> On 10/7/2012 10:40 AM, bjac...@teranews.com wrote:
>>> Gentlemen, gentlemen...Please keep this discourse civil.
>> Well... USENET-civil! Didn't you read Wormleys popular article on how
>> everyone is now nasty on the INTERNET and why? (Article didn't point out
>> that it was the warmers like Wormley how started it!) The guilty always
>> accuse their critics of what they themselves have done.
> By 'warmers' do you mean the 99% of all scientists that acknowledge the
> fact that globally, temperatures are going in an upward direction?
Obviously you've used your God-like powers again to take a poll of "all scientists". Personally I've never heard of any such poll. And NO, I'm NOT referring to those who acknowledge the fraction of a degree that temperatures have risen lately. I'm speaking of those pushing the civilization-busting "carbon" tax based upon an imagined link between CO2 and climate. Perhaps YOU can use your God-like powers to explain how CO2 can produce increasing energy into the Earth through the "Greenhouse" effect, while land surface temperatures (as measured by Warmists) went DOWN for 30 years (1940-1970). Wormley doesn't seem willing to explain these data.
>>>> What's really astonishing is that there are human beings who want
>>>> things to stay the same, in the face of a dynamic planet where
>>>> change is the only constant.
>>> There is a name for people like that.
>>> conservative
>> Sure, that's the ticket, it's the conservatives who don't want to try
>> school vouchers or put Social Security and Medicare on a sustainable
>> path.
> Republicans consistently oppose change.
> They opposed the creation of social security,
> medicare, civil rights, voting rights, women's
> rights, florodation, food safety laws, workplace
> safety laws, banning segregation in the military,
> letting gays serve in the military - just about
> every social or political inovation in the last
> 100 years was opposed by conservatives. That is
> what conservatives do - CONSERVE the status quo.
Democrats, the party of slavery, the KLAN, of communism, of atheism, of eliminating the military, of open borders to anyone who wants to walk in, where they are then allowed to vote and suck up any money intended for our own poor, of celebration of running the streets like dogs in heat, of legalizing drugs, and of course, taking from those who work and giving to those who won't. Personally, I'm voting for Obama because he gave me a free phone! Yes, I AM part of that 47%!
>>>> What's really astonishing is that there are human beings who want
>>>> things to stay the same, in the face of a dynamic planet where
>>>> change is the only constant.
>>> There is a name for people like that.
>>> conservative
>> Sure, that's the ticket, it's the conservatives who don't want to try
>> school vouchers or put Social Security and Medicare on a sustainable
>> path.
> Republicans consistently oppose change.
> They opposed the creation of social security,
> medicare, civil rights, voting rights, women's
> rights, florodation, food safety laws, workplace
> safety laws, banning segregation in the military,
> letting gays serve in the military - just about
> every social or political inovation in the last
> 100 years was opposed by conservatives. That is
> what conservatives do - CONSERVE the status quo.
Democrats, the party of slavery, the KLAN, of communism, of atheism, of eliminating the military, of open borders to anyone who wants to walk in, where they are then allowed to vote and suck up any money intended for our own poor, of celebration of running the streets like dogs in heat, of legalizing drugs, and of course, taking from those who work and giving to those who won't. Personally, I'm voting for Obama because he gave me a free phone! Yes, I AM part of that 47%!
>>>> What's really astonishing is that there are human beings who want
>>>> things to stay the same, in the face of a dynamic planet where
>>>> change is the only constant.
>>> There is a name for people like that.
>>> conservative
>> Sure, that's the ticket, it's the conservatives who don't want to try
>> school vouchers or put Social Security and Medicare on a sustainable
>> path.
> Republicans consistently oppose change.
> They opposed the creation of social security,
> medicare, civil rights, voting rights, women's
> rights, florodation, food safety laws, workplace
> safety laws, banning segregation in the military,
> letting gays serve in the military - just about
> every social or political inovation in the last
> 100 years was opposed by conservatives. That is
> what conservatives do - CONSERVE the status quo.
Democrats, the party of slavery, the KLAN, of communism, of atheism, of eliminating the military, of open borders to anyone who wants to walk in, where they are then allowed to vote and suck up any money intended for our own poor, of celebration of running the streets like dogs in heat, of legalizing drugs, and of course, taking from those who work and giving to those who won't. Personally, I'm voting for Obama because he gave me a free phone! Yes, I AM part of that 47%!
> On 10/7/2012 11:53 AM, linuxgal wrote:
> Yet still the signal to turn on or off would travel at a subluminal
> speed so the speed that is perceived is only perception... Not actual
> speed. It wold be similar to sweeping your head from side to side while
> looking at a nighttime starscape and covering thousands if not millions
> of light years within a second.
Linuxgal, don't bother trying to "educate" Harlow about Science. He's really an English major who works as a "strategic writer" who pretends to understand science. His true purpose here (as pointing out by many others) is simply to disrupt any and all "real" discussions of science.
Discussion subject changed to "Let's settle this "motion of light" thing (was - NASA working on faster-than-light space travel, says warp drives are ‘plausible’!)" by Brad Guth
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 13:57:43 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 7, 1:18 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:43:49 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 6, 7:30 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 10/6/12 12:26 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> >> >> > As far as I can tell and you can't prove otherwise, photons do not
> >> >> > actually have to move.
> >> >> Got evidence, Guth?
> >> >ditto, as in right back at you.
> >> >Why do individual photons have to move?
> >> >That's like saying dark/clear matter or aether has to move in order
> >> >for your cosmology to function.
> >> Okay Brad, let's see. First thing to do is to recognize that a photon
> >> is a tiny energy packet called a "quantum". It is not a particle of
> >> matter.
> >> Next, these quanta that we call "photons" sometimes behave like
> >> particles and sometimes like waves, but never both at the same time,
> >> as shown by experiments. Particles "move" and waves "propagate".
> >> Now, let's set up a "transmitter" and a "receiver" for light. Picture
> >> yourself in the center of a room. The only light source is a lamp in
> >> one of the corners of the room. You have the lamp switch in your
> >> hand, and the lamp is turned off. The lamp is the "transmitter" of
> >> light, and your eye(s) is the "receiver".
> >> In order to determine if the light can travel, that is, if the light
> >> either "moves" or "propagates", there must be a "distance" to
> >> consider. In this mind experiment, the distance is the area of space
> >> in the room that is between the lamp and your eyes. Even though, when
> >> you turn on the lamp, it seems that the light reaches your eyes in an
> >> instant, you are aware that light will not go from the lamp to your
> >> eyes instantaneously. It takes "time", a very small amount of time,
> >> for your eyes to sense the light.
> >> If your premise is correct, if light does not move, then how exactly
> >> is the light from the lamp sensed by your eyes very soon after you
> >> switch the lamp on?
> >> I submit that whether it "moved" or it "propagated", both of which
> >> terms denote a "motion", the light had to travel the distance from the
> >> lamp to your eyes when you turned the lamp switch "on". How else
> >> could your eyes have sensed the lamp's light?
> >You can't seem to properly interpret what I'm proposing, as not that
> >of any flow or stream of photon waves, but that of each individual and
> >thus singular photon wave, whereas at least thus far such a quantum
> >item hasn't been objectively proven to move outside of its wavelength.
> >Just because my eye and its feeble brain detects any given stream or
> >flow of photons is also not an objective proof-positive of individual
> >photon movement. The recent testing of quantum entanglement photons
> >seems to demonstrate that the individual quantum entangled photon need
> >not have to move, but instead merely quantum teleports as to
> >materialize itself on demand, and seemingly without delay regardless
> >of the distance.
> >Any number of duplications on behalf of the initial photon wave is
> >also not an objective indication of individual photon movement.
> >Perhaps aether is acting as a FIFO medium or tunneling conduit for
> >accommodating the wave propagation process.
> So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that, while *something*
> must be moving in order to effect the transfer of photons, it may not
> be the actual photons themselves that are moving?
Perhaps that's as good of an analogy that I can go along with. Just
like the binary bits of 0s and 1s that enter the fiber optic cable,
are never the same 0s and 1s that exit.
> Would this be something like a person riding in a car, where, while
> the car is moving, and the person can be said to be moving along with
> the car, it is also true that the person is not actually moving at all
> within the car?
I believe those quantum entangled photons that objectively react
instantly over any given distance, had been included within an
established line or conduit/waveguide of other photons. Obviously
each photon wave is a moving 2D item or at least modulated quanta.
Possibly a photon is simply an amplitude and frequency modulated
quanta of aether, that can merely exist for one wavelength at a time,
although FIFO passed along by other aether quanta.
> You know by now that Harlow never explains anything. He *sez* it is
> beneath him to explain things to a bunch of "ko0ks".
Not at all. I have explained many thing to you, many times.
It just doesn't sink in...It's like talking to a child who claps his hands over his ears and refuses to listen. Gravity, god, the big bang,
the expansion of the universe...All of these and more I have explained
to you ad nauseum. It doesn't help. You still believe in foolish ideas
such as god and spectral ether.
> Harlow is just a trollerbot waiting for lubricant. Will he wind up
> like the Tin Man of Oz? unable to move because his oil's run out?
Yes. My very first words on usenet were, "Oil can".
On 10/8/2012 12:05 AM, bjac...@teranews.com wrote:
> Obviously you've used your God-like powers again to take a poll of "all
> scientists". Personally I've never heard of any such poll. And NO, I'm
> NOT referring to those who acknowledge the fraction of a degree that
> temperatures have risen lately. I'm speaking of those pushing the
> civilization-busting "carbon" tax based upon an imagined link between
> CO2 and climate. Perhaps YOU can use your God-like powers to explain how
> CO2 can produce increasing energy into the Earth through the
> "Greenhouse" effect, while land surface temperatures (as measured by
> Warmists) went DOWN for 30 years (1940-1970). Wormley doesn't seem
> willing to explain these data.
Why is it that those who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the fact that global temps are on the rise are invariably god believers like you?
>>> Yet still the signal to turn on or off would travel at a subluminal
>>> speed so the speed that is perceived is only perception... Not actual
>>> speed. It wold be similar to sweeping your head from side to side while
>>> looking at a nighttime starscape and covering thousands if not millions
>>> of light years within a second.
>> Bad example, isn't it? Your eyes are receivers, not transmitters
>> (except to the occipital lobe, and that speed is about 300 m/s, IIRC).
> You can have to observers, one in Cresent City, one in Astoria, and they
> record the time the waves break, and after the fact you could ascertain
> the line moved faster than light.
> That's a given. It's one of those "axioms", an "a priori assumption".
> Harlow likes us all so much, he is willing to be the fall guy, while
> he continues to try to remake us in his own godly image.
True. I am the 'Christ' of usenet. My self deprecating style oftentimes does make me the sacrificial lamb. I am OK with that.
But I would like to get back to your use of the term, 'non material' object. Could you please explain to me what a 'non-material' object is?
PS- I already know that you can't, but what you will spew forth is
comedy gold for me. Perhaps you will claim that I cannot prove that
a 'non-material' object DOESN'T exist... LOL! You god believers crack me up!
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 07:54:33 -0400, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/7/2012 4:43 PM, Painius wrote:
>> You know by now that Harlow never explains anything. He *sez* it is
>> beneath him to explain things to a bunch of "ko0ks".
>Not at all. I have explained many thing to you, many times.
>It just doesn't sink in...It's like talking to a child who claps his >hands over his ears and refuses to listen. Gravity, god, the big bang,
>the expansion of the universe...All of these and more I have explained
>to you ad nauseum. It doesn't help. You still believe in foolish ideas
>such as god and spectral ether.
You've never, *never* been willing to explain anything, Harlow. And
now you lie and say, "Oh, Yes, I've explained many things . . ."
Bullshit.
Gravity - the curving of space - I ask you, "What specifically is it
about space that curves?" You give no explanation. All you say is,
"Space - SPACE - it is SPACE that curves."
<sarcasm> How erudite. </sarcasm>
And the rest you mention come from the lips of a layman who wants us
to believe that he's a "theoretical astrophysicist". Every once in
awhile you seem to forget, and you PROVE beyond any shadow of doubt
that you couldn't *possibly* be a scientist, but only just one more
Ko0kstone Kopp - in short, a coffeeboy.
You're an Art Deco wannabee, Harlow, and that's all you are.
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 08:24:05 -0400, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/7/2012 5:57 PM, Painius wrote:
>> That's a given. It's one of those "axioms", an "a priori assumption".
>> Harlow likes us all so much, he is willing to be the fall guy, while
>> he continues to try to remake us in his own godly image.
>True. I am the 'Christ' of usenet. My self deprecating style oftentimes >does make me the sacrificial lamb. I am OK with that.
>But I would like to get back to your use of the term, 'non material' >object. Could you please explain to me what a 'non-material' object is?
My use? A scientist would have "used" the term "usage", i.e., "But I
would like to get back to your 'usage' of the term, . . ." Just one
more notch on my pistol. <blow smoke from barrel>
I don't recall using that term, Harlow, however if I were to take a
more lenient stance than you like to do (you often play "dumb" when
you could easily understand a term within its context), I would
compare the complements...
A "non-material" *object*: While this does sound a little shaky and
feeble, if compared with "material" object it becomes crystal clear. A
non-material object would be perhaps something like "information", or
perhaps some kind of "quantum" (bundle of energy).
It may also refer to an "antimaterial" object. If you would take the
time (but you probably won't) to go back to the post where
"non-material object" was used and check the context (the words
surrounding its usage), and bring all that back here, then I might be
able to help you to better understand the user's meaning.
>PS- I already know that you can't, but what you will spew forth is
>comedy gold for me. Perhaps you will claim that I cannot prove that
>a 'non-material' object DOESN'T exist... LOL! You god believers crack >me up!
You know, it occurs to me that, at least where your posts are
concerned, I'm turning into a veritable Saul Levy! What with my
responses being so critical of you, yes, I'm beginning to sound like a
crotchedy, old girlyboi, just like sweet, no-balls Saul.
Unlike that CAPSTUCK ko0k, Saul, I shall endeavor to do better. Yes,
I shall in the future do my best to give you the benefit of the
astronomically huge doubt.
>> It just doesn't sink in...It's like talking to a child who claps his
>> hands over his ears and refuses to listen. Gravity, god, the big bang,
>> the expansion of the universe...All of these and more I have explained
>> to you ad nauseum. It doesn't help. You still believe in foolish ideas
>> such as god and spectral ether.
> You've never, *never* been willing to explain anything, Harlow. And
> now you lie and say, "Oh, Yes, I've explained many things . . ."
> Bullshit.
> Gravity - the curving of space - I ask you, "What specifically is it
> about space that curves?" You give no explanation. All you say is,
> "Space - SPACE - it is SPACE that curves."
Because that is the correct answer. No matter what YOU 'believe', my answer to your question is correct. Mass distorts space.
> And the rest you mention come from the lips of a layman who wants us
> to believe that he's a "theoretical astrophysicist". Every once in
> awhile you seem to forget, and you PROVE beyond any shadow of doubt
> that you couldn't *possibly* be a scientist, but only just one more
> Ko0kstone Kopp - in short, a coffeeboy.
The fact that you are a believer in god, spectral ether, and 'non material' objects has clouded your mind with fairy tales and misconceptions. Your opinion of me is therefore understandable.
I am almost universally reviled by religious freaks like you.
>> But I would like to get back to your use of the term, 'non material'
>> object. Could you please explain to me what a 'non-material' object is?
> My use? A scientist would have "used" the term "usage", i.e.,
Why?
> I don't recall using that term, Harlow
Of course you don't.
> A "non-material" *object*: While this does sound a little shaky and
> feeble
Your term...Not mine. Sort of like your non-trivial' deity.
> if compared with "material" object it becomes crystal clear. A
> non-material object would be perhaps something like "information"
Information is not an object.
> perhaps some kind of "quantum" (bundle of energy).
A bundle of energy cannot travel faster than light in our universe which is how we got onto this subject from which you have strayed.
> It may also refer to an "antimaterial" object.
LOL
> If you would take the
> time (but you probably won't) to go back to the post where
> "non-material object" was used and check the context (the words
> surrounding its usage), and bring all that back here, then I might be
> able to help you to better understand the user's meaning.
Discussion subject changed to "Let's settle this "motion of light" thing (was - NASA working on faster-than-light space travel, says warp drives are ‘plausible’!)" by Sam Wormley
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 10:45:51 -0400, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/8/2012 9:21 AM, Painius wrote:
>>> It just doesn't sink in...It's like talking to a child who claps his
>>> hands over his ears and refuses to listen. Gravity, god, the big bang,
>>> the expansion of the universe...All of these and more I have explained
>>> to you ad nauseum. It doesn't help. You still believe in foolish ideas
>>> such as god and spectral ether.
>> You've never, *never* been willing to explain anything, Harlow. And
>> now you lie and say, "Oh, Yes, I've explained many things . . ."
>> Bullshit.
>> Gravity - the curving of space - I ask you, "What specifically is it
>> about space that curves?" You give no explanation. All you say is,
>> "Space - SPACE - it is SPACE that curves."
>Because that is the correct answer. No matter what YOU 'believe', my >answer to your question is correct. Mass distorts space.
Yes, that's the correct answer I would expect from a layman who knows
very little about space and gravity.
>> And the rest you mention come from the lips of a layman who wants us
>> to believe that he's a "theoretical astrophysicist". Every once in
>> awhile you seem to forget, and you PROVE beyond any shadow of doubt
>> that you couldn't *possibly* be a scientist, but only just one more
>> Ko0kstone Kopp - in short, a coffeeboy.
>The fact that you are a believer in god, spectral ether, and 'non >material' objects has clouded your mind with fairy tales and >misconceptions. Your opinion of me is therefore understandable.
>I am almost universally reviled by religious freaks like you.
>Good.
It appears that it is YOU who believes in an ether, Harlow. If space
can distort, curve and expand, then there must be some kind of
material substance to space. If there weren't, then there would be
"NOTHING" to distort, curve and expand, isn't that so?
So is space made of nothing? or is there an ether that mass is able to
curve out of shape? or is there an ether that is expanding outward,
faster and faster? Which is it?
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 10:56:14 -0400, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/8/2012 10:16 AM, Painius wrote:
>>> But I would like to get back to your use of the term, 'non material'
>>> object. Could you please explain to me what a 'non-material' object is?
>> My use? A scientist would have "used" the term "usage", i.e.,
>Why?
>> I don't recall using that term, Harlow
>Of course you don't.
>> A "non-material" *object*: While this does sound a little shaky and
>> feeble
>Your term...Not mine. Sort of like your non-trivial' deity.
>> if compared with "material" object it becomes crystal clear. A
>> non-material object would be perhaps something like "information"
>Information is not an object.
>> perhaps some kind of "quantum" (bundle of energy).
>A bundle of energy cannot travel faster than light in our universe which >is how we got onto this subject from which you have strayed.
>> It may also refer to an "antimaterial" object.
>LOL
>> If you would take the
>> time (but you probably won't) to go back to the post where
>> "non-material object" was used and check the context (the words
>> surrounding its usage), and bring all that back here, then I might be
>> able to help you to better understand the user's meaning.
>Pass.
Big surprise!
Since you cannot seem to prove that I used that term, then you are
once again set upon to prove that you're truly a trained scientist.
