Whenever A Post Mentions Uranium Ratios...
...the geeky nuke in me gets excited. Zoe Brain has a post on some weird data in radiocarbon dating that at first glance looks kind of moonbatty, but since I know Zoe is no moonbat, I need to look at it closer. And, since it mentions U235/238 ratios, I'm sure that all nuke geeks will want to do the same...
Staying at PD...
Update 0733 07 Nov: The post listed above might not be moonbatty, but I did stumble across an example of real moonbat science Down Under. (The professor in question even has a webpage, so he must be legit!)
Here in the States, Vigilis has uncovered an even more ridiculous example of moonbat science. Trust me on this one -- whenever you see a process being described as using "hydrogen in fractional quantum states that are at lower energies than the traditional "ground" (n=1) state" you can recognize immediately that it's a perpetual motion scam. Actually, any time you see anyone use the phrase "fractional quantum state" in an other-than-mocking way, you know that they're a few clowns short of a circus...
posted by Bubblehead at 5:46 AM
2 Comments:
Fractional quantum states set off alarm bells, I agree. My prpblem is that the standard model and string theory are not much more convincing (e.g. charm, flavor, 10-dimension minimum).
I would not invest in nor even bet with you over Dr. Mills's claim, but I get the feeling there is room for major breakthroughs in the increasingly poorly described field of advanced energy physics. Thank you for the link.
11/07/2005 3:42 PM
Vigilis,
I really like superstring (or "M" theory) -- I can't follow the math, but to me, it just "makes sense". Having all particles (force and mass-carrying) unified like string theory is able to (almost) do mathematically is a big breakthrough. I expect that if some of the particles predicted by superstring start showing up at CERN when the new collider starts operating, it will go a long way to getting wider acceptance of string theory generally.
Personally, the idea of an 11 dimensional "underlying" universe is kind of the way I can reconcile my religious faith with my belief in science, so it's fairly important to me.
11/07/2005 4:32 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home