Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

Electrons cannot form Bose-Einstein condensates because they are not bosons (integer spin) but they are fermions (spin 1/2) , so that part is explained wrong (in need of a new theory?) to begin with.

So two electrons with opposite spins cannot entangle to form a single wave entity with zero spin? So Cooper pairs are not possible? Thank you icarus for confirming the latter fact: However, when extracting electrons into a vacuum by means of my mechanism, the electron density keeps on increasing and will keep on increasing unless the electrons form a single quantum wave having a ground-state energy. Thus as the density increases electrons with opposite spins first entangle to form entities with zero spins (bosons) which then further entangle to form a single macro-wave that can be seen as a black rod.

and then this fantastical statement ....

"A black Bose-Einstein condensate filament made of electrons forms from the diamond surface into the anode "... why not just put the video up on YouTube? With a discovery of that magnitude he'd be famous overnight, if that is what he wants.

To somebody without any brains it would seem fantastical; but this is what happens. The photos of the black rod are the property of ESKOM. I cannot take such photographs in my equipment since I do not have a window and the required microscope. Really icarus you will die being an ASS----.

[johanfprins]

Well, I'm done. I can't waste my time with someone so totally taciturn that he turns and bites at every advocate.

Well I hope that this time you will stick to your promise not to return to this thread and STINK it up again. You are the idiot who believes that you have enough clout to help science along. I think investors run from you not from me. And even if you could bring an investor on board I will distrust any person who is willing to go along with an asshole like you!

[johanfprins]

That's funny. GIT was your biggest fan, until a few posts ago.

I do not need a fan which is continuously being hit by shit and spaying it around indiscriminately.

Go on, NoGo, ask a few question see how long you stay in his 'good books'. You're the only friend he's got in this thread now.

I do not think that NoGo is the type of person who will judge the validity of new science on whether he likes the proponent or not. He is clearly still a remnant of the good old days when science was judged objectively. Such a pity that people like him have become so scarce that they are nearly non-existent within the physics community.

Chrismb, I hope that both you and GIThruster will not return to STINK up this thread again. Good Bye and Good Riddance!

[icarus]

prins:

The photos of the black rod are the property of ESKOM

... and yet another cute twist. The one piece of stunning evidence from the experiment that you said was not bound by your other unfathomably arcane IP motivations is owned by yet another party introduced to the tale, ESKOM. Just take your word for it yet again I suppose? Or how much to see this photo praytell?

Until the photo is publicly produced it is just a fantastical claim, after which point it becomes evidence.

i) What is the length and diameter of the black rod?
ii) What is the voltage across the gap before the rod forms?
iii) What is minimum level of vacuum for the phenomena to be observed?
iv) Are any of the variables of i) thru iii) dependent?

[Betruger]

You omitted a refutal of his refutal of your refutal WRT electron entanglement/Cooper pairs. Which is a better piece of contention WRT Prins credibility (as seems to be your motivation) than the anode pics' existence which is much less debatable.

[icarus]

You omitted a refutal of his refutal of your refutal

So you are keeping score? What's the total?

Hey, if Prins has the evidence where is it? That would do the best by his credibility ... wouldn't you agree? I have a motivation to get to the truth primarily ... is that what you are getting at in your cryptic, dark, mysterious way? So what if I agree on some points with Prins doesn't make him god of physics on everything he says, that's just nuts talking. I only pull out the most contentious points generally ... or do you want me to write long fawning agreement statements whenever there is some common ground to bring karma back into your life or something ... do you have a point?

[johanfprins]

... and yet another cute twist. The one piece of stunning evidence from the experiment that you said was not bound by your other unfathomably arcane IP motivations is owned by yet another party introduced to the tale, ESKOM. Just take your word for it yet again I suppose? Or how much to see this photo praytell?

I am tired of you questioning my integrity while you have none. I will thus not respond to you any more even when it might again happen that you ask a valid question in spite of your intellectual inability to think one up.

[Betruger]

So you are keeping score? What's the total?

Not keeping score.

Hey, if Prins has the evidence where is it?

A query unsatisfiable by debate as allowed by this forum, unlike that specific matter of physics I pointed out.

That would do the best by his credibility ... wouldn't you agree?

Yes. Be that as it may it's a dead end if limited to debate thru this forum. Unless thru this forum it's possible to get hands on said evidence.

I have a motivation to get to the truth primarily ... is that what you are getting at in your cryptic, dark, mysterious way?

Nothing opaque about what I pointed out, and you know it.

So what if I agree on some points with Prins doesn't make him god of physics on everything he says, that's just nuts talking. I only pull out the most contentious points generally ... or do you want me to write long fawning agreement statements whenever there is some common ground to bring karma back into your life or something ... do you have a point?

Tally: you had a chance to minimize your rhetoric to the physics/math, and instead kept on about trashing Prins. Aside that it's bad form and about as tedious as bad stand up comedy routine, it means you refused to take the shortest path to concluding this argument, the shortest path to proving Prins wrong. If your primary motivation is to get to the truth, you failed to do it justice. Your incessant bragging every which way is like the Bad Guy doing his Gunpoint Monologue, instead of just pulling the trigger; almost invariably Bad Guy pays for letting that opportunity pass. All just to hear himself talk, just to strut his stuff. Vain and irrelevant.

I reckon there isn't a single reader on this whole forum who, aside agreeing on the basic facts and probabilities, admires your two bit trash talk enough that he wouldn't find it just as well if you didn't bother with it.

[vankirkc]

This thread reminds me of the Jerry Springer show.

[johanfprins]

This thread reminds me of the Jerry Springer show.

Are you a addicted to the Jerry Springer show? This explains a lot!

[mdeminico]

Johan,

I might suggest this as a good forum to make your points:

http://www.physicsforums.com/

(Specifically, the Independent Research forum http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146 )

Discussions tend to be very technical. I don't think you'll be censored just for being unorthodox as you might from journals. If your arguments are persuasive, your ideas might find an inroad into the physics community there, or at least force a minor beachhead. Be warned, they are fairly strict about proper behavior.

Heavens no... That place is the antithesis of scientific thinking. Take my word for it. I brought up multiple emerging theories, quoted references, cited evidence, etc, and was outright banned because I was being "speculative".

I am *not* kidding you, every single point I made on there was backed up by clear evidence and valid references. They are the poster child for what is wrong with modern science, seeking only to further their own preconceptions and defend their deeply held beliefs and positions.

In short: Someone asked a question "are we pushed or pulled towards a planet?" Apparently that's a taboo topic on there because a few people who said that push theories exist were warned, and when I began citing evidence and presented clear scientific experiments that could be performed to validate a push theory (Specifically, Xavier Borg's EMRP theory), I was banned. See this thread http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2771886 starting with my post in post 12, 15, 27, etc. Also note the typical response you will get in post 14, 16, 33, etc... Post 19 shows the source of the problem coming from the admins side... and finally, the brilliant moderator in post 34...

If you follow that thread, you'll notice things like people asking "Ok, provide an experiment that could be used to validate this", which I did, and was then attacked for doing so. Honestly, this is just another example of what Johan has gone through in discussions all over the planet. I mean, what is more deeply held than GRAVITY to people? Of COURSE it must be a pulling force, that's what they've believed their entire life.

[mdeminico]

Electrons cannot form Bose-Einstein condensates because they are not bosons (integer spin) but they are fermions (spin 1/2) , so that part is explained wrong (in need of a new theory?) to begin with.

and then this fantastical statement ....

"A black Bose-Einstein condensate filament made of electrons forms from the diamond surface into the anode "... why not just put the video up on YouTube? With a discovery of that magnitude he'd be famous overnight, if that is what he wants.

Heh... Do you know how many "video proofs of perpetual motion machines" are on YouTube? Hardly the place to show proof of groundbreaking physics discoveries.

Oh, and everyone involved here is presuming things about elementary particles. Namely, they're assuming that they're actually particles, and explained by the theories the particle crowd has put forth. It's entirely possible (and might be better explained) that matter is comprised of waves.

[mdeminico]

prins:

The photos of the black rod are the property of ESKOM

... and yet another cute twist. The one piece of stunning evidence from the experiment that you said was not bound by your other unfathomably arcane IP motivations is owned by yet another party introduced to the tale, ESKOM. Just take your word for it yet again I suppose? Or how much to see this photo praytell?

Well hey! You can become a multi-gazillionaire with your idea then! If you want to take the picture and post it on YouTube (because that would somehow help in your mind), then buy the equipment, reproduce his results, and take the picture yourself.

[choff]

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I would be curious to know if Johan is familiar with Frank Znidarsic and if so, what he thinks of his work.

[johanfprins]

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I would be curious to know if Johan is familiar with Frank Znidarsic and if so, what he thinks of his work.

First time I have come across the name Frank Znidarsic. Can you send me more information please?