Shrinkage and Dilation of a Light Pulse

[Steve Watson]

interesting to realize that the darwinist theory of
relativity is circular like the evolution is, but this
is another story

for an observer in motion toward a source an
emitted 0.1 s light pulse would appear blue shifted,

thus more crests detected and traveling at c same
speed, however kind of inconsistency

the original emitted 0.1 s light pulse also will
shrink in duration for the moving observer, say 0.05 s
instead of 0.1

because if it not, then more crests of light has to
be created out of the blue!!!

have a nice weekend

[Helmut Wabnig]

Caution!
Weekends shrink faster than light!

http://www.phys.ufl.edu/courses/phy3101/spring08/lecture9notes.pdf

w.

[space...@gmail.com]

Gravity effects mass; killing/crossing vectors...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Pete Weber]

however, the observer may take the new measured 0.05 s as its
own time shrinkage as seen from the source, without any calculation

shouldnt the observer experience time dilation here?

[Pete Weber]

which is wrong, because he observes a higher frequency, not
the original one

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/5/12 10/5/12 - 2:53 PM, Steve Watson wrote:
> interesting to realize that the darwinist theory of
> relativity is circular like the evolution is, but this
> is another story

Hmmm. Relativity is not "Darwinist" in any sensible way.

While neither theory is "circular", it is true that evolution is essentially a
self-fulfilling prophecy: Given approximately self-reproducing objects and
finite resources, evolution is inevitable -- over time (generations), those
objects that leave more descendants will come to dominate the system.

Remember that here on earth, popular misunderstandings
notwithstanding, evolution is fundamentally a statement
about the frequencies of genes in the genome. The most
wonderful thing is that those successful genes have
diversified and radiated so widely throughout life on
earth. We see this, of course, as millions of species.

Relativity is not at all a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Popular misunderstandings notwithstanding, SR is
fundamentally a statement about the symmetry group
of physical phenomena.

> for an observer in motion toward a source an
> emitted 0.1 s light pulse would appear blue shifted,
> thus more crests detected and traveling at c same
> speed, however kind of inconsistency
> the original emitted 0.1 s light pulse also will
> shrink in duration for the moving observer, say 0.05 s
> instead of 0.1
> because if it not, then more crests of light has to
> be created out of the blue!!!

Your language is self-inconsistent; there are no "more crests"; there can be no
"more". It's just that in addition to the frequency being increased (blue
shifted), the wavelength is decreased (blue shifted). This is related to what
you said, and the pulse is necessarily observed to be shorter (in both length
and duration) by the moving (approaching) observer. This is also, of course,
consistent with the speed of the light wave relative to the observer being
unchanged (remaining c).


Tom Roberts

[Pete Weber]

How does this differ from what he said?

>
>
> Tom Roberts


I seem to be severely biased wrt evolution, which is looks wrong
by construction in every aspects

Are you telling that you believe in an invisible mechanism or force
that breath life into inert matter, particles, atoms and molecules??

And yes right, symmetry is also kinda circularity, good point, thanks


Circular reasoning, evolution says it is the survival of the fittest
Which one survive, the fittest
Who are the fittest, the ones that survive

Kinda relativity, dont you think?

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/8/12 10/8/12 - 2:08 PM, Pete Weber wrote:
> I seem to be severely biased wrt evolution, which is looks wrong
> by construction in every aspects

Then you approach evolution with as shallow an understanding as you approach
physics. The evolution of life on earth is MANIFEST, and one must be willfully
blind to not see it.

Many religious fanatics are indeed willfully blind, here.

> Are you telling that you believe in an invisible mechanism or force
> that breath life into inert matter, particles, atoms and molecules??

No. The mechanisms underlying meiosis and gene transfer are well known and quite
"visible" (with the right equipment). "Life" is merely the actions of
self-reproducing organisms.

> And yes right, symmetry is also kinda circularity, good point, thanks

As I said, you have a VERY shallow approach. Far too naive to be of any use. I
advise you to find a hobby that is more suited to your abilities; relativity and
evolution are clearly FAR beyond your mental abilities (or lack thereof).

> Circular reasoning, evolution says it is the survival of the fittest
> Which one survive, the fittest
> Who are the fittest, the ones that survive

As I said, a VERY SHALLOW approach. You don't have a clue about the richness and
grandeur of life on earth and its development. The theory of evolution is A LOT
more than what you say.

> Kinda relativity, dont you think?

Not at all.

[I will not continue, until you grow beyond childish nonsense.]


Tom Roberts

[Pete Weber]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:14:01 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 10/8/12 10/8/12 - 2:08 PM, Pete Weber wrote:
>> I seem to be severely biased wrt evolution, which is looks wrong by
>> construction in every aspects
>
> Then you approach evolution with as shallow an understanding as you
> approach physics. The evolution of life on earth is MANIFEST, and one
> must be willfully blind to not see it.
>
> Many religious fanatics are indeed willfully blind, here.

There are no "manifests" anywhere in nature and physics, what a
shameless nonsense to say here, plainly shocking coming from one
of your calibre

Clearly you are the fanatic blind believer in the "manifest" here,
please read, and what on earth is a "manifest" !?

>
>
>> Are you telling that you believe in an invisible mechanism or force
>> that breath life into inert matter, particles, atoms and molecules??
>
> No. The mechanisms underlying meiosis and gene transfer are well known
> and quite "visible" (with the right equipment). "Life" is merely the
> actions of self-reproducing organisms.

Answer the question Sir (thus you need reread it), it has nothing to
do with meiosis, which does not even account for all life,

My question comes light years before your meiosis and your "reproducing
organisms"

You dont even realize what you deal with here

>
>
>> And yes right, symmetry is also kinda circularity, good point, thanks
>
> As I said, you have a VERY shallow approach. Far too naive to be of any
> use. I advise you to find a hobby that is more suited to your abilities;
> relativity and evolution are clearly FAR beyond your mental abilities
> (or lack thereof).

Yeah, your understanding of relativity is legendary, parallel with
your understanding of evolution that gets proverbial here :) lol

>
>
>> Circular reasoning, evolution says it is the survival of the fittest
>> Which one survive, the fittest Who are the fittest, the ones that
>> survive
>
> As I said, a VERY SHALLOW approach. You don't have a clue about the
> richness and grandeur of life on earth and its development. The theory
> of evolution is A LOT more than what you say.

Unbelievable so much crap coming from a single person

Before your "grandeur of life", "miosis" and "evolution", there are
particles, atoms, molecules, amino acids and the complexity of the
cells

These lifeless entities comes together in an absolute improbable
manner (p < 1E-100)in order to reproduce!!!

Why on earth should matter reproduce??

>
>
>> Kinda relativity, dont you think?
>
> Not at all.
>
> [I will not continue, until you grow beyond childish nonsense.]

Delay for translation .... gzzz

[You got chicken and feel deeply cornered in your "theory
of evolution"]

This tells something about your credibility in relativity as well

>
> Tom Roberts

thanks

[paparios]

El martes, 9 de octubre de 2012 13:05:18 UTC-4, Pete Weber escribió:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:14:01 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

>
>
>

> thanks

Forget the "transformer" dyslexic guy Tom. The guy is too dumb and knows very little about English, like he showed in reading "manifest".

For your information, which you will not understand anyways:

manifest as an adjective: a) readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain: a manifest error. This is what Tom used.

manifest as a verb: b) to make clear or evident to the eye or the understanding; show plainly: He manifested his approval with a hearty laugh.

c) to prove; put beyond doubt or question: The evidence manifests the guilt of the defendant.

[Pete Weber]

extreme crank papabozo wrote:

> For your information, which you will not understand anyways:

[snip crap]

You are parallel to this discussion, go away

[paparios]

As usual with you, and the rest of your nonsensical personalities, you produce just noise.

Well done moron

[Pete Weber]

extreme crank papabozo wrote:

>> > For your information, which you will not understand anyways:
>> [snip crap]
>> You are parallel to this discussion, go away
>
> As usual with you, and the rest of your nonsensical personalities, you
> produce just noise.

Post something worth reading, imbecile

[paparios]

Sure...

You are a worthless piece of shit!!!

Are you happy now?

[Pete Weber]

extreme crank papabozo wrote:

...

>> Post something worth reading, imbecile
>
> Sure...
>
> You are a worthless piece of shit!!!
>
> Are you happy now?

You seems mental, watch out, they put something in your food and in your
water, take care

Did you got some food or water deep through your mouth recently?

Regards

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"paparios" <papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f6c0baee-ef73-4b31...@googlegroups.com...

===============================================

Papabozo believes flaming alone is worthwhile, no need to back it up

with anything explicitly wrong. That’s why he’s a worthless HUGE pile

of very ignorant shit.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

 

 

[space...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 1:32:14 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "paparios" <papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f6c0baee-ef73-4b31...@googlegroups.com...
>

Sphere and sin curve wave are light's form. Matter is the same...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Pete Weber]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 21:32:09 +0100, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
wrote:

I suspect he is a women that enjoy insulting, I can't explain

[Henry Wilson]

I must come to Tom's defence here. He appears to have a better understanding of evolution than of relativity.
There is no question that all life on Earth evolved from primitive molecules that by chance combined in a way that allowed them to reproduce and occasionally become more complex. The fact that it WAS and still IS chemically POSSIBLE is the only requirement for this process to occur. If something CAN happen, it usually WILL. Still, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that stray lengths of DNA from distant planets are floating around in space and occasionally find their way into our own atmosphere undamaged, where they feed on and convert local molecules into life.

> >> Circular reasoning, evolution says it is the survival of the fittest
>
> >> Which one survive, the fittest Who are the fittest, the ones that
>
> >> survive
>
> >
>
> > As I said, a VERY SHALLOW approach. You don't have a clue about the
>
> > richness and grandeur of life on earth and its development. The theory
>
> > of evolution is A LOT more than what you say.
>
>
>
> Unbelievable so much crap coming from a single person
>
>
>
> Before your "grandeur of life", "miosis" and "evolution", there are
>
> particles, atoms, molecules, amino acids and the complexity of the
>
> cells
>
>
>
> These lifeless entities comes together in an absolute improbable
>
> manner (p < 1E-100)in order to reproduce!!!

...and there are infinitely more than 1E100 states that provide conditions for it to happen.

> Why on earth should matter reproduce??

Why don't you study some basic genetics and learn a few facts instead of preaching dead religion.

[Pete Weber]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:33:04 -0700, Henry Wilson wrote:

...

> I must come to Tom's defence here. He appears to have a better
> understanding of evolution than of relativity.
> There is no question that all life on Earth evolved from primitive
> molecules

You confuse me here, what is a "primitive molecule" as different
from what?

> that by chance combined in a way that allowed them to
> reproduce and occasionally become more complex.

A molecule cannot possibly reproduce, a cell can, a cell is a very
complex entity, complex data and machinery

A lot of engineering stuff must function in a cell _before_ starting
reproduce

> The fact that it WAS and
> still IS chemically POSSIBLE is the only requirement for this process to
> occur. If something CAN happen, it usually WILL. Still, I wouldn't rule
> out the possibility that stray lengths of DNA from distant planets are
> floating around in space and occasionally find their way into our own
> atmosphere undamaged, where they feed on and convert local molecules
> into life.

The DNA is only the _data_, that may be considered as static in a
particular cell, the other mechanisms and functionality are far more
complex, they mirror both the _data_ and the real stuff

>> These lifeless entities comes together in an absolute improbable
>>
>> manner (p < 1E-100)in order to reproduce!!!
>
> ...and there are infinitely more than 1E100 states that provide
> conditions for it to happen.

The tale goes that there are only about max 1E-80 atoms in this universe

Probabilities less than 1E-24 are considered effectively zero, you
are suppose to know that

>
>> Why on earth should matter reproduce??
>
> Why don't you study some basic genetics and learn a few facts instead of
> preaching dead religion.

Is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about, but please
try again with something that makes sense

[David Fuller]

I wonder if being under 1 meter of black hole in grams per square meter equals

Being under CMBR at a depth of 14.7 billion light years?

[David Fuller]

You know that works!

At a depth of two meter into the black h

[David Fuller]

You know that works
At a depth of 2 meters there would be 2 black hole pressures
3 at 3 and so on

1 x 1 x 1
1 + 1+ 1= 3

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1a4bcca3-6927-4aa4...@googlegroups.com...

I must come to Tom's defence here. He appears to have a better understanding of evolution than of relativity.
There is no question that all life on Earth evolved from primitive molecules that by chance combined in a way that allowed them to reproduce and occasionally become more complex. The fact that it WAS and still IS chemically POSSIBLE is the only requirement for this process to occur.  If something CAN happen, it usually WILL. Still, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that stray lengths of DNA from distant planets are floating around in space and occasionally find their way into our own atmosphere undamaged, where they feed on and convert local molecules into life.

==================================================

I don’t disagree with the first part of your proposal but the second part

is idle speculation and pointless sci-fi. You wouldn’t rule out the tooth

fairy giving money to children for their milk teeth since it is fantastically

conceivable in the human mind along with any fiction.

The idiocy in your proposal is that it

a) isn’t necessary since amino acids which are the individual “bricks” in DNA

strands will readily form in the primordial sea of dissolved CO2, H2O, NH2

NaCl and other salts etc. when lightning strikes, and

b) the very first strand had to form somewhere and here is as good or better

than anywhere else, so while it isn’t impossible for it to have originated

elsewhere it is far more probable that any stray strands floating around

randomly in space originated here in the first place, leaving this planet by

whatever means you suggest they left some other.

 

Ockham’s Razor, Wilson. We KNOW there is life here and we KNOW

there is primitive life still here. That dinosaurs had spines, rib cages, heads

and four limbs suggests a connection with ourselves and fish that is far

closer than any connection to spiders or crabs or millipedes or trees or

carrots which also have DNA and are hence food, and that suggests

evolution right here on Earth is probable to the point of certainty, whereas

an extra-terrestrial origin of life is improbable to the point of impossibility

and definitely without necessity. Even the religious only posit one form

of extra-terrestrial life, Gawd itself. And if it be found that life should

exist on some other world, the process could as easily have occurred in

parallel to our own and probably did rather than having strands of DNA

from Earth or anywhere else settling there.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

[Henry Wilson]

On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 09:12:58 UTC+11, Pete Weber wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:33:04 -0700, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I must come to Tom's defence here. He appears to have a better
>
> > understanding of evolution than of relativity.
>
> > There is no question that all life on Earth evolved from primitive
>
> > molecules
>
>
>
> You confuse me here, what is a "primitive molecule" as different
>
> from what?

Basically, a primitive one is an inorganic one or a simple one containing carbon.
Amino acids are quite primitive and form easily given the right ingredients and conditions.

> > that by chance combined in a way that allowed them to
>
> > reproduce and occasionally become more complex.
>
>
>
> A molecule cannot possibly reproduce, a cell can, a cell is a very
>
> complex entity, complex data and machinery

Very simple molecules combine into something that CAN reproduce, possibly with the aid of a catalyst.

>
> A lot of engineering stuff must function in a cell _before_ starting
>
> reproduce

There were no 'cells' at this stage. Why dont you learn something about genetics and biology instead of preaching religious bullshit. There are no bleeding gods you dopey bastard.

> > The fact that it WAS and
>
> > still IS chemically POSSIBLE is the only requirement for this process to
>
> > occur. If something CAN happen, it usually WILL. Still, I wouldn't rule
>
> > out the possibility that stray lengths of DNA from distant planets are
>
> > floating around in space and occasionally find their way into our own
>
> > atmosphere undamaged, where they feed on and convert local molecules
>
> > into life.
>
>
>
> The DNA is only the _data_, that may be considered as static in a
>
> particular cell, the other mechanisms and functionality are far more
>
> complex, they mirror both the _data_ and the real stuff

Why don't you learn something about the earliest life forms instead of raving?

>
> >> These lifeless entities comes together in an absolute improbable
>
> >>
>
> >> manner (p < 1E-100)in order to reproduce!!!
>
> >
>
> > ...and there are infinitely more than 1E100 states that provide
>
> > conditions for it to happen.
>
>
>
> The tale goes that there are only about max 1E-80 atoms in this universe

Would that be accurate to 1%?

> Probabilities less than 1E-24 are considered effectively zero, you
>
> are suppose to know that

> >> Why on earth should matter reproduce??
>
> >
>
> > Why don't you study some basic genetics and learn a few facts instead of
>
> > preaching dead religion.
>
>
>
> Is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about, but please
>

> try again with something that makes sense.

Religious fanatics don't belong in science groups. We have enough trouble handling the indoctrinated Einstein worshippers.

[Henry Wilson]

> strands will readily form in the primordial sea of dissolved CO2, H2O, NH2, NaCl and other salts etc. when
> lightning strikes, and b)

very true...

> the very first strand had to form somewhere and here is as good or
> better than anywhere else, so while it isn’t impossible
> for it to have originated elsewhere it is far more probable that any stray
> strands floating around randomly in space originated here in the first
> place, leaving this planet by whatever means you suggest they left some other.

Gawd! Androcles thinks our little planet is the only one with life on it!!! He was probably taught that at Sunday School?

Of course there is life on other planets you closet aetherist.....BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF THEM.

Why the hell shouldn't a few bits of DNA find themselves floating in space like lots of other junk?

Can you prove that every cubic Lightyear of space is completely devoid of DNA molecules????????

OF COURSE YOU CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So stop whinging like a pommie immigrant.

Now, the fact is, throughout evolutionary history, there have been instances of very rapid advances in the development of life, homo sapiens being the most obvious example. It is very hard to explain the massive gap between the common ancestor of all the apes (probably a lemur) and us. Your own pet, Daisy, shares about 95% of her genes with homo sapiens.
At some point, our brains developed the capacity and complexity to enable us to conceive of a 'future' and speculate on it. No other animal appears to possess this ability to any noticeable degree...and it all seems to have happened in a few million years. Chance mutations are occurring regularly but almost all result in the death of the carrier. Very rarely does a mutation result in a benefit and even then it involves a very simple property (such as in the evolution of the 500 odd species of often brilliantly coloured moths in Hawaii that radiated out from probably ONE ancestor). DNA is clever stuff which now appears to be able to alter its own characteristics somewhat to accommodate a range of environmental conditions....but it is hard to see how natural mutation alone could result in many of the rapid developments this planet has witnessed.

I'm not adamant that it could not,....but I also see no reason why strands of DNA should NOT occasionally drop in from other more advanced worlds. Incidentally, a similar idea has been put forward as a possible explanation for sudden viral epidemics on Earth.

Can you prove that every cubic Lightyear of space is completely devoid of viruses?

>  
> Ockham’s Razor, Wilson. We KNOW there is life here
> and we KNOW
>
> there is primitive life still here. That dinosaurs
> had spines, rib cages, heads
> and four limbs suggests a connection with
> ourselves and fish that is far closer than any connection to spiders or crabs or
> millipedes or trees or carrots which also have DNA and are hence food, and that suggests
> evolution right here on Earth is probable to the point of certainty, whereas an extra-terrestrial origin
> of life is improbable to the point of impossibility
> and definitely without necessity. Even the
> religious only posit one form of extra-terrestrial life, Gawd itself. And if it
> be found that life should
> exist on some other world, the process could as
> easily have occurred in
> parallel to our own and probably did rather than
> having strands of DNA from Earth or anywhere else settling there.

Of course there is life throughout the whole universe. Maybe there are real people with wheels instead of legs and eyes in the backs of their heads....as well as a socket to connect directly to their computers.

[space...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:18:28 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 11:27:35 UTC+11, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
>
> > "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > news:1a4bcca3-6927-4aa4...@googlegroups.com...
>

What is the shape of light if dilated?
There is no sin curve wave dilation.

Mitchell Raemsch

[space...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 6:37:21 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:18:28 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 11:27:35 UTC+11, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >
>
> > > news:1a4bcca3-6927-4aa4...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >
>
>
>
> What is the shape of light if dilated?
>
> There is no sin curve wave dilation.

In a spherical wavelet theory there can be a sin curve wave
oscillating; an expanding contracting and a fundamental energy.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:efae6cbe-7f25-47a6...@googlegroups.com...

================================================================

Jesus! Daisy Wilson thinks that the Moon is made of green cheese made

from Martian Bunny Milk and Saturn Ring rennet that the cow jumped

over

and made the dish run away with the spoon when the little pig dog laughed

!!!

He was probably taught that at Australian Outback University by Aboriginal People?

 

 

Of course there is life on other planets you closet aetherist.....BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF THEM.

====================================================

Yes, Daisy Wilson, there is life on Mercury, life on Venus, cheese eating maggots

on the Moon, little green men on Mars, life on Deimos, life on all the asteroids,

purple people eaters on Jupiter, life on all it’s moons, life on Saturn, life on all its

rings, life on Neptune, life on Uranus, life on Pluto, life everywhere, you fucking

crazy cunt.

 

 

Why the hell shouldn't a few bits of DNA find themselves floating in space like lots of other junk?

===============================================

Not much, just the odd x-ray photon or two smashing it apart in the

cold hell of space where the great biochemist Daisy Wilson has his

DNA laboratory for snipping whole sections of DNA with garden

shears.

 

 

 

Can you prove that every cubic Lightyear of space is completely devoid of DNA molecules????????

 

========================================================

I don’t need to, there are upper and lower limits to the temperature range

in which delicate biochemical reactions can take place. Chocolate eggs melt

in the mouth, Daisy, they don’t really hatch into Easter Bunnies, I was only

joking when I said they did. Daisy Wilson thinks boiling an egg will incubate it faster.

 

Garden shears, superglue and arc welding might work on DNA for you crazy

Outback Abos but life on Earth began in the baby’s bath water, not in the scorching

hot Outback of Oz which unlike the Moon is cooled by a thick layer of air,

or the frozen wastes of Antarctica which is far hotter than the upper atmosphere.

OF COURSE YOU CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!              So stop whinging like a pommie immigrant.

===================================================

I just did. Photo-synthesis splits CO2, the carbon builds the plant cells

and the oxygen is released to atmosphere. DNA replication is a delicate

process, eggs that are cooked turn into a white jelly enclosing a yellow

compacted powder and eggs that are frozen are pierced by ice crystals,

after which the egg can never become a bird. 

An egg is a single cell, Daisy, it divides inside the shell with each DNA

duplication but it has to be incubated at just the right temperature.

So carry on sputtering out of your ridiculous arse like the crazy wanker

you are !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Now, the fact is, throughout evolutionary history, there have been instances of very rapid advances in the development of life, homo sapiens being the most obvious example. It is very hard to explain the massive gap between the common ancestor of all the apes (probably a lemur) and us. Your own pet, Daisy, shares about 95% of her genes with homo sapiens.
At some point, our brains developed the capacity and complexity to enable us to conceive of a 'future' and speculate on it. No other animal appears to possess this ability to any noticeable degree...and it all seems to have happened in a few million years. Chance mutations are occurring regularly but almost all result in the death of the carrier. Very rarely does a mutation result in a benefit and even then it involves a very simple property (such as in the evolution of the 500 odd species of often brilliantly coloured moths in Hawaii that radiated out from probably ONE ancestor). DNA is clever stuff which now appears to be able to alter its own characteristics somewhat to accommodate a range of environmental conditions....but it is hard to see how natural mutation alone could result in many of the rapid developments this planet has witnessed.

I'm not adamant that it could not,....but I also see no reason why strands of DNA should NOT occasionally drop in from other more advanced worlds. Incidentally, a similar idea has been put forward as a possible explanation for sudden viral epidemics on Earth.

Can you prove that every cubic Lightyear of space is completely devoid of viruses?

==============================

I just did. Space is too cold and photons are too energetic for DNA

to survive.

 

> 
> Ockham’s Razor, Wilson. We KNOW there is life here
> and we KNOW
>
> there is primitive life still here. That dinosaurs
> had spines, rib cages, heads
> and four limbs suggests a connection with
> ourselves and fish that is far closer than any connection to spiders or crabs or
> millipedes or trees or carrots which also have DNA and are hence food, and that suggests
> evolution right here on Earth is probable to the point of certainty, whereas an extra-terrestrial origin
> of life is improbable to the point of impossibility
>  and definitely without necessity. Even the
> religious only posit one form of extra-terrestrial life, Gawd itself. And if it
> be found that life should
>  exist on some other world, the process could as
> easily have occurred in
> parallel to our own and probably did rather than
> having strands of DNA from Earth or anywhere else settling there.

Of course there is life throughout the whole universe. Maybe there are real people with wheels instead of legs and eyes in the backs of their heads....as well as a socket to connect directly to their computers.
 

Yeah, and maybe chocolate eggs come from Easter Bunnies, but probably

you need an education in bio-chemical cookery instead of kookery.

If New Zealanders are kiwis then Australians are kookaburras.

Go place an egg on the roof of your VW camper van in sunlight, it’ll

hatch into a chick faster, you fucking ignorant kook.

[Henry Wilson]

Are they the only ones you know about? What about ANDROCLES?

>
>
> purple people eaters on Jupiter,
> life on all it’s moons, life on Saturn, life on all its
>
> rings, life on Neptune, life on Uranus,
> life on Pluto, life everywhere, you
> fucking
>
> crazy cunt.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
> Why
> the hell shouldn't a few bits of DNA find themselves floating in space like lots
> of other junk?
>
>
> ===============================================
>
> Not much, just the odd x-ray photon or two
> smashing it apart in the
>
> cold hell of space where the great biochemist
> Daisy Wilson has his
>
> DNA laboratory for snipping whole sections of DNA
> with garden

Cold wont hurt them and most photons will go straight through.

> Can
> you prove that every cubic Lightyear of space is completely devoid of DNA
> molecules????????
>
>  
>
> ========================================================
>
> I don’t need to, there are upper and
> lower limits to the temperature range
> in which delicate biochemical reactions
> can take place.

No chemical reactions are supposed to take place in space, you silly old pom.

> OF
> COURSE YOU
> CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!             
> So stop whinging like a pommie immigrant.
>
>
> ===================================================
>
> I just did. Photo-synthesis splits CO2,
> the carbon builds the plant cells
> and the oxygen is released to
> atmosphere. DNA replication is a delicate
> process, eggs that are cooked turn into
> a white jelly enclosing a yellow
> compacted powder and eggs that are frozen are pierced by ice crystals,
> after which the egg can never become a
> bird. 
>
> An egg is a single cell, Daisy, it
> divides inside the shell with each DNA
> duplication but it has to be
> incubated at just the right
> temperature.

Hey, dopey, I'm the one with the genetics degree, not you...

Cold wont harm them and there are very few photons in most of space. Do you know what you would see if you were stuck in between galaxies? BLACK ALL AROUND YOU.

>
> > Ockham’s Razor, Wilson. We KNOW there is life here
> > and we KNOW

Fuck Ockham and his useless fucking razor....

> > there is primitive life still here. That dinosaurs
> >
> had spines, rib cages, heads
> > and four limbs suggests a connection with
>
> > ourselves and fish that is far closer than any connection to spiders or
> crabs or
> > millipedes or trees or carrots which also have DNA and are
> hence food, and that suggests
> > evolution right here on Earth is probable
> to the point of certainty, whereas an extra-terrestrial origin
> > of life
> is improbable to the point of impossibility
> >  and definitely without
> necessity.

Who said it wasn't? Not I, for sure. Of course it evolved here...but it is very possible that it was occasionally hurried up a little by some alien stuff that just happened to drop in.

CAN YOU PROVE ME WRONG? no!

>Even the
> > religious only posit one form of extra-terrestrial
> life, Gawd itself. And if it
> > be found that life should
> > 
> exist on some other world, the process could as
> > easily have occurred in
>
> > parallel to our own and probably did rather than
> > having
> strands of DNA from Earth or anywhere else settling there.

YOU CANNOT PROVE that DNA does not exist in space. So stop ranting.

> Of course
> there is life throughout the whole universe. Maybe there are real people with
> wheels instead of legs and eyes in the backs of their heads....as well as a
> socket to connect directly to their computers.
>  
>
> Yeah, and maybe chocolate eggs come
> from Easter Bunnies, but probably
> you need an education in bio-chemical
> cookery instead of kookery.
>
> If New Zealanders are kiwis then
> Australians are kookaburras.
>
> Go place an egg on the roof of your VW
> camper van in sunlight, it’ll
> hatch into a chick faster, you fucking
> ignorant kook.

> --
> > This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

> > Lord Androcles, Zeroth mutation of Medway

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0715038c-478a-4fb9...@googlegroups.com...

=================================================

Not content with a cubic light hour of interplanetary space where

it takes 7 years for Cassini to reach Saturn and it is black all around

except for the sun (not seen at night), not even content with

interstellar

space’s 64 cubic light years where it takes 4 years for

light to reach

the

nearest star and there are millions of local

stars, the sun just a

point of light like all the rest, insane Daisy Wilson wants his strands

of DNA floating around

aimlessly in intergalactic space where the

nearest galaxy is 2 million

light years away in 8,000,000,000,000,000,000

cubic light years of

empty space, the means of travel to this distant place

being the instant Wilson Matter Transporter as any normal means of

transport would take longer than the 4 billion year age of the Earth at

100,000

miles per hour.

Daisy Wilson believes the impossible is probable,

but what

can one

expect from a chimpanzee?

 

 

>
> > Ockham’s Razor, Wilson. We KNOW there is life here
> > and we KNOW

Fuck Ockham and his useless fucking razor....

=====================================

Yes, Big Dog, you bark very nicely. Daisy is learning

to be an even bigger Big Pig Cunt than you are, you

are teaching him well. Now he rejects Ockham’s Razor.

 

 

 

 

> > there is primitive life still here. That dinosaurs
> >
> had spines, rib cages, heads
> > and four limbs suggests a connection with
>
> > ourselves and fish that is far closer than any connection to spiders or
> crabs or
> > millipedes or trees or carrots which also have DNA and are
> hence food, and that suggests
> > evolution right here on Earth is probable
> to the point of certainty, whereas an extra-terrestrial origin
> > of life
> is improbable to the point of impossibility
> >  and definitely without
> necessity.

Who said it wasn't? Not I, for sure. Of course it evolved here...but it is very possible that it was occasionally hurried up a little by some alien stuff that just happened to drop in.

CAN YOU PROVE ME WRONG? no!

===============================================

Why would anyone bother? Only a totally clueless cunt would

say “very possible” to the nucleus of an egg without the egg

floating around in intergalactic space without any means of

getting there. Stamp your feet and hold your breath all you want,

Daisy, you are a insane. You really should see a health care

professional before you harm yourself, you poor old chap.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 9, 8:14 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

> Then you approach evolution with as shallow an understanding as you approach
> physics. The evolution of life on earth is MANIFEST, and one must be willfully
> blind to not see it.
>
> Many religious fanatics are indeed willfully blind, here.

So, could Tom finally see the frustration of truly scholars of physics
trying to demystify the self-styled physicists? <shrug>

The first step is to show SR and GR have become a unified religion.
It does not stand on any mathematical consistencies, and no
experimentations actually have supported this religion. In the
religious circle among SR and GR, generations after generations of
self-styled physicists have defended their faith through bullshit,
lies, and falsifications, and the following thoroughly sum up the
religion of SR and GR: <shrug>

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** WORSHIP IS STUDY
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

<shrug>

[Pete Weber]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 02:53:29 -0700, Henry Wilson wrote:

[snip crap]

>
> YOU CANNOT PROVE that DNA does not exist in space. So stop ranting.

DNA is nothing you stoopid crank, DNA at best is only static information,

Info is non-existent without a processing unit, a computer

A cell able to reproduce and life is both DNA, a processing unit and a big factory,
plus many many other things you know nothing about

[Pete Weber]

extreme crank Henry Wilson told:

> On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 09:12:58 UTC+11, Pete Weber wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:33:04 -0700, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > I must come to Tom's defence here. He appears to have a better
>>
>> > understanding of evolution than of relativity.
>>
>> > There is no question that all life on Earth evolved from primitive
>>
>> > molecules
>>
>>
>>
>> You confuse me here, what is a "primitive molecule" as different
>>
>> from what?
>
> Basically, a primitive one is an inorganic one or a simple one
containing carbon.
> Amino acids are quite primitive and form easily given the right
ingredients and conditions.

You mean complex, not primitive,

The water molecules you drink are not any primitive, quite the
contrary, nature does not care about your indifferent definitions

>> > that by chance combined in a way that allowed them to
>>
>> > reproduce and occasionally become more complex.
>>
>>
>>
>> A molecule cannot possibly reproduce, a cell can, a cell is a very
>>
>> complex entity, complex data and machinery
>
> Very simple molecules combine into something that CAN reproduce,
possibly with the aid of a catalyst.

Who told you that, your talk is brain dead religion here

You strongly believe in a non-existent driving force that forces inert
matter to reproduce, _BOOONG_ !

>
>>
>> A lot of engineering stuff must function in a cell _before_ starting
>>
>> reproduce
>
> There were no 'cells' at this stage. Why dont you learn something about
genetics and biology instead of preaching religious bullshit. There are no
bleeding gods you dopey bastard.

It boils down to this, you are accusing others for your strong believes,
in invisible mechanisms and driving forces, that contradicts all known
physics

Mister Tom seems to know as much evolution as you know relativity, where
you are certified and also have a diploma, this is okay

>
>> > The fact that it WAS and
>>
>> > still IS chemically POSSIBLE is the only requirement for this process
to
>>
>> > occur. If something CAN happen, it usually WILL. Still, I wouldn't
rule
>>
>> > out the possibility that stray lengths of DNA from distant planets are
>>
>> > floating around in space and occasionally find their way into our own
>>
>> > atmosphere undamaged, where they feed on and convert local molecules
>>
>> > into life.
>>
>>
>>
>> The DNA is only the _data_, that may be considered as static in a
>>
>> particular cell, the other mechanisms and functionality are far more
>>
>> complex, they mirror both the _data_ and the real stuff
>
> Why don't you learn something about the earliest life forms instead of
raving?

Why dont you better go away when you feel useless and insignificant

>
>
>>
>> >> These lifeless entities comes together in an absolute improbable
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> manner (p < 1E-100)in order to reproduce!!!
>>
>> >
>>
>> > ...and there are infinitely more than 1E100 states that provide
>>
>> > conditions for it to happen.
>>
>>
>>
>> The tale goes that there are only about max 1E-80 atoms in this universe
>
> Would that be accurate to 1%?
>
>> Probabilities less than 1E-24 are considered effectively zero, you
>>
>> are suppose to know that
>
>> >> Why on earth should matter reproduce??
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Why don't you study some basic genetics and learn a few facts instead
of
>>
>> > preaching dead religion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about, but please
>>
>> try again with something that makes sense.
>
> Religious fanatics don't belong in science groups. We have enough
trouble handling the indoctrinated Einstein worshippers.

Go away and talk relativity, something you strong at, the religion and
believes are all yours, stop blaming others for your mistakes

[Henry Wilson]

On Thursday, 11 October 2012 22:04:13 UTC+11, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:

>
> > that it could not,....but I also see no reason why strands of DNA
> should NOT
> > occasionally drop in from other more advanced worlds.
> Incidentally, a similar
> > idea has been put forward as a possible
> explanation for sudden viral epidemics
> > on Earth.
> >
> > Can
> you prove that every cubic Lightyear of space is
> > completely devoid of
> viruses?
> >
> >
> > ==============================

You cannot prove that there is NO DNA in space.

I win again!!!!!!

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e3cc3476-4443-46cc...@googlegroups.com...

=============================================

“Snippers are losers” – Daisy Wilson the loser, Oct 2012.

 

You cannot prove that no chocolate eggs are laid by the Easter Bunny.

I win (without snipping).

You cannot prove Santa has no soot on his red suit from descending chimneys.

I win twice.

You cannot prove you are sane, but you succeeded in proving you are insane.

I let you win that one, but it’s really a draw.

You cannot prove bicycles have three wheels.

I win 4:1.

Game over.

 

“Advanced worlds” – Bwahahahahahahahaha! If worlds were advanced they’d

contain their virii as we try to.

“In accordance with the recently passed Extra-Terrestrial Exposure Law, the astronauts were placed in quarantine for fear that the Moon might contain undiscovered pathogens and that the astronauts might have been exposed to them during their Moon walks. However, after almost three weeks in confinement (first in their trailer and later in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory at the Manned Spacecraft Center), the astronauts were given a clean bill of health”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

 

I try to contain the pathogen “Daisy Wilson” before it spreads all over Usenet.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

[Henry Wilson]

It is a natural reaction of the ordinary masses to ridicule and reject anything novel, no matter how far reaching and brilliant it might be.
These contemptible individuals are invariably too stubborn to admit their mistakes and usually carry their ignorance to their deathbed.

_____________Confuscius..-126

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d3a47ac2-5a5f-4874...@googlegroups.com...

______________________________________

Gawd, you are so ignorant you even latinized Kung Fu’s name, Daisius Wilsonius.

-- Androclesius

[G=EMC^2]

SR + GR never proven wrong Only low wit wonders that are complete
idiots think otherwise. We know who they are,and why they post the
same crap over and over. TreBert

[Henry Wilson]

...That's really impressive coming from the group's most infamous low wit wonder....

....sorry, second most.....

[kenseto]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 11:31:29 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/5/12 10/5/12 - 2:53 PM, Steve Watson wrote:
>
> > interesting to realize that the darwinist theory of
>
> > relativity is circular like the evolution is, but this
>
> > is another story
>
>
>
> Hmmm. Relativity is not "Darwinist" in any sensible way.
>
>
>
> While neither theory is "circular", it is true that evolution is essentially a
>
> self-fulfilling prophecy: Given approximately self-reproducing objects and
>
> finite resources, evolution is inevitable -- over time (generations), those
>
> objects that leave more descendants will come to dominate the system.
>
>
>
> Remember that here on earth, popular misunderstandings
>
> notwithstanding, evolution is fundamentally a statement
>
> about the frequencies of genes in the genome. The most
>
> wonderful thing is that those successful genes have
>
> diversified and radiated so widely throughout life on
>
> earth. We see this, of course, as millions of species.
>
>
>
> Relativity is not at all a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
>
>
> Popular misunderstandings notwithstanding, SR is
>
> fundamentally a statement about the symmetry group
>
> of physical phenomena.
>
>
>
>
>
> > for an observer in motion toward a source an
>
> > emitted 0.1 s light pulse would appear blue shifted,
>
> > thus more crests detected and traveling at c same
>
> > speed, however kind of inconsistency
>
> > the original emitted 0.1 s light pulse also will
>
> > shrink in duration for the moving observer, say 0.05 s
>
> > instead of 0.1
>
> > because if it not, then more crests of light has to
>
> > be created out of the blue!!!
>
>
>
> Your language is self-inconsistent; there are no "more crests"; there can be no "more".

Right there is no more waves....the observer encounters more
waves because he is moving toward the wave source. But the wavelength
is not changed and thus the speed of waves arrving at the observer is
increased to account for the increased waves (blue shift) arrving
at the observer


>It's just that in addition to the frequency being increased (blue
>
> shifted), the wavelength is decreased (blue shifted).

No the wavelength is unchanged....the speed of waves arriving at the
observer is increased.

>This is related to what
>
> you said, and the pulse is necessarily observed to be shorter (in both length
>
> and duration) by the moving (approaching) observer. This is also, of course,
>
> consistent with the speed of the light wave relative to the observer being
>
> unchanged (remaining c).

No wrong interpretation....wavelength is unchanged....speed of waves
arrving is increased. In other words the speed of incoming light
is greater than c.

[kenseto]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 3:53:50 PM UTC-4, Steve Watson wrote:
> interesting to realize that the darwinist theory of
>
> relativity is circular like the evolution is, but this
>
> is another story
>
>
>

> for an observer in motion toward a source an
>
> emitted 0.1 s light pulse would appear blue shifted,
>
>
>
> thus more crests detected and traveling at c same
>
> speed, however kind of inconsistency

No the wavelength is unchanged....the speed of arrival of wavecrests
is increased due to the observer moving toward the source. That
means that the speed of incoming light is greater than c.
A new theory of relativity called IRT has been invented to
incorporate the above concept. IRT includes SRT as a subset.
However, the equations of IRT are valid in all environments,
including gravity. A paper on IRT is available in the following
link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

Ken Seto

>
>
>
> the original emitted 0.1 s light pulse also will
>
> shrink in duration for the moving observer, say 0.05 s
>
> instead of 0.1
>
>
>
> because if it not, then more crests of light has to
>
> be created out of the blue!!!
>
>
>

> have a nice weekend

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/14/12 10/14/12 - 10:00 AM, kenseto wrote:
> [about an observer moving toward a light source]
> the wavelength is not changed [...]
> No the wavelength is unchanged....
> wavelength is unchanged....

You are just plain wrong. Actual experiments show that for an observer moving
toward a light source, the measured wavelength of the light decreases. For
instance, look up "annual Doppler effect" (which is the annual variation in the
wavelength of light from distant astronomical objects due to the earth's orbital
velocity).


Tom Roberts

[kenseto]

On Sunday, October 14, 2012 1:35:43 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/14/12 10/14/12 - 10:00 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > [about an observer moving toward a light source]
>
> > the wavelength is not changed [...]
>
> > No the wavelength is unchanged....
>
> > wavelength is unchanged....
>
>
>
> You are just plain wrong.

No it is the current interpretation that's wrong.

>Actual experiments show that for an observer moving
>
> toward a light source, the measured wavelength of the light decreases. For
>
> instance, look up "annual Doppler effect" (which is the annual variation in >the wavelength of light from distant astronomical objects due to the earth's >orbital velocity).

No the incoming light becomes a new light source in the
observer's frame and the grating defines a new wavelength
for this new light source. The source wavelength is unchanged
and that means that frequency change is due to increase
increase in incoming speed of light.