How to make a sustained fusion reaction

[exchemist]

I am. They don’t help unsee what one other healthcare person saw and told me to disregard.

broke all physical laws including the ones I am trying to prove.

I don’t care what happened back then I just know I’m going to accomplish something greater here. Mostly because those who believe in god believe what I’m saying, while those that don’t do not. And Einstein believed in god

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

 

[Dywyddyr]

Your wrong about everything. And can prove nothing.

From America having better nuclear weapons than Russia to Einstein’s belief in god.

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"

there is no possibility an iron shell can be breached by organic material.
Period.

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

 

[Beaconator]

Wrong.

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

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

OP has wandered way off topic. Reported.

 

[Beaconator]

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

A girl screamed through a walkie talkie laying on a table around the corner from her. Use science and explain that.

OP has wandered way off topic. Reported.

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

And yet here we are talking about God instead of fusion.

 

[Beaconator]

And yet here we are talking about God instead of fusion.

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

Science is not the mechanism that disproves nature.

“science is not the antichrist”- Neitzsche

Should I elaborate or is that good enough for you?

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.

 

[James R]

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.