How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
sdr
In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive
By KENNETH CHANG
Published in New York Times April 12, 2007
An experiment some hoped would reveal a new class of
subatomic particles, and perhaps even point to clues
about why the universe exists at all, has instead
produced a first round of results that are
mysteriously inconclusive. "What we got was
intellectually interesting," said Janet M. Conrad,
professor of physics at Columbia University and a
spokeswoman for a collaboration that involves 77
scientists at 17 institutions. "We have to figure out
what it is."
Dr. Conrad and William C. Louis, a physicist at Los
Alamos National Laboratory, presented their initial
findings in a talk yesterday at the Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, outside Chicago, where the
experiment is being performed. The goal was to confirm
or refute observations made in the 90s in a Los Alamos
experiment that observed transformations in the
evanescent but bountiful particles known as neutrinos.
Neutrinos have no electrical charge and almost no
mass, but there are so many of them that they could
collectively outweigh all the stars in the universe.
Many physicists remain skeptical about the Los Alamos
findings, but the new experiment has attracted wide
interest. The Fermilab auditorium was filled with some
800 people, and talks were given at the 16 additional
institutions by other collaborating scientists. That
reflected in part the hope of finding cracks in the
Standard Model, which encapsulates physicists' current
knowledge about fundamental particles and forces. The
Standard Model has proved remarkably effective and
accurate, but it cannot answer some fundamental
questions, like why the universe did not completely
annihilate itself an instant after the Big Bang.
[The answer is quite simple/elegant: There
never was a "Big Bang." The universe is the
result of an evolution--and as with any
evolution, there is always enough time
allowed for all the factors involved to bring
about the overall harmony and consistency
which eventually gives the impression to
those who believe (like those who believe
that the universe erupted magically from the
Big Bang Bean), those who believe that all
the problems HAD to have been solved from the
start... and that therefore the only possible
answer is An Infinitely Informed Creator (in
other words, one cannot argue a Big Bang
without it arguing a God).]
'The solution has been available for everyone
to read it since the last century now on the
internet. You can find it at:
What the "neutrino results" described below
are actually hinting at is the fact that the
universe is a LOT older and considerably more
extensive than heretofore "conventionally"
suspected. SDR]
The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since
matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they
come in contact, that would have left nothing to
coalesce into stars and galaxies. There must be some
imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight
preponderance of matter over antimatter, and that
extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible
universe.
The imbalance, some physicists believe, may be hiding
in the dynamics of neutrinos: Neutrinos come in three
known types, or flavors. And they can change flavor as
they travel, a process that can occur only because of
the smidgen of mass they carry. But the neutrino
transformations reported in the Los Alamos data do not
fit the three-flavor model, suggesting four flavors of
neutrinos, if not more. Other data, from experiments
elsewhere, have said the additional neutrinos would
have to be "sterile" - completely oblivious to the
rest of the universe except for gravity.
The new experiment is called MiniBooNE. (BooNE,
pronounced boon, is a contraction of Booster Neutrino
Experiment. "Booster" refers to a Fermilab booster
ring that accelerates protons, and "mini" was added
because of plans for a second, larger stage to the
research.) MiniBooNE sought to count the number of
times one flavor of neutrino, called a muon, turned
into another flavor, an electron neutrino. The
experiment slams a beam of protons into a piece of
beryllium, and the cascade of particles from the
subatomic wreckage includes muon neutrinos that fly
about 1,650 feet to a detection chamber, a tank 40
feet in diameter that contains 250,000 gallons of
mineral oil. Most of the neutrinos fly through
unscathed, but occasionally a neutrino crashes into a
carbon atom in the mineral oil. That sets off another
cascade of particles, which is detected by 1,280 light
detectors mounted on the inside of the tank. From the
pattern of the cascades, the physicists distinguish
whether the incoming neutrino was of muon flavor or
electron. To minimize the chances of fooling
themselves, they deliberately did not look at any of
the electron neutrino events until they felt they had
adequately understood the much more common muon
neutrino events. They finally "opened the box" on
their electron neutrino data on March 26 and began the
analysis leading to their announcement yesterday.
For most of the neutrino energy range they looked at,
they did not see any more electron neutrinos than
would be predicted by the Standard Model. That ruled
out the simplest ways of interpreting the Los Alamos
neutrino data, Dr. Conrad and Dr. Louis said. But at
the lower energies, the scientists did see more
electron neutrinos than predicted: 369, rather than
the predicted 273. That may simply mean that some
calculations are off. Or it could point to a subtler
interplay of particles, known and unknown.
"It's tantalizing," said Boris Kayser, a Fermilab
physicist not on the MiniBooNE project. "It could be
real. But this remains to be established." Dr. Louis
said he was surprised by the results. "I was sort of
expecting a clear excess or no excess," he said. "In a
sense, we got both."
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local. Only science is universal.
B-Hate-Me
"sdr" <sdro...@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:1176600807....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> [The answer is quite simple/elegant: There
> never was a "Big Bang." The universe is the
> result of an evolution--and as with any
> evolution, there is always enough time
> allowed for all the factors involved to bring
> about the overall harmony and consistency
> which eventually gives the impression to
> those who believe (like those who believe
> that the universe erupted magically from the
> Big Bang Bean),
Not according to "M" theory, which is pretty much
accepted as the standard model.
> those who believe that all
> the problems HAD to have been solved from the
> start... and that therefore the only possible
> answer is An Infinitely Informed Creator (in
> other words, one cannot argue a Big Bang
> without it arguing a God).
*I* can
> The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
> created equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
That's just not true. It was a minimum of 300 parts
matter to 1 part anti-matter.
> Since matter and antimatter annihilate each other when
> they come in contact, that would have left nothing to
> coalesce into stars and galaxies.
Your "theory" leaves a lot to be desired.
For one, it fails to account for the thermobaric properties
of the early universe.
The early universe was basically plasma made up of
elementary particles....Quarks, etc.
This was less that a billionth of a second after "go".
Bill Habr
One of the actors who played a Munchkin in The Wizard of Oz went to college and studied
physics. He came up with a new theory on the beginning of the universe called the "Little
Bang Theory".
;^)
greysky
> In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive
> By KENNETH CHANG
> Published in New York Times April 12, 2007
>
> The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
> created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since
> matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they
> come in contact, that would have left nothing to
> coalesce into stars and galaxies.
Physicists today are running experiments whose outcomes I predictd 25 years
ago... Yawn.
> There must be some
> imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight
> preponderance of matter over antimatter, and that
> extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible
> universe.
>
> The imbalance, some physicists believe, may be hiding
> in the dynamics of neutrinos: Neutrinos come in three
> known types, or flavors.
The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything to do
with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason any
matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and antimatter
were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the universe
would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that would
escape, and it is this which we are living in today.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
Art Deco
>"sdr" <sdro...@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
>news:1176600807....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
>> In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive
>> By KENNETH CHANG
>> Published in New York Times April 12, 2007
>>
>>SNIP>
>
>> The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
>> created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since
>> matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they
>> come in contact, that would have left nothing to
>> coalesce into stars and galaxies.
>
>Physicists today are running experiments whose outcomes I predictd 25 years
>ago... Yawn.
Evidence? Citation?
>
>> There must be some
>> imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight
>> preponderance of matter over antimatter, and that
>> extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible
>> universe.
>>
>> The imbalance, some physicists believe, may be hiding
>> in the dynamics of neutrinos: Neutrinos come in three
>> known types, or flavors.
>
>The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything to do
>with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason any
>matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and antimatter
>were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the universe
>would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that would
>escape, and it is this which we are living in today.
And you know this how?
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
sdr
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 9:31 pm, "sdr"> That's like saying how did the water get wet.
The statement above (as it applies to the title of
this thread) assumes almost EVERYTHING. Therefore
is really says NOTHING.
******************************************
On Apr 15, 6:41 pm, "B-Hate-Me"
<B-Hate-Me@home> wrote:
> "sdr" <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:1176600807....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > [The answer is quite simple/elegant: There
> > never was a "Big Bang." The universe is the
> > result of an evolution--and as with any
> > evolution, there is always enough time
> > allowed for all the factors involved to bring
> > about the overall harmony and consistency
> > which eventually gives the impression to
> > those who believe (like those who believe
> > that the universe erupted magically from the
> > Big Bang Bean),
>
> Not according to "M" theory, which is pretty much
> accepted as the standard model.
'Nuf said...
There are many theories in this human condition
or ours (such as the universe-orbits-the-earth, or
the-earth-is-flat one, et al) which in their time
were thoroughly believed by the most prominent
and respected scientists/philosophers, and were
held to be the absolute God's Truth by the greatest
majority of living persons: That never meant for an
instant that they were true; and no matter the amount
of validation given them by the vast numbers of the
wise (sin hammers) that hammered away with them.
(Astronomers/mathematicians never missed a beat
describing/predicting with phenomenal accuracy the
"heavenly movements" of a universe that orbited our
little planet earth.)
> > those who believe that all
> > the problems HAD to have been solved from the
> > start... and that therefore the only possible
> > answer is An Infinitely Informed Creator (in
> > other words, one cannot argue a Big Bang
> > without it arguing a God).
>
> *I* can
I tend to believe that you indeed can. (I have no
doubt that if you set your brain to it you can also
prove that a mouse created the world.) Unfortunately
that is the nature of the brain. [Nothing personal.]
The fact underlying my statement above is basic
and incontrovertible: No matter what you may think
or wish, once you argue that "something came from
nothing" you are arguing GOD. In other words...
"magic." [That is why the Pope who believes that
"evolution is unproven" also loves Big Bang Theory.]
You cannot propose conditions in a pre-Big Bang
existence to be identical to those post-Big Bang,
otherwise you must find an alternate definition for
THE Big Bang itself ... than "THE Big Bang." And
therefore any attempt to rationalize the Big Bang
in terms of present-universe virtual particle theory
understanding is rather all "suspect" at best.
Get over it. Move on to another human epoch.
>From that of unfounded creative babbling (or,
assumptions often/always contradicted by facts,
many or few. ... to a human epoch of proposals
based on facts NOT contradicted by any other
facts, or only contradicted by obvious prejudices).
The FACTS which contradict Big Bang theory are
not only many but growing almost at every step
taken by researches/thinkers. While there is not
one single fact yet discovered/proposed which
contradicts that the universe is an evolutionary
process in many ways very little different from
that which produces a black hole (only more so).
Which proposal is probably best espoused at:
I have no illusions about the human species. When
I posted my proposal I fully expected a century or
more would have to pass before most people finally
got sick of mental delusions and other stand-ins
for creationism and finally began to explore the FACT
that the universe is an evolutionary process and not
some magical trick. Almost a decade has passed. Now
all I need do is wait another 90-some more years...
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
re:
> > The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
> > created equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
>
> That's just not true. It was a minimum of 300 parts
> matter to 1 part anti-matter.
Why 300 and not 482 parts?!? I wonder...
> > Since matter and antimatter annihilate each other when
> > they come in contact, that would have left nothing to
> > coalesce into stars and galaxies.
>
> Your "theory" leaves a lot to be desired.
Not "mine." Sorry. That's the conventional theory.
For my "theory" (or "conjecture," or "philosophy,"
however you wish to characterize it) you must go to:
> For one, it fails to account for the thermobaric properties
> of the early universe.
>
> The early universe was basically plasma made up of
> elementary particles....Quarks, etc.
You will need to prove the "elementary" nature of
any "particle" you propose to be "elementary." [You
do this, and you have produced the particle that GOD
held in His hand when He created Existence! WOW.]
> This was less that a billionth of a second after "go".
You will need to produce the clock with which
you measured that span of "time." That clock HAD
to exist "outside" the universe, of course, otherwise
it will be impossible to imagine that it "ticked"
along unaffected by the "speed" at which the rest
of the universe was moving. In other words: How
on earth could you possibly prove that the billionth
of a second you're talking about above didn't take
billions/zillions of centuries to "take place?" We
need to examine THAT clock against our conventional
clocks to see if they agree, somehow. [Really crazy,
isn't it! Yes: That's how we can tell some "theories"
don't really hold water, ole boy.] SDR
*********************************************
On Apr 15, 9:46 pm, mikegor...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> On Apr 15, 6:05 pm,
> "sdr" <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com> wrote:
>
> >How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
>
> Define universe as used in that question. MG
A unified verse, as opposed to a disparate verse:
A universe that is unified.
As opposed to one that's fried.
(Untied.)
.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> >with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason any
> >matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and antimatter
> >were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the universe
> >would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that would
> >escape, and it is this which we are living in today.
>
> And you know this how?
does this mean a beta decay sample gets heavier and heavier over time
meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
impeach the bastard - the airtight garage has you neo
Phineas T Puddleduck
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything to do
> with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason any
> matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and antimatter
> were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the universe
> would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that would
> escape, and it is this which we are living in today.
Nonsense. Antimatter does not produce negative gravity. It has positive
mass.
--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.
Art Deco
>In article <TDwUh.16929$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything to do
>> with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason any
>> matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and antimatter
>> were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the universe
>> would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that would
>> escape, and it is this which we are living in today.
>
>
>Nonsense. Antimatter does not produce negative gravity. It has positive
>mass.
Oh I missed that the first time through. That is some kooky science.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <TDwUh.16929$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> > "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything to
> >> do
> >> with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason any
> >> matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and antimatter
> >> were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the universe
> >> would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that would
> >> escape, and it is this which we are living in today.
> >
> >
> >Nonsense. Antimatter does not produce negative gravity. It has positive
> >mass.
>
> Oh I missed that the first time through. That is some kooky science.
I guess he heard it on the radio....
Art Deco
>In article <150420071742466446%er...@caballista.org>,
> Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
>
>> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <TDwUh.16929$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
>> > "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything to
>> >> do
>> >> with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason any
>> >> matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and
>> >> antimatter
>> >> were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the universe
>> >> would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that would
>> >> escape, and it is this which we are living in today.
>> >
>> >
>> >Nonsense. Antimatter does not produce negative gravity. It has positive
>> >mass.
>>
>> Oh I missed that the first time through. That is some kooky science.
>
>
>I guess he heard it on the radio....
How did he filter out all the static noise?
Phineas T Puddleduck
Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <150420071742466446%er...@caballista.org>,
> > Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <TDwUh.16929$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> >> > "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything
> >> >> to
> >> >> do
> >> >> with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason
> >> >> any
> >> >> matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and
> >> >> antimatter
> >> >> were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the
> >> >> universe
> >> >> would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that
> >> >> would
> >> >> escape, and it is this which we are living in today.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Nonsense. Antimatter does not produce negative gravity. It has positive
> >> >mass.
> >>
> >> Oh I missed that the first time through. That is some kooky science.
> >
> >
> >I guess he heard it on the radio....
>
> How did he filter out all the static noise?
Don't be silly - that's his favourite bit!
ah
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
>
It didn't.
John "C"
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-1...@news.octanews.com...
HJ
greysky
> In article <TDwUh.16929$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything to
>> do
>> with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason any
>> matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and
>> antimatter
>> were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the universe
>> would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that would
>> escape, and it is this which we are living in today.
>
>
> Nonsense. Antimatter does not produce negative gravity. It has positive
> mass.
Antimatter does indeed have a positive inertial mass. But it also has a
negative gravitational mass. When someone finally gets around to testing
this hypothesis, namely by 'dropping' some electrically neutral antimatter
in a gravity field, they will see that it will fall up.
Androcles
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:hpOUh.4417$H_5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:phineaspuddleduck-3...@news.octanews.com...
>> In article <TDwUh.16929$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
>> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything to
>>> do
>>> with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason any
>>> matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and
>>> antimatter
>>> were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the universe
>>> would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that would
>>> escape, and it is this which we are living in today.
>>
>>
>> Nonsense. Antimatter does not produce negative gravity. It has positive
>> mass.
>
> Antimatter does indeed have a positive inertial mass. But it also has a
> negative gravitational mass.
And you have a negative IQ.
Art Deco
And you know this how, exactly?
>
>Greysky
>
>www.allocations.cc
>Learn how to build a FTL radio.
Crackpotter could use some competition. For his theory that antimatter
produces "negative gravity", and that quantum entanglement can be used
for faster-than-light speed communications, I nominate greysky for the
Victor von Frankenstein Weird Science Award, April 2007.
Any seconds?
Kali
er...@caballista.org said:
:
: >"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >news:phineaspuddleduck-3...@news.octanews.com...
: >> In article <TDwUh.16929$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
: >> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
: >>
: >>> The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything to
: >>> do
: >>> with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason any
: >>> matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and
: >>> antimatter
: >>> were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the universe
: >>> would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that would
: >>> escape, and it is this which we are living in today.
: >>
: >>
: >> Nonsense. Antimatter does not produce negative gravity. It has positive
: >> mass.
: >
: >Antimatter does indeed have a positive inertial mass. But it also has a
: >negative gravitational mass. When someone finally gets around to testing
: >this hypothesis, namely by 'dropping' some electrically neutral antimatter
: >in a gravity field, they will see that it will fall up.
:
: And you know this how, exactly?
I tripped into a gravity field yesterday while walking through
the park, and I fell *down*. But I give off a bit of a charge,
so...
: >Greysky
: >
: >www.allocations.cc
: >Learn how to build a FTL radio.
:
: Crackpotter could use some competition. For his theory that antimatter
: produces "negative gravity", and that quantum entanglement can be used
: for faster-than-light speed communications, I nominate greysky for the
: Victor von Frankenstein Weird Science Award, April 2007.
:
: Any seconds?
AYE.
Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
Phineas T Puddleduck
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Nonsense. Antimatter does not produce negative gravity. It has positive
> > mass.
>
> Antimatter does indeed have a positive inertial mass. But it also has a
> negative gravitational mass. When someone finally gets around to testing
> this hypothesis, namely by 'dropping' some electrically neutral antimatter
> in a gravity field, they will see that it will fall up.
Nonsense
T Wake
>
> "sdr" <sdro...@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
> news:1176600807....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
>> In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive
>> By KENNETH CHANG
>> Published in New York Times April 12, 2007
>>
>>SNIP>
>
>> The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
>> created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since
>> matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they
>> come in contact, that would have left nothing to
>> coalesce into stars and galaxies.
>
> Physicists today are running experiments whose outcomes I predictd 25
> years ago... Yawn.
Such as?
Where did you write up your predictions?
>> There must be some
>> imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight
>> preponderance of matter over antimatter, and that
>> extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible
>> universe.
>>
>> The imbalance, some physicists believe, may be hiding
>> in the dynamics of neutrinos: Neutrinos come in three
>> known types, or flavors.
>
> The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything to
> do with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity.
Really? Any citations to back this up, or have you just made it up?
T Wake
"Art Deco" <er...@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:150420071846169355%er...@caballista.org...
> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <150420071742466446%er...@caballista.org>,
>> Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <TDwUh.16929$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> > "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has
>>> >> everything to
>>> >> do
>>> >> with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason
>>> >> any
>>> >> matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and
>>> >> antimatter
>>> >> were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the
>>> >> universe
>>> >> would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that
>>> >> would
>>> >> escape, and it is this which we are living in today.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Nonsense. Antimatter does not produce negative gravity. It has positive
>>> >mass.
>>>
>>> Oh I missed that the first time through. That is some kooky science.
>>
>>
>>I guess he heard it on the radio....
>
> How did he filter out all the static noise?
>
Silver lined curtains and a tinfoil hat.
T Wake
"Kali" <ka...@powder.keg> wrote in message
news:f00gnm$q01$7...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
Thirded. :-) (I am always late)
T Wake
> In article <hpOUh.4417$H_5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> > Nonsense. Antimatter does not produce negative gravity. It has positive
>> > mass.
>>
>> Antimatter does indeed have a positive inertial mass. But it also has a
>> negative gravitational mass. When someone finally gets around to testing
>> this hypothesis, namely by 'dropping' some electrically neutral
>> antimatter
>> in a gravity field, they will see that it will fall up.
>
>
> Nonsense
Nonsense cubed.
I love the implied demand that *others* test the idea though. It always
tickles how some people (ahem, kooks, ahem), have all these great ideas but,
due to no actual physics education, are unable to test themselves...
Phineas T Puddleduck
"T Wake" <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
I volunteer Greysky has a lb of antimatter dropped from 6ft above his
head onto him.
Art Deco
Thank you, mistress. This one posts so rarely that many folks are
probably not aware of him, but I figured it was time to test his
mettle.
T Wake
At least he will feel safe. For a while, anyway...
John "C"
"Art Deco" <er...@caballista.org> wrote in message
> I figured it was time to test his mettle.
>
By chewing on his "Prong", Deco?
HJ
Art Deco
greysky
"T Wake" <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:LdSdnVVEsdj8SL7b...@pipex.net...
The paragraph you typed is proof to me of just how much of a coffeeboy you
are. I would be happy to perform the experiment I stated above. I just need
to borrow someone's particle accelerator for a few months to create a few
micrograms of antimatter. Since the heavier atoms will work best for this
demonstration, I'll leave it up to you to tell me how long it will take to
make anti-gold. Naturally, I can depend on you, T.Wake, to let me borrow the
several millions of dollars worth of equipment from your well stocked lab.
Yeah, riiight. Now, if you want to go ahead and poke fun at my lack of
funding.... why not go to your bank and make me out a cashiers check for 10
million dollars instead?
Since this is a group effort, maybe we can place Art Deco at the end of the
antimatter stream so he can catch the anti atoms as they are created with
his teeth and spit them into the magnetic bottle? We can even let Puddleduck
screw the cap back on the bottle after his buddy Art is through with it...
We can even let Androcles count the atoms and say "Bing! Bing!" when he gets
to a hundred anti-atoms... if he can't count that high he can go to 5 before
he goes "Bing! Bing!" I wouldn't want him to get frustrated, after all...
Who knows, you all just might learn something useful.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The paragraph you typed is proof to me of just how much of a coffeeboy you
> are.
Nightbat will pat you on the head for that - you may even get a new set
of pyjamas.
> I would be happy to perform the experiment I stated above. I just need
> to borrow someone's particle accelerator for a few months to create a few
> micrograms of antimatter.
So you admit you made an unsupported assumption? Gee, what a surprise
from a saucerhead.
> Since the heavier atoms will work best for this
> demonstration, I'll leave it up to you to tell me how long it will take to
> make anti-gold. Naturally, I can depend on you, T.Wake, to let me borrow the
> several millions of dollars worth of equipment from your well stocked lab.
> Yeah, riiight. Now, if you want to go ahead and poke fun at my lack of
> funding.... why not go to your bank and make me out a cashiers check for 10
> million dollars instead?
You're so predictable.
>
> Since this is a group effort, maybe we can place Art Deco at the end of the
> antimatter stream so he can catch the anti atoms as they are created with
> his teeth and spit them into the magnetic bottle? We can even let Puddleduck
*DING*
> screw the cap back on the bottle after his buddy Art is through with it...
> We can even let Androcles count the atoms and say "Bing! Bing!" when he gets
> to a hundred anti-atoms... if he can't count that high he can go to 5 before
> he goes "Bing! Bing!" I wouldn't want him to get frustrated, after all...
>
> Who knows, you all just might learn something useful.
We already have. You're a hack who thinks you're a physicist.
greysky
> In article <4nWUh.6642$5e2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> The paragraph you typed is proof to me of just how much of a coffeeboy
>> you
>> are.
>
> Nightbat will pat you on the head for that - you may even get a new set
> of pyjamas.
Jealousey makes you ugly, PP.
>
>> I would be happy to perform the experiment I stated above. I just need
>> to borrow someone's particle accelerator for a few months to create a few
>> micrograms of antimatter.
>
> So you admit you made an unsupported assumption? Gee, what a surprise
> from a saucerhead.
Hey, I heard Einstein made an unsupported assumption when he predicted light
is bent by a gravitational field. I guess he was a saucerhead too?
>
>
>> Since the heavier atoms will work best for this
>> demonstration, I'll leave it up to you to tell me how long it will take
>> to
>> make anti-gold. Naturally, I can depend on you, T.Wake, to let me borrow
>> the
>> several millions of dollars worth of equipment from your well stocked
>> lab.
>> Yeah, riiight. Now, if you want to go ahead and poke fun at my lack of
>> funding.... why not go to your bank and make me out a cashiers check for
>> 10
>> million dollars instead?
>
>
> You're so predictable.
And you're so not rich.
>
>>
>> Since this is a group effort, maybe we can place Art Deco at the end of
>> the
>> antimatter stream so he can catch the anti atoms as they are created with
>> his teeth and spit them into the magnetic bottle? We can even let
>> Puddleduck
> *DING*
>> screw the cap back on the bottle after his buddy Art is through with
>> it...
>> We can even let Androcles count the atoms and say "Bing! Bing!" when he
>> gets
>> to a hundred anti-atoms... if he can't count that high he can go to 5
>> before
>> he goes "Bing! Bing!" I wouldn't want him to get frustrated, after all...
>>
>> Who knows, you all just might learn something useful.
>
> We already have. You're a hack who thinks you're a physicist.
We - who is this 'we' you lump yourself in with? Deco, and all those other
cluless Auk retards? So pathetic, so sad...
DEPPO
Phineas T Puddleduck
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > So you admit you made an unsupported assumption? Gee, what a surprise
> > from a saucerhead.
>
> Hey, I heard Einstein made an unsupported assumption when he predicted light
> is bent by a gravitational field. I guess he was a saucerhead too?
Einstein backed his up with solid theory. It wasn't an assumption, it
was a prediction of his THEORY.
Phineas T Puddleduck
> > We already have. You're a hack who thinks you're a physicist.
>
> We - who is this 'we' you lump yourself in with? Deco, and all those other
> cluless Auk retards? So pathetic, so sad...
Says the man who insists he's invented a FTL radio?
Phineas T Puddleduck
>
> "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:phineaspuddleduck-7...@news.octanews.com...
> > In article <4nWUh.6642$5e2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> > "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The paragraph you typed is proof to me of just how much of a coffeeboy
> >> you
> >> are.
> >
> > Nightbat will pat you on the head for that - you may even get a new set
> > of pyjamas.
>
> Jealousey makes you ugly, PP.
So how are the glowing pyjamas working out?
Phineas T Puddleduck
> >> Since the heavier atoms will work best for this
> >> demonstration, I'll leave it up to you to tell me how long it will take
> >> to
> >> make anti-gold. Naturally, I can depend on you, T.Wake, to let me borrow
> >> the
> >> several millions of dollars worth of equipment from your well stocked
> >> lab.
> >> Yeah, riiight. Now, if you want to go ahead and poke fun at my lack of
> >> funding.... why not go to your bank and make me out a cashiers check for
> >> 10
> >> million dollars instead?
> >
> >
> > You're so predictable.
>
> And you're so not rich.
Indeed. But I'm not a crank who thinks he's overturned the laws of
physics from an early 90's Geocities-type website. Thank heavens for
small mercies.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
from anti-matter from touching.at their mutual BB creation. We now call
this separation a "membrane". Bert
John "C"
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Einstein backed his up with solid theory. It wasn't an assumption, it
> was a prediction of his THEORY.
>
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/mka0047l.jpg
Duckie examining result of staying after class with instructor Deco!
Keep your head in the sand and hide little Duckie and say:
I killfiled HJ
I killfiled HJ
Why doesn't he go away?
I'm afraid, Art help me.
I killfiled HJ
I killfiled HJ
John "C"
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-7...@news.octanews.com...
> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > We already have. You're a hack who thinks you're a physicist.
> >
> > We - who is this 'we' you lump yourself in with? Deco, and all those
other
> > cluless Auk retards? So pathetic, so sad...
>
>
> Says the man who insists he's invented a FTL radio?
>
John "C"
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> So how are the glowing pyjamas working out?
>
John "C"
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Indeed. But I'm not a crank <snip>
LIAR!
Bill Snyder
You know, if you just came out of the closet, and went to gay bars a
few times, maybe you could get laid for real, instead of hopelessly
following guys around on Usenet.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
John "C"
"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:l7n9235d1v8j9qlli...@4ax.com...
HJ
Bill Snyder
<hones...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>news:l7n9235d1v8j9qlli...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:23:03 -0500, "John \"C\""
>> <hones...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> So how are the glowing pyjamas working out?
>> >>
>> >http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/mka0047l.jpg
>> >
>> >Duckie examining result of staying after class with instructor Deco!
>> >
>> >Keep your head in the sand and hide little Duckie and say:
>> >
>> >I killfiled HJ
>> >
>> >I killfiled HJ
>> >
>> >Why doesn't he go away?
>> >
>> >I'm afraid, Art help me.
>> >
>> >I killfiled HJ
>> >
>> >I killfiled HJ
>>
>> You know, if you just came out of the closet, and went to gay bars a
>> few times, maybe you could get laid for real, instead of hopelessly
>> following guys around on Usenet.
>>
>Which Gay bar do you go to?
None, but then I'm not the one obsessively following my love-object
around trying to attract his attention.
John "C"
"Lionel" <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
> 'HJ' actually stands for 'hand job', doesn't it?
>
Actually Lionel, a good hand job evey once and a while relieves pressure and
keeps the "funk" from building-up in one's brain so that one doesn't have to
go "cruising" in the City Park for young teen boys like Art Deco does.
Which hand do you use?
I try to change hands at least four times per shoot.
Enjoy that hand!
HJ
Art Deco
Poor kook, he can't get anyone to fund his "research" proposal.
>
>Since this is a group effort, maybe we can place Art Deco at the end of the
*ding* #1 on da lits!
>antimatter stream so he can catch the anti atoms as they are created with
>his teeth and spit them into the magnetic bottle? We can even let Puddleduck
>screw the cap back on the bottle after his buddy Art is through with it...
>We can even let Androcles count the atoms and say "Bing! Bing!" when he gets
>to a hundred anti-atoms... if he can't count that high he can go to 5 before
>he goes "Bing! Bing!" I wouldn't want him to get frustrated, after all...
You might as well post gay lames, all the other saucerheads do.
>
>Who knows, you all just might learn something useful.
Like how to build an "FTL radio"?
>
>Greysky
>
>www.allocations.cc
>Learn how to build a FTL radio.
<tips sombrero>
Art Deco
>Phineas T Puddleduck schrieb:
>
>GO WAY HEAD SHIT!!!/
Coherency isn't your strong suit.
--
Art Deco
>"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:phineaspuddleduck-7...@news.octanews.com...
>> In article <4nWUh.6642$5e2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
>> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The paragraph you typed is proof to me of just how much of a coffeeboy
>>> you
>>> are.
>>
>> Nightbat will pat you on the head for that - you may even get a new set
>> of pyjamas.
>
>Jealousey makes you ugly, PP.
>
Jealousy? Your projector is on.
>>
>>> I would be happy to perform the experiment I stated above. I just need
>>> to borrow someone's particle accelerator for a few months to create a few
>>> micrograms of antimatter.
>>
>> So you admit you made an unsupported assumption? Gee, what a surprise
>> from a saucerhead.
>
>Hey, I heard Einstein made an unsupported assumption when he predicted light
>is bent by a gravitational field. I guess he was a saucerhead too?
The key word here is "unsupported". Unlike certain pseudoscientific
saucerheads, Einstein was a real physicist who developed a complete
theory, including a mathematical framework, from which his prediction
flowed. There was nothing "unsupported" about it.
>
>>
>>
>>> Since the heavier atoms will work best for this
>>> demonstration, I'll leave it up to you to tell me how long it will take
>>> to
>>> make anti-gold. Naturally, I can depend on you, T.Wake, to let me borrow
>>> the
>>> several millions of dollars worth of equipment from your well stocked
>>> lab.
>>> Yeah, riiight. Now, if you want to go ahead and poke fun at my lack of
>>> funding.... why not go to your bank and make me out a cashiers check for
>>> 10
>>> million dollars instead?
>>
>>
>> You're so predictable.
>
>And you're so not rich.
So write a proposal to NSF. Why should others do the hard work for you?
>
>>
>>>
>>> Since this is a group effort, maybe we can place Art Deco at the end of
>>> the
>>> antimatter stream so he can catch the anti atoms as they are created with
>>> his teeth and spit them into the magnetic bottle? We can even let
>>> Puddleduck
>> *DING*
>>> screw the cap back on the bottle after his buddy Art is through with
>>> it...
>>> We can even let Androcles count the atoms and say "Bing! Bing!" when he
>>> gets
>>> to a hundred anti-atoms... if he can't count that high he can go to 5
>>> before
>>> he goes "Bing! Bing!" I wouldn't want him to get frustrated, after all...
>>>
>>> Who knows, you all just might learn something useful.
>>
>> We already have. You're a hack who thinks you're a physicist.
>
>We - who is this 'we' you lump yourself in with? Deco, and all those other
>cluless Auk retards? So pathetic, so sad...
Let's see if you can answer these:
The facts about fluid space:
1) Has no observational evidence
2) Has no written theory, nor a mathematical framework
3) Makes no numerical predictions
4) Cannot show where the fluid starts
5) Cannot show how the fluid gets back to the start
6) Cannot explain how it interacts with ordinary matter
7) Cannot explain how it doesn't interact with ordinary matter
8) Produces a huge number of singularities
9) Cannot replicate known behavior for a spherical shell mass
10) Requires a container, the nature of which is unknown
11) Cannot explain how fluid is continually created as the
universe expands
12) Almost exclusively references a single unknown, unpublished
non-scientist named "Wolter"
13) Uses ill-defined terms such as "spatial energy" and "sub-Planck
energy domain" (SPUD)
14) Does not define a temperature of the fluid
15) Does not state if waves in the fluid can be polarized
16) Cannot explain the mutual attraction between two masses
17) No explanation for why fluid space ideas are not a rehash of
Le Sage-type theories of gravity (i.e using push forces)
18) No explanation of how the presence of mass alters the "flow"
of the "fluid".
I predict more silence.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
<Re: GreySky>
> I predict more silence.
He'l go and make a call to the aliens.
John "C"
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:59:12 -0500, "John \"C\""
> <hones...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Lionel" <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> 'HJ' actually stands for 'hand job', doesn't it?
> >>
> >Actually Lionel, a good hand job evey once and a while relieves pressure
and
> >keeps the "funk" from building-up in one's brain so that one doesn't have
to
> >go "cruising" in the City Park for young teen boys like Art Deco does.
> >
> >Which hand do you use?
>
>
> >I try to change hands at least four times per shoot.
> >
> >Enjoy that hand!
>
>
GOOD!
HJ
greysky
"Art Deco" <er...@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:170420071002123232%er...@caballista.org...
> greysky <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:phineaspuddleduck-7...@news.octanews.com...
>>> In article <4nWUh.6642$5e2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The paragraph you typed is proof to me of just how much of a coffeeboy
>>>> you
>>>> are.
>>>
>>> Nightbat will pat you on the head for that - you may even get a new set
>>> of pyjamas.
>>
>>Jealousey makes you ugly, PP.
>>
> Jealousy? Your projector is on.
>>>
>>>> I would be happy to perform the experiment I stated above. I just need
>>>> to borrow someone's particle accelerator for a few months to create a
>>>> few
>>>> micrograms of antimatter.
>>>
>>> So you admit you made an unsupported assumption? Gee, what a surprise
>>> from a saucerhead.
>>
>>Hey, I heard Einstein made an unsupported assumption when he predicted
>>light
>>is bent by a gravitational field. I guess he was a saucerhead too?
>
> The key word here is "unsupported". Unlike certain pseudoscientific
> saucerheads, Einstein was a real physicist
And before that, when he was actually creating his special theory, he was a
"Real" german government office clerk. Just like the harried lady who hands
you your monthly welfare check at the welfare office - no difference. She
went to college too.
> who developed a complete
> theory, including a mathematical framework, from which his prediction
> flowed. There was nothing "unsupported" about it.
Bullshit. Einstein made a prediction concerning how a light beam will behave
in a gravitational field. There was at the time, and for many years
afterward, *no* phenomenological proof that his idea was anything more than
a brilliant dream. Or, are you one of those easily beguiled by math? Does
that make it real? Sprinkle some numbers and equations into a theory and
that automatically makes it right? No, no, Deco. Einstein was a saucerhead
and if he had published his theory today, you would be panning it - until
someone else went to Principe and measured how gravity bends light around
the sun. Let me clue you in on real creativity - idea has absolutely nothing
to do with math. The only people who are impressed by the maths are the
beancounters, and a real physicist knows that when the time comes, he can
hire as many of them as he needs.
Now, since I have accurately identified you as a beancounter, I'll throw you
a small link:
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0406660
Sometimes, the math isn't enough. It was many years after einstein's theory
before the proper mathematical formulation for general relativity was
mastered:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ysHnOCaz7GMJ:arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0504179+1909+proof+of+relativity+gravity+bend&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
Interesting stuff to cut your teeth on.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Since the heavier atoms will work best for this
>>>> demonstration, I'll leave it up to you to tell me how long it will take
>>>> to
>>>> make anti-gold. Naturally, I can depend on you, T.Wake, to let me
>>>> borrow
>>>> the
>>>> several millions of dollars worth of equipment from your well stocked
>>>> lab.
>>>> Yeah, riiight. Now, if you want to go ahead and poke fun at my lack of
>>>> funding.... why not go to your bank and make me out a cashiers check
>>>> for
>>>> 10
>>>> million dollars instead?
>>>
>>>
>>> You're so predictable.
>>
>>And you're so not rich.
>
> So write a proposal to NSF. Why should others do the hard work for you?
So did Einstein physically go on the 1919 Eddington expedition to Principe
Island? No? So in your book the fact that he didn't makes him a looooser -
like us saucerheads :-)
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since this is a group effort, maybe we can place Art Deco at the end of
>>>> the
>>>> antimatter stream so he can catch the anti atoms as they are created
>>>> with
>>>> his teeth and spit them into the magnetic bottle? We can even let
>>>> Puddleduck
>>> *DING*
>>>> screw the cap back on the bottle after his buddy Art is through with
>>>> it...
>>>> We can even let Androcles count the atoms and say "Bing! Bing!" when he
>>>> gets
>>>> to a hundred anti-atoms... if he can't count that high he can go to 5
>>>> before
>>>> he goes "Bing! Bing!" I wouldn't want him to get frustrated, after
>>>> all...
>>>>
>>>> Who knows, you all just might learn something useful.
>>>
>>> We already have. You're a hack who thinks you're a physicist.
>>
>>We - who is this 'we' you lump yourself in with? Deco, and all those
>>other
>>cluless Auk retards? So pathetic, so sad...
>
> Let's see if you can answer these:
>
> The facts about fluid space:
I'm not the one who came up with "fluid space" . You mistake me for someone
else. Really, Deco, if you are this clueless and pathetic when you are
trying to be 'smart', doesn't this define the nature of your Clueless,
Pathetic reality? Sad, but true...
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
>
Phineas T Puddleduck
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>Hey, I heard Einstein made an unsupported assumption when he predicted
> >>light
> >>is bent by a gravitational field. I guess he was a saucerhead too?
> >
> > The key word here is "unsupported". Unlike certain pseudoscientific
> > saucerheads, Einstein was a real physicist
>
> And before that, when he was actually creating his special theory, he was a
> "Real" german government office clerk. Just like the harried lady who hands
> you your monthly welfare check at the welfare office - no difference. She
> went to college too.
With a degree in physics, and two years into his work he got his PhD.
So BZZZT wrong thanks for playing.
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within. Coffee boy to the
rich and famous
COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).
Phineas T Puddleduck
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > who developed a complete
> > theory, including a mathematical framework, from which his prediction
> > flowed. There was nothing "unsupported" about it.
>
> Bullshit. Einstein made a prediction concerning how a light beam will behave
> in a gravitational field. There was at the time, and for many years
> afterward, *no* phenomenological proof that his idea was anything more than
> a brilliant dream. Or, are you one of those easily beguiled by math? Does
> that make it real? Sprinkle some numbers and equations into a theory and
> that automatically makes it right? No, no, Deco. Einstein was a saucerhead
> and if he had published his theory today, you would be panning it - until
> someone else went to Principe and measured how gravity bends light around
> the sun. Let me clue you in on real creativity - idea has absolutely nothing
> to do with math. The only people who are impressed by the maths are the
> beancounters, and a real physicist knows that when the time comes, he can
> hire as many of them as he needs.
A real physicist (unlike you) knows that the models HAVE to work.
More nonsense GS. Einstein had already did PHENOMENAL physics work with the
photoelectric effect, and so he was ALREADY a respected physicist.
Bzzt wrong TWICE.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Now, since I have accurately identified you as a beancounter, I'll throw you
> a small link:
> http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0406660
>
COULD differ - a FAR different proposition to what you put forward
BZZT wrong THREE TIMES
The deviation from the neutrino's from 1987A was around 1 part per million.
> Sometimes, the math isn't enough. It was many years after einstein's theory
> before the proper mathematical formulation for general relativity was
> mastered:
> http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ysHnOCaz7GMJ:arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0504179
> +1909+proof+of+relativity+gravity+bend&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
>
>
> Interesting stuff to cut your teeth on.
Yet you don't understand any of it.
T Wake
>T Wake <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>
>>"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> In article <hpOUh.4417$H_5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Nonsense. Antimatter does not produce negative gravity. It has
>>>> > positive
>>>> > mass.
>>>>
>>>> Antimatter does indeed have a positive inertial mass. But it also has a
>>>> negative gravitational mass. When someone finally gets around to
>>>> testing
>>>> this hypothesis, namely by 'dropping' some electrically neutral
>>>> antimatter
>>>> in a gravity field, they will see that it will fall up.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense
>>
>>Nonsense cubed.
>>
>>I love the implied demand that *others* test the idea though. It always
>>tickles how some people (ahem, kooks, ahem), have all these great ideas
>>but,
>>due to no actual physics education, are unable to test themselves...
>
>
I sense a trend forming...
T Wake
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4nWUh.6642$5e2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>> news:phineaspuddleduck-D...@news.octanews.com...
>>> In article <hpOUh.4417$H_5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Nonsense. Antimatter does not produce negative gravity. It has
>>>> > positive
>>>> > mass.
>>>>
>>>> Antimatter does indeed have a positive inertial mass. But it also has a
>>>> negative gravitational mass. When someone finally gets around to
>>>> testing
>>>> this hypothesis, namely by 'dropping' some electrically neutral
>>>> antimatter
>>>> in a gravity field, they will see that it will fall up.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense
>>
>> Nonsense cubed.
>>
>> I love the implied demand that *others* test the idea though. It always
>> tickles how some people (ahem, kooks, ahem), have all these great ideas
>> but, due to no actual physics education, are unable to test themselves...
>>
>
Go on then.
> I just need to borrow someone's particle accelerator for a few months to
> create a few micrograms of antimatter.
Study hard, graduate, submit your paper and this can all be done. If you are
not able to university, then all you need to do is submit a proper paper to
real people and, if your ideas are sound, they will do the rest.
Ranting on USENET about your "great idea which revolutionises physics" is
the realms for the Kook.
The choice is yours.
> Since the heavier atoms will work best for this demonstration, I'll leave
> it up to you to tell me how long it will take to make anti-gold.
> Naturally, I can depend on you, T.Wake, to let me borrow the several
> millions of dollars worth of equipment from your well stocked lab. Yeah,
> riiight.
The appeal to ridicule is wonderful, isn't it? In reality, *I* am not
claiming to work at a lab, nor have access to one. I have, however, studied
at a real university and I know what the process is. I am also at least
passingly adept at spotting nonsense being spouted on USENET.
> Now, if you want to go ahead and poke fun at my lack of funding.... why
> not go to your bank and make me out a cashiers check for 10 million
> dollars instead?
Stop whining.
> Since this is a group effort, maybe we can place Art Deco at the end of
> the antimatter stream so he can catch the anti atoms as they are created
> with his teeth and spit them into the magnetic bottle? We can even let
> Puddleduck screw the cap back on the bottle after his buddy Art is through
> with it... We can even let Androcles count the atoms and say "Bing! Bing!"
> when he gets to a hundred anti-atoms... if he can't count that high he can
> go to 5 before he goes "Bing! Bing!" I wouldn't want him to get
> frustrated, after all...
>
> Who knows, you all just might learn something useful.
See, and you were doing so well for your cause....
T Wake
>
>>> I would be happy to perform the experiment I stated above. I just need
>>> to borrow someone's particle accelerator for a few months to create a
>>> few
>>> micrograms of antimatter.
>>
>> So you admit you made an unsupported assumption? Gee, what a surprise
>> from a saucerhead.
>
> Hey, I heard Einstein made an unsupported assumption when he predicted
> light is bent by a gravitational field. I guess he was a saucerhead too?
>
If in doubt, invoke the Name Of Einstein!
Ok then, make your testable predictions. Write up your new theory,
remembering it has to match the experimental data which has gone before and
make new testable predictions which are not made by the current theories.
If you can do this, there are graduate students who will jump at the chance
of doing the work.
Artimus Q. Dufflebag
ROFLMAO
way to go kook!
> and I know what the process is. I am also at
> least passingly adept at spotting nonsense being spouted on USENET.
>
>> Now, if you want to go ahead and poke fun at my lack of funding.... why
>> not go to your bank and make me out a cashiers check for 10 million
>> dollars instead?
>
> Stop whining.
>
>> Since this is a group effort, maybe we can place Art Deco at the end of
>> the antimatter stream so he can catch the anti atoms as they are created
>> with his teeth and spit them into the magnetic bottle? We can even let
>> Puddleduck screw the cap back on the bottle after his buddy Art is
>> through with it... We can even let Androcles count the atoms and say
>> "Bing! Bing!" when he gets to a hundred anti-atoms... if he can't count
>> that high he can go to 5 before he goes "Bing! Bing!" I wouldn't want him
>> to get frustrated, after all...
>>
>> Who knows, you all just might learn something useful.
>
> See, and you were doing so well for your cause....
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
T Wake
"Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1746869.F...@unixd0rk.com...
> ROFLMAO
>
> way to go kook!
Thanks.
Artimus Q. Dufflebag
so... you went to a REAL UNIVERSITY?!!!
<bows down at your grateness>
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The appeal to ridicule is wonderful, isn't it? In reality, *I* am not
> > claiming to work at a lab, nor have access to one. I have, however,
> > studied at a real university
>
> ROFLMAO
>
> way to go kook!
T Wake, Meet Rob "Mop Jockey" Wolfe. A known net loon, and another one of my
owned kooks.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> T Wake wrote:
>
> >
> > "Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1746869.F...@unixd0rk.com...
> >
> >> ROFLMAO
> >>
> >> way to go kook!
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> so... you went to a REAL UNIVERSITY?!!!
>
> <bows down at your grateness>
S'ok Mop Jockey, we understand how you feel inferior. We won't hold it against
you....
Artimus Q. Dufflebag
> In article <1746869.F...@unixd0rk.com>,
> "Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > The appeal to ridicule is wonderful, isn't it? In reality, *I* am not
>> > claiming to work at a lab, nor have access to one. I have, however,
>> > studied at a real university
>>
>> ROFLMAO
>>
>> way to go kook!
>
>
> T Wake, Meet Rob "Mop Jockey" Wolfe. A known net loon, and another one of
> my owned kooks.
>
meet you: anonymous fucktard.
Artimus Q. Dufflebag
> In article <4844427.x...@unixd0rk.com>,
> "Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> T Wake wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1746869.F...@unixd0rk.com...
>> >
>> >> ROFLMAO
>> >>
>> >> way to go kook!
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>>
>> so... you went to a REAL UNIVERSITY?!!!
>>
>> <bows down at your grateness>
>
>
> S'ok Mop Jockey, we understand how you feel inferior. We won't hold it
> against you....
>
that was pretty lame. you must brag about going to REAL UNIVERSITY
also! :]
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > T Wake, Meet Rob "Mop Jockey" Wolfe. A known net loon, and another one of
> > my owned kooks.
> >
>
> meet you: anonymous fucktard.
Nice of you to re-iterate who owns you.
Artimus Q. Dufflebag
> In article <1451238.1...@unixd0rk.com>,
> "Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > T Wake, Meet Rob "Mop Jockey" Wolfe. A known net loon, and another one
>> > of my owned kooks.
>> >
>>
>> meet you: anonymous fucktard.
>
> Nice of you to re-iterate who owns you.
>
ROFL
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > S'ok Mop Jockey, we understand how you feel inferior. We won't hold it
> > against you....
> >
> that was pretty lame. you must brag about going to REAL UNIVERSITY
> also! :]
But yet you were the one doing the laming about university...
Artimus Q. Dufflebag
> In article <2319819.U...@unixd0rk.com>,
> "Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > S'ok Mop Jockey, we understand how you feel inferior. We won't hold it
>> > against you....
>> >
>> that was pretty lame. you must brag about going to REAL UNIVERSITY
>> also! :]
>
> But yet you were the one doing the laming about university...
>
IKYABWAI is all ya got, puddles? very laem.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
>
> > In article <2319819.U...@unixd0rk.com>,
> > "Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > S'ok Mop Jockey, we understand how you feel inferior. We won't hold it
> >> > against you....
> >> >
> >> that was pretty lame. you must brag about going to REAL UNIVERSITY
> >> also! :]
> >
> > But yet you were the one doing the laming about university...
> >
> IKYABWAI is all ya got, puddles? very laem.
In accusing me of that, you acknowledge you yourself did it first.
Artimus Q. Dufflebag
> In article <1904246.M...@unixd0rk.com>,
> "Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
>>
>> > In article <2319819.U...@unixd0rk.com>,
>> > "Artimus Q. Dufflebag" <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > S'ok Mop Jockey, we understand how you feel inferior. We won't hold
>> >> > it against you....
>> >> >
>> >> that was pretty lame. you must brag about going to REAL UNIVERSITY
>> >> also! :]
>> >
>> > But yet you were the one doing the laming about university...
>> >
>> IKYABWAI is all ya got, puddles? very laem.
>
>
> In accusing me of that, you acknowledge you yourself did it first.
>
in accusing me of that, you probably didn't realize that someone could post
to usenet just for the fuck of it. therefore: YKIABWAY
greysky
Thanks for the advice, T buddy. But as they say, been there, done that. I
recieved my physics degree back in 1986: I'm old enough to know how the
world you put your faith in works. The only people whe were willing to pony
up the money for my researcs were the Japanese. Don't get me wrong, I love
the Japanese people. Back in the early -90's they were actually some of the
most willing pople on earth to fund new research directions. But, as an
American I wasn't really willing to see a foreign country get the credit for
what I had done. They were only wanting to increase the speed of their
computers by using quantum entanglement - still are, in fact. It's not
something I want to help them get at the expense of my homeland- even if
most americans have turned into closed-minded are wankers. But thanks for
the advice.
>
> Ranting on USENET about your "great idea which revolutionises physics" is
> the realms for the Kook.
>
> The choice is yours.
Yes, it is.
>
>> Since the heavier atoms will work best for this demonstration, I'll leave
>> it up to you to tell me how long it will take to make anti-gold.
>> Naturally, I can depend on you, T.Wake, to let me borrow the several
>> millions of dollars worth of equipment from your well stocked lab. Yeah,
>> riiight.
>
> The appeal to ridicule is wonderful, isn't it? In reality, *I* am not
> claiming to work at a lab, nor have access to one. I have, however,
> studied at a real university and I know what the process is. I am also at
> least passingly adept at spotting nonsense being spouted on USENET.
No, you are not even passingly adept. You may know enough to be dangerous,
but that is all. Yet, you seem intelligent enough to go further, which is
why I am being serious (for once) in this post. Be honest - you have not
read my web site, have you? Don't rely on what others say about it. Read
it. If you have intelligent questions, I'll answer them honestly, and
without the smart-ass comments I usually reserve for the brain challenged
coffeeboys. If you want to show the entire world how wrong I am, well, it is
first going to take a certain amount of effort on your side. It isn't enough
to simply insult me and expect me to go away - Deko, and Puddlemuck style.
The choice is yours...
Greysky (laying down the gauntlet)
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
>
Odysseus
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Einstein had already did PHENOMENAL physics work with the
> photoelectric effect, and so he was ALREADY a respected physicist.
Not to mention his work on Brownian motion, which greatly advanced the
then-new field of statistical mechanics.
--
Odysseus
nightbat
"Home of the auk fake award really Big Whoppers"
> greysky <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Major Greysky-Profound Science Officer
>>"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:phineaspuddleduck-3...@news.octanews.com...
>>Daffy Ducky
>>>In article <TDwUh.16929$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The 'imbalance' has nothing to do with neutrinos.... It has everything to
>>>>do
>>>>with the fact that antimatter also has a negative gravity. The reason any
>>>>matter at all survived the creation event is because matter and
>>>>antimatter
>>>>were also repelling each other. True, most of the matter in the universe
>>>>would have been destroyed, but there would also be a tiny bit that would
>>>>escape, and it is this which we are living in today.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nonsense. Antimatter does not produce negative gravity. It has positive
>>>mass.
>>
>>Antimatter does indeed have a positive inertial mass. But it also has a
>>negative gravitational mass. When someone finally gets around to testing
>>this hypothesis, namely by 'dropping' some electrically neutral antimatter
>>in a gravity field, they will see that it will fall up.
> Clueless Bart Devo
>
> And you know this how, exactly?
>
>>Greysky
>>
>>www.allocations.cc
>>Learn how to build a FTL radio.
> Bart Devo
>
> Crackpotter could use some competition. For his theory that antimatter
> produces "negative gravity", and that quantum entanglement can be used
> for faster-than-light speed communications, I nominate greysky for the
> Victor von Frankenstein Weird Science Award, April 2007.
>
> Any seconds?
>
denied
Helping clueless Earth coffeeboys, one at a time---nightbat
"We can repair them, we have the technology, to remove the alien Gray
giant anal probes from their auk clueless asses, bring in the Bookman
coffeeboy trained deprober."
ah
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:48:36 -0500, "John \"C\""
> <hones...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>>news:l7n9235d1v8j9qlli...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:23:03 -0500, "John \"C\""
>>> <hones...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/mka0047l.jpg
>>> >
>>> >Duckie examining result of staying after class with instructor Deco!
>>> >
>>> >Keep your head in the sand and hide little Duckie and say:
>>> >
>>> >I killfiled HJ
>>> >
>>> >I killfiled HJ
>>> >
>>> >Why doesn't he go away?
>>> >
>>> >I'm afraid, Art help me.
>>> >
>>> >I killfiled HJ
>>> >
>>> >I killfiled HJ
>>>
>>> You know, if you just came out of the closet, and went to gay bars a
>>> few times, maybe you could get laid for real, instead of hopelessly
>>> following guys around on Usenet.
>>>
>>Which Gay bar do you go to?
>
> None, but then I'm not the one obsessively following my love-object
> around trying to attract his attention.
>
ROLF!
Don Stockbauer
How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
It took survivalist training???????
Phineas T Puddleduck
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> No, you are not even passingly adept. You may know enough to be dangerous,
> but that is all. Yet, you seem intelligent enough to go further, which is
> why I am being serious (for once) in this post. Be honest - you have not
> read my web site, have you? Don't rely on what others say about it. Read
> it. If you have intelligent questions, I'll answer them honestly, and
> without the smart-ass comments I usually reserve for the brain challenged
> coffeeboys. If you want to show the entire world how wrong I am, well, it is
> first going to take a certain amount of effort on your side. It isn't enough
> to simply insult me and expect me to go away - Deko, and Puddlemuck style.
> The choice is yours...
>
> Greysky (laying down the gauntlet)
I'M DRAWING THE LINE - THIS FAR AND NO FURTHERRRRRRR!!!
Yet you won't post a single schematic or equation - its all nonsense.
Phineas T Puddleduck
> Thanks for the advice, T buddy. But as they say, been there, done that. I
> recieved my physics degree back in 1986: I'm old enough to know how the
> world you put your faith in works.
Where did you buy your degree from? Or at least tell us what college it was,
cause they did a fine job!
Flying Fuck
> In article <XngVh.7013$5e2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the advice, T buddy. But as they say, been there, done that. I
>> recieved my physics degree back in 1986: I'm old enough to know how the
>> world you put your faith in works.
>
> Where did you buy your degree from? Or at least tell us what college it
> was, cause they did a fine job!
>
puddles, you are so afraid of your alma mater finding out what you are up to
that you sock up as a plastic mallard.
get back to your foaming meltdown.
--
.-------.
.'.-'''''-.'._
//` `\\\
;; ;;'.__.===============,
|| . <- || __ )
;: your ;;.' '==============='
\\ penus ///
':...___...:'~
`'-----'`
"The fact that you're being increasing annoying..." - QuackfArt
John "C"
"nightbat" <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote in message
news:bd194$4625b465$46e3a683$30...@COMTECK.COM...
Is the World prepared for such AUK antics?
Standing By.
C.H.J.
John "C"
"Don Stockbauer" <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176892591....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
>
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The "Big Cigarette"!
HJ (Preparing for "nooner")
Phineas T Puddleduck
Artimus Q Dufflebag <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> schematics and equations? post some equations, puddles!
>
> tell everybody about how you work with PV but probably drive a gas SUV to
> work!
I drive a small size saloon. Is this some more of this "You are Mike Varney"
type nonsense.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Flying Fuck <rob....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Where did you buy your degree from? Or at least tell us what college it
> > was, cause they did a fine job!
> >
>
> puddles, you are so afraid of your alma mater finding out what you are up to
> that you sock up as a plastic mallard.
>
> get back to your foaming meltdown.
Another identity to follow me around Rob? Did my spurning you hurt you this bad?
Artimus Q Dufflebag
> In article <7921206.c...@unixd0rk.com>,
> Artimus Q Dufflebag <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> schematics and equations? post some equations, puddles!
>>
>> tell everybody about how you work with PV but probably drive a gas SUV to
>> work!
>
>
> I drive a small size saloon. Is this some more of this "You are Mike
> Varney" type nonsense.
>
what does "ernest goes to camp part 2" have to do with the universe
"surviving" (LOL) the big bang, puddles?
Artimus Q Dufflebag
> In article <5966480.R...@unixd0rk.com>,
> Flying Fuck <rob....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Where did you buy your degree from? Or at least tell us what college it
>> > was, cause they did a fine job!
>> >
>>
>> puddles, you are so afraid of your alma mater finding out what you are up
>> to that you sock up as a plastic mallard.
>>
>> get back to your foaming meltdown.
>
>
> Another identity to follow me around Rob? Did my spurning you hurt you
> this bad?
>
dude. i've had this "Rob" "identity" my whole life. what kind of bizarro
world are you tuning in from, puddles?
Phineas T Puddleduck
Artimus Q Dufflebag <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
>
> > In article <7921206.c...@unixd0rk.com>,
> > Artimus Q Dufflebag <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> schematics and equations? post some equations, puddles!
> >>
> >> tell everybody about how you work with PV but probably drive a gas SUV to
> >> work!
> >
> >
> > I drive a small size saloon. Is this some more of this "You are Mike
> > Varney" type nonsense.
> >
>
> what does "ernest goes to camp part 2" have to do with the universe
> "surviving" (LOL) the big bang, puddles?
Are you off your meds?
Phineas T Puddleduck
Artimus Q Dufflebag <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Another identity to follow me around Rob? Did my spurning you hurt you
> > this bad?
> >
>
> dude. i've had this "Rob" "identity" my whole life. what kind of bizarro
> world are you tuning in from, puddles?
" Artimus Q Dufflebag <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:"
Seems like you are losing track of which of your pseudonyms is stalking me,
loser.
Artimus Q Dufflebag
> In article <1341913.D...@unixd0rk.com>,
> Artimus Q Dufflebag <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
>>
>> > In article <7921206.c...@unixd0rk.com>,
>> > Artimus Q Dufflebag <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> schematics and equations? post some equations, puddles!
>> >>
>> >> tell everybody about how you work with PV but probably drive a gas SUV
>> >> to work!
>> >
>> >
>> > I drive a small size saloon. Is this some more of this "You are Mike
>> > Varney" type nonsense.
>> >
>>
>> what does "ernest goes to camp part 2" have to do with the universe
>> "surviving" (LOL) the big bang, puddles?
>
>
> Are you off your meds?
>
are you going to go through every cliche, or just stick on this one for a
while?
Phineas T Puddleduck
Artimus Q Dufflebag <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> what does "ernest goes to camp part 2" have to do with the universe
> >> "surviving" (LOL) the big bang, puddles?
> >
> >
> > Are you off your meds?
> >
> are you going to go through every cliche, or just stick on this one for a
> while?
Well, it seems accurate. Your behaviour is getting more and more incoherent.
Random web snippings, strange accusations, hypocritical calls for a "real name"
whilst complaining about being RL'ed....
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within. Coffee boy to the
rich and famous. Proud owner of the Mop Jockey.
John "C"
> In article <1273209.Z...@unixd0rk.com>,
> Artimus Q Dufflebag <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Another identity to follow me around Rob? Did my spurning you hurt you
> > > this bad?
> > >
> >
> > dude. i've had this "Rob" "identity" my whole life. what kind of
bizarro
> > world are you tuning in from, puddles?
>
>
> " Artimus Q Dufflebag <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:"
>
> Seems like you are losing track of which of your pseudonyms is stalking
me,
> loser.
>
chickenshit bastard?
Your Pal,
HJ
greysky
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-F...@news.octanews.com...
> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> > who developed a complete
>> > theory, including a mathematical framework, from which his prediction
>> > flowed. There was nothing "unsupported" about it.
>>
>> Bullshit. Einstein made a prediction concerning how a light beam will
>> behave
>> in a gravitational field. There was at the time, and for many years
>> afterward, *no* phenomenological proof that his idea was anything more
>> than
>> a brilliant dream. Or, are you one of those easily beguiled by math? Does
>> that make it real? Sprinkle some numbers and equations into a theory and
>> that automatically makes it right? No, no, Deco. Einstein was a
>> saucerhead
>> and if he had published his theory today, you would be panning it - until
>> someone else went to Principe and measured how gravity bends light around
>> the sun. Let me clue you in on real creativity - idea has absolutely
>> nothing
>> to do with math. The only people who are impressed by the maths are the
>> beancounters, and a real physicist knows that when the time comes, he can
>> hire as many of them as he needs.
>
> A real physicist (unlike you) knows that the models HAVE to work.
This is such a proud display of ignorance. A 'real physicist' knows a model
is simply an approximation to reality. As such, *All* models are wrong. Part
of science is replacing models with more correct versions as the body of
human knowledge increases.
>
> More nonsense GS. Einstein had already did PHENOMENAL physics work with
> the
> photoelectric effect, and so he was ALREADY a respected physicist.
Are you actually this incredibly stupid P-P, Or are you just playing the
role of a drooling moron? Einstein wrote a paper which mathematically
explained Brownian motion. His work on the photoelectric effect was equally
theoretical. He most certainly DID NOT do phenomenological (Maybe that's too
big a word for you and so it confused you. It means 'lab work') work. It was
left to Milliken to prove Einstein was correct, but that didn't happen until
1915.
>
> Bzzt wrong TWICE.
>
Maybe you should pull your head out of your own ass long enough to see what
reality looks like? Go to the local community college and beg to be admitted
to a bonehead science class. Place yourself at their mercy and some kind
student aid may decide to help you... god help you, you need it PP.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to make a FTL radio.
John "C"
HJ
Art Deco
Poor little napoleon, so powerless.
>
>Helping clueless Earth coffeeboys, one at a time---nightbat
>
>"We can repair them, we have the technology, to remove the alien Gray
>giant anal probes from their auk clueless asses, bring in the Bookman
>coffeeboy trained deprober."
I see you are still proudly wearing your new tinfoil sombrero, frootbat.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
Phineas T Puddleduck
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > More nonsense GS. Einstein had already did PHENOMENAL physics work with
> > the
> > photoelectric effect, and so he was ALREADY a respected physicist.
>
> Are you actually this incredibly stupid P-P, Or are you just playing the
> role of a drooling moron? Einstein wrote a paper which mathematically
> explained Brownian motion. His work on the photoelectric effect was equally
> theoretical. He most certainly DID NOT do phenomenological (Maybe that's too
> big a word for you and so it confused you. It means 'lab work') work. It was
> left to Milliken to prove Einstein was correct, but that didn't happen until
> 1915.
I used the words phenomenal in its sense - amazing, astouding..
I did not say phenomenogical.
Phineas T Puddleduck
> > Bzzt wrong TWICE.
> >
> Maybe you should pull your head out of your own ass long enough to see what
> reality looks like? Go to the local community college and beg to be admitted
> to a bonehead science class. Place yourself at their mercy and some kind
> student aid may decide to help you... god help you, you need it PP.
I'm not the one claiming to have built an FTL radio. And I start my PhD this
years, thanks.
Artimus Q Dufflebag
> In article <1379959.k...@unixd0rk.com>,
> Artimus Q Dufflebag <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> what does "ernest goes to camp part 2" have to do with the universe
>> >> "surviving" (LOL) the big bang, puddles?
>> >
>> >
>> > Are you off your meds?
>> >
>> are you going to go through every cliche, or just stick on this one for a
>> while?
>
>
> Well, it seems accurate. Your behaviour is getting more and more
> incoherent. Random web snippings,
a post to an archive of AUKtards in a google group planning sockpuppets, is
hardly random. you brought up sockpuppets in that thread, remember?
...not that i *wasn't* expecting you to evade that observation, or anything.
> strange accusations, hypocritical calls
> for a "real name" whilst complaining about being RL'ed....
and then there was what *i* said about you minutes ago about your demanding
someone's RL school and degree in another thread. are you too stupid to
discern between hypocrisy and satirical jabs? oh wait.. i guess you are,
since when i respond to your grunting with the non-sentence "Almost a
complete sentence.", the irony is lost on you and you continue on babbling
about how i'm supposedly "defending" people from your inane "attacks".
Phineas T Puddleduck
Artimus Q Dufflebag <artimusd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, it seems accurate. Your behaviour is getting more and more
> > incoherent. Random web snippings,
>
> a post to an archive of AUKtards in a google group planning sockpuppets, is
> hardly random. you brought up sockpuppets in that thread, remember?
BWAHAHHAHAHAHA
Yeah of course MJ.
>
> ...not that i *wasn't* expecting you to evade that observation, or anything.
>
> > strange accusations, hypocritical calls
> > for a "real name" whilst complaining about being RL'ed....
>
> and then there was what *i* said about you minutes ago about your demanding
> someone's RL school and degree in another thread.
I asked for LEVEL of education, numbnuts
> are you too stupid to
> discern between hypocrisy and satirical jabs? oh wait.. i guess you are,
> since when i respond to your grunting with the non-sentence "Almost a
> complete sentence.", the irony is lost on you and you continue on babbling
> about how i'm supposedly "defending" people from your inane "attacks".
I've never seen whine froth before. First time for everything.
greysky
> In article <33rVh.497$H_....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> > More nonsense GS. Einstein had already did PHENOMENAL physics work with
>> > the
>> > photoelectric effect, and so he was ALREADY a respected physicist.
>>
>> Are you actually this incredibly stupid P-P, Or are you just playing the
>> role of a drooling moron? Einstein wrote a paper which mathematically
>> explained Brownian motion. His work on the photoelectric effect was
>> equally
>> theoretical. He most certainly DID NOT do phenomenological (Maybe that's
>> too
>> big a word for you and so it confused you. It means 'lab work') work. It
>> was
>> left to Milliken to prove Einstein was correct, but that didn't happen
>> until
>> 1915.
>
>
> I used the words phenomenal in its sense - amazing, astouding..
>
> I did not say phenomenogical.
>
Oh, hokay...whew! PP you had me scared there for a second. Glad to hear it
was a misread on my part. Although I'd use the word 'amazing', that's just
quibbling bits. I agree, what he did was a Good Thing. Without his work, I'd
never have been able to do what I did.
Greysky
Artimus Q Dufflebag
hmm... because it didn't work the "first time"? i mean, he can't respond to
me from his art deco sock, deco must have killfiled each of my various
identities i pretend to be an average of 1.2 times. this is partly why i
will need some scientific evidence from puddles that i have been killfiled
and for some unknown motivation or reason avoid being killfiled.