever and ever faster away. (Darn.)

Now I’ve studied explosions. After the gasses of the basic explosion are spent, as to the release of compression the elements of an explosion exponentially SLOW DOWN.

Now if you go to my site,

 

www.nealadams.com

 

you will see graphically the undersea plates of Earth are also spreading/growing EXPONENTIALLY.

This is growth. My guess, the universe is growing. Is it a guess? Hmmm. Well growth is one of two possibilities. The other is blowing up, but clearly that no longer fits. It never did.

So why isn’t gravity pulling it all together?

For exactly the same reason atoms don’t crunch together and join together, and solar systems don’t collide and galaxies (though they intersect) and the universe grows, rather than crunches, because there is a perfect balance between the attractive positive electro-magnetic force and the repulsive negative electro-magnetic force.

We don’t live on an electron pushing us away or between solar systems pushing each other away. We live on Earth within a system and we experience mostly the attractive electro-magnetic side of the ‘force’. And we’ve come to call that experience ‘gravity’ as if it were something else.

What is it, actually”? It’s the negative and positive force that on balance gives perfect structure to our universe. We don’t need a Big Bang to save us or a Big Crunch to doom us. We are like a molecule on a growing baby. Our forces are balanced, increasing and growing.

How do I prove this? It obeys the laws of the universe perfectly, but gravity doesn’t. But … but that’s not proof! Hmmmm …. Is it not?

NA

[divad]

Now one sweet day nature (or God) comes up with, or evolves, gravity. Another attractive force …..?

Well, mmm, why? Do we need it? Don’t we have an attractive force already? Probably took a lot of time to make it. Can’t be easy. And, it, too is associated with mass though we don’t know totally how. (Actually, I think I figured it out.) Was it that nature/God wasn’t busy and decided to mess with us? “Here’s gravity, you guys, deal with it.”

 

Neal, the "other" attractive force is "love"

 

-divad

[Michael Netzer]

How do I prove this? It obeys the laws of the universe perfectly, but gravity doesn’t. But … but that’s not proof! Hmmmm …. Is it not?

 

It's very strong supporting evidence, that's for sure.

 

But every time someone says you have to prove it, I wonder why they didn't ask the scientific community to prove theories like Big Bang, Relativity, Gravity, Pangea and Subduction. Why does Growing Universe have to be proven and the others not?

 

Just going by the evidence, there seems to be much more support for Growing Universe than the others.

 

The others were never really proven, were they?

 

Thery were just accepted by the "community" which tried to strong-arm our knowledge. Every time a researcher questioned this strong-arming, they retorted with a demand to "prove it!"

 

How deceptive and hypocritical.

 

Well they never proved anything themselves, did they? What have they proven from all these fairy tales they keep spouting off like drunken lunatics? The universe exploded? What proof have they shown? The continents danced around the planet like a burlesque ensemble? Where's the proof?

 

There never was any proof. They just convinced everybody that there must be. They built a smokescreen around the evidence to make it look like it supported theories they have no proof of.

 

So instead of falling into their trap and trying to prove Growing Universe, Neal is doing what they did, except much better.

 

He's out to convince, with logic and understanding - not with deception. He's out to compel people to think for themselves - not to prove.

 

Neal trusts people's ability to understand. The scientists have shown very little such goodwill.

 

The proof will be in the understanding people gain from Neal's work and in how they nurture it and help it grow.

 

The growing acceptance of Growing Universe will be its best proof.

 

Looking good, Mr. Adams.

[selegue]

Neal (and anyone else who's stil reading):

 

Sorry for the long delay. It's been a busy week.

 

Meanwhile I see that, as an academic scientist, I have been vilified on this thread as intellectually dishonest, a liar, anti-humanist, anti-religion, an elitist, dead-headed, someone who doesn't know how to debate, a tool of a vast Cabal of Evil Scientists out to delude the world for their own nefarious purposes, and on and on. When writers here attack "those people", they attack me. I am an honest person. I have never falsified or hidden data. It would be polite to cut back the vitriol a bit to have a civil discussion.

 

I'm not sure that you really want to hear from such a cad, but I'll answer a few of the dangling questions, if you care to read the answers.

 

Your old question H2. H2 is after all a molecule and so the protons don’t join. Their spin is affected by temperature… which is fine.

 

 

I'm not positive what you mean. You're writing about ortho- and para-hydrogen, nuclear spin isomers? I can ramble on about that for hours -- just ask my CHE 514 students! Fascinating stuff. You want references?

 

 

My earlier reference days ago was that in compounds with metals, the hydrogen atom acquires a second electron forming a negatively charged hydride ion and that is the power for the fu8ture that I was speaking of.

 

 

Yes, I know a lot about metal hydrides. Great topic!! I'm not sure which "power for the future" you mean. Metal alloys as hydrogen storage materials? Tremendous promise there, I agree. There's still the problem of cleanly and cheaply generating H2 in the first place. If we can do it by using solar energy, that's a terrific solution for the future.

 

 

Let me step you back a bit. Atom’s shells depend for much of their nature on the structure of the electrons around their nuclei (nucleuses, heh).

 

If the outer shell is complete, the radius is smaller. Incomplete, it is larger. The nature of the electron shells define its nature, gas, metal, etc.

 

All this without requiring a series of protons made of different things. These ATOMS are massively different, but the same stuff.

 

 

I know about atomic sizes and "shielding" like you know how to push a pencil!

 

 

I say to you. Yes there is a difference when the electron surrounds the proton than if the electron becomes buried within the body of the neutron as is (I say) the positron. This is a far more profound difference than eight electrons and twelve electrons.

 

But you will say different atoms with different characteristics does not mean their constituents are different. They are the same.

 

Spectrum or not. Half-life difference or not, these differences can be explained by the loss…or integration of the electron into the body of the proton to become a neutron.

 

In addition, when an electron enters a proton, the shuffling of energies among the prime matter particles must be profound. After all, the proton has accepted a particle of equal, but opposite power as the power that assembled it into a proton. A neutron and a proton can trade off the electron and switch, making the proton a neutron and a neutron into a proton, in a laboratory situation.

 

Why then do you not see the logic and the sense when I say a hydrogen atom heated and expanded may accept into itself its own electron? And so a hydrogen atom becomes a neutron.

 

 

Yes! You're describing a phenomenon called "electron capture" or its reverse "beta decay". In the right situation, nickel-59 in the former case, cesium-137 in the latter, this is a common mode of radioactive decay. Yes, a proton accepts an electron to become a neutron, or a n ejects an e to become a p.

 

Unfortunately, atomic hydrogen is not a good place to observe electron capture. Believe me, people have been heating up hydrogen for centuries (modern discovery in 1671 by Boyle, 1766-81, Cavendish isolated and investigated, 1783 Lavoisier further investigated and named) and it never converts into neutrons. It first dissociates into 2 H atoms, then the 2 H atoms lose their electrons to form hydrogen plasma. If one could generate neutrons this way, scientists would be thrilled -- they wouldn't hide it, but would rush into publication so fast it would make Barry Allen look like Woozy Winks. For various good reasons (too long-winded to go into here), it just doesn't happen in hydrogen. You are on the right track though!

 

I could give you references to read about this, if you trust books by the Cabal of Evil Scientists out to delude the world for their own nefarious purposes.

You obviously trust classical physics and mechanics, since you invoke them often. You don't need to invoke any of the "evil" theories like relativity to learn about this.

 

 

Have you not said to yourself as a student and now as a teacher…”why the hell is the hydrogen atom the only atom that does not have a neutron?” I’ve asked myself a thousand times, so basic is the question.

 

“Because a hydrogen atom IS a neutron…” Is the answer. And thereby we can build all the higher atoms. Tricked into joining by the neutron.

 

 

The explanation is not complicated at all -- it's one of those wonderfully simple parts of science that you love so much! Hydrogen is the only nucleus that doesn't have a neutron because it's the only one that has a single proton so it doesn't need one. The nuclear binding energy is provided by p-p, n-n and p-n attractive interactions (very long-winded discussion of the nuclear strong and weak forces avoided). The only pair there that has a repulsive force is p-p. There is no p-p repulsion when there's only one p, so no neutron is needed to provide "glue". H is happy to accept one n (stable deuterium) or less happy to accept two n (radioactive tritium).

 

 

Again, I would be happy to provide references if you don't reject them out of hand. You'd find it very interesting reading since you're approaching experimentally observed phenomena from a different point of view.

 

If anyone would prefer that we take this tech-talk off-list, just say the word.

 

Jack, the Evil Scientist

[selegue]

Unfortunately, atomic hydrogen is not a good place to observe electron capture. Believe me, people have been heating up hydrogen for centuries (modern discovery in 1671 by Boyle, 1766-81, Cavendish isolated and investigated, 1783 Lavoisier further investigated and named) and it never converts into neutrons. It first dissociates into 2 H atoms, then the 2 H atoms lose their electrons to form hydrogen plasma. If one could generate neutrons this way, scientists would be thrilled -- they wouldn't hide it, but would rush into publication so fast it would make Barry Allen look like Woozy Winks. For various good reasons (too long-winded to go into here), it just doesn't happen in hydrogen. You are on the right track though!

 

PS

I am too compulsive not to qualify my own statement.

*IF* you believe in the Big Bang theory, after about 0.01 sec, at a temperature of about 100 billion K, the reaction photon + n -> p+ + e- and its reverse occur freely. Under those conditions, the reaction you propose happens just fine. Those are not conditions that can be simulated. The temperature at the core of our sun is about 10^4 K cooler.

 

Jack

[Neal Adams-migration]

Okay,

 

If I have insulted you by omission or commission, I apologize totally. I have greater respect for teachers than any profession. By your leave.

 

These hydrogen atoms with two electrons. If you place carbon plates in a series like thin books in a row. Nickel, space, carbon, space, nickel, space, carbon, etc. allow hydrogen hydride to rise up one space, on the other side of the carbon plat, release oxygen… about the amount you find in the air…..so a small fan will do. As the two gases rise up on either side, atoms enter the carbon plate. As they join to make a water molecule. Electrons are released into the carbon plate., clips on the top of the plate draw off the power and run the motor and fill the batteries.

 

Emissions?...H2O.

 

Source of this hydrogen? Rust. (Well, it’s one easy, cheap way. Of course there are others).

 

Jack, please don’t rip on my admitted ignorance, if you can avoid it.

 

The question is, can it be done on the sun. We are told the interior of the sun is a plasma. Which is…well, fine. But let’s think together. 10 percent of the sun is helium. (As far as we know), it occurs to me that if ONLY 10 percent is made helium, it may be that more than 10 percent creates an imbalance that halts the manufacture of new helium, until enough is blown off into the system. There’s solid connections here.

 

But Jack…turn the question around. Yes, of course hydrogen doesn’t need a neutron. But ALL THE OTHER ONES DO. You can make a universe with one negative and one positive particle…..but, you can’t make the other atoms without neutrons. Don’t you see? With only hydrogen, which doesn’t need neutrons, from what do you make neutrons.

 

You have nothing but hydrogen. And a hydrogen atom has exactly the right constituents to make a neutron. Jack, if it quacks like a duck….

 

P.S. I don’t believe the big bang theory.

 

P.P.S. Folks, honestly, if this is boring to you, I’m sorry. I come from the age of Julie Schwartz and to me, science is a door away from science fiction and comic books.

[selegue]

Okay,

 

If I have insulted you by omission or commission, I apologize totally. I have greater respect for teachers than any profession. By your leave.

 

The "everyone but me is a liar" messages, not just from you, were going far beyond rude, in my opinion.

 

These hydrogen atoms with two electrons. If you place carbon plates in a series like thin books in a row. Nickel, space, carbon, space, nickel, space, carbon, etc. allow hydrogen hydride to rise up one space, on the other side of the carbon plat, release oxygen… about the amount you find in the air…..so a small fan will do. As the two gases rise up on either side, atoms enter the carbon plate. As they join to make a water molecule. Electrons are released into the carbon plate., clips on the top of the plate draw off the power and run the motor and fill the batteries.

 

Emissions?...H2O.

 

 

I agree with you completely. You're describing a hydrogen fuel cell. If we can scale those up commercially, we can lower our dependence on petroleum, huge electric power plants and other more polluting forms of energy. The only byproduct is water -- what could be cleaner?

 

Ultimately, the problem is where the hydrogen comes from. If it's from any process that involves a carbonaceous material (petroleum, coal), you end up with CO2 as a byproduct and might as well burn the fuel directly. The only realistic source is water, and the only clean technology that looks practical right now is to use solar energy to do the splitting. This may become practical on a large scale during our lifetimes, if we're lucky. I wish the US government would commit more funds to this goal instead of other -- let's say "less far-sighted priorities" and avoid a political rant.

 

(I don't know what you mean by hydrogen hydride. H2?)

 

 

Source of this hydrogen? Rust. (Well, it’s one easy, cheap way. Of course there are others).

 

Sorry, I don't know how to make hydrogen from rust. Can you clarify or point me to a reference?

 

*google*

 

Is this it?

http://www.h2report.de/iss0602.htm

 

"Hydrogen from rust

 

Japanese scientists from the Toyko Institute of Technology claim to have found a way to produce hyodrgen fuel onboard cars by accelerating a process similar to rusting. According to Prof. Kiyoshi Otsuka of the Applied Chemistry Department, the augmentation of the natural rusting process with high temperatures and catalysts bore the potential for a simple, safe and environmentally benign technology for H2 storage and on-board supply. "The iron and iron oxide are non-toxic and quite cheap materials", says Otsuka. "As the fuel is water, there is no danger of explosion when vehicles collide." The technology was based on a reduction-oxidation reaction of magnetite. Iron pellets from this reaction could be packed into cassettes which were mounted to the vehicles. By adding water vapour to the cassettes hydrogen was produced. The iron oxide remaining in the cassettes could be exchanged for recycling at the fuel station. As explained by Prof. Otsuka, it was possible to operate the reaction at a temperature of 300 degress Celsius. 48g hydrogen were then produced from 1kg of iron. The Tokyo Institute works with industry partner Uchiya Thermostat to make the technology ready for commercialization. They are currently focusing on developing more efficient materials based on iron oxides as well as a unit apparatus and water injection equipment."

 

Whoever wrote that summary was mixed up. H2 is produced from water and iron (not iron oxide) with rust as a byproduct (historically, the way H2 was first produced!). To close the cycle, you need a way to reduce the rust back to iron.

 

Maybe there's some other process involving rust that I've never heard of.

 

 

Jack, please don’t rip on my admitted ignorance, if you can avoid it.

 

 

Absolutely not. At this point, I'm agreeing with virtually everything you're suggesting except for the details. If you came up with these ideas independently, I'm applauding you, not ripping you! I apologize if I seemed to be snipping at you last time.

 

 

The question is, can it be done on the sun. We are told the interior of the sun is a plasma. Which is…well, fine. But let’s think together. 10 percent of the sun is helium. (As far as we know), it occurs to me that if ONLY 10 percent is made helium, it may be that more than 10 percent creates an imbalance that halts the manufacture of new helium, until enough is blown off into the system. There’s solid connections here.

 

 

No, it can't be done in an ordinary sun. A "functioning" sun like ours is about 10,000 K too cold for p + e to happen. When a star turns into a supernova, the temperature rises to somewhere above 10^9 or 10^10 K, and then the combination of proton and electron into a neutron (and a neutrino) happens.

 

 

But Jack…turn the question around. Yes, of course hydrogen doesn’t need a neutron. But ALL THE OTHER ONES DO. You can make a universe with one negative and one positive particle…..but, you can’t make the other atoms without neutrons. Don’t you see? With only hydrogen, which doesn’t need neutrons, from what do you make neutrons.

 

You have nothing but hydrogen. And a hydrogen atom has exactly the right constituents to make a neutron. Jack, if it quacks like a duck….

 

 

Neal, I am AGREEING with you! Neutrons DO come from p + e under very unusual conditions of temperature and pressure. In the present universe, those conditions only happen in cataclysmic events like supernovae. Nowhere else is it hot enough.

 

 

P.S. I don’t believe the big bang theory.

 

 

I knew that, so I included "IF" in all caps. However, if you do believe in supernovae, p + e -> can happen just fine there. Without the Big Bang, there must have been a lot of supernovae at some point to provide enough neutrons to build the universe we have now.

 

 

P.P.S. Folks, honestly, if this is boring to you, I’m sorry. I come from the age of Julie Schwartz and to me, science is a door away from science fiction and comic books.

 

And I came from the same place -- that "push" merely sent us in different directions -- only to recollide here. The universe must be curved :-)

 

Again, if any one wants this discussion moved off the forum, say so. (This is a moderated forum, right?)

 

Jack

 

(not Schwartz, but the best image I could come up with on short notice!)

[Neal Adams-migration]

Dear Jack,

 

A company called Plug, formerly ‘H-Power’ http://www.plugpower.com/technology/hydrogen.cfm

in New Jersey, produces fuel cells for various products. Couple of years ago for portable traffic signals and they converted 4 buses to use hydrogen fuel cells in 4 cities experimentally. The buses work at one tenth of fuel costs and maintenance of internal combustion.

 

The process was practical 10 years ago, and quite inexpensive. It is a danger to the incredibly powerful petroleum and machinery business. Imagine if total conversion was begun now. Whole industries would close down, cities would close down. International treaties altered, families of rich would become no richer, Mr. Bush, and many others, etc., etc.

 

So the process is slowed down. But no body talks. How?

 

Money-money…more R&D, early retirement. Firing of people with big mouths and……. money, all the time. Sounding sensible and pedantic.

 

Then the big lie, SAY IT’S EXPENSIVE! Maybe it’s not a lie, mm?

 

Minus one internal combustion engine. Add ten storage batteries. Air. Hydrogen? Stop by your local hospital supply facility. Or acetylene supply shop and check cost. Gas nozzle, stax.

 

Hydride tank is not explosive. (Why doesn’t Plug mention it? I don’t know).

 

What do you think? If a few businesses like GM applied themselves to cheap supplies of a lot of hydrogen. (A lot of it is produced now, cheaply. Check “Plug”).

 

Scientists calculate half the cancers would not happen worldwide, and others would be less critical. And asthma….far less asthma. You ever see a kid with a bad asthma attack? My oldest daughter has “controlled” asthma.

 

“Plug”, (H-Power when I discussed carbon plate design). Simply put shaved iron from local machine shops in a shallow pool. When iron rusts, H escapes. No need to rust iron in the BLOODY CAR. Let me tell you why. If you place 3 hydride tanks in the empty space under your hood next to the hydrogen “stax”. Each tank about 6”x6”x16”. There will be enough hydrogen in your car to allow you to drive from New York to Los Angeles.

 

H-tank with iron in your car? Preposterous, in my view. (Of course, it’s an interesting back-up…hmmm.)

 

Certain hydrides absorb hydrogen and release it in discrete amounts. 2-layered tank filled with hydride to absorb H. I have a video of a lab technician pumping a rifle slug into such a tank. There was a slow leak. Another car is dropped from a 5-story garage, no explosion. No fire.

 

Shame? Huh?

 

There are things about suns we don’t know. Probably a lot of things. For example, if electro-magnetic fields, chaotic in nature, can rip prime matter (pardon me for my assumption), and remove a field outward, things may happen in these vast fields. You know accelerators are not only simply controlled by magnetics and heat, but increased magnetic fields can alter effects. If this is true then, temperature may not be the only controlling factor. What we do know is 10 percent of the sun is helium and it came from somewhere. Even though the sun drives 100 million tons of ions and electrons into it’s system every second. (Multiply that for 5 billion years). Somebody’s cooking up helium on the sun.

 

(um,…ah. Don’t hit….I think Einstein thought gravity was curved because electro magnetic attractive lines is curved.)

 

Jack…let me extend myself to you. Let’s say the speed of light is NOT the speed of light or what they say. Say, slowly now, that frequency…is the resistance of prime matter against radiations and the more powerful the radiation or the faster, the more it is required to wave because of resistance.

 

Okay, I’m taking you to too deep but, since I started, say photons proceed resisted by prime matter or, as a second choice, a photon mounts a prime matter particle and proceeds at light speed. (I know, I know).

 

Either way,…since prime matter is mildly affected electro-magnetically. One can arrange a series of magnets in an accelerator to pull outward even prime matter to make a pathway free of prime matter. The wave straightens out and the photon accelerates much faster than “light speed” for an instant…and impacts.

 

Fusion.

 

Have a cappuccino…relax.

[selegue]

Dear Jack,

 

A company called Plug, formerly ‘H-Power’ http://www.plugpower.com/technology/hydrogen.cfm

in New Jersey, produces fuel cells for various products. Couple of years ago for portable traffic signals and they converted 4 buses to use hydrogen fuel cells in 4 cities experimentally. The buses work at one tenth of fuel costs and maintenance of internal combustion.

 

That's a great site and it looks like a great product. I hope they succeed big time. The "Fuel of the Future" brochure is so nicely done that I think I'll use it for a class next year. Thanks for the link.

 

 

The process was practical 10 years ago, and quite inexpensive. It is a danger to the incredibly powerful petroleum and machinery business. Imagine if total conversion was begun now. Whole industries would close down, cities would close down. International treaties altered, families of rich would become no richer, Mr. Bush, and many others, etc., etc.

 

So the process is slowed down. But no body talks. How?

 

Money-money…more R&D, early retirement. Firing of people with big mouths and……. money, all the time. Sounding sensible and pedantic.

 

Then the big lie, SAY IT’S EXPENSIVE! Maybe it’s not a lie, mm?

 

 

Fuel cells are still too expensive to generate enough electricity for a whole city, but they are a great alternative for smaller scale applications like cars. That could change in the future, but it's going to take a lot more R&D. (One of my Real Life projects is actually to develop materials that could improve fuel cells.)

 

 

Minus one internal combustion engine. Add ten storage batteries. Air. Hydrogen? Stop by your local hospital supply facility. Or acetylene supply shop and check cost. Gas nozzle, stax.

 

Hydride tank is not explosive. (Why doesn’t Plug mention it? I don’t know).

 

What do you think? If a few businesses like GM applied themselves to cheap supplies of a lot of hydrogen. (A lot of it is produced now, cheaply. Check “Plug”).

 

 

I agree with you. I wish this would happen. The biggest downside is hydrogen generation. "Plug" glosses over this a bit (and I don't blame them). Converting carbon fossil fuels to H2 does generate CO2 as a byproduct, so it doesn't solve the problems of needing to mine petroleum or coal or the CO2 greenhouse effect. Using coal to make H2 is practical though, because we can save the intrinsically more valuable petroleum for chemical feedstocks instead of burning it, which is crazy! The economics of using iron to generate H2 is up in the air. Ultimately you need a reducing agent AND you generate CO2 during the reduction of the ore. Coke (from coal) is the only reducing agent cheap enough to make iron on a large scale, the iron industry infrastructure is already in place and largely going to waste in the USA, so the and up-front investment would be modest -- bringing us back to Joe Magarac!

 

 

Apologies for 2 chemical equations.

 

2Fe2O3 + 3C -> 4Fe + 3CO2

 

2Fe + 3H2O -> Fe2O3 + 3 H2

 

You still end up with CO2, but industrial coke is cheap. You can also take advantage of the heat generated in step 2 if you do it right.

 

Scientists calculate half the cancers would not happen worldwide, and others would be less critical. And asthma….far less asthma. You ever see a kid with a bad asthma attack? My oldest daughter has “controlled” asthma.

 

“Plug”, (H-Power when I discussed carbon plate design). Simply put shaved iron from local machine shops in a shallow pool. When iron rusts, H escapes. No need to rust iron in the BLOODY CAR. Let me tell you why. If you place 3 hydride tanks in the empty space under your hood next to the hydrogen “stax”. Each tank about 6”x6”x16”. There will be enough hydrogen in your car to allow you to drive from New York to Los Angeles.

 

H-tank with iron in your car? Preposterous, in my view. (Of course, it’s an interesting back-up…hmmm.)

 

Certain hydrides absorb hydrogen and release it in discrete amounts. 2-layered tank filled with hydride to absorb H. I have a video of a lab technician pumping a rifle slug into such a tank. There was a slow leak. Another car is dropped from a 5-story garage, no explosion. No fire.

 

Shame? Huh?

 

 

Some of the metal hydride storage alloys actually store hydrogen more densely and safely than liquid H2 itself! I believe in this technology, but the downsides are that the alloys are expensive so there's a huge startup cost, and they don't last forever (hysteresis) but that's improving.

And furthermore (I can ramble on about this for hours), some of the alloys / hydrides can be used in closed-cycle heating/cooling devices. Use the heat of sunlight to drive H2 out of the alloy during the day, allow the alloy to absorb the H2 at night to heat your house. It's very feasible.

 

 

There are things about suns we don’t know. Probably a lot of things. For example, if electro-magnetic fields, chaotic in nature, can rip prime matter (pardon me for my assumption), and remove a field outward, things may happen in these vast fields. You know accelerators are not only simply controlled by magnetics and heat, but increased magnetic fields can alter effects. If this is true then, temperature may not be the only controlling factor. What we do know is 10 percent of the sun is helium and it came from somewhere. Even though the sun drives 100 million tons of ions and electrons into it’s system every second. (Multiply that for 5 billion years). Somebody’s cooking up helium on the sun.

 

 

The helium comes from hydrogen fusion. No mystery. Experimentally very well demonstrated.

 

 

(um,…ah. Don’t hit….I think Einstein thought gravity was curved because electro magnetic attractive lines is curved.)

 

 

Not exactly. "Gravity is a curvature of space (or space-time)" is a good way to think of it -- you don't really need to involve curved electromagnetic line of force. Do you know the famous 1919 experiment on curvature of the path of the light of a star by the gravity of the (eclipsed) sun? Another one of those "incredibly simple" but profound scientific experiments.

 

 

Jack…let me extend myself to you. Let’s say the speed of light is NOT the speed of light or what they say. Say, slowly now, that frequency…is the resistance of prime matter against radiations and the more powerful the radiation or the faster, the more it is required to wave because of resistance.

 

Okay, I’m taking you to too deep but, since I started, say photons proceed resisted by prime matter or, as a second choice, a photon mounts a prime matter particle and proceeds at light speed. (I know, I know).

 

 

You've reinvented the old theory of "the aether" (specifically "luminiferous aether", aka "quintessence" = "fifth element"), replacing aether with prime matter particles. This theory was around for centuries and only overturned with a lot (!) of resistance in the early 20th century when too many experiments were inconsistent with it. However, new ideas of "virtual particles" are almost a quantum-mechanical revival of aether! Your prime matter particle idea looks a lot like the virtual particle model.

 

 

Either way,…since prime matter is mildly affected electro-magnetically. One can arrange a series of magnets in an accelerator to pull outward even prime matter to make a pathway free of prime matter. The wave straightens out and the photon accelerates much faster than “light speed” for an instant…and impacts fusion.

 

 

Sounds a lot like a tokomak.

Let's all get together and insist that the federal government increase funding for hydrogen power, metal hydrides and tokomaks (very expensive) instead of wasting money on [political rant deleted].

 

Have a cappuccino…relax.

 

*Choke* I can't today. Fasting today for an *oooggg* medical procedure.

 

But you're right -- this discussion would work much better over a coffee or beer than on a forum about slabbed comic books.

 

Y'know, kind of like two guys in a bar.

 

Apologies to anyone who is bored shirtless by all this tech-talk.

 

Jack

[Aman619]

I think its been great. Even though I feel like a ping pong ball. Neal makes great sense in his common sense posts, only to have them (most of them) slapped back in hi sside of the court by Professor Selegue. But Neal parries back and goshdarnit, Selegue's on the ropes. But wham, pow bam! Neal's retreating (well, sort of) in the case of experimental experience. Only to come back, undeterred!!!

 

I think youre making progress on both of your arguments and finding common ground. So, please dont worry about us. Continue.!

[Neal Adams-migration]

Jack…and everyone, I am recommending strongly that you visit this site and look at “how the technology works”.

 

http://www.ballard.com/be_informed/fuel_cell_technology/how_the_technology_works#

 

 

or google, Ballard fuel cells. Go to Ballard power systems –untitled_

 

Lots of solid and real info on the power of our future hydrogen, fuel cells.

 

Unfortunately, if you examine it very closely, you will see how an industry is being held back while it seems to be moving forward. In the “race to change the world, Ballard (and others) are backpedaling.

 

All the technology is there and ready to go, but as you will read Ballard has contracts with Ford, Chrysler, GM and others who keep the work on a slow track.

 

In 2000, when the technology was more than perfected, Ballard announced by 2005, the technology will be released to everyone and the US Government encouraged its use.

 

Now they say 2010. But the work is done. So read the Q and A’s to see how high the Bulllsh_t can be stacked.

 

This is your world and mine. Just thought you ought to know..

[Neal Adams-migration]

Jack…I think you may have missed my point on fuel cells.

 

Fuel cells are NOT, repeat NOT too expensive.

 

 

They are cheaper.

 

When you read the brochure you will see. Right now, today, any company can go to all the machine shops in their cities and get iron filings and scraps for free, and set them in shallow pools of water and draw off hydrogen. How much hydrogen? Lots! Other methods are used. Even now, you can buy hydrogen in any city, as much as you want.

 

You want more. They’ll simply up their order. Hydrogen suppliers would LOVE to up their orders and increase their business. It’s the most abundant stuff on the planet and there are a hundred methods to get it.

 

Jack, it’s all a lie. I don’t know how to say this. It’s not “feasible”; it’s do-able today, yesterday, 10 years ago. It’s far past academic discussion. I don’t expect you to march in the street. That’s up to rowdy people like me.

 

On my theory. You gotta relax your shoulders and sip the tea on this one.

 

Let’s say Michaelson and Morely were right in the first place. Fans, it’s an easy look-up.

 

I can’t call it aether, but it’s close enough for comics. I can’t call it dark matter, but that’s close enough for comics, too.

 

Suppose we forget all those muons and glue-ons and such, and we say. The universe, long time ago was nothing. (But potential).

 

Suppose for whatever reason, this area of the whole shootin’ match of nothing exhibited energy. Electro-magnetic energy. Not dynamo like, just sub-atomic like. And it set this section to slow spinning. As electro-magnetic energy seems to.

 

The spin forced the nothing to thin out more than it was.

 

Bubbles formed! The energy of the out-pulling of the universe (the bubbles) and the needful force holding it back in at the core of the bubbles is the core positron. The needful force. These two things and the force between them is all the universe is made of.

 

Billions of years go by till a core is knocked out of the bubble. How? Lord, I wouldn’t know. Happens a lot now. Carl David Anderson saw it in 1932.

 

Back to Michaelson and Morely, by your leave, measuring the speed of light. No matter where, well, you know the experiment(s).

 

Now, let’s say prime matter, the bubbles, is the ocean we exist in…and it’s everywhere.

 

We know prime matter is mildly electro-magnetically sensitive. (1.Attracted by positrons, dark matter, 2. identified by its gravity effect, which I say, is not “gravity”). Since this ‘seems’ to be so, earth’s (and others) electro-magnetic field captures a pod of prime matter and carries it with it, just as earth carries its ‘pod’ of atmosphere.

 

Any light entering the pod of prime matter adjusts its speed within the pod to light speed and when measured, it will always read light speed.

 

As to Einstein’s example, (please…don’t get worked up. We’re just talkin’). As light enters the pod of prime matter carried by that sun the speed adjusts to light speed within the pod and again when it leaves. And so Einstein’s observation.

 

I like Einstein. I love Einstein. But if he was given incorrect information and he created a theory based on it…well…

 

N.A.

[Aman619]

Neal, its funny, but you write completely differently than you speak!

 

Are you following David Hockneys trials and tribulations in trying to convince the Art Establishment that the Old Masters used lenses? Your battle is very similar. Im sure we are both agree on THAT discussion... At least I understand the concepts of tracing at the heart of the matter...

 

 

As for alternate energy sources etc... I am of the opinion that the serious work will be done at the very last minute, when it's finally almost too late, and switching from the easy, entrenched and highly profitable oil standard we are on is inevitable. Only then will business and governmant and the profit motive be aligned to make the progress that is probably doable today. What we lack today in 2005 is the will that follows the fear that if it isnt done asap, we are doomed. Then all forces will align as there will be serious money to be made... enough to grease the wheels in Washington.

[Michael Netzer]

Neal (and anyone else who's stil reading):

Meanwhile I see that, as an academic scientist, I have been vilified on this thread as intellectually dishonest, a liar, anti-humanist, anti-religion, an elitist, dead-headed, someone who doesn't know how to debate, a tool of a vast Cabal of Evil Scientists out to delude the world for their own nefarious purposes, and on and on. When writers here attack "those people", they attack me. I am an honest person. I have never falsified or hidden data. It would be polite to cut back the vitriol a bit to have a civil discussion.

 

Being the guilty party in the direct manner of my criticism of science's methods, I bow my head and ask for your forgiveness, Jack. I had no inclination you'd take it personally. I addressed science as a community and not the individual within it, each individual stands on their own merit. Though collectively, a community can become a unique and substantive entity in and of itself, the individual remains worthy by their own life and works and is not necessarily beholden to the overriding voice of the scientific community. I wouldn't hope to carry on a civil discussion with you by directing the criticism so directly. Your feeling it was directed to you as an academic scientist wasn't intended to be as such at all - and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

Have a cappuccino…relax.

 

*Choke* I can't today. Fasting today for an *oooggg* medical procedure.

 

What a coincidence. That was also the Jewish fast day mourning the destruction of the Temple. Tesha b'Av. Or is that the medical procedure you referred to? I can imagine someone making such an analogy. So, maybe not for the same reason, but I fasted right along with you.

[Neal Adams-migration]

Let me get the gist of what you're sayin.' .......Is you sayin' "let Joe do it."?

If you is, Heh,heh, as Bugs would say "He don't know me vewey well, do he?"

You know with a little dedication and a few bucks, I'll bet a bunch 'a guys could put one of those H fuel cell cars togeather. I bet'cha.

 

Hockney is what? Do people not think Van Rijn DIDN'T use a camera obscura or what we used to call a lazy lucy, is nuts. If he had a tool why wouldn't he use it for at least part of the work.

 

Franz Halls would't, but he did people in movement and his work was, well, sloppy.

When you see the light drop off like that you pretty much know, camera obscura, Vermeer was the worst. He couldn't do anything unless it was by a casement window in the daytime. Wanna see some really bad work, look in the shadow area of a Vermeer painting where the light dropped off and he had to draw.

Rembrant was, however a great artist and probably didn't need the help. You can tell from his self-portraits and that Aristotle contemplating the bust of Homer, which was probably Lester leaning on a plaster cast of Morris the butcher. Those were drawing and painting exercises

 

To me the point is who cares what tools an artist uses. Do you like the work, that's what's important. ....isn't it? To you?

[Aman619]

Let me get the gist of what you're sayin.' .......Is you sayin' "let Joe do it."?

If you is, Heh,heh, as Bugs would say "He don't know me vewey well, do he?"

You know with a little dedication and a few bucks, I'll bet a bunch 'a guys could put one of those H fuel cell cars togeather. I bet'cha.

 

Hockney is what? Do people not think Van Rijn DIDN'T use a camera obscura or what we used to call a lazy lucy, is nuts. If he had a tool why wouldn't he use it for at least part of the work.

 

Franz Halls would't, but he did people in movement and his work was, well, sloppy.

When you see the light drop off like that you pretty much know, camera obscura, Vermeer was the worst. He couldn't do anything unless it was by a casement window in the daytime. Wanna see some really bad work, look in the shadow area of a Vermeer painting where the light dropped off and he had to draw.

Rembrant was, however a great artist and probably didn't need the help. You can tell from his self-portraits and that Aristotle contemplating the bust of Homer, which was probably Lester leaning on a plaster cast of Morris the butcher. Those were drawing and painting exercises

 

To me the point is who cares what tools an artist uses. Do you like the work, that's what's important. ....isn't it? To you?

 

I agree 100%. Maybe I wrote it sounding like a doubting thomas, but My take is exactly as you put it: These were guys who created for bread, not for jollies, this was how they made a living, and "If he had a tool why wouldn't he use it for at least part of the work." Why not indeed? The lenses only aided in placement of detail. The images still needed to be panted, and these guys were pretty good werent they?

 

Hockney has taken a lot of te from "those who know better" in his crusade too. Give him a call!! And check out his coffee table book, profusely illustrated(!) with diagrams and letters and optics explorartion proving his point.

[selegue]

Jack…and everyone, I am recommending strongly that you visit this site and look at “how the technology works”.

 

http://www.ballard.com/be_informed/fuel_cell_technology/how_the_technology_works#

 

 

or google, Ballard fuel cells. Go to Ballard power systems –untitled_

 

Lots of solid and real info on the power of our future hydrogen, fuel cells.

 

 

Great page -- lots of real info.

 

 

Unfortunately, if you examine it very closely, you will see how an industry is being held back while it seems to be moving forward. In the “race to change the world, Ballard (and others) are backpedaling.

 

All the technology is there and ready to go, but as you will read Ballard has contracts with Ford, Chrysler, GM and others who keep the work on a slow track.

 

In 2000, when the technology was more than perfected, Ballard announced by 2005, the technology will be released to everyone and the US Government encouraged its use.

 

Lots of things took a downturn in 2000, didn't they?

 

 

Now they say 2010. But the work is done. So read the Q and A’s to see how high the Bulllsh_t can be stacked.

 

This is your world and mine. Just thought you ought to know..