On Jan 30, 9:09 am, "Dare" <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Kevin" <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:firstname.lastname@example.org... > > Ya know, I met this kid in college and his major was physics... He > > was > > absolutely positive that he could make cold fusion work and he wasn't > > going to let anything stand in his way... Uh, cold fusion has been > > discredited and so what are the implications of that? Uh, Well, I'm > > obsessed with building a better microscope... No one will pay me to > > do > > it since cold fusion has been discredited... It isn't like there > > should be any obvious link between the two but... > > It is a bit of friendly academic tit for tat in speculating what is a > > sphere in higher academe... The major priority in building a better > > microscope is to determine how to freeze coarse adjustments to > > facilitate fine adjustments... > > > A sphere ultimately must mean to identify whatever it is that requires > > 'global initiative' in order to obtain an objective view of what the > > odds of success are... Basically, Fermilab seems to be most capable of > > building a better microscope but that is bad news for me and the rest > > of us if Fermilab is a political num-num that helps just the Japanese. > > What kind of microscope?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
A scanning tunneling electron microscope... I say that they don't work properly if they neglect the limitations of strong weak interaction... Spiral structures would suggest that something is neglected by strong weak interaction but scanning tunneling electron microscopes build on the premise of strong weak interaction, ergo, a better microscope then the ones we have presently has premise.