Comment Re:Nuclear material (Score 1) 239
You got in one. Actually following the plans and getting the fissile material, well nobody ever did or we would all know about it.
It has always been somewhat annoying that someone can mis-clone a language, officially change it and still claim it is English.
Languages evolve. And like anything else that evolves, divergent populations evolve differently. Even British English has changed considerably in the span of US History.
For example, we have directly observed Unruh radiation experiments that can be reproduced.
We have not. We have seen what some believe is good evidence of the Unrah effect. This is no better than gravitational lensing calculations showing that a distant galaxy has exactly the mass that our current relativistic theories suggest it should (In other words- single-handedly disproving anything that relies on MOND or something like it, such as QI. It's still not direct evidence of dark matter. But it is very good evidence that GR holds. We just can't see the mass for some reason.
Something about currents bent around the tip of a needle that produce severe acceleration
Yes. Unrah effect is very similar to the Casimir effect, and just as hard to conclusively show. We have weak evidence of Casimir as well.
I have read much supporting QI but little refuting it. Could you provide some?
Google is your friend. I've pointed out the immediate problems with QI. The biggest, most damning part of it, is that the only way it survives is to sweep evidence that supports it under the rug. You can't dark-matter away the fact that galactic matter distributions when measured in ways other than by their spin curve support GR, and do not support QI. QI relies on some kind of modified newtonian dynamics to take the place of general relativity. Anything hinging upon that is going to have mountains of evidence up against it. The fact that it can explain some acceleration anomalies doesn't get past the fact that it mis-explains everything else that we can see about the universe.
Of course languages evolve. If they did not then phrases like "proper English" or "correct English" would have meaning. The issue is that British English and American English are evolving divergently (as evolution would predict). I think the original line should hold the title. I am very fed up with having my spelling corrected to American by people who only think they have been taught English. It feels like an attempt to eliminate my language.
Q.I. is not similar to the Casimir effect, it is identical to it. It is the same mechanism.
With regard to the real topic of this thread. I am not comfortable with your position just as you are not comfortable with mine. Your last sentence works in both directions. I do not see this as a conflict between GR and QI. I see this as issues to be raised and resolved.
The reason I favour I so much is that it answers things that nothing else I know of does. Ask a phyics authority what inertia is gets you the answer "a property of matter", in other words "god did it". We are a bit beyond nowadays. Show me a method by which Higgs field and boson produce inertia? QI gives a good description without referring to dieties or self defining terms. If inertial mass always exactly matches gravitation mass then QI is wrong (or influenced in certain areas). Basically comparing inertial mass and gravitation mass all we say is that we have never noticed a case where they are not the same.
Correct spelling is definitely quantized, at least in my locality. That disagreement is perhaps a new world/old world difference? (I'm from the US)
Offtopic: Yes, I was getting a bit pokey. It has always been somewhat annoying that someone can mis-clone a language, officially change it and still claim it is English. I mean if someone said "come with" to me I would be waiting for them to finish the sentence. Why not call it American and be done with it? But the poke was uncalled for and a product of irritation (with making the "qualified" slip), too much isolation and approaching senility. You have my apologies.
Ontopic: suggest that maybe we are both being selective here. Could you elaborate on the four reasons you give above because my reading has given me other, contradictory ideas? For example, we have directly observed Unruh radiation experiments that can be reproduced. Something about currents bent around the tip of a needle that produce severe acceleration - I would have to search for it again. I have read much supporting QI but little refuting it. Could you provide some?
All your files have been destroyed (sorry). Paul.
