Gregg Wilson

Hi Al,

I'm with you all the way. Don't throw in the towel.

Robert Bramel

Dunning-Krueger 

Gregg Wilson

Robert,

You should be very careful about making a statement about one's presumed inability to personnaly assess their actual ability. Your simplistic statement is a kiss off of some else's opinion - without specifically stating your difference with their statements.

Ted Comstock (Briggs-Comstock)

It's funny, I had the impression that there was a general consensus that this "Highline High School, Class of '64" page was about, er, HHS, '64, its people, memories, etc., and OFF politics. I guess my memory is acting up again.

Linda Pompeo (Worden)

This is not the first time that the purpose of our site has been questioned.  The site is great for being able to know how old friends and classmates are doing.  I just wish that the many that have not joined the site for one reason or another would do so. They are missed. 

I appreciate all of the 60’s memorabilia that has been shared. Thank you for those posts.

We all have personal opinions on world problems, religion, politics, etc. and some feel the need to express, educate, or debate those differences.  I respect the opinions of those that do so, but perhaps a better approach would be for one of the computer whizzes out there to set up a page for such debates.   Post the address on our school site so that anyone that wishes to participate can, and those that wish to follow along can also do so, leaving our page for what I assume was the original purpose.

Tim Jones (Jones)

Well said Linda...

Karen Buck (White)

I'm with Tim - Well Said Linda!! Thanks

Janet Magneson (Engelhardt)

Thanks, Linda,

Carol Tucker (Schnorr)

Well said Linda.  I haven't posted before, but I think it is important to keep this Forum for the purpose it is intended.  

Michael Gray

Thanks Linda

Al Peffley

Robert, I learned something new from your post. I hope that the negative aspects of the 1999-initiated psychiatric theoretical studies on personality traits were not aimed at my varied, collective responses post to the prior postings on the Forum.

I tried the User Forum option but could not find a topic to address cultural topics other than the "Vietnam War" or "General" in that forum on this website. I guess my first try at joining again at posting in the Message Forum to respond to current posting was only supported by a few classmates (judging from the comments after my post response.)

Thank you classmates for the positive private messages with your thoughts and observations about this forum content and posts in it.I did renew half a dozen old friendships with classmates that I had not seen in many decadesthrough these postings and the private messages function . Being a male,I make observations like a male and a military vet. I have never been known to be shy, highly intellectual, or "politically correct". I traveled a lot for Boeing and LTV Aerospace and also during my stint in the Navy. I have a unique aerospace/emergency management professional career and degrees in Marine Biology (AS), Business Admin. Marketing/Finance (BS), and over 25 years in Engineering disciplines experience(EE & System Engineering). I have no graduate school degrees in anything. I am who I am.

As far as keeping up on classmates, I think the Profiles pages(if members use them) and the "In Memory" notifications have been adequately designed for that purpose. Frankly, with the exception of  posts about certain individuals who have passed on and music, hobbies, and vehicles/boats we have interest in there is little private life news discussed in the "Message" Forum posts. I am pretty sure that only a few folks would be interested in my hobby projects, sports interests, or coffee group retired social life experiences.

I have not seen any published rules or restrictions, word limits, topic limits, or a definition of the topic "politics" on this website so far. So, the general assumptions of a few dictate the acceptable content limitations to posts by those who make the rules on the fly, so to speak? I get it.

I'm with Gregg, Virgina, and Bob, on our nation's current affairs' concerns. Banning their comments on the forum will not make their and many of us who have observations and concerns go away. America is still our home unless we moved away to expatriate to another cultureto work and live.The Bill of Rights is still the supreme law of our USA Republic. I am a sovereign, American Patriot vet, and I'm not ashamed of it! RIP Mulf & Jim Pollard, & many others who gave their life in serving our unique Republic form of governing.

Peace be with you.

Al

Bill Engelhardt

Paul is looming up on 80 (June 18). 

Karen Buck (White)

Wow - how time flies!!! Brought tears to my eyes, but I REALLY appreciate the memories and I'm wondering the same thing about me except I want to say "When I'm 104."

Virginia Wolfe (Scheffer)

Bill...........Paul, still looks like a kid! Still cute! Nice picture
 

Tim Jones (Jones)

When I'm 64!  Well past that now...

Gregg Wilson

We are not 16 years old but we are 76 years old. So, adult subjects are appropriate on this message board.

I propose one:

Why is deuterium oxide toxic? (a fact)

Conventional chemistry theory states that that is impossible. Coventional chemistry theory states that deuterium consists one proton, one neutron and one electron. The bonding between the deuterium atom and the oxygen atom is by electron bonding. Conventional chemistry theory makes that bonding the same as between a hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom. (if you like, there are, of course two hydrogen atoms and two deuterium atoms.) Chemical bonding determines whether a structure is toxic or not toxic.

Fact overrules theory.

Any thoughts, unless you are still 16 years old.

Ken Becker

Great question, Gregg. Through the power of Google I learned that if one drinks too much heavy water (deuterium oxide) some of the the body’s H2 is replaced with D2 which inhibits mitosis ( you can look that up). My only previous knowledge of heavy water was that the Germans were making it in a Norwegian dam during WWII to support their atom bomb project, and there was a movie about the Brits efforts to blow the dam up.  I’ll have to find that movie and watch it again  

Gregg Wilson

To explain why deuterium oxide is toxic while the water molecule is not, we must go back to the force of gravity:

F  =  G*m1*m2/r2 where G is the gravitational constant; m1 is the mass of object 1; m2 is the mass of object 2; r is the distance between the center of mass 1 and the center of mass 2.

This equation does not explain the how and why of the force of gravitation. If one has an accurate estimate of masses and distance, one can calculate the force of gravity.

I now quote Isaac Newton:

"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it."

This means the the force of gravity is NOT attractive.

The correct definition of how and why of gravity was formulated by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier as a kinetic theory in 1690 and then developed by Le Sage of France in 1748. This theory proposed a mechanical explanation of Newton's gravitational force in terms of tiny unseen particles impacting on all material from all directions.

Any two bodies partially shielding each other from impinding particles, results in a net imbalance in the pressure by the impacting particles, which tends to drive the bodies together - giving the impression of attraction.

Further research in astronomy indicated that particles - now called gravitons - are about 10 to 20 orders of magnitude smaller than a proton. In order to have an instantaneous effect, their velocity is about 20 billion times faster than the speed of light. Again, based on astronomical evidence, a graviton has free travel distance of about 3,000 light years until it collides with another graviton.

These matters are dicussed in the book "Pushing Gravity".

Next time: the nature of light.

Bill Engelhardt

In answer to your question, Ken. The film came out in 1955 (a Saturday feature at Coy's Hi-Line).  Richard Todd had the lead, having starred a few years earlier in Disney's Robin Hood (1952). 

Gregg Wilson

Three centuries ago, it was understood that light was a wave passing through the "luminiferous aether" - a medium. In 1887, Michelson and Morley conducted an experiment to measure light speed in one direction and then in an orthogonal direction. They found the difference to be about 8 km/sec at sea level. Not knowing of a gravitational flux, they concluded that there was no light carrying medium. The light carrying medium was pinned against the Earth by the gravitational flux. Later experiments by the COBE satellite, demonstrated that Earth was moving at 365 km/sec through the light carrying medium as it existed between galaxies, where it is at rest.

All experiments on light demonstrate it is a wave. Since it has a wavelength and a frequency, it must be a wave. A wave must occur within a medium. This medium has been labelled as Elysium. Much like the ocean, which has the water molecule as it's basic particle, the Elysium has a fundamental particle called the elyson. They are normally at rest, unless something interfers. In a wave, the particles do not move with the wave, but impart their momentum on to the next particle and so on and so on.

The temperature of the Elysium, between galaxies, is about 2 degrees Kelvin. This occurs because the gravitons are impacting the elysons, thus converting kinetic energy over to thermal energy.

Whether we select a proton or an atom or a dust particle or an asteroid or a planet and so on, they have one thing in common: they are in the way. The gravitation flux pushes the Elysium up against the entity. This leads to a thicker Elysium, and finally a liquid Elysium on the surface of the entity. This compressed Elysium has a viscosity. The velocity of light is reduced by this thicker Elysium and especially by liquid Elysium.

Next time: the proton.

Robert Bramel

What an exciting world we live in! When we were in high school the idea of a black hole was just that—a weird idea. Whether one existed at the center of our Milky Way galaxy was hardly considered. Detecting such a thing seemed utterly impossible.

Yet--

Today, after decades of work from more than 300 scientists from 80 institutions, those scientists have just produced an image of the very center of our galaxy, and sure enough the image is exactly what Einstein’s more than 100-year-old theory predicts.

This image is a combination of the glow from the radiation around the black hole and the shadow that the black hole produces. The resolution of this image is equivalent to seeing a golf ball on the surface of the Moon.

Absolutely amazing!!

Robert Bramel

Gregg Wilson

Robert,

Gravity is NOT attractive. Black holes do not exist. There was no Big Bang. The universe is not expanding. (An idea brought forth by Albert Einstein because he never bothered reading Isaac Newton's statements.) Hubble's preciction that the universe was expanding because of a shift to red light was not valid. A light wave does not get a free ride across the universe. The gravitational flux wears down it's frequency.

The universe is stable.

One can observe a black something but it is polydeuterium - as I will demonstrate.

Patrick Musgrave

hi ken ithink the movie about heavy warter being made was called heroes os telemark staring kirk douglas. im not suer when it was made

John Wherley

The Heroes of Telemark is a 1965 British war film directed by Anthony Mann based on the true story of the Norwegian heavy water sabotage during the Second World War from Skis Against the Atom, the memoirs of Norwegian resistance soldier Knut Haukelid. The film stars Kirk Douglas as Dr. Rolf Pedersen and Richard Harris as Knut Straud, along with Ulla Jacobsson as Anna Pederson. It was filmed on location in Norway.