How to make a sustained fusion reaction

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Beaconator, Jul 13, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,207
    OK maybe we can talk again when the meds have done their work. Because right now you are speaking gobbledegook, I'm afraid.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    Yeah?
    "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
    "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
    "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic"

    Really?
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00011852
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00257/full
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969718327529
    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.8b03206
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,257
    fail.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

    to sum it up he believed nature was God not a conscious being and disassociated himself for religion completely. Spinozism.

    Which I believe (in general) science we do these days is full of forced experiments. We have been forcing constraints to fit experiments and observations instead of allowing a process to take its natural course.

    So far no experiments have been able to challenge our knowledge of nature and science only conforms to suit our needs not our understanding of natural process.

    Einstein always believed in more and chose to be agnostic because neither other option fit his frame of mind.

    This experiment could show the line between god and nature. Could open new doors of understanding the difference between nature and experimentation.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,752
    OP has wandered way off topic. Reported.
     
  8. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,257
    A girl screamed through a walkie talkie laying on a table around the corner from her. Use science and explain that.
    all the elements exist and they have not reacted violently until we separate them and observe their initial reactions. They exist on earth and we aren’t waiting to be blown to smitherines or have our shell react with inert elements.

    science has taught us a false truth so many times we cannot see the exit from our assholes. Most recently in quantum physics. So we know how particles behave. So what. I want to know how to control them and that will not happen without placing all the elements in the same location.
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,752
    And yet here we are talking about God instead of fusion.
     
  10. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,257
    Science is not the mechanism that disproves nature.

    “science is not the antichrist”- Neitzsche

    Should I elaborate or is that good enough for you?

    a natural scientific experiment is all that I’m asking for. One with no controls, variables, or hypothesis.

    Just conclusions…

    what control can we place on everything? Nothingness? Half of everything? Half of nothingness?

    I don’t believe anyone has fully put any controls, variables, or hypothesis on my experiment. They have just predetermined conclusions based on other experiments and conclusions with no thought toward control variables. The statistics just don’t add up from controls to conclusion.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2021
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,752
    You've posted two non sequiturs which do not help at all.

    But no need to elaborate on my behalf; I'm not your target audience. I'm just here to monitor the quality of the forum.
    I've suggested this thread be moved from Pseudoscience to to Free Thoughts, since it seems to be more stream-of-consciousness than anything else.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,130
    The content that Beaconator is posting in this thread barely rises to the level of pseudoscience, let alone science.

    Reading other people's posts in this thread is kind of like watching somebody take a Rorschach test. Take something that has no meaning, and the brain does its best to try to make it make sense, somehow.

    Rather than having Beaconator continue to waste everybody's time with his nonsense, I think it's better to close the thread. Then we can all do something more productive.
     
    exchemist likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page