On Jan 31, 7:48 am, Kevin <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 9:09 am, "Dare" <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Kevin" <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:email@example.com... > > > 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.
So what do you want to see with it? Cheers, Arindam Banerjee