The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress

[HVAC]

The moon — for all its silent loveliness — was born in violence. About
4.5 billion years ago, a planet-sized object rammed the Earth and
reduced it to a bleeding molten gob of starstuff, leaking like a Junior
Mint shot by an air rifle. As the Earth slowly reformed, the debris left
over from the invading object coalesced into the small companion
satellite that gives us our tides and illuminates our romantic nighttime
strolls.

This “giant impact” theory accounts for the Moon’s mass and its relative
lack of iron, since computer models indicate that the iron core of the
impactor object, rather than joining the rest of its material in the
Moon, would have merged with the Earth’s. It also explains the Earth’s
current 24-hour day. The collision, so the theory goes, helped the
planet start spinning, at first with a day of 5 hours. As the Moon has
grown farther and farther away over the eons, pushed by tidal
interaction between the two worlds, preservation of angular momentum has
slowed the Earth’s days down to reach the current, languid 24-hr. length.

But as scientists have scrutinized Moon rocks brought back by the Apollo
missions, they’ve discovered there is one thing a giant impact does not
explain well: when it comes to certain aspects of geochemistry, the
Earth and the Moon are virtually identical. The impactor thought to have
provided material for the Moon would likely have been very different
from Earth. Modelers have been working to see whether the debris from
both bodies could have mixed thoroughly enough to explain the
similarity, but it has been slow going.

However, scientists publishing in this week’s Science have found a
surprising new way to fill this gap in the theory, using a fourth
player: the Sun. They then present two possible scenarios that could
explain why the Moon is so Earth-like.

Planetary scientist Matija Cuk, affiliated with both Harvard University
and the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Institute in
Mountain View, Calif., came up with the crucial breakthrough. Cuk is an
orbits man; his coauthor, Harvard astrophysics professor Sarah Stewart,
focuses on giant impacts. While he was her post-doc, he pored over the
Moon formation literature to see if he could apply his knowledge of
orbital dynamics to the standstill in this area. One big problem was
that to get enough Earth-stuff flung into orbit to make the Moon, the
Earth would have had to have been spinning twice as fast as the 5-hr.
rate post-impact that all of the existing calculations posited. But
looking through papers about orbital interactions, Cuk saw a way that
Earth could have been spinning that fast, just for a little while.

According to Cuk’s calculations, early in the Moon’s existence, it came
under the influence of the Sun, with which it fell into a sort of
synchrony known as orbital resonance. This meant that whenever the
Earth’s tidal influence pushed the Moon away, the Sun tugged it back.
This could result in a transfer of angular momentum from the
fast-spinning Earth to the Moon to the Sun, enough to slow the Earth’s
spin down to nearly the 5 hours required by current models. But until
that happened, the Earth would have indeed been spinning fast enough to
fling off the material that became the Moon.

When Cuk and Stewart presented their orbital resonance findings at
meetings last year and early this year, the news fell on fertile ground:
in the audience was astrophysicist Robin Canup of the Southwest Research
Institute, in Boulder, Colo., who has spent the last twenty years
modeling Moon formation and authored many of the papers describing the
giant impact theory.

After the meetings were over, she and Stewart independently devised
separate models incorporating the cosmic braking idea, taking two
different approaches: Stewart’s model involves an almost-fully formed
Earth struck by a small object moving quickly; Canup’s model involves a
half-formed Earth struck by a large object moving slowly. In Stewart’s
model, the Earthly debris spins so fast that enough flies up to form the
moon; in Canup’s model, the similar size of the Earth and the impactor
means they both disintegrate and intermingle so completely they have
similar chemistry. In both cases, resonance with the Sun gets the
Earth’s spin down to the initial 5-yr. rate within 100,000 years —
peanuts in cosmic time. Canup’s paper appears alongside Cuk and
Stewart’s in Science.

The fact that two such different models are possible using the idea of
resonance is a good sign, according to Stewart. “Since there are so many
different scenarios that could work to produce a Moon and Earth with
matching chemistry this way, the odds are high that [models
incorporating resonance] could work,” she says. “This means there are
more ways to make the Moon.”

What’s not clear yet is which of the two impactor theories is likeliest:
a small, fast object, probably from far away, or a slow, large one,
probably from nearby? That’s a question Canup says will be answered by
looking at what the early solar system was like: “Models of the inner
planets forming should be able to tell us the relative likelihood of
these two types of impacts,” she says. That further research aside,
however, nobody — including Canup, Stewart and Cuk — pretends that the
matter of the moon’s formation will be firmly settled soon. Cosmological
forensics involve piecing together events that occurred billions of
years ago. It may be a good while yet before the case can at last be closed.

Read more:
http://science.time.com/2012/10/18/cosmic-crack-up-how-we-got-the-moon/#ixzz29r0n5dOt






PS- Hi Painus!












--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[Double-A]

On Oct 20, 8:40 am, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> The moon — for all its silent loveliness — was born in violence. About
> 4.5 billion years ago, a planet-sized object rammed the Earth and
> reduced it to a bleeding molten gob of starstuff, leaking like a Junior
> Mint shot by an air rifle. As the Earth slowly reformed, the debris left
> over from the invading object coalesced into the small companion
> satellite that gives us our tides and illuminates our romantic nighttime
> strolls.

Bullshit!

You guys really love this Velikovsky style theory of the Moons origin,
don't you?

Go back and read Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky! Also
there were some sequels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

Double-A

[Brad Guth]

There's no telling what created our moon, much less of when that event
or capture took place.

At least gong by the human records of our planet even having a moon,
as such doesn't go all that far back in time, and yet more than
sufficient resolution of cave paintings are entirely without any
depictions of our moon.

[Double-A]

No depictions of a moon? That could be importand! Now if you could
find cave paintings depictiing 2 or 3 moons, that would be a break
through!

Double-A

[Wally W.]

If such a cave painting was found, how could we know whether it was:
1. Early science fiction
2. Due to the influence of a psychotropic plant ingested by the
artist?
3. A depiction of the view from the home world of an alien race that
seeded life on Earth?
4. An incomplete erasure after an art critic panned the original
composition? How long does the paleolithic version of white-out stay
in place?

[HVAC]

On 10/20/2012 4:03 PM, Double-A wrote:
>
> You guys really love this Velikovsky style theory of the Moons origin,
> don't you?
>
> Go back and read Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky! Also
> there were some sequels.

Velikovsky is bullshit. This is science.

We don't have Velikovskian manna falling to Earth from a close encounter
with Venus. He does.

[HVAC]

On 10/20/2012 4:35 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> There's no telling what created our moon

I'm sure that's true for people like you.

[Brad Guth]

Early human history paintings in caves demonstrated their artistic
skills and ability to offer relatively good detail or resolution that
was well above that necessary for depicting anything of horrific size
and as a bright moon or cold nighttime sun, and otherwise of their
surroundings that offered any meaning or value whatsoever.

Perhaps in early human history the sky was always cloudy, and there
were no significant seasons to speak of or depict.

[Brad Guth]

Indeed, there are way more questions than answers to most everything
of early human history, especially of whatever was 10,000 BC or
further back is what doesn't quite fit or add up to what we've been
told by our peers to accept.

[Father Haskell]

On Oct 20, 4:35 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 1:03 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 8:40 am, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
>
> > > The moon — for all its silent loveliness — was born in violence. About
> > > 4.5 billion years ago, a planet-sized object rammed the Earth and
> > > reduced it to a bleeding molten gob of starstuff, leaking like a Junior
> > > Mint shot by an air rifle. As the Earth slowly reformed, the debris left
> > > over from the invading object coalesced into the small companion
> > > satellite that gives us our tides and illuminates our romantic nighttime
> > > strolls.
>
> > Bullshit!
>
> > You guys really love this Velikovsky style theory of the Moons origin,
> > don't you?
>
> > Go back and read Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky!  Also
> > there were some sequels.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky
>
> > Double-A
>
> There's no telling what created our moon, much less of when that event
> or capture took place.

God made it to give the xians something to howl at.

[Painius]

There will be Velikovsky lovers and followers until the end of time.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"In all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane."

[Painius]

The Moon is depicted on many ancient cave walls and other ancient art.
Many of those artists drew Lunar calendars and for some reason, those
calendars were often shown as (monthly) dots beneath the superb
drawing of a horse.

Another thing to consider is that those ancient artists didn't just
see a round globe when they looked at the Moon, they saw a god or
goddess. So their depiction of the Moon in ancient art would have
been more human-like (god-like) than big-rock-in-the-sky-like.

[Painius]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:37:59 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/20/2012 4:03 PM, Double-A wrote:
>>
>> You guys really love this Velikovsky style theory of the Moons origin,
>> don't you?
>>
>> Go back and read Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky! Also
>> there were some sequels.
>
>
>
>Velikovsky is bullshit. This is science.
>
>We don't have Velikovskian manna falling to Earth from a close encounter
>with Venus. He does.

You're too much, Harlow, too, too much! LOL

The point being made is that the giant-impact hypothesis is highly
reminiscent of Velikovsky's writings. Science vehemently rejects
Velikovsky's ideas, while at the same time they adopt a very similar
scenario for the origin of the Moon! Too freekin' funny for words!

It's kinda like how science vehemently rejects the Genesis account of
the beginning of the Universe, and then adopts an hypothesis (the BB)
that is very similar to the Genesis origin. Too freekin' funny for
words!

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 20, 7:08 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 16:50:56 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "In all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane."

It's not depicted in anything newer than 10,500 BC, that is unless it
was just a dim little dot of an item that did nothing to illuminate
their crystal clear and icy cold nighttime of that most recent ice-age
era.

How did they manage to not notice some cold nighttime God looking
every bit as large and illuminating enough to hunt by as their daytime
sun god?

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/20/2012 7:37 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/20/2012 4:03 PM, Double-A wrote:
>>
>> You guys really love this Velikovsky style theory of the Moons origin,
>> don't you?
>>
>> Go back and read Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky! Also
>> there were some sequels.
>
>
>
> Velikovsky is bullshit. This is science.
>
> We don't have Velikovskian manna falling to Earth from a close encounter
> with Venus. He does.

But oddly we do have high Venusian temperatures just a Velikovsky
suggested might be the case BEFORE anyone actually got there.

As usual, all you know how to do ridicule anyone who suggests any
science outside what you overlords feel the public should be permitted
to know. It's a wonder you aren't still defending the theory of
uniformity or that man is the only possible intelligent life form in the
universe...Oh wait! You are. How can someone so smart pretend to be so
dumb and do it with a straight face?

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/20/2012 7:38 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/20/2012 4:35 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>> There's no telling what created our moon
>
>
> I'm sure that's true for people like you.

And for you. Get your book of strategic science lies out and read us the
official section on the origin of the moon. (Throw in the Apollo moon
shots too while you are at it. We all love good fiction.)

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 20, 7:16 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:37:59 -0400, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> >On 10/20/2012 4:03 PM, Double-A wrote:
>
> >> You guys really love this Velikovsky style theory of the Moons origin,
> >> don't you?
>
> >> Go back and read Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky!  Also
> >> there were some sequels.
>
> >Velikovsky is bullshit. This is science.
>
> >We don't have Velikovskian manna falling to Earth from a close encounter
> >with Venus. He does.
>
> You're too much, Harlow, too, too much!  LOL
>
> The point being made is that the giant-impact hypothesis is highly
> reminiscent of Velikovsky's writings.  Science vehemently rejects
> Velikovsky's ideas, while at the same time they adopt a very similar
> scenario for the origin of the Moon!  Too freekin' funny for words!
>
> It's kinda like how science vehemently rejects the Genesis account of
> the beginning of the Universe, and then adopts an hypothesis (the BB)
> that is very similar to the Genesis origin.  Too freekin' funny for
> words!
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "In all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane."

Big and small stuff comes along all the time, and captures via
lithobraking can't be all that uncommon.

Something of a lithobraking encounter put that enormous 2500 km
diameter dent into our moon, and Earth somehow got a nifty Arctic
ocean basin of roughly the same size.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

[HVAC]

On 10/20/2012 10:16 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> Velikovsky is bullshit. This is science.
>>
>> We don't have Velikovskian manna falling to Earth from a close encounter
>> with Venus. He does.
>
> You're too much, Harlow, too, too much! LOL
>
> The point being made is that the giant-impact hypothesis is highly
> reminiscent of Velikovsky's writings. Science vehemently rejects
> Velikovsky's ideas, while at the same time they adopt a very similar
> scenario for the origin of the Moon! Too freekin' funny for words!

Only to a god believing lunatic like you.

> It's kinda like how science vehemently rejects the Genesis account of
> the beginning of the Universe, and then adopts an hypothesis (the BB)
> that is very similar to the Genesis origin. Too freekin' funny for
> words!

Only to a god believing lunatic like you.

[HVAC]

On 10/21/2012 12:27 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>> Velikovsky is bullshit. This is science.
>>
>> We don't have Velikovskian manna falling to Earth from a close encounter
>> with Venus. He does.
>
> But oddly we do have high Venusian temperatures just a Velikovsky
> suggested might be the case BEFORE anyone actually got there.
>
> As usual, all you know how to do ridicule anyone who suggests any
> science outside what you overlords feel the public should be permitted
> to know. It's a wonder you aren't still defending the theory of
> uniformity or that man is the only possible intelligent life form in the
> universe...Oh wait! You are. How can someone so smart pretend to be so
> dumb and do it with a straight face?

The fact that you, Painus and Goth ALL believe in this Velikovskyian
bullshit actually comes as no surprise to me.

It's de rigueur for kooks.

[a425couple]

"Painius" <stars...@aol.com> wrote in message ...

> HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>>On 10/20/2012 4:03 PM, Double-A wrote:
>>> You guys really love this Velikovsky style theory of the Moons origin,
>>> don't you?

>>> Go back and read Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky! ---
>>Velikovsky is bullshit. This is science.---

>
> The point being made is that the giant-impact hypothesis is highly
> reminiscent of Velikovsky's writings. Science vehemently rejects
> Velikovsky's ideas, while at the same time they adopt a very similar
> scenario for the origin of the Moon! Too freekin' funny for words!
>
> It's kinda like how science vehemently rejects the Genesis account of
> the beginning of the Universe, and then adopts an hypothesis (the BB)
> that is very similar to the Genesis origin. Too freekin' funny for
> words!

Interesting thoughts. Thanks for posting.

[linuxgal]

The American Tradition flew 24 men to the Moon.

The Crescent Moon Tradition flew 19 men into three American buildings.


--
Need a spiritual home? Consider joining us at Mary Queen of the Universe
Latter-day Buddhislamic Free Will Christian UFO Synagogue of Vishnu

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 20, 9:26 pm, "bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

It's what serial FUD-masters are supposed to do, especially when
redneck and ZNR enough to begin with.

[Double-A]

On Oct 20, 4:37 pm, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> On 10/20/2012 4:03 PM, Double-A wrote:
>
>
>
> > You guys really love this Velikovsky style theory of the Moons origin,
> > don't you?
>
> > Go back and read Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky!  Also
> > there were some sequels.
>
> Velikovsky is bullshit. This is science.
>
> We don't have Velikovskian manna falling to Earth from a close encounter
> with Venus. He does.

In one of his seuels he has oil falling to the ground from some close
encounter and soaking in, and that's why we have petroleum!

Double-A

[Brad Guth]

Titan with its oceans of cold CH4 might suggest that biological decay
of any volumetric amount isn't responsible for the vast bulk of our
terrestrial hydrocarbons that we have to drill and/or dig for.

If Titan had a glancing encounter with an early Earth as having a
mostly CO2 atmosphere; which one would retain those hydrocarbons?

[Lofty Goat]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 22:16:33 -0400, Painius wrote:

> It's kinda like how science vehemently rejects the Genesis account of
> the beginning of the Universe, and then adopts an hypothesis (the BB)
> that is very similar to the Genesis origin. Too freekin' funny for
> words!

Saying that the Judaeo-Christian origin story bears any resemblance to the
Big Bang theory, other than that both say the Universe came into being, is
stretching things a bit. Well, OK, a hell of a lot.

--
Goat

[Painius]

>It's not depicted in anything newer than 10,500 BC,

How do you know that? Have you seen every bit of cave art in the
entire world? Have you studied it? Do you know that cave art goes
back over 40,000 years, and at that, the known discoveries are
probably just the tip of the iceberg?

>that is unless it
>was just a dim little dot of an item that did nothing to illuminate
>their crystal clear and icy cold nighttime of that most recent ice-age
>era.
>
>How did they manage to not notice some cold nighttime God looking
>every bit as large and illuminating enough to hunt by as their daytime
>sun god?

Sorry, Brad, but you don't appear to have enough information to make
these assumptions.

As I said, the depictions of Sun, Moon, stars and so forth are often
drawings of human-shaped deities. The Moon itself is often inferred
by the ancient drawings of the simple 13 dots of the Lunar calendar.

The Moon appears to figure prominently even in cave drawings that are
believed to have been made by the Neanderthal people.

One important thing to remember about the Moon is that it has been of
the utmost importance to evolution, for example the tidal coaxing of
life out of the sea and onto the exceedingly more brutal land areas.

The Moon, planet Selene, has been Earth's sister planet right from the
beginning, 4.5 billion years ago. There is ample evidence to support
that.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"If you want to thoroughly know something, teach it to others."

[Painius]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:04:54 -0500, Lofty Goat <rlwa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Not so much of a stretch when one realizes that the Big Bang theory
was first proposed by a Jesuit priest!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[Painius]

We aim to please!

Thank you for your kind words.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[Painius]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:29:56 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/21/2012 12:27 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
>>> Velikovsky is bullshit. This is science.
>>>
>>> We don't have Velikovskian manna falling to Earth from a close encounter
>>> with Venus. He does.
>>
>> But oddly we do have high Venusian temperatures just a Velikovsky
>> suggested might be the case BEFORE anyone actually got there.
>>
>> As usual, all you know how to do ridicule anyone who suggests any
>> science outside what you overlords feel the public should be permitted
>> to know. It's a wonder you aren't still defending the theory of
>> uniformity or that man is the only possible intelligent life form in the
>> universe...Oh wait! You are. How can someone so smart pretend to be so
>> dumb and do it with a straight face?
>
>
>The fact that you, Painus and Goth ALL believe in this Velikovskyian
>bullshit actually comes as no surprise to me.
>
>It's de rigueur for kooks.

O! Contrare! If you accept the GIH for the origin of the Moon, then
it is YOU who believe in the Velikovskian bullshit, you "Lune".

LMBO !

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/21/2012 12:27 PM, HVAC wrote:

> Only to a god believing lunatic like you.

HVAC is from the government and on the internet. So YOU MUST believe
everything he says without question. IF you can't trust anonymous
internet voices, who can you trust?

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/21/2012 12:27 PM, HVAC wrote:

Gosh, ACDC, for someone with your astronomical IQ, we are wondering why
you found it necessary to plagiarize your post title from Heinlein?

Did you figure that public schools have dumbed everyone down to the
point where none of the kids here would notice your dishonesty?


Thought so.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

[Jeff-R...@Oct.22.Seattle{0.43.AM.2012}]
Painius should (but won't) understand "the Big Bang theory" (Lambda⋅CDM).
He just won't; doesn't want to, I assume.

  "Mother Nature" is "The Supreme God": eternal, infinite¹ and perfect.
  She consumes fuel (EXergy); so, virtually², She's "alive".
  [ ¹: Certainly not limited to biblical times/places.
    ²: in a notional sort of way, like a map, not real. ]

    Speaking of God, you belong to tribes/religions of verious sizes.
    Had you no "tribe", you'd have no "religion"; they are one and the same.

  Randomness is naught but ignorance; so, intrinsically¹, there is no God,
  and nature is at once "nothing" ( 4⋅D, changeless and choiceless )
  and everything ( excluding nothing ).
  [ ¹: in reality, despite appearances ]

  Humanity labors to breathe, eat, drink and breed.
  Nature has hard⋅wired us this way, it wasn't our doing.
  Our "objective" has been fixed by nature, not invented.

    Speaking of "objectives", the one word mantra/question, "Target?",
    clears away horrid/debilitating/random thoughts.

  « Mass⋅Energy = Space⋅Time », they are one and the same.
  Gravity is "EXergy", energy that can do work;
  net net (all things considered), it's forever being consumed away.

    "Dark Matter" is UNSEEN MASS, "Dark Energy" is EXERGY DEPLETION,
    and the start of the Big Bang is just the cosmic horizon,
    similar to the event horizon of an ideal black hole.

  unLike nature, science is finite; it has a horizon, a limit,
  to wit: 13.75 giga⋅years ago and 46.5 * 2 giga⋅light⋅years wide.

[HVAC]

On 10/22/2012 1:20 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>> The fact that you, Painus and Goth ALL believe in this Velikovskyian
>> bullshit actually comes as no surprise to me.
>>
>> It's de rigueur for kooks.
>
> O! Contrare! If you accept the GIH for the origin of the Moon, then
> it is YOU who believe in the Velikovskian bullshit, you "Lune".

You confuse science with science fiction far too often.

Velikovsky was a complete and utter lunatic, yet you think he deserves a
seat at the table of science? Not.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 21, 10:02 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:37:37 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes I have looked at the research of all the best known cave art, and
I've been impressed by their ability to have depicted good details of
greater resolution than having to depict their extremely vibrant
nighttime moon god, whereas that of any crisp and icy and supposedly
winter snowy nighttime would have offered every bit as good of
illumination as sunlight by day, except along with offering those
surface details, because such gods always have such details to depict.

Are you suggesting that early humans were badly nearsighted?

Are you suggesting that days and nights were always cloudy?

>
> >that is unless it
> >was just a dim little dot of an item that did nothing to illuminate
> >their crystal clear and icy cold nighttime of that most recent ice-age
> >era.
>
> >How did they manage to not notice some cold nighttime God looking
> >every bit as large and illuminating enough to hunt by as their daytime
> >sun god?
>
> Sorry, Brad, but you don't appear to have enough information to make
> these assumptions.

And you have even less information in support of your mainstream
status-quo that subjectively interprets dots or notches in bits of
bone as representing their all-powerful moon god. I mean, how naysay
pathetic is that?

>
> As I said, the depictions of Sun, Moon, stars and so forth are often
> drawings of human-shaped deities.  The Moon itself is often inferred
> by the ancient drawings of the simple 13 dots of the Lunar calendar.

Any god as large and illuminating as our moon would have been depicted
as a very large roundish plus crescent item in anything worthy of
worship.

Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ should have been depicted as a
dot?

Are you suggesting that early humans could somehow depict details
within the eye of an animal but somehow couldn't manage to depict the
details in something that appeared a hundred times larger and
extremely vibrant enough to hunt and gather by?

>
> The Moon appears to figure prominently even in cave drawings that are
> believed to have been made by the Neanderthal people.

No it doesn't get so depicted, unless they were extremely disabled
from being nearsighted and cross-eyed, as well as being too dumb to
hunt and gather by way of terrific moonlight.

>
> One important thing to remember about the Moon is that it has been of
> the utmost importance to evolution, for example the tidal coaxing of
> life out of the sea and onto the exceedingly more brutal land areas.

Now you're just joking and obfuscating in order to exclude modern
science in order to suit your pretend-Atheism and its closed mindset.

If you can not show me a detailed image of our moon, as having been
depicted as of before 10500 BC, then your theory has major holes in
it.

The sun created a sufficient and regular tide that life as we know it
has utilized to its benefit. The irregular moon driven tide is
obviously adapted to but not having anything to do with the evolution
of any terrestrial biodiversity. Adapting is not the same thing as
evolution, but then you'll just obfuscate to suit.

>
> The Moon, planet Selene, has been Earth's sister planet right from the
> beginning, 4.5 billion years ago.  There is ample evidence to support
> that.

Except that you have absolutely no such objective proof or even
forensic evidence in support of that purely subjective argument.
Obviously your K12+ indoctrination was fully successful, and why you
tend to believe anything your peers, their government and their faith-
based oligarchs have to say.

Did early humans not have seasons to deal with?

Where is summer and winter depicted in old (older than 10500 BC) cave
art?

Are you also going to suggest that early humans were not smart enough
as to tell the difference between a sweltering 110+ degree hot and dry
season of summer and that of any -10 degrees worth of an icy and snowy
season of winter?

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”






>

> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[Bill Snyder]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:35:11 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net>
wrote:

>On 10/22/2012 1:20 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that you, Painus and Goth ALL believe in this Velikovskyian
>>> bullshit actually comes as no surprise to me.
>>>
>>> It's de rigueur for kooks.
>>
>> O! Contrare! If you accept the GIH for the origin of the Moon, then
>> it is YOU who believe in the Velikovskian bullshit, you "Lune".
>
>
>You confuse science with science fiction far too often.
>
>Velikovsky was a complete and utter lunatic, yet you think he deserves a
>seat at the table of science? Not.

*ahem* Having read quite a lot of science fiction over a goodly
span of years, I can tell you it's generally expected to have at
least a superficial plausibility. Well, the written stuff anyway.
Velikovsky might have been OK for an episode of Battlestar
Galactica or something of that sort.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[HVAC]

On 10/22/2012 9:36 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>>>> The fact that you, Painus and Goth ALL believe in this Velikovskyian
>>>> bullshit actually comes as no surprise to me.
>>>>
>>>> It's de rigueur for kooks.
>>>
>>> O! Contrare! If you accept the GIH for the origin of the Moon, then
>>> it is YOU who believe in the Velikovskian bullshit, you "Lune".
>>
>>
>> You confuse science with science fiction far too often.
>>
>> Velikovsky was a complete and utter lunatic, yet you think he deserves a
>> seat at the table of science? Not.
>
> *ahem* Having read quite a lot of science fiction over a goodly
> span of years, I can tell you it's generally expected to have at
> least a superficial plausibility. Well, the written stuff anyway.
> Velikovsky might have been OK for an episode of Battlestar
> Galactica or something of that sort.

That Velikovsky's name is mentioned without derision is a reflection on
the sorry state of science knowledge in the world today.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/22/2012 9:44 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 9:36 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>>
>>>>> The fact that you, Painus and Goth ALL believe in this Velikovskyian
>>>>> bullshit actually comes as no surprise to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's de rigueur for kooks.
>>>>
>>>> O! Contrare! If you accept the GIH for the origin of the Moon, then
>>>> it is YOU who believe in the Velikovskian bullshit, you "Lune".
>>>
>>>
>>> You confuse science with science fiction far too often.
>>>
>>> Velikovsky was a complete and utter lunatic, yet you think he deserves a
>>> seat at the table of science? Not.
>>
>> *ahem* Having read quite a lot of science fiction over a goodly
>> span of years, I can tell you it's generally expected to have at
>> least a superficial plausibility. Well, the written stuff anyway.
>> Velikovsky might have been OK for an episode of Battlestar
>> Galactica or something of that sort.
>
>
> That Velikovsky's name is mentioned without derision is a reflection on
> the sorry state of science knowledge in the world today.

I think it's funny that when Velikovsky first published his theories
(and they were merely theories and suggestions not the pretended
statements of "fact" as you propagandists always say) all establishment
cultists got their backs up, but later when many of his suppositions
(these were from interpretation of ancient writings and myth so
obviously merely suggested ideas) actually proved correct, (like venus
temperature) all the strategic writers (you) STILL keep up the derision
as if nothing he said was ever proved correct.

And yet, in any discussion of his speculations, you establishment
promoters are quick to haul out total nonsense like Adamski (CIA
disinformation) and his "Venusians" and chicken brooder "saucer". You
aren't fooling all of us HVAC, many of us are familiar with these
political techniques. You aren't as "smart" as you think you are.

[HVAC]

On 10/22/2012 10:20 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>> That Velikovsky's name is mentioned without derision is a reflection on
>> the sorry state of science knowledge in the world today.
>
> I think it's funny that when Velikovsky first published his theories
> (and they were merely theories and suggestions not the pretended
> statements of "fact" as you propagandists always say) all establishment
> cultists got their backs up, but later when many of his suppositions
> (these were from interpretation of ancient writings and myth so
> obviously merely suggested ideas) actually proved correct, (like venus
> temperature) all the strategic writers (you) STILL keep up the derision
> as if nothing he said was ever proved correct.

Wait. A wild ass guess by Velikovsky that Venus, millions of miles
CLOSER to the sun than is the Earth, is warmer proves he is correct?

Are you fucking HIGH?

Take that shit somewhere else.

> And yet, in any discussion of his speculations, you establishment
> promoters are quick to haul out total nonsense like Adamski (CIA
> disinformation) and his "Venusians" and chicken brooder "saucer". You
> aren't fooling all of us HVAC, many of us are familiar with these
> political techniques. You aren't as "smart" as you think you are.

I have NO idea what you are talking about or who Adamski is.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 22, 12:43 am, Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
> [Jeff-R...@Oct.22.Seattle{0.43.AM.2012}] Painius should (but won't) understand "the Big Bang theory" (Lambda⋅CDM). He just won't; doesn't want to, I assume. "Mother Nature" is "The Supreme God": eternal, infinite¹ and perfect. She consumes fuel (EXergy); so, virtually², She's "alive". [ ¹: Certainly not limited to biblical times/places. ²: in a notional sort of way, like a map, not real. ] Speaking of God, you belong to tribes/religions of verious sizes. Had you no "tribe", you'd have no "religion"; they are one and the same. Randomness is naught but ignorance; so, intrinsically¹, there is no God, and nature is at once "nothing" ( 4⋅D, changeless and choiceless ) and everything ( excluding nothing ). [ ¹: in reality, despite appearances ] Humanity labors to breathe, eat, drink and breed. Nature has hard⋅wired us this way, it wasn't our doing. Our "objective" has been fixed by nature, not invented. Speaking of "objectives", the one word mantra/question, "Target?", clears away horrid/debilitating/random thoughts. « Mass⋅Energy = Space⋅Time », they are one and the same. Gravity is "EXergy", energy that can do work; net net (all things considered), it's forever being consumed away. "Dark Matter" is UNSEEN MASS, "Dark Energy" is EXERGY DEPLETION, and the start of the Big Bang is just the cosmic horizon, similar to the event horizon of an ideal black hole. unLike nature, science is finite; it has a horizon, a limit, to wit: 13.75 giga⋅years ago and 46.5 * 2 giga⋅light⋅years wide.

There's no objective way of our telling how old or how far the
universe goes.

What about the other universe?

What's going to happen when thousands of galaxies merge within the GA?

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

[Jeff-R...@Oct.22.Seattle{0.01.PM.2012}]

"Dark Matter" is UNSEEN MASS, "Dark Energy" is EXERGY DEPLETION,
and the start of the Big Bang is just the cosmic horizon,
similar to the event horizon of an ideal black hole.

Q. How far can the PROFESSIONALS, with the BAD ASS EQUIPMENT see ?
A. 13.75 giga⋅years ago, 46.5 giga⋅light⋅years out.

[Double-A]

On Oct 22, 12:01 pm, Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
> [Jeff-Relf...@Oct.22.Seattle{0.01.PM.2012}]

No one can see 46.5 gigi light years out. It is only theoretically
there.

Double-A

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

[Jeff-R...@Oct.22.Seattle{2.25.PM.2012}]
We can and do see 46.5 giga⋅light⋅years out because
we're at the center of an on⋅going, exponential expansion.

Had the cosoms not expended in the last 13.75 giga⋅years,
we couldn't see past 13.75 giga⋅light⋅years.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 22, 2:25 pm, Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
> [Jeff-R...@Oct.22.Seattle{2.25.PM.2012}] We can and do see 46.5 giga⋅light⋅years out because we're at the center of an on⋅going, exponential expansion. Had the cosoms not expended in the last 13.75 giga⋅years, we couldn't see past 13.75 giga⋅light⋅years.

In other words, cosmic stuff has been slowing way the hell down if it
started out expanding at FTL.

How do we get stuff out to 46.5e9 ly radius if it has taken only
13.75e9 years, without using FTL?

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 20, 5:01 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:03:19 -0700 (PDT), Double-A

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 20, 8:40 am, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> >> The moon for all its silent loveliness was born in violence. About
> >> 4.5 billion years ago, a planet-sized object rammed the Earth and
> >> reduced it to a bleeding molten gob of starstuff, leaking like a Junior
> >> Mint shot by an air rifle. As the Earth slowly reformed, the debris left
> >> over from the invading object coalesced into the small companion
> >> satellite that gives us our tides and illuminates our romantic nighttime
> >> strolls.
>
> >Bullshit!
>
> >You guys really love this Velikovsky style theory of the Moons origin,
> >don't you?
>
> >Go back and read Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky!  Also
> >there were some sequels.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky
>

> There will be Velikovsky lovers and followers until the end of time.

>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "In all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane."

And dysfunctional Mormons like "Jeff-Relf.Me" to go along with all the
usual gauntlets of serial ZNR clowns and FUD-masters.

[Double-A]

I was just reading your post yesterday when I was forced of the
computer. Yes, at least we know that all hydrocarbons do not
necessarily come from biologocal decay.

Double-A

[HVAC]

On 10/21/2012 4:54 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>>
>> In one of his seuels he has oil falling to the ground from some close
>> encounter and soaking in, and that's why we have petroleum!
>>
>> Double-A
>
> Titan with its oceans of cold CH4 might suggest that biological decay
> of any volumetric amount isn't responsible for the vast bulk of our
> terrestrial hydrocarbons that we have to drill and/or dig for.
>
> If Titan had a glancing encounter with an early Earth as having a
> mostly CO2 atmosphere; which one would retain those hydrocarbons?

What group is this? GOOFY astronomy? Astronomy for dummies?

Why such utter nonsense is allowed to stand unchallenged is one of the
reasons that I am here. As Painus rubber stamps such tomfoolery, *I*
attempt to insert the cold slap of reality into the conversation. For
real, I'm like a fucking saint. And what do I get for my volunteer
efforts? Do I get adulation? Do I get beatification (as I deserve)?

No. *I* get called mainstream. For some reason this is a kook's way of
insulting me....Shit. I don't even get a free letter from the pope with
Bert's world famous G=EMC^2 or a picture of Bert in his barrel boat.


Boo-Fuckin-Hoo

[Brad Guth]

Abiotic or abiogenic hydrocarbons accounts for the vast majority of
such compositions found within our planet.

No doubt if Earth was sucker-punched by a glancing blow from the likes
of Titan, the majority of its cold hydrocarbons would merge and stick
with Earth before Titan ever became a captured naked moon of Earth.

In order for a glancing blow to help capture an icy planetoid, as such
would likely demand several near-miss encounters as aerobraking and at
least one lithobraking encounter. Most life on Earth would perish
(especially of any truly big forms of life), although perhaps at most
10% of the global biodiversity could manage to survive once the
considerable flooding, fires, massive earthquakes and countless other
geophysical calamities having taken place. Complex lifeforms could
also transfer from Titan to Earth.

[Painius]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:43:44 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:

>?[Jeff-R...@Oct.22.Seattle{0.43.AM.2012}]
>Painius should (but won't) understand "the Big Bang theory" (Lambda?CDM).

>He just won't; doesn't want to, I assume.
>
> "Mother Nature" is "The Supreme God": eternal, infinite¹ and perfect.
> She consumes fuel (EXergy); so, virtually², She's "alive".
> [ ¹: Certainly not limited to biblical times/places.
> ²: in a notional sort of way, like a map, not real. ]
>
> Speaking of God, you belong to tribes/religions of verious sizes.
> Had you no "tribe", you'd have no "religion"; they are one and the same.
>
> Randomness is naught but ignorance; so, intrinsically¹, there is no God,

> and nature is at once "nothing" ( 4?D, changeless and choiceless )

> and everything ( excluding nothing ).
> [ ¹: in reality, despite appearances ]
>
> Humanity labors to breathe, eat, drink and breed.

> Nature has hard?wired us this way, it wasn't our doing.

> Our "objective" has been fixed by nature, not invented.
>
> Speaking of "objectives", the one word mantra/question, "Target?",
> clears away horrid/debilitating/random thoughts.
>

> « Mass?Energy = Space?Time », they are one and the same.

> Gravity is "EXergy", energy that can do work;
> net net (all things considered), it's forever being consumed away.
>
> "Dark Matter" is UNSEEN MASS, "Dark Energy" is EXERGY DEPLETION,
> and the start of the Big Bang is just the cosmic horizon,
> similar to the event horizon of an ideal black hole.
>
> unLike nature, science is finite; it has a horizon, a limit,

> to wit: 13.75 giga?years ago and 46.5 * 2 giga?light?years wide.

I agree that I don't understand the BB. I certainly don't understand
how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
just sort of "took off". And "before" which has no meaning. It's
just stupid - royally, unintuitively, and "religiously" stupid.

The Big Bang is a creation myth of science.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to bitch and moan."

[linuxgal]

Painius wrote:

> I agree that I don't understand the BB. I certainly don't understand
> how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
> was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
> just sort of "took off".

I certainly don't understand how anybody in their right mind would even

remotely accept that there is a first "land", an initial "point" in the
Atlantic Ocean called Land's End, after which all of Great Britain just
sort of "takes off".

--
Need a spiritual home? Consider joining us at Mary Queen of the Universe
Latter-day Buddhislamic Free Will Christian UFO Synagogue of Vishnu

[HVAC]

On 10/24/2012 6:32 AM, Painius wrote:
>
> I agree that I don't understand the BB. I certainly don't understand
> how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
> was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
> just sort of "took off". And "before" which has no meaning. It's
> just stupid - royally, unintuitively, and "religiously" stupid.

There it is, folks...Painus just has a gut feeling that there was no big
bang. Fuck all the evidence to the contrary.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 24, 3:32 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:43:44 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:

> >?[Jeff-Relf...@Oct.22.Seattle{0.43.AM.2012}]

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to bitch and moan."

But as mainstream ZNR approved myths go, it's a good one because it
gives their god that doesn't believe in fair play or hell, all the
credit it deserves.

Otherwise, I'm favoring the Big Ongoing of aether flowing from the
pole of a mother BH, with the other universe of aether and molecular
stuff directed out of the other BH pole.

[HVAC]

On 10/24/2012 11:51 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>> The Big Bang is a creation myth of science.
>>
>> --
>

> But as mainstream ZNR approved myths go, it's a good one because it
> gives their god that doesn't believe in fair play or hell, all the
> credit it deserves.
>
> Otherwise, I'm favoring the Big Ongoing of aether flowing from the
> pole of a mother BH, with the other universe of aether and molecular
> stuff directed out of the other BH pole.

Just more of the completely off the wall science bullshit from Painus
and Goth. The standard model has decades of observation and experimental
data to support it, yet Painus has a 'gut feeling' that it's wrong and
Goth has some foolishness he stole from some other idiot's idea about
the 'big ongoing'.

None of them have ANY...I repeat, ANY, evidence for their retarded
views. Strangely enough, both believe in ether and god as well.

[Forrest Piper]

Some don't accept BB theory at all, unless there was/is any data to be
garnered from such an event, such as early universe theory, as it
would also apply to things like string theory, etc., but the original
theory seems doomed to self-destruct:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/bigbang/index.html

>
> Otherwise, I'm favoring the Big Ongoing of aether flowing from the
> pole of a mother BH, with the other universe of aether and molecular
> stuff directed out of the other BH pole.
>

Makes sense if one takes into account that BB theorists originally
used 10e-33 cm. as the universal "seed", but also of the Wheeler
variety, yielding hyperspace structures, and calculations of
microscopic channels on the order of the same, and having a (mass
equivalent) energy density of 1e+94 g/cm^3.

[hanson]

In any such discussion about the Big Bang theory
which was concocted by "running a time lapse
GEDANKEN scenario" BACK to coordinates 0,0,0,0
which then are/is interpreted to mean that this point
is the ONE original CENTER of the universe.....
>
... only to read elsewhere that there is NO center in
the universe... or equivalent that the center is
everywhere...
>
and that said universe actually expands, without
saying what said space expands into.. and
>
... glossing over the issue that all the centers then
expand into each other... to bring the universe back
into the original concept that the universe is static.
>
ROTFLMAO.... hahahahaha... ahahahahanson

[HVAC]

On 10/24/2012 1:28 PM, hanson wrote:
>
> ... only to read elsewhere that there is NO center in
> the universe... or equivalent that the center is
> everywhere...

Yes. It has to do with infinities.

> and that said universe actually expands, without
> saying what said space expands into.. and

Space *itself* is expanding. Into what, is a nonsensical question.

> ... glossing over the issue that all the centers then
> expand into each other... to bring the universe back
> into the original concept that the universe is static.

Then how did it start? Gawd?

[hanson]

Harlow Campbell "HVAC" <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>>
hanson wrote:
>> In any such discussion about the Big Bang theory
>> which was concocted by "running a time lapse
>> GEDANKEN scenario" BACK to coordinates 0,0,0,0
>> which then are/is interpreted to mean that this point
>> is the ONE original CENTER of the universe.....
>

>> ... only to read elsewhere that there is NO center in
>> the universe... or equivalent that the center is
>> everywhere...
>

Harlow wrote:
> Yes. It has to do with infinities.
>

hanson wrote:
"infinity/ies" are always used when reality is out of
reach.. be that in the real wiorld or in the gedanken
world of math. Besied the issue above is the
glaring contradiction of copsmologcial theroies
th

hanson wrote:
>> and that said universe actually expands, without
>> saying what said space expands into.. and
>

Harlow wrote:
> Space *itself* is expanding.
> Into what, is a nonsensical question.
>

hanson wrote:
ROFL! Your beitsym just fell off & gummed up your works.
You are weaseling &/or parrot what you read somewhere.
Anything that expands does so in its matrix, even space.
So, what is the matrix that space is embedded in, so
that said space can expand in and into?
If that matrix is "Nothing"... then space cannot expand.
If that "Nothing" has properties that allow space to
expand into then what are these "Nothing" properties?
>
Mahipal Virdy will have further instructions for you, Harlow.

>
hanson wrote:
>> ... glossing over the issue that all the centers then
>> expand into each other... to bring the universe back
>> into the original concept that the universe is static.
>

Harlow wrote:
> Then how did it start? Gawd?
>

hanson wrote:
To some folks that's the answer... ahahaha...
They are the "lucky" ones.
To me... I DUNNO!... and I like that.
I don't need no Gawd ... the "aw" from/for the
unknown is enough for me... since cosmology is
truly the GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD..
including all of its fantasies, lies and tabulations.
& it is hilarious to boot ...ahahahahanson

[HVAC]

On 10/24/2012 7:10 PM, hanson wrote:
>
>> Space *itself* is expanding. Into what, is a nonsensical question.
>>
> hanson wrote: ROFL! Your beitsym just fell off & gummed up your works.
> You are weaseling &/or parrot what you read somewhere. Anything that
> expands does so in its matrix, even space. So, what is the matrix that
> space is embedded in, so that said space can expand in and into?
> If that matrix is "Nothing"... then space cannot expand.
> If that "Nothing" has properties that allow space to
> expand into then what are these "Nothing" properties?

I know this is difficult for you as well as many other laymen. The 4
dimensional space-time that we know and love is expanding. The matrix
of these 4 dimensions is expanding. Since this 4 dimensional space-time
matrix encompasses everything, the fact of it's expansion is not
unexpected if viewed in the light of current day astrophysics.

>> Then how did it start? Gawd?
>>
> hanson wrote:
> To some folks that's the answer... ahahaha... They are the "lucky" ones.
> To me... I DUNNO!... and I like that. I don't need no Gawd ... the "aw"
> from/for the unknown is enough for me... since cosmology is truly the
> GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD..
> including all of its fantasies, lies and tabulations.
> & it is hilarious to boot ...ahahahahanson

Well stated and well said.

[G=EMC^2]

On Oct 24, 6:32 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:43:44 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:

> >?[Jeff-Relf...@Oct.22.Seattle{0.43.AM.2012}]

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to bitch and moan."

Painius There was a time,space energy,and gravity that created the BB.
It was Planck time,Planck energy.,and Planck lengths. It was a time
before "macro time,macro matter,and no curving of space. yes its
religious type thinking to say the BB went poof and all that is came
to be. Well I have posted my before the BB theory many times. Best to
always keep in mind. "There was never a time when there was
nothing." That is the most profound thought humankind can make. TeBet

[Mahipal]

On Oct 24, 7:20 pm, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 7:10 PM, hanson wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Space *itself* is expanding. Into what, is a nonsensical question.
>
> > hanson wrote: ROFL! Your beitsym just fell off & gummed up your works.
> > You are weaseling &/or parrot what you read somewhere. Anything that
> > expands does so in its matrix, even space. So, what is the matrix that
> > space is embedded in, so that said space can expand in and into?
> > If that matrix is "Nothing"... then space cannot expand.
> > If that "Nothing" has properties that allow space to
> > expand into then what are these "Nothing" properties?
>
> I know this is difficult for you as well as many other laymen. The 4
> dimensional space-time that we know and love is expanding. The matrix
> of these 4 dimensions is expanding. Since this 4 dimensional space-time
> matrix encompasses everything, the fact of it's expansion is not
> unexpected if viewed in the light of current day astrophysics.

You realize you so misspelled its. The fact remains, ergo,
questionable.

> >> Then how did it start? Gawd?
>
> > hanson wrote:
> > To some folks that's the answer... ahahaha... They are the "lucky" ones.
> > To me... I DUNNO!... and I like that. I don't need no Gawd ... the "aw"
> > from/for the unknown is enough for me... since cosmology is truly the
> > GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD..
> > including all of its fantasies, lies and tabulations.
> > & it is hilarious to boot ...ahahahahanson
>
> Well stated and well said.

Take a bow, see the ELP show.

>
> --
> "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo.. 变亮http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/

ELP is Emerson Lake Palmer See The Show...

[GogoJF]

Yes, but we will establish a new tabulation because that is all that
we have to make sense of the universe.

[hanson]

Harlow "HVAC" <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>>
Harlow wrote:

Then how did the universe start? Gawd?

>>>
hanson wrote:
To some folks that's the answer... ahahaha...
They are the "lucky" ones.
To me... I DUNNO!... and I like that.
I don't need no Gawd ... the "aw" from/for the
unknown is enough for me... since cosmology is
truly the GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD..
including all of its fantasies, lies and tabulations.
& it is hilarious to boot ...ahahahahanson
>

Harlow wrote:
Well stated and well said.
>

hanson wrote:
... many say that the universe expands, without
saying that said space expands into "what"

Harlow wrote:
Space *itself* is expanding.

"Into what", is a nonsensical question.

>>>
hanson wrote:
ROFL! Your beitsym just fell off & gummed up your works.
You are weaseling &/or parrot what you read somewhere.
Anything that expands does so in its matrix, even space.
So, what is the matrix that space is embedded in,
so that said space can expand in and into?
If that matrix is "Nothing"... then space cannot expand.
If that "Nothing" has properties that allow space to
expand into then what are these "Nothing" properties?
>

Harlow wrote:
I know this is difficult for you as well as many other laymen.
The 4 dimensional space-time that we know and love is
expanding. The matrix of these 4 dimensions is expanding.
Since this 4 dimensional space-time matrix encompasses
everything, the fact of it's expansion is not unexpected
if viewed in the light of current day astrophysics.
>

hanson wrote:
ahahaha... By def. your "4d space-time" lacks mass, etc.
Harlow you should have stopped while your song
sounded good. Now, you are drifting towards Hebe-
Herbie's tripes with his concave convex space theories.
>
__ Google: -- "nothing moves in space time" -- __
>
Believe what you wish, Harlow, but consider that only
Einstein Dingleberries believe the notion you've stated.
>
Here, for your benefit consider too that the inventor of
"4-dimensional space-time" thought that it was a crock.
>
. _ Einstein himself was a SR/GR Relativity denier _
>
Here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."

|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
>
Take care, Harlow, and thanks for the laughs and
continue to BELIEVE in your Weltbild... for that is
you very own happy Evangelism.... If not, then
argue with Einstein, instead of me.... ahahahaha
... ahahahahanson

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:40:15 AM UTC-4, HVAC wrote:
> The moon — for all its silent loveliness — was born in violence.

rest deleted

I prefer "The Door Into Summer" and "Citizen
of the Galaxy (the main character uses Big
Business to start ending the slave trade.)

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 24, 8:43 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

A reply to Harlow is like you're speaking to yet another burning bag
of dog poop, and expecting it to understand anything.

FUD-masters like Harlow have their jobs to do, and your reply to the
burning bag of dog poop that represents the mainstream status-quo,
seems rather pointless.

[HVAC]

On 10/25/2012 8:19 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
> A reply to Harlow is like you're speaking to yet another burning bag
> of dog poop, and expecting it to understand anything.
>
> FUD-masters like Harlow have their jobs to do, and your reply to the
> burning bag of dog poop that represents the mainstream status-quo,
> seems rather pointless.

Your fecal fetish aside, Goth...Why do you care whether or not people
reply to me?


PS- Please don't include the terms 'Venus', 'carborando', or
'paramagnetic' in you reply.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 24, 10:30 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> In any such discussion about the Big Bang theory
> which was concocted by "running a time lapse
> GEDANKEN scenario" BACK to coordinates 0,0,0,0
> which then are/is interpreted to mean that this point
> is the ONE original CENTER of the universe.....
>
> ... only to read elsewhere that there is NO center in
> the universe... or equivalent that the center is
> everywhere...
>
> and that said universe actually expands, without
> saying what said space expands into.. and
>
> ... glossing over the issue that all the centers then
> expand into each other... to bring the universe back
> into the original concept that the universe is static.
>
> ROTFLMAO.... hahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>

Whatever the seed or ongoing aether flow that our universe is only a
very small part of, doesn't really matter when the faith-based likes
of pretend Atheists and ZNR Oligarch approved rednecks as fellow
clowns and FUD-masters remain in charge.

As long as the upper most .0001% (7000) are in charge regardless of
whomever we elect or appoint, there will be proxy wars, global
inflation, depletion of most everything essential to human life, and
eventually the demise of the human race before any nasty asteroid or
planetoid gets to nail us.

[Painius]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:35:53 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 21, 10:02 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:37:37 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>>
>> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 20, 7:08 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 16:50:56 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>>
>> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 20, 1:40 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Oct 20, 1:35 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> >> >> > On Oct 20, 1:03 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > On Oct 20, 8:40 am, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > The moon for all its silent loveliness was born in violence. About
>> >> >> > > > 4.5 billion years ago, a planet-sized object rammed the Earth and
>> >> >> > > > reduced it to a bleeding molten gob of starstuff, leaking like a Junior
>> >> >> > > > Mint shot by an air rifle. As the Earth slowly reformed, the debris left
>> >> >> > > > over from the invading object coalesced into the small companion
>> >> >> > > > satellite that gives us our tides and illuminates our romantic nighttime
>> >> >> > > > strolls.
>>
>> >> >> > > Bullshit!
>>

>> >> >> > > You guys really love this Velikovsky style theory of the Moons origin,
>> >> >> > > don't you?
>>
>> >> >> > > Go back and read Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky! Also
>> >> >> > > there were some sequels.
>>

>> >> >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision
>>
>> >> >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky
>>
>> >> >> > > Double-A
>>
>> >> >> > There's no telling what created our moon, much less of when that event
>> >> >> > or capture took place.
>>
>> >> >> > At least gong by the human records of our planet even having a moon,
>> >> >> > as such doesn't go all that far back in time, and yet more than
>> >> >> > sufficient resolution of cave paintings are entirely without any
>> >> >> > depictions of our moon.
>>
>> >> >> No depictions of a moon? That could be importand! Now if you could
>> >> >> find cave paintings depictiing 2 or 3 moons, that would be a break
>> >> >> through!
>>
>> >> >> Double-A
>>
>> >> >Early human history paintings in caves demonstrated their artistic
>> >> >skills and ability to offer relatively good detail or resolution that
>> >> >was well above that necessary for depicting anything of horrific size
>> >> >and as a bright moon or cold nighttime sun, and otherwise of their
>> >> >surroundings that offered any meaning or value whatsoever.
>>
>> >> >Perhaps in early human history the sky was always cloudy, and there
>> >> >were no significant seasons to speak of or depict.
>>
>> >> The Moon is depicted on many ancient cave walls and other ancient art.
>> >> Many of those artists drew Lunar calendars and for some reason, those
>> >> calendars were often shown as (monthly) dots beneath the superb
>> >> drawing of a horse.
>>
>> >> Another thing to consider is that those ancient artists didn't just
>> >> see a round globe when they looked at the Moon, they saw a god or
>> >> goddess. So their depiction of the Moon in ancient art would have
>> >> been more human-like (god-like) than big-rock-in-the-sky-like.
>>
>> >It's not depicted in anything newer than 10,500 BC,
>>
>> How do you know that?  Have you seen every bit of cave art in the
>> entire world?  Have you studied it?  Do you know that cave art goes
>> back over 40,000 years, and at that, the known discoveries are
>> probably just the tip of the iceberg?
>Yes I have looked at the research of all the best known cave art, and
>I've been impressed by their ability to have depicted good details of
>greater resolution than having to depict their extremely vibrant
>nighttime moon god, whereas that of any crisp and icy and supposedly
>winter snowy nighttime would have offered every bit as good of
>illumination as sunlight by day, except along with offering those
>surface details, because such gods always have such details to depict.
>
>Are you suggesting that early humans were badly nearsighted?
>
>Are you suggesting that days and nights were always cloudy?
>
>>
>> >that is unless it
>> >was just a dim little dot of an item that did nothing to illuminate
>> >their crystal clear and icy cold nighttime of that most recent ice-age
>> >era.
>>
>> >How did they manage to not notice some cold nighttime God looking
>> >every bit as large and illuminating enough to hunt by as their daytime
>> >sun god?
>>
>> Sorry, Brad, but you don't appear to have enough information to make
>> these assumptions.
>And you have even less information in support of your mainstream
>status-quo that subjectively interprets dots or notches in bits of
>bone as representing their all-powerful moon god. I mean, how naysay
>pathetic is that?
>
>>
>> As I said, the depictions of Sun, Moon, stars and so forth are often
>> drawings of human-shaped deities.  The Moon itself is often inferred
>> by the ancient drawings of the simple 13 dots of the Lunar calendar.
>Any god as large and illuminating as our moon would have been depicted
>as a very large roundish plus crescent item in anything worthy of
>worship.
>
>Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ should have been depicted as a
>dot?
>
>Are you suggesting that early humans could somehow depict details
>within the eye of an animal but somehow couldn't manage to depict the
>details in something that appeared a hundred times larger and
>extremely vibrant enough to hunt and gather by?
>
>>
>> The Moon appears to figure prominently even in cave drawings that are
>> believed to have been made by the Neanderthal people.
>No it doesn't get so depicted, unless they were extremely disabled
>from being nearsighted and cross-eyed, as well as being too dumb to
>hunt and gather by way of terrific moonlight.
>
>>
>> One important thing to remember about the Moon is that it has been of
>> the utmost importance to evolution, for example the tidal coaxing of
>> life out of the sea and onto the exceedingly more brutal land areas.
>Now you're just joking and obfuscating in order to exclude modern
>science in order to suit your pretend-Atheism and its closed mindset.
>
>If you can not show me a detailed image of our moon, as having been
>depicted as of before 10500 BC, then your theory has major holes in
>it.
>
>The sun created a sufficient and regular tide that life as we know it
>has utilized to its benefit. The irregular moon driven tide is
>obviously adapted to but not having anything to do with the evolution
>of any terrestrial biodiversity. Adapting is not the same thing as
>evolution, but then you'll just obfuscate to suit.
>
>>
>> The Moon, planet Selene, has been Earth's sister planet right from the
>> beginning, 4.5 billion years ago.  There is ample evidence to support
>> that.
>Except that you have absolutely no such objective proof or even
>forensic evidence in support of that purely subjective argument.
>Obviously your K12+ indoctrination was fully successful, and why you
>tend to believe anything your peers, their government and their faith-
>based oligarchs have to say.
>
>Did early humans not have seasons to deal with?
>
>Where is summer and winter depicted in old (older than 10500 BC) cave
>art?
>
>Are you also going to suggest that early humans were not smart enough
>as to tell the difference between a sweltering 110+ degree hot and dry
>season of summer and that of any -10 degrees worth of an icy and snowy
>season of winter?

Brad, forgive me, but most of your arguments just don't follow.

I've gone all over the world and studied many things to include cave
art. My favorite was in Nairobi, Kenya, where I visited the National
Museum. They had just opened an extensive cave art exhibit from
nearby excavations, some of which dated back to the early hominids. I
was rather astonished at first to see what looked like a "spaceman"
drawn on the cave wall right up there with the animals. Turns out it
was a depiction of a Moon god (or goddess) - what I thought at first
was a spacesuit helmet was actually the round disk of the Moon.

There is geological evidence that shows that the tidal tensions
brought about by the Earth-Moon orbital relationship have been around
for millions of years. Study geology. There is where you will find
your early evidence of our sister planet, Selene.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"Never be afraid to kick a friend, especially when he's down."

[hanson]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
A reply to Harlow is like you're speaking to yet another
burning bag of dog poop, and expecting it to understand
anything.

FUD-masters like Harlow have their jobs to do, and your
reply to the burning bag of dog poop that represents the
mainstream status-quo, seems rather pointless.

"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
Brad, the point you make looks like Harlow made you
crank yourself. Listen, Brad: Harlow is a retired or laid off
teacher, as can be seen in his numerous posts wherein
Harlow worries that children or students may be mislead
by the contents of your Guthian posts. Brad, you may say
that Harlow suffers from "deformation professionelle" like
the French would say, or in Anglo, simply: "It's different
strokes from/by/with and for different folks"...
>
Ergo, Brad: Do like it says at the end of the post below:
||| For good reason, Brad, "argue with Einstein, instead
|||| of Harlow or me".... ahahahaha ... ahahahahanson
>
> ------- Brad, here it is, for your benefi: ------
>
Harlow "HVAC" <hv...@physisist.net> wrotewrote:

[HVAC]

On 10/25/2012 12:27 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> Are you also going to suggest that early humans were not smart enough
>> as to tell the difference between a sweltering 110+ degree hot and dry
>> season of summer and that of any -10 degrees worth of an icy and snowy
>> season of winter?
>
> Brad, forgive me, but most of your arguments just don't follow.

It's OK, Painus...You can call Goth an asshole. Everyone else does and
he's used to it by now.

> I've gone all over the world and studied many things to include cave
> art. My favorite was in Nairobi, Kenya, where I visited the National
> Museum. They had just opened an extensive cave art exhibit from
> nearby excavations, some of which dated back to the early hominids. I
> was rather astonished at first to see what looked like a "spaceman"
> drawn on the cave wall right up there with the animals.

This is your untrained, layman's view. Very similar to the untrained,
layman's way that you view the universe, physics and cosmology.

> Turns out it
> was a depiction of a Moon god (or goddess) - what I thought at first
> was a spacesuit helmet was actually the round disk of the Moon.

Yet your first thought was 'spaceman'? Ya, you're a skeptic all right..

> There is geological evidence that shows that the tidal tensions
> brought about by the Earth-Moon orbital relationship have been around
> for millions of years. Study geology.

Geology indicates the moon's age at over 4 BILLION years.

There is where you will find
> your early evidence of our sister planet, Selene.






--

[Painius]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:35:11 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/22/2012 1:20 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that you, Painus and Goth ALL believe in this Velikovskyian
>>> bullshit actually comes as no surprise to me.
>>>
>>> It's de rigueur for kooks.
>>
>> O! Contrare! If you accept the GIH for the origin of the Moon, then
>> it is YOU who believe in the Velikovskian bullshit, you "Lune".
>
>
>You confuse science with science fiction far too often.
>
>Velikovsky was a complete and utter lunatic, yet you think he deserves a
>seat at the table of science? Not.

Once more for the fucking road, you confused hack...

Yes, Velikovsky lacked the ring of science in his speculations, which
is why he and his ideas remain on the "other side" of science in the
realm of fantasy. So you tell me, Harlow. Why then does science
accept such a far out idea as the Velikovskyesque Giant Impact
Hypothesis of the Origin of the Moon?

It's like an idea straight out of one of Immanuel's illucid writings!

LMAO !

[Painius]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:31:47 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/21/2012 4:54 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In one of his seuels he has oil falling to the ground from some close
>>> encounter and soaking in, and that's why we have petroleum!
>>>
>>> Double-A
>>
>> Titan with its oceans of cold CH4 might suggest that biological decay
>> of any volumetric amount isn't responsible for the vast bulk of our
>> terrestrial hydrocarbons that we have to drill and/or dig for.
>>
>> If Titan had a glancing encounter with an early Earth as having a
>> mostly CO2 atmosphere; which one would retain those hydrocarbons?
>
>
>What group is this? GOOFY astronomy? Astronomy for dummies?
>
>Why such utter nonsense is allowed to stand unchallenged is one of the
>reasons that I am here. As Painus rubber stamps such tomfoolery, *I*
>attempt to insert the cold slap of reality into the conversation. For
>real, I'm like a fucking saint. And what do I get for my volunteer
>efforts? Do I get adulation? Do I get beatification (as I deserve)?
>
>No. *I* get called mainstream. For some reason this is a kook's way of
>insulting me....Shit. I don't even get a free letter from the pope with
>Bert's world famous G=EMC^2 or a picture of Bert in his barrel boat.
>
>
>Boo-Fuckin-Hoo

Nice meltdown, Harlow. Must be the drugs.

LMFAO !

[Brad Guth]

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "Never be afraid to kick a friend, especially when he's down."

Their interpretations like those of yours, of what is only the second
most important object around our planet (Venus being the third), as
represented by a singular "moon god", is rather pathetic, because more
than likely it was that of a visiting ET.

Are you actually suggesting that no other intelligence of any worthy
significance had existed in our little redneck part of this galaxy?

How the hell did Earth become the only source of any space traveling
species? (are you now saying that we haven't walked on the moon?)

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 25, 9:27 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "Never be afraid to kick a friend, especially when he's down."

The sun driven tides have always been sufficient to give those geology
indications. You still can't specify as to the forensic the year that
our planet tilted into having seasons, and yet you claim to know the
how and when our moon became captured. Are you suggesting that
extremely tough little spheres like the planetoid Selene which got
captured and having gotten whacked hard enough to create that 2500 km
crater, and yet remain convinced that somehow Earth didn't suffer
anything similar or worse?

Their interpretations like those of yours, of what is only the second
most important object around our planet (Venus being the third), as
represented by a singular "moon god", is rather pathetic, because more

than likely it was that of a visiting ET. Perhaps all of those early
humans were badly nearsighted, and even cross-eyed, so much so visual
disabled that any details of our moon were just a fuzzy blur and
always rather dim and nighttime useless at that.

Are you actually suggesting that no other intelligence of any worthy

significance had ever existed in our little redneck status-quo part of
this galaxy?

How the hell did Earth become the one and only source of any space

[HVAC]

On 10/25/2012 12:42 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> You confuse science with science fiction far too often.
>>
>> Velikovsky was a complete and utter lunatic, yet you think he deserves a
>> seat at the table of science? Not.
>
> Once more for the fucking road, you confused hack...
>
> Yes, Velikovsky lacked the ring of science in his speculations, which
> is why he and his ideas remain on the "other side" of science in the
> realm of fantasy.

His ideas stayed on the 'other side' because his ideas WERE fantasy.

If you cannot understand this, and understand WHY these ideas are
fantasy, then there is no hope that you will ever learn.

> So you tell me, Harlow. Why then does science
> accept such a far out idea as the Velikovskyesque Giant Impact
> Hypothesis of the Origin of the Moon?

Again you begin with a false premise...This time conflating Velikovsky's
kook stories with scientific investigation, and you
wonder why the answer doesn't make sense? Tomfoolery is all that is.

[HVAC]

On 10/25/2012 12:45 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> What group is this? GOOFY astronomy? Astronomy for dummies?
>>
>> Why such utter nonsense is allowed to stand unchallenged is one of the
>> reasons that I am here. As Painus rubber stamps such tomfoolery, *I*
>> attempt to insert the cold slap of reality into the conversation. For
>> real, I'm like a fucking saint. And what do I get for my volunteer
>> efforts? Do I get adulation? Do I get beatification (as I deserve)?
>>
>> No. *I* get called mainstream. For some reason this is a kook's way of
>> insulting me....Shit. I don't even get a free letter from the pope with
>> Bert's world famous G=EMC^2 or a picture of Bert in his barrel boat.
>>
>>
>> Boo-Fuckin-Hoo
>
> Nice meltdown, Harlow. Must be the drugs.

Must be!



PS- Drugged or not, I stand by my statements.

[G=EMC^2]

GOP Mafia has the world in the palm of its hand. Fascist world it has
become. China being commie is still holding out. Democracy was
great. I can still remember it. TreBert

[Brad Guth]

The American republic has been turned into Oligarch mafia toilet
paper.

If your ZNR certified nose isn't already brown, they'll make it brown
by forcing our noses into their butt-cheeks. Of course Harlow, Hagar
and all of their GOP buddies see nothing wrong with that.

[HVAC]

On 10/25/2012 7:50 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
> The American republic has been turned into Oligarch mafia toilet
> paper.
>
> If your ZNR certified nose isn't already brown, they'll make it brown
> by forcing our noses into their butt-cheeks. Of course Harlow, Hagar
> and all of their GOP buddies see nothing wrong with that.

You really have a fucking-A bizarre fecal-fetish, Goth.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 25, 11:25 am, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:

The American republic for which it stands has been turned into
Oligarch mafia toilet paper.

If your soon to be ZNR certified nose isn't already brown, they'll

make it brown by forcing our noses into their butt-cheeks. Of course

Harlow, Hagar, rabbi Saul and all of their GOP buddies see nothing
wrong with the forcing of K12 noses into their butts.

Keeping this generation and especially new generations of K12s as
snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return, is priority No.
1 with these mainstream rusemasters and FUD-masters.

Global deflation can not be allowed to happen, regardless of the
collateral damage or undesirable consequences. Getting us village
idiots to spend more for less is an essential policy that's built into
their Oligarch agenda of insuring the upper most 0.1% continue to gain
wealth and authority over the lower 99.9% that always get to pay for
everything.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/Guth Venus

[hanson]

<snippedy-doo. Look it up in the thread>
>
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> quickly drifted

from cosmology into politics and wrote:
>
The American republic for which it stands has been turned into
Oligarch mafia toilet paper.
>
If your soon to be ZNR certified nose isn't already brown, they'll
make it brown by forcing our noses into their butt-cheeks.
Of course Harlow, Hagar, rabbi Saul and all of their GOP
buddies see nothing wrong with the forcing of K12 noses into
their butts.
>
Keeping this generation and especially new generations of
K12s as snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no
return, is priority No. 1 with these mainstream rusemasters
and FUD-masters.

Global deflation can not be allowed to happen, regardless of the
collateral damage or undesirable consequences. Getting us village
idiots to spend more for less is an essential policy that's built into
their Oligarch agenda of insuring the upper most 0.1% continue to gain
wealth and authority over the lower 99.9% that always get to pay for
everything.
>

hanson wrote:
Brad old chum, listen:
I don't believe that you are a village idiot... but
What are you going to do about it, besides whining?
Have you ever gotten a job or a contract from one of
the "lower 99.9%"?
How should "the world according to Guth" be structured?
Gimme details, Brad
hanson

[HVAC]

On 10/27/2012 2:04 PM, hanson wrote:
>
> hanson wrote:
> Brad old chum, listen:
> I don't believe that you are a village idiot... but
> What are you going to do about it, besides whining?
> Have you ever gotten a job or a contract from one of
> the "lower 99.9%"?
> How should "the world according to Guth" be structured?
> Gimme details, Brad
> hanson

Holy shit! Brad Goth got a fucking REQUEST to opine on HIS worldview?


(I'm looking out my window, searching for flying pigs)

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 27, 11:04 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> <snippedy-doo. Look it up in the thread>
>

> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> quickly drifted

My only source of income comes from the lower 99.9%, and I've earned
this the hard way by investing in myself and delivering services that
others either failed at or having gotten too spendy for my clients to
afford. My limited expertise in hydraulics, electronics, electrical
and assorted mechanical stuff is what normally takes an experienced
crew of at least three or four to accomplish, so I'm to guess that
it's my own damn fault for not having specialized in just one narrow
field of expertise, and for otherwise not having been public-funded.

Not everyone needs to be good at multiple things, but it would be nice
if the majority of individuals were not always so narrowly specialized
and so often getting overpaid.

K12s need open access to the best available science, and they'll need
public support in whatever specialty or expertise they become good at
or tend to favor.

Harlow and others of their Oligarch and ZNR redneck kind want as few
kids educated as possible (ideally as limited to only the wealthiest
of white Semites), and essentially everyone else simply indoctrinated
and/or at the very least bankrupted via excessive debt from the very
get-go, in order to suit the needs of the mainstream status-quo
that'll remain in charge of most everything regardless of whoever we
elect or appoint.

The internet if sufficiently distributed to the whole world, as such
could make the greatest contribution to humanity. However, it seems
the Oligarchs and their ZNR partners in crimes against humanity have
quite different ideas as to who gets access to what, and to what
extent the whole truth and nothing but the truth gets out of their
mainstream status-quo box.

[hanson]

EXCELLENT!, Brad!

>
>
<snippedy-doo. Look it up in the thread>
>

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> quickly drifted

hanson wrote:
Great, Brad. Thank you for the clarifications.
Now REALIZE that the Oligarchs you so hate
do just like you and have as the "only source
of income what comes from the lower 99.9%."
>
So Brad, see: YOU are an Oligarch yourself,
albeit at the mini-end on the scale of things.
>
Still, that is very commendable, & you are loved
by the politicians from the left to the right. You
can hear them praising you daily with: "Brad
Gut is one of the small business people, those
precious job creators, that America depends on. ....
Kudos to you, Brad.

>
"Brad Guth" wrote:
I've earned this the hard way by investing in myself
and delivering services that others either failed at or
having gotten too spendy for my clients to afford.
>

hanson wrote:
Excellent, Brad! You are an entrepreneur, a dude
who saw a need and filled it. Kudos!

>
"Brad Guth" wrote:
My limited expertise in hydraulics, electronics, electrical
and assorted mechanical stuff is what normally takes an
experienced crew of at least three or four to accomplish,
so I'm to guess that it's my own damn fault for not having
specialized in just one narrow field of expertise, and for
otherwise not having been public-funded.
>

hanson wrote:
Wonderful, Brad. Keep concentrating on YOUR thing!
Don't be jealous (like you constantly express) on folks
that make more money than you do. The railing you start
below is NOT going to generate one single red cent for
you... and worse it does not even relieve your frusation....

>
"Brad Guth" wrote:
Not everyone needs to be good at multiple things, but it
would be nice if the majority of individuals were not always
so narrowly specialized and so often getting overpaid.

K12s need open access to the best available science,
and they'll need public support in whatever specialty or
expertise they become good at or tend to favor.

Harlow and others of their Oligarch and ZNR redneck
kind want as few kids educated as possible (ideally as
limited to only the wealthiest of white Semites), and
essentially everyone else simply indoctrinated and/or
at the very least bankrupted via excessive debt from
the very get-go, in order to suit the needs of the mainstream
status-quo that'll remain in charge of most everything
regardless of whoever we elect or appoint.

The internet if sufficiently distributed to the whole world,
as such could make the greatest contribution to humanity.
However, it seems the Oligarchs and their ZNR partners
in crimes against humanity have quite different ideas as
to who gets access to what, and to what extent the whole
truth and nothing but the truth gets out of their mainstream
status-quo box.
>

hanson wrote:
Thanks again Brad. Stop changing your imaginary world.
It won't do what you wish. It's a waste of time and it
costs you money.
Instead, celebrate that you are one of the few folks here
in s.p. who have ever known what sacrifices it takes to
make a payroll... which is a privilege that none your
detractors will ever have the chance to experience.
>
Keep on churning a buck, Brad, and ENJOY it!
Brad, give a flying fuck about the "rich" farts.
Be proud of yourself, Guth!
>

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 27, 2:22 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> EXCELLENT!, Brad!
>
> <snippedy-doo. Look it up in the thread>
>

> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> quickly drifted

Keeping myself out of trouble hasn't been exactly easy, and attempting
to convey something that's honestly new and improved about the science
of Venus (aka GuthVenus) hasn't been fruitful either. This ongoing
tit for tat of topics and replies between myself and others that claim
all-knowing and always above reproach (though having accomplished
absolutely nothing), is simply a worthy fight against bullies that
obviously you and others of your well-to-do kind could care less
about.

[Painius]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:32:38 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/24/2012 6:32 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> I agree that I don't understand the BB. I certainly don't understand
>> how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
>> was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
>> just sort of "took off". And "before" which has no meaning. It's
>> just stupid - royally, unintuitively, and "religiously" stupid.
>
>

>There it is, folks...Painus just has a gut feeling that there was no big
>bang. Fuck all the evidence to the contrary.

Yes, fuck all the evidence that has been "fitted" to the Big Bang
theory, when it's suppost to be the other way around. The theory
should be fitted to the evidence.

And all that evidence to which you point fuckingly, could be used to
explain other proposals of the nature of the Universe, as well. Yet
you deny that and you accept an hypothesis that calls for a childish,
fairytale, once-upon-a-time beginning of the Universe.

What a hoot!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

[Painius]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:20:08 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/24/2012 11:51 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>> The Big Bang is a creation myth of science.
>>>
>>> --
>>

>> But as mainstream ZNR approved myths go, it's a good one because it
>> gives their god that doesn't believe in fair play or hell, all the
>> credit it deserves.
>>

>> Otherwise, I'm favoring the Big Ongoing of aether flowing from the
>> pole of a mother BH, with the other universe of aether and molecular
>> stuff directed out of the other BH pole.
>
>
>

>Just more of the completely off the wall science bullshit from Painus
>and Goth. The standard model has decades of observation and experimental
>data to support it, yet Painus has a 'gut feeling' that it's wrong and
>Goth has some foolishness he stole from some other idiot's idea about
>the 'big ongoing'.
>
>None of them have ANY...I repeat, ANY, evidence for their retarded
>views. Strangely enough, both believe in ether and god as well.

Your lies fool nobody, Harlow. They just make you a laughingstock!

LMFAO !

PS. It would help if you knew the "first thing" about science.

[HVAC]

On 10/30/2012 3:06 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>> There it is, folks...Painus just has a gut feeling that there was no big
>> bang. Fuck all the evidence to the contrary.
>
> Yes, fuck all the evidence that has been "fitted" to the Big Bang
> theory, when it's suppost to be the other way around. The theory
> should be fitted to the evidence.
>
> And all that evidence to which you point fuckingly, could be used to
> explain other proposals of the nature of the Universe, as well. Yet
> you deny that and you accept an hypothesis that calls for a childish,
> fairytale, once-upon-a-time beginning of the Universe.
>
> What a hoot!

OK then. Here's your chance. Please lay out YOUR version of how the
universe began. I'll wait right here and promise not to interrupt you.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 30, 12:17 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:20:08 -0400, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> >On 10/24/2012 11:51 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> The Big Bang is a creation myth of science.
>
> >>> --
>
> >> But as mainstream ZNR approved myths go, it's a good one because it
> >> gives their god that doesn't believe in fair play or hell, all the
> >> credit it deserves.
>
> >> Otherwise, I'm favoring the Big Ongoing of aether flowing from the
> >> pole of a mother BH, with the other universe of aether and molecular
> >> stuff directed out of the other BH pole.
>
> >Just more of the completely off the wall science bullshit from Painus
> >and Goth. The standard model has decades of observation and experimental
> >data to support it, yet Painus has a 'gut feeling' that it's wrong and
> >Goth has some foolishness he stole from some other idiot's idea about
> >the 'big ongoing'.
>
> >None of them have ANY...I repeat, ANY, evidence for their retarded
> >views.  Strangely enough, both believe in ether and god as well.
>
> Your lies fool nobody, Harlow.  They just make you a laughingstock!
>
> LMFAO !
>
> PS.  It would help if you knew the "first thing" about science.
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

The first thing to know about science, is that only insiders like
Harlow ever get to establish what science is. It's kind of a
perverted God thing that ZNRs and their Oligarchs as their brown-nosed
minions that don't believe in hell, always think is so funny as to how
they get to make others squirm on demand. It's why they had a dark-
skinned Jesus Christ put on a stick, because he was a trouble maker by
way of making changes without permission from Harlow.

[HVAC]

On 10/30/2012 9:34 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>>> Just more of the completely off the wall science bullshit from Painus
>>> and Goth. The standard model has decades of observation and experimental
>>> data to support it, yet Painus has a 'gut feeling' that it's wrong and
>>> Goth has some foolishness he stole from some other idiot's idea about
>>> the 'big ongoing'.
>>
>>> None of them have ANY...I repeat, ANY, evidence for their retarded
>>> views. Strangely enough, both believe in ether and god as well.
>>
>> Your lies fool nobody, Harlow. They just make you a laughingstock!

Goth, aren't you upset that Instead of refuting my facts, Painus is
reduced to just name calling? If he had any real science, he would
unveil it. Instead he has nothing. So why do you coddle him?

> The first thing to know about science, is that only insiders like
> Harlow ever get to establish what science is.

Science is not a 'thing'. It is a process. A self-correcting process.
It relies on observations and experimentation to verify theory.

Why is it that you kooks hate that process?

> It's kind of a
> perverted God thing that ZNRs and their Oligarchs as their brown-nosed
> minions that don't believe in hell

Do you have any observations or experiments to verify your belief in a
hell? No? Then shut the fuck up.

[Painius]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:46:17 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/30/2012 3:06 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>> There it is, folks...Painus just has a gut feeling that there was no big
>>> bang. Fuck all the evidence to the contrary.
>>
>> Yes, fuck all the evidence that has been "fitted" to the Big Bang
>> theory, when it's suppost to be the other way around. The theory
>> should be fitted to the evidence.
>>
>> And all that evidence to which you point fuckingly, could be used to
>> explain other proposals of the nature of the Universe, as well. Yet
>> you deny that and you accept an hypothesis that calls for a childish,
>> fairytale, once-upon-a-time beginning of the Universe.
>>
>> What a hoot!
>
>OK then. Here's your chance. Please lay out YOUR version of how the
>universe began. I'll wait right here and promise not to interrupt you.

How magnanimous of you, Harlow!

The evidence definitely points to a magnificent, traumatic and
superbly catastrophic event that took place between 13 and 14 billion
years ago. That evidence, of course, does also support the idea of a
"beginning" to the Universe; however, I consider that idea to go
counter to logic and common sense.

So, I'm very sorry, Harlow, because I cannot describe to you how the
Universe "began", because it didn't "begin". It's always been here,
and it always will be.

No, it's not the static steady-state Universe of Fred Hoyle. It's a
dynamic and dangerous Universe that has no "age". The only reason
there are "creation myths" in religion AND in science is because
people find it impossible to imagine *anything* without a beginning.

Cancer cells are immortal - so is the Universe. That's my take.

You're welcome.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"Either this thread is dead or my watch has stopped."

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 30, 1:42 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "Either this thread is dead or my watch has stopped."

An ageless universe is the most likely interpretation that allows all
the known laws of physics and best available science to coexist,
except for Harlow.

[Painius]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:01:24 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:

>?[Jeff-R...@Oct.22.Seattle{0.01.PM.2012}]

> "Dark Matter" is UNSEEN MASS, "Dark Energy" is EXERGY DEPLETION,
> and the start of the Big Bang is just the cosmic horizon,
> similar to the event horizon of an ideal black hole.
>

>Q. How far can the PROFESSIONALS, with the BAD ASS EQUIPMENT see ?
>A. 13.75 giga?years ago, 46.5 giga?light?years out.

It may also be that "dark matter" is the quantum mass-energy of the
volume of space itself. And dark energy is just a bad, unnecessary
idea.

The pros with the best technology have been able to collect light from
a great and numerous bunch of already formed galaxies that are about
13.2 billion years old. Due to the stretch of that light from the
expansion of space, scientists believe that the distance to those
galaxies is actually about 44.64 billion light years away.

Happy to help!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[Painius]

The answers to some of your questions are already part of our
knowledge base, and you just need to do a little open-minded study.

Questions like "How the hell did Earth become the one and only source
of any space traveling species?" are not yet objectively answered. At
this point there is no way to tell how.

[HVAC]

On 10/30/2012 4:42 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> OK then. Here's your chance. Please lay out YOUR version of how the
>> universe began. I'll wait right here and promise not to interrupt you.
>
> How magnanimous of you, Harlow!
>
> The evidence definitely points to a magnificent, traumatic and
> superbly catastrophic event that took place between 13 and 14 billion
> years ago. That evidence, of course, does also support the idea of a
> "beginning" to the Universe; however, I consider that idea to go
> counter to logic and common sense.

Let me interrupt you right here.. Your 'common sense' counts exactly the
same to science as does god and ether. In other words NONE.

> So, I'm very sorry, Harlow, because I cannot describe to you how the
> Universe "began", because it didn't "begin". It's always been here,
> and it always will be.

That's a very nice, religious viewpoint.

> No, it's not the static steady-state Universe of Fred Hoyle. It's a
> dynamic and dangerous Universe that has no "age".

So all the observations to date are incorrect? How is it that only YOU
are in on this great paradigm shift in physics?

> The only reason
> there are "creation myths" in religion AND in science is because
> people find it impossible to imagine *anything* without a beginning.

Crap-Ola.

> Cancer cells are immortal - so is the Universe.

Hogwash.

[HVAC]

On 10/30/2012 4:55 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
> An ageless universe is the most likely interpretation that allows all
> the known laws of physics and best available science to coexist,
> except for Harlow.

Oh look, Painus....How cute! Goth is now your official rump swab.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

[Jeff-R...@Oct.30{4.09.PM.Seattle.2012}]
The start of the big bang is just the cosmic horizon,
similar to the event horizon of a black hole, where time (virtually) stops.
Stephen Hawking's latest Book/TV⋅Series, "Grand Design", talks about it.

I say "virtually", because there's no such thing as a TRUE black hole.

With distance, the clock gets super, super slow,
( red⋅shifted, from our vantage point, out of the gravity well ),
yet nowhere does it truly stop.

[Double-A]

On Oct 30, 4:09 pm, Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
> [Jeff-Relf...@Oct.30{4.09.PM.Seattle.2012}]

I agree.

Double-A

[nartrof seven]

Time stops for many alcoholics, since most all of these people drink
to forget even the imaginary consequences of their actions. But most
alcoholics of their own (?unintentional?, ?self-preserving?)
arrogance, are in no way 'delicate' with their communications, and
would probably care less about establishing any science outside of
their own self-preserving lifestyle...

..but if time actually stops, the photon has to become entirely
virtual and then vanish, at the Compton singularity of ~10^-32
seconds, which represents the early universe of elementary particles,
such as protons, neutrons, electrons, and deuterons - a virtual 'quark
soup' of elementary particles - which were {are} a great deal more
interacting with tachyons, than they were [are] with each other.

The case for tachyonic 'dark matter' may be made here, prior to proton
fusion: for protons that fused to form [He] atoms, from single [H]
atoms in the early universe, that would have actually 'jump started'
the table of elements, and thus have produced photons in the process.
(If one divides the electron's charged particle's radius (the reduced
Compton wavelength) by the classical electron radius, the result is
the fine structure constant - and that constant is the same for any
element that can be found in the table of elements).

So in order for time to stop, timelike photons must become anti-
timelike, or even exist in closed, timelike curves, such as we have
with the Einstein Field Equations, in which an infinitely long
cylinder, i.e. 'toroidally-shaped', can bend back upon itself, because
of the property of 'negative curvature'. But taken by itself, the
reference to having a 'stopped time' phenomenon, presents the
spectacle of having several, 'horizon of possibility' light cones
circulating on an event horizon (i.e. possible future or past light
cones), which can only become visualized by utilizing what quantum
physicists call closed, timelike curves.

Imagination becomes the limit of experience in a tachyonic universe,
with things like negative mass, dark energy, dark photons, and time
reversal, as well as future light cones, and closed, timelike curves.
Spacetime could the 'lose its virginity', and become lost to invasive
imagination, so one must be careful not to upset the delicate affairs
of individual imagination throughout one's own primal, electro/
magnetic timeline.

Since the whores of physics will always promote their own science over
spearheading whatever intuitive science is left in this country, we
have to face the nasty consequences of their actions, i.e. the current
bipolar election. But the whole love affair that Americans have had
with their president, is like re-entering the world of make-believe of
the Kennedy years, without having a shred of science to support the
notion that, wow, it's actually applied science taking place, and it's
also where a new virtual rubber meets the road in world affairs.

[nartrof seven]

How can one achieve this feat? First, by accepting the preponderance
of having grid-shifting EM noise, EM pollution throughout our own,
eventually closing, timelike curve, which we like to call 'life-
force', and then, recognizing what free will would be necessary to
require the identification for obtaining a tachyonic shift resistance,
or teleohmic induction, which would be required to balance the world
of affairs of that which remains enclosed within the life-force of
their own belief system or progeny.

By assuming that our life-force is contained WITHIN the imagination of
a greater life-force, gives us the advantage of converting all mass or
energy into an earth-centered imaginary mass and/or energy, and thus
we can obtain a generational grouping and interactive dimension of
numbers, since all numbers have value, but specifically, we can
represent these numbers as being digitally irrational, using a fixed
decimal point. This gives us an anchor with which to form a system of
relative weights, that can inter-react with a specific timeline, in
concert or delayed, with a physiological side effect of a
geometrically intrinsic, physical resistance. Thus we have a
verification of the p-adics, and thus a universal consciousness, from
which to draw a new life-force of possibility.

Individual consciousness itself, then has the power to become mapped,
and applied to whatever event horizon(s) are applicable, as temporal
directivity consists of quasi-stable ambiguous changes of parallel
patterned mathematical expression(s), on the Riemann horizon of
primes, which then become both measurable and intelligible over an
omnic frequency and/or wavelength range of imaginary expression(s).

[Painius]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Double-A
<doub...@hush.com> wrote:

>On Oct 30, 4:09�pm, Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
>> [Jeff-Relf...@Oct.30{4.09.PM.Seattle.2012}]
>> The start of the big bang is just the cosmic horizon,
>> similar to the event horizon of a black hole, where time (virtually) stops.

>> Stephen Hawking's latest Book/TV?Series, "Grand Design", talks about it.

>>
>> I say "virtually", because there's no such thing as a TRUE black hole.
>>
>> With distance, the clock gets super, super slow,

>> ( red?shifted, from our vantage point, out of the gravity well ),

>> yet nowhere does it truly stop.
>
>I agree.

It might be just that phenomenon, and not the Doppler effect, nor any
enigmatic relativistic effect, that explains the faraway redshifts of
galaxies!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"UseNet does not change; we change."

[HVAC]

On 10/31/2012 1:38 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> I agree.
>
> It might be just that phenomenon, and not the Doppler effect, nor any
> enigmatic relativistic effect, that explains the faraway redshifts of
> galaxies!

LOL !