Newsgroup sci.physics.fusion 26755

Directory

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
---------------------------------14644871744
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hello,
If you have a really funny joke or personal story that has to do with 
being or growing old, or "going to the pearly gates" like a cosmic cloud 
I would love to hear from you.  I am collecting hilarious jokes and 
personal accounts of these life's passages for a book and am seeking 
submissions.  If yours is selected you will be provided with contributor 
credit.  The funnier and more original the better! For sample of already 
received stories you may access our home page.
Many Thanks for sharing your great and unusual sense of humor!!!
And I look forward to connecting with you!!!!
In Light,Fusion, and Laughter!
Aurielle
Santa Barbara, California    
---------------------------------14644871744
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/html



	
  
  


AURIELLE VISIONS PRESENTS:
YOU'LL DIE LAUGHING
The Lighter Side of the Afterlife





Come join Cliff and Nancy to explore the
avenues of your funniest funny bones with humorous personal stories of the
"AFTERLIFE" and the end of life.

SAMPLES | SUBMISSIONS |
EMAIL






---------------------------------14644871744--

Asger Tornquist wrote:
> 
> Alfonso Martinez Vicente  wrote:
> 
> >Do plus infinity and minus infinity meet at the infinity? I mean, if I
> >go towards the infinity along the real line, will I somehow get to the
> >the minus infinity?
> 
> I see no logical reason that + and - inf. should meet. If it were so
> the result of finding lim(x->+inf.) and lim(x->-inf.) for any real
> function would give the same result, which it  doesn't.
Sorry, but you're wrong here. Because you are taking the limes from
different sides.
f(x)=1/x has lim(x->0)=+inf or -inf, depending on approaching from the
left or the right. 
So this is no proof of +inf and -inf not being the same.
Actually, if you take complex numbers, then you don't distinguish 
between infinity with an argument of 0 degrees or 180 degrees.
So I would say that in a certain way (taking the real numbers as a 
subset of complex numbers) the two are actually the same.
Andras

To recount what I have covered thus far:  The data as presented by
Miley and Paterson in their figure 3a shows that reacted microspheres
are coated with "gunk" - an accumulation of assorted contaminants resulting
from the extended electrolysis.
The claim put forth by these authors is that the isotopic abundance ratios
for the various elements detected do not conform to the expected natural
abundance ratios.  I assert that this claim is false!  The mass spectrum
as plotted in Figure 3a is in complete agreement with natural abundance
ratios.  The authors have simply misrepresented their own data.
Their misrepresentations of the mass data are given numerical values in
an extensive table - Table 3.  This starts with the isotopes of silicon
where their tabulated abundances are clearly in agreement with natural
abundance ratios for the reacted microspheres.  However, they assert that
the silicon that has arrived on the microspheres must be the result of
nuclear transmutations because the microsperes before reacting have only
the isotope 28Si.  In other words, the claim is that the electrolysis
restores the abundance ratios to precisely the natural values although
the starting material is "unnatural" with respect to silicon.  I believe
that requires further explanation from the authors.
The next misrepresentation by the authors is to leave out entirely the
data for calcium isotopes that are clearly present in their natural
ratios.  They, perhaps, cover themselves by saying that the light elements
are still being analyzed.  What's to analysis?  The calcium and the silicon
tells us that contaminants have been deposited on the microspheres.
That is evidence that will not go away.
The next misrepresentation is to simply leave 48Ti out of the table while
including the other stable isotopes: 46,47,49,50Ti.  Without doubt 48Ti
is present in the mass spectrum and appears to have the appropriate abundance
relative to the isotope 46,47,49.
At first there may be some question about the abundance of 50Ti as there is
clearly a peak at mass 50 which may be even larger than the mass 48 peak.
Indeed we find in the table a listing which indicates that 50Ti is present
with an anomolous abundance relative to masses 46,47,49.  (There is no
comparison to mass 48 as noted above.)  Here is perhaps one of the most
inexcusable misrepresentations of the data.  That mass 50 peak is simply
not titanium!  The authors have made a terrible and obvious blunder.
To explain the problem at mass 50 we need to preceed to the isotopes of
chromium.  In the table we find listed the isotopic abundance ratios as
follows: 52Cr - 0.84; 53Cr - 0.10; 54Cr - 0.02.  If you total those
three numbers you will find that only 96% of natural chromium has been
accounted for.  Once again the authors omit one of the isotopes - in this
case mass 50.  Natural chromium includes 50Cr with a relative abundance
of 0.043.  Look it up if you don't believe me.
Now look at the graphical presentation of the mass spectrum and compare the
heights of the peaks for 48Ti and for 52Cr.  Off hand I would say the 52Cr
peak is more intense by a factor of 100.  If you apply just a little simple
logic you will learn that the 50Cr peak is, in all likelyhood, going to
be roughly a factor of 100 times larger that the 50Ti peak.  In other words
there is no observable 50Ti in the mass spectrum.  The mass 50 peak is
99% 50Cr.
So the anomoly at mass 50 is the authors own creation!  I will note that
mass 50 is the largest claimed deviation from the natural abundance ratios.
If their best evidence is simply the result of a failure to read a table
of nuclear masses properly, how much faith are we to place in the care with
with which they have conducted any of this analysis?
Dick Blue

sbolting@nemonet.com (Stephen Boltinghouse) wrote:
Look, ma, five stupid people!
> 1-  Fern Suarez
> 2-  Philippe
> 3-  Natalie Jansen
> 4-  Chad Collier
> 5-  Steve Boltinghouse
This information is from the U.S. Postal Service.
It can be viewed at
http://www.usps.gov/websites/depart/inspect/chainlet.htm
Chain Letters
A chain letter is a "get rich quick" scheme that promises that
your mail box will soon be stuffed full of cash if you decide to
participate. You're told you can make thousands of dollars every
month if you follow the detailed instructions in the letter.
[snip]
There's at least one problem with chain letters. They're illegal
if they request money or other items of value and promise a
substantial return to the participants. Chain letters are a form
of gambling, and sending them through the mail (or delivering
them in person or by computer, but mailing money to participate)
violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 1302, the Postal
Lottery Statute. (Chain letters that ask for items of minor value,
like picture postcards or recipes, may be mailed, since such items
are not things of value within the meaning of the law.)
Recently, high-tech chain letters have begun surfacing. They may
be disseminated over the Internet, or may require the copying and
mailing of computer disks rather than paper. Regardless of what
technology is used to advance the scheme, if the mail is used at
any step along the way, it is still illegal.
The main thing to remember is that a chain letter is simply a bad
investment. You certainly won't get rich. You will receive little
or no money. The few dollars you may get will probably not be as
much as you spend making and mailing copies of the chain letter.
Chain letters don't work because the promise that all participants
in a chain letter will be winners is mathematically impossible.
Also, many people participate, but do not send money to the person
at the top of the list. Some others create a chain letter that lists
their name numerous times--in various forms with different addressee.
So, in reality, all the money in a chain is going to one person.
Do not be fooled if the chain letter is used to sell inexpensive
reports on credit, mail order sales, mailing lists, or other topics.
The primary purpose is to take your money, not to sell information.
"Selling" a product does not ensure legality. Be doubly suspicious
if there's a claim that the U.S. Postal Service or U.S. Postal
Inspection Service has declared the letter legal. This is said
only to mislead you. Neither the Postal Service nor Postal Inspectors
give prior approval to any chain letter.
Participating in a chain letter is a losing proposition.
[snip]
- Hicks