NASA working on faster-than-light space travel, says warp drives are ‘plausible’!

[Double-A]

OK you relativistic naysayers, NASA is already working on faster than
light travel, and they are making breakthroughs in its theoretical
feasibility!

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136408-nasa-working-on-faster-than-light-travel-says-warp-drives-are-plausible

Double-A

[Double-A]

On Oct 3, 11:51 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> OK you relativistic naysayers, NASA is already working on faster than
> light travel, and they are making breakthroughs in its theoretical
> feasibility!
>

> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136408-nasa-working-on-faster-than...
>
> Double-A


What? No comments on this faster than light project at NASA? You
taxpayer money at work?

Double-A

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

OK, since you insist...

It is old news and has already been discussed to death.

You are a day late and a dollar short.

Have you been sleeping under a rock?

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 3, 11:51 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:

> OK you relativistic naysayers, NASA is already working on faster than
> light travel, and they are making breakthroughs in its theoretical
> feasibility!
>

> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136408-nasa-working-on-faster-than...
>
> Double-A

Our public-funded NASA and DARPA get to do and say whatever they
please. They even told President BHO to essentially take a hike.

Insiders of our mainstream NASA and DARPA like to keep their front,
side and back doors closed tight, so that only their pet missions get
the green light.

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

[Brad Guth]

Quantum entangled photons have been proven as FTL. Not sure what if
anything of our NASA or DARPA had anything to do with that
accomplishment.

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/4/12 10:40 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Quantum entangled photons have been proven as FTL.

No. The photons still propagate at c.

[Painius]

Interesting response.

Since FTL speed is still very controversial, I really don't see your
problem. FTL will continue to be discussed and both supported by
speculators and gang-banged by mainstreamers. There is no such thing
as "old news" when it comes to FTL, especially when research is
sanctioned by such as the United States National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.

So either join in or button it. LOL !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Home is where, when you go there, they *have* to let you in."

[Painius]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 12:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Double-A <doub...@hush.com>
wrote:

>On Oct 3, 11:51 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>> OK you relativistic naysayers, NASA is already working on faster than
>> light travel, and they are making breakthroughs in its theoretical
>> feasibility!
>>
>> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136408-nasa-working-on-faster-than...
>

> What? No comments on this faster than light project at NASA? You
> taxpayer money at work?

It actually *is* pretty awesome to think that such a
mainstream-blasted and -gang-banged concept as FTLS is being
researched by trained scientists at NASA. And to think that their
research has provided them with enough facts to make them feel that
some kind of antimatter-powered warp drive is "plausible"? That's,
well, pretty derned cool.

Personally, I am still completely skeptical when it comes to FTLS of
material objects; however, I find it very impressive that NASA has
gone as far as it has in this research... *very* impressive.

[HVAC]

On 10/5/2012 6:17 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>> It is old news and has already been discussed to death.
>>
>> You are a day late and a dollar short.
>>
>> Have you been sleeping under a rock?
>
> Interesting response.
>
> Since FTL speed is still very controversial

It's not controversial...It's impossible for any object to travel faster
than light's speed in our universe. Period. Full stop.

> I really don't see your
> problem. FTL will continue to be discussed and both supported by
> speculators and gang-banged by mainstreamers. There is no such thing
> as "old news" when it comes to FTL, especially when research is
> sanctioned by such as the United States National Aeronautics and Space
> Administration.
>
> So either join in or button it. LOL !
>


--

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

[Brad Guth]

Your obfuscation is noted.

Quantum entanglement seems to be instantaneous regardless of the
distance, perhaps because there's no velocity involved to begin with..

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 5, 3:28 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 12:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Double-A <double...@hush.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 3, 11:51 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> >> OK you relativistic naysayers, NASA is already working on faster than
> >> light travel, and they are making breakthroughs in its theoretical
> >> feasibility!
>
> >>http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136408-nasa-working-on-faster-than...
>
> > What?  No comments on this faster than light project at NASA?  You
> > taxpayer money at work?
>
> It actually *is* pretty awesome to think that such a
> mainstream-blasted and -gang-banged concept as FTLS is being
> researched by trained scientists at NASA.  And to think that their
> research has provided them with enough facts to make them feel that
> some kind of antimatter-powered warp drive is "plausible"?  That's,
> well, pretty derned cool.
>
> Personally, I am still completely skeptical when it comes to FTLS of
> material objects; however, I find it very impressive that NASA has
> gone as far as it has in this research... *very* impressive.
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,

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

> "Home is where, when you go there, they *have* to let you in."

Molecular FTL may be a forever thing of pixy dust improbabilities,
however quantum entanglement doesn't involve the moving of anything
molecular.

[Sam Wormley]

Entangle particles act like a singe quantum entity. There is no
violation of the speed of light.

[Brad Guth]

Except as applied for communications or conceivably teleportation over
great distances is instantaneous.

[Sam Wormley]

No arbitrary communication, mass, or energy can be propagated
faster that the speed of light. It's the "cosmic law"!

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/5/2012 6:29 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 6:17 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>> It is old news and has already been discussed to death.
>>>
>>> You are a day late and a dollar short.
>>>
>>> Have you been sleeping under a rock?
>>
>> Interesting response.
>>
>> Since FTL speed is still very controversial
>
>
> It's not controversial...It's impossible for any object to travel faster
> than light's speed in our universe. Period. Full stop.

Here we go again. HVAC has such a high IQ that he doesn't remember that
saying something is "impossible" is the mathematical equivalent to
saying "I'm a moron!". I presume you used your God-like super-powers
again to inspect all ways it is possible to travel faster than light to
make sure than none could work. Sure.

One word, Harlow: Wormhole.

[Bill Snyder]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 13:07:29 -0400, "bja...@teranews.com"
<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>On 10/5/2012 6:29 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> On 10/5/2012 6:17 AM, Painius wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is old news and has already been discussed to death.
>>>>
>>>> You are a day late and a dollar short.
>>>>
>>>> Have you been sleeping under a rock?
>>>
>>> Interesting response.
>>>
>>> Since FTL speed is still very controversial
>>
>>
>> It's not controversial...It's impossible for any object to travel faster
>> than light's speed in our universe. Period. Full stop.
>
>Here we go again. HVAC has such a high IQ that he doesn't remember that
>saying something is "impossible" is the mathematical equivalent to
>saying "I'm a moron!".

And it's downright amazing how many people "don't remember"
whatever BS the shit-bot is trying to push at the moment.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Double-A]

On Oct 4, 1:16 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

Some nights.

Double-A

[Double-A]

On Oct 5, 3:28 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 12:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Double-A <double...@hush.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 3, 11:51 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> >> OK you relativistic naysayers, NASA is already working on faster than
> >> light travel, and they are making breakthroughs in its theoretical
> >> feasibility!
>
> >>http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136408-nasa-working-on-faster-than...
>
> > What?  No comments on this faster than light project at NASA?  You
> > taxpayer money at work?
>
> It actually *is* pretty awesome to think that such a
> mainstream-blasted and -gang-banged concept as FTLS is being
> researched by trained scientists at NASA.  And to think that their
> research has provided them with enough facts to make them feel that
> some kind of antimatter-powered warp drive is "plausible"?  That's,
> well, pretty derned cool.
>
> Personally, I am still completely skeptical when it comes to FTLS of
> material objects; however, I find it very impressive that NASA has
> gone as far as it has in this research... *very* impressive.

Yes. If experimenters had always limited themselves only trying
things mainline science said could be done, we wouldn't have heavier
than air flight craft at all, expecially not faster than sound
flight! There was a time scientists said the human body could not
withstand any speed much greater than the gallop of a horse!

Double-A

[linuxgal]

Bill Snyder wrote:

> And it's downright amazing how many people "don't remember"
> whatever BS the shit-bot is trying to push at the moment.
>
>

I have no recollection the Family has any buffers, Senator.


--
The best way to accelerate a Windows PC is at 32 feet per second per
second.

[@jeff-relf.me]

NASA's "warp drive" crap was discussed in Sci.Physics;
a group that Double⋅A doesn't read.

[Paul Cardinale]

On Oct 4, 9:25 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps you mean: 'Light pulses propagate at c.'

[Brad Guth]

That has been broken in theory as well as in objective science, though
obviously never to a closed mindset like yours.

Not even Einstein put any such restrictions on cosmic velocity, but
then obviously you and others of your kind always seem know better.
So, where's your Nobel?

[Brad Guth]

Teleportation or quantum entanglement of photons that can be converted
back into energy and thus into matter, seems doable at FTL over vast
distances.

[Brad Guth]

Propagation is not even the same definition as velocity.
"Wave propagation, The motion of a wave throughout a medium or the
transfer of its energy" mentions noting of individual wave or that of
its particle velocity.

Phase velocity is just another subjective interpretation of what some
of us think is happening.

Do we actually have objective proof-positive that individual photons
actually travel? (other than as a quantum particle within their own
wavelength)

[Sam Wormley]

The Nobel Prize is given for scientific discovery, not to having
an education in science.

[HVAC]

On

>> It's not controversial...It's impossible for any object to travel faster
>> than light's speed in our universe. Period. Full stop.
>
> Here we go again. HVAC has such a high IQ that he doesn't remember that
> saying something is "impossible" is the mathematical equivalent

Nonsense. There are an infinite number of things which are impossible.

It's fairly basic...Any object with mass will require an infinite amount
of energy to accelerate it to light speed.

> saying "I'm a moron!". I presume you used your God-like super-powers
> again to inspect all ways it is possible to travel faster than light to
> make sure than none could work. Sure.

Again, BJ...It's simple physics. If you have some magic pixie dust that
will allow FTL travel, bring it forth so I can put it my pipe and smoke it.


> One word, Harlow: Wormhole.



Possible in theory only. If such travel was possible, it would be
outside of our universe and therefore would not fall into the category
of, "impossible for any object to travel faster than light's speed in
our universe".


Do you understand, BJ?

[HVAC]

On 10/5/2012 2:43 PM, Double-A wrote:
>
>>
>> It is old news and has already been discussed to death.
>>
>> You are a day late and a dollar short.
>>
>> Have you been sleeping under a rock?
>
>
> Some nights.
>
> Double-A

AA is gonna die and leave a shitload of money to someone. He's loaded.

[Fred^2]

Wow. What a fucking idiot.

[Brad Guth]

But you and others of your FUD kind can't seem to interpret any
science without God's permission and approvals.

Is being a mainstream brown-nosed puppet like yourself, equate as the
same thing as being educated?

[HVAC]

On 10/5/2012 11:54 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>>> Quantum entanglement seems to be instantaneous regardless of the
>>>> distance, perhaps because there's no velocity involved to begin with..
>>>
>>> Entangle particles act like a singe quantum entity. There is no
>>> violation of the speed of light.
>>
>> Except as applied for communications or conceivably teleportation over
>> great distances is instantaneous.
>>
>
> No arbitrary communication, mass, or energy can be propagated
> faster that the speed of light. It's the "cosmic law"!

How come if *I* said that, I'd get a ration of shit, but you get a
pass...What's up w/that?

[HVAC]

On 10/5/2012 6:28 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>
> It actually *is* pretty awesome to think that such a
> mainstream-blasted and -gang-banged concept as FTLS is being
> researched by trained scientists at NASA. And to think that their
> research has provided them with enough facts to make them feel that
> some kind of antimatter-powered warp drive is "plausible"? That's,
> well, pretty derned cool.

Get a grip dude.

> Personally, I am still completely skeptical when it comes to FTLS of
> material objects; however

However what? You believe that NON-material objects can travel faster
than light? Are we talking ghosts here? What do you mean by a
'non-material' object? Is that like your non-trivial' deity? (lol)

[HVAC]

On 10/5/2012 5:51 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> Teleportation or quantum entanglement of photons that can be converted
> back into energy and thus into matter, seems doable at FTL over vast
> distances.

Here goes the kook train...Right off the tracks.

[Bill Snyder]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:51:27 GMT, rep...@scientology.org (Fred^2)
wrote:

But you've barely seen him in action! Wait until he's covered,
say, spoon-bending, death rays, the Apollo landing hoax, and
energy-from-nowhere machines.

[Fred^2]

Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:51:27 GMT, rep...@scientology.org (Fred^2)

>>"bja...@teranews.com" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>On 10/5/2012 6:29 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>>> On 10/5/2012 6:17 AM, Painius wrote:
>>>>>> It is old news and has already been discussed to death.
>>>>>> You are a day late and a dollar short.
>>>>>> Have you been sleeping under a rock?
>>>>> Interesting response.
>>>>> Since FTL speed is still very controversial
>>>> It's not controversial...It's impossible for any object to travel faster
>>>> than light's speed in our universe. Period. Full stop.
>>>Here we go again. HVAC has such a high IQ that he doesn't remember that
>>>saying something is "impossible" is the mathematical equivalent to
>>>saying "I'm a moron!". I presume you used your God-like super-powers
>>>again to inspect all ways it is possible to travel faster than light to
>>>make sure than none could work. Sure.
>>Wow. What a fucking idiot.
>But you've barely seen him in action! Wait until he's covered,
>say, spoon-bending, death rays, the Apollo landing hoax, and
>energy-from-nowhere machines.

ha! I like these "i'm smarter than einstein!" loons who also like to
demand that einstein won't debate them because he's too afraid. :)
they have zero understanding of basic physics and would not recognize
the Scientific Method if it grew feathers, flew over them, and took
a dump right on their pointed heads. :)

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/5/12 6:19 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 11:54 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>>>> Quantum entanglement seems to be instantaneous regardless of the
>>>>> distance, perhaps because there's no velocity involved to begin with..
>>>>
>>>> Entangle particles act like a singe quantum entity. There is no
>>>> violation of the speed of light.
>>>
>>> Except as applied for communications or conceivably teleportation over
>>> great distances is instantaneous.
>>>
>>
>> No arbitrary communication, mass, or energy can be propagated
>> faster that the speed of light. It's the "cosmic law"!
>
>
>
> How come if *I* said that, I'd get a ration of shit, but you get a
> pass...What's up w/that?
>

Try saying it, Brad, and see what happens. Say, "No arbitrary
communication, mass, or energy can propagate faster that the

[Will Janoschka]

No law only conjecture.

Sam's comics he now calls cosmic!>

[Brad Guth]

Why does whatever I and Einstein think, bother you so?

[Brad Guth]

As far as I can tell and you can't prove otherwise, photons do not
actually have to move.

[Painius]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 19:24:28 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/5/2012 6:28 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> It actually *is* pretty awesome to think that such a
>> mainstream-blasted and -gang-banged concept as FTLS is being
>> researched by trained scientists at NASA. And to think that their
>> research has provided them with enough facts to make them feel that
>> some kind of antimatter-powered warp drive is "plausible"? That's,
>> well, pretty derned cool.
>
>Get a grip dude.

Hey, I'm just an unsung poet, Harlow. Tell that to the trained
scientists who daily work on ways to beat the relativistic speed
limit.

>> Personally, I am still completely skeptical when it comes to FTLS of
>> material objects; however
>
>
>However what? You believe that NON-material objects can travel faster
>than light? Are we talking ghosts here? What do you mean by a
>'non-material' object? Is that like your non-trivial' deity? (lol)

I'm not yet convinced that there isn't a way to make entanglement work
for us to send intelligent information long distances instantaneously.
OMG - now I've done it! LMFBO !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Home is where, when you go there, they *have* to let you in."

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

It's another one saying FTL is "impossible". Just use the "short form":
"I'm a moron!"

Obviously unlike HVAC who uses his own God-like super-powers, you are
simply blindly accepting as truth everything Einstein ever said. Really
great understanding of the "scientific method" there! Are you a Baptist
scientist or an Islamic scientist? Maybe you are a Jewish "scientist"?

It's wonderful to see a person with such living faith in having taken
Einstein as his Savior! Albert said it! You believe it. That's all there
is to it! Praise the lord!

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/5/2012 7:19 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 11:54 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>>>> Quantum entanglement seems to be instantaneous regardless of the
>>>>> distance, perhaps because there's no velocity involved to begin with..
>>>>
>>>> Entangle particles act like a singe quantum entity. There is no
>>>> violation of the speed of light.
>>>
>>> Except as applied for communications or conceivably teleportation over
>>> great distances is instantaneous.
>>>
>>
>> No arbitrary communication, mass, or energy can be propagated
>> faster that the speed of light. It's the "cosmic law"!

> How come if *I* said that, I'd get a ration of shit, but you get a
> pass...What's up w/that?

Harlow, that is because YOU are the "highest IQ ever measured on the
planet", while Wormley is an established liar and scientific Luddite. In
short, YOU are expected to know better, while we all expect the Worm to
be off in left field somewhere!

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/5/2012 7:24 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 6:28 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>
>> It actually *is* pretty awesome to think that such a
>> mainstream-blasted and -gang-banged concept as FTLS is being
>> researched by trained scientists at NASA. And to think that their
>> research has provided them with enough facts to make them feel that
>> some kind of antimatter-powered warp drive is "plausible"? That's,
>> well, pretty derned cool.

> However what? You believe that NON-material objects can travel faster
> than light? Are we talking ghosts here? What do you mean by a
> 'non-material' object? Is that like your non-trivial' deity? (lol)

HVAC, you moron, NON-material things DO travel faster than light and
everybody with ANY knowledge of science (lets Wormley, Snider, and the
usual suspects out!) knows it. Shame on your "high IQ" ass.

Hint: Google "EM Phase velocity". Why are you always trying to bring
the subject around to strawmen you can chop to pieces like "ghosts". Do
you feel you are not "doing your job" if you aren't debunking "forbidden
topics"?

PS, NASA researching anti-matter powered "warp" drives IS "pretty derned
cool!"

[gyans...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 4:54:23 AM UTC+13, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 10/5/12 10:50 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > On Oct 5, 8:00 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 10/5/12 8:21 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Oct 4, 9:25 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 10/4/12 10:40 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Quantum entangled photons have been proven as FTL.
>
> >>
>
> >>>> No. The photons still propagate at c.
>
> >>
>
> >>> Your obfuscation is noted.
>
> >>
>

> >>> Quantum entanglement seems to be instantaneous regardless of the
>
> >>> distance, perhaps because there's no velocity involved to begin with..
>
> >>
>
> >> Entangle particles act like a singe quantum entity. There is no
>
> >> violation of the speed of light.
>
> >
>
> > Except as applied for communications or conceivably teleportation over
>
> > great distances is instantaneous.
>
> >
>
>
>
> No arbitrary communication, mass, or energy can be propagated
>
> faster that the speed of light. It's the "cosmic law"!

Clearly mot true if the FTL spaceship is possible. Al I need do is write a letter and have it delivered!!

[HVAC]

On 10/6/2012 1:54 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>>> No arbitrary communication, mass, or energy can be propagated
>>> faster that the speed of light. It's the "cosmic law"!
>
>> How come if *I* said that, I'd get a ration of shit, but you get a
>> pass...What's up w/that?
>
> Harlow, that is because YOU are the "highest IQ ever measured on the
> planet"

Well, that's just not true. While I do have quite a high IQ as measured
in test after test, there are many others who have scored higher.

> while Wormley is an established liar and scientific Luddite. In
> short, YOU are expected to know better, while we all expect the Worm to
> be off in left field somewhere!

I find Mr. Wormley's posts to be both erudite and topical.

[HVAC]

On 10/6/2012 1:32 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>> However what? You believe that NON-material objects can travel faster
>> than light? Are we talking ghosts here? What do you mean by a
>> 'non-material' object? Is that like your non-trivial' deity? (lol)
>
> I'm not yet convinced that there isn't a way to make entanglement work
> for us to send intelligent information long distances instantaneously.

One issue with entanglement that you kooks neglect to address is that if
it was possible to do it, you would then need to query the paired
particle to see what state it was in. This would have to be done in a
non FTL manner, thus negating any speed/distance savings.

So I guess it's back to the kook drawing board for you.

[HVAC]

On 10/6/2012 1:32 AM, Painius wrote:
>

>> Get a grip dude.
>
> Hey, I'm just an unsung poet, Harlow. Tell that to the trained
> scientists who daily work on ways to beat the relativistic speed
> limit.

Please name three.

[Bill Snyder]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 01:49:04 -0400, "bja...@teranews.com"

You'll never understand why everybody keeps laughing.

[linuxgal]

bja...@teranews.com wrote:

>
> PS, NASA researching anti-matter powered "warp" drives IS "pretty derned
> cool!"

They must be doing it under the table. This Administration requires
NASA to focus on Muslim outreach.

--
Conservatives fear that you won't understand their proposals; liberals
fear that you will.

[hanis...@gmail.com]

Teleportation is the transfer of a matter from one point to other without traversing the physical matter in b/w theem, right? So i wonder, how're they gonna warp it!

[Sam Wormley]

Show us some data, Brad, that supports you hypothesis!

[Sam Wormley]

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?

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/6/2012 7:24 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 1:54 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
>>>> No arbitrary communication, mass, or energy can be propagated
>>>> faster that the speed of light. It's the "cosmic law"!
>>
>>> How come if *I* said that, I'd get a ration of shit, but you get a
>>> pass...What's up w/that?
>>
>> Harlow, that is because YOU are the "highest IQ ever measured on the
>> planet"
>
>
> Well, that's just not true. While I do have quite a high IQ as measured
> in test after test, there are many others who have scored higher.
>
>
>> while Wormley is an established liar and scientific Luddite. In
>> short, YOU are expected to know better, while we all expect the Worm to
>> be off in left field somewhere!
>
>
> I find Mr. Wormley's posts to be both erudite and topical.

Then clearly, "measured" IQ to the contrary not withstanding, you are
sadly lacking any scientific education. "Professor" Wormley's posts may
be topical, but far, far from erudite! He's just one more popular
mechanics pretend scientist, and I'm really disappointed in you, that
you failed to perceive that. Perhaps you'd like to explain FOR him, how
it is that CO2 forces heat into the earth while making the temperature
go down?

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/6/2012 7:24 AM, HVAC wrote:

> On 10/6/2012 1:54 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
>>>> No arbitrary communication, mass, or energy can be propagated
>>>> faster that the speed of light. It's the "cosmic law"!
>>
>>> How come if *I* said that, I'd get a ration of shit, but you get a
>>> pass...What's up w/that?
>>
>> Harlow, that is because YOU are the "highest IQ ever measured on the
>> planet"
>
>
> Well, that's just not true. While I do have quite a high IQ as measured
> in test after test, there are many others who have scored higher.

I did forget about TreeBert, who is clearly very clever and smarter than
Einstein! But that's just one!

[HVAC]

On 10/6/2012 10:37 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>> I find Mr. Wormley's posts to be both erudite and topical.
>
> Then clearly, "measured" IQ to the contrary not withstanding, you are
> sadly lacking any scientific education. "Professor" Wormley's posts may
> be topical, but far, far from erudite! He's just one more popular
> mechanics pretend scientist, and I'm really disappointed in you, that
> you failed to perceive that. Perhaps you'd like to explain FOR him, how
> it is that CO2 forces heat into the earth while making the temperature
> go down?

Are you stoned?

[Adolf Arch-Impersonator]

Interesting diatribe... May I interject?

Dipole Hydrogen atoms are photon transmitters, in which the
oscillating electric dipole (H2), creates an electromagnetic pulse
known as a photon:

http://www3.uji.es/~planelle/APUNTS/ESPECTROS/jce/2pto1s.mov

Taking this further, "spin-aligned" dipole hydrogen atoms, must also
have the capability for photon superconductivity, which if synonymous
with electrons, would behave together as a *single* photon, and could
therefore remain stationary, in whatever bounding mechanism was
designed to house them.

[Sam Wormley]

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.

Not much to prove, Guth. If photon didn't propagate, you
would never see anything. :-o

[Sam Wormley]

[Brad 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.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 6, 8:10 am, Adolf Arch-Impersonator <goosestom...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Interesting interpretation or analogy. Would aether be a sufficient
bounding mechanism?

Nowadays, how many photons exist within our known universe?

How many new plus secondary or recoil generations of photons are
getting generated per second within our known universe?

[Brad Guth]

Photon wave and/or their quantum particle propagation has nothing to
do with individual photons actually moving.

[Fred^2]

And there's one of the fucking insane shitloons now. Golly.

Bet you this insane fuck thinks einstein refuses to debate him. LOL.

[Fred^2]

"bja...@teranews.com" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>On 10/5/2012 7:24 PM, HVAC wrote:
>> On 10/5/2012 6:28 AM, Painius wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It actually *is* pretty awesome to think that such a
>>> mainstream-blasted and -gang-banged concept as FTLS is being
>>> researched by trained scientists at NASA. And to think that their
>>> research has provided them with enough facts to make them feel that
>>> some kind of antimatter-powered warp drive is "plausible"? That's,
>>> well, pretty derned cool.

>> However what? You believe that NON-material objects can travel faster
>> than light? Are we talking ghosts here? What do you mean by a
>> 'non-material' object? Is that like your non-trivial' deity? (lol)

>HVAC, you moron, NON-material things DO travel faster than light

woops! the insane cunt made another insane claim.

[Fred^2]

that's because the nigger is a muslim, huh, rightard?

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 5, 11:04 pm, "bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

They like to use semantics and silly wordage issues against anyone
that's an outsider like yourself. After all, it's what ZNR certified
FUD-masters are paid and/or otherwise required to do.

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

[HVAC]

On 10/6/2012 2:04 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>> However what? You believe that NON-material objects can travel faster
>> than light? Are we talking ghosts here? What do you mean by a
>> 'non-material' object? Is that like your non-trivial' deity? (lol)
>
> HVAC, you moron, NON-material things DO travel faster than light

Can you name any 'non-material' object?
I'll wait right here for your answer.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

Uneducated big-mouth moron makes more slanderous statements in a
world-wide public forum, proving he knows nothing. Enjoy the
embarrassment, I presume.

Note, he didn't even read or understand what I said when I told HVAC
what DOES travel faster than light. Some people really enjoy being
stooopid.

[linuxgal]

HVAC wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 2:04 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
>>> However what? You believe that NON-material objects can travel faster
>>> than light? Are we talking ghosts here? What do you mean by a
>>> 'non-material' object? Is that like your non-trivial' deity? (lol)
>>
>> HVAC, you moron, NON-material things DO travel faster than light
>
>
> Can you name any 'non-material' object?
> I'll wait right here for your answer.
>

When you open a pair of scissors, the intersection between the blades
has no speed limit. If you had a big enough pair of scissors, this
intersection could move faster than light. But it's not a material object.

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/6/12 12:43 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Why do individual photons have to move?

If photon didn't propagate, you would never see anything, Guth. :-o

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/6/2012 11:10 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 10:37 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
>>> I find Mr. Wormley's posts to be both erudite and topical.
>>
>> Then clearly, "measured" IQ to the contrary not withstanding, you are
>> sadly lacking any scientific education. "Professor" Wormley's posts may
>> be topical, but far, far from erudite! He's just one more popular
>> mechanics pretend scientist, and I'm really disappointed in you, that
>> you failed to perceive that. Perhaps you'd like to explain FOR him, how
>> it is that CO2 forces heat into the earth while making the temperature
>> go down?
>
>
> Are you stoned?

Are you insane?

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/6/2012 5:27 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 2:04 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
>>> However what? You believe that NON-material objects can travel faster
>>> than light? Are we talking ghosts here? What do you mean by a
>>> 'non-material' object? Is that like your non-trivial' deity? (lol)
>>
>> HVAC, you moron, NON-material things DO travel faster than light
>
>
> Can you name any 'non-material' object?
> I'll wait right here for your answer.

Are you doing the Wormley, "stooopid" act again?
Do I have to rub your nose in it and smack you with a newspaper?
You KNOW you enjoy that sort of thing, ACDC!

Here is my previous post which HVAC chose to ignore all but the first line:
------
Previous Post:

"HVAC, you moron, NON-material things DO travel faster than light and
everybody with ANY knowledge of science (lets Wormley, Snider, and the
usual suspects out!) knows it. Shame on your "high IQ" ass."

"Hint: Google "EM Phase velocity". Why are you always trying to bring
the subject around to strawmen you can chop to pieces like "ghosts". Do
you feel you are not "doing your job" if you aren't debunking "forbidden
topics"?"

------
As usual, Harlow, you love to order everyone ELSE to go research the
things you demand, but ignore any and all implications that YOU do a bit
of typing on your keyboard.

See that "hint" above. Go DO IT fer Crissake!

You LOVE the smell of your own shit on your nose, don't you?

Still waiting for that answer? Maybe if you do a doobie while you wait
it will help lower that excessive IQ a bit.

[BroilJAB]

Turn or BURN

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/6/12 4:52 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:

>
> Are you doing the Wormley, "stooopid" act again?
> Do I have to rub your nose in it and smack you with a newspaper?
> You KNOW you enjoy that sort of thing, ACDC!
>

Eye Contact Quells Online Hostility

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rudeness-on-the-internet

[Sam Wormley]

Ben, you are the kind of a guy I wouldn't mind having a face-to-face
conversation with.

[Brad Guth]

I'd probably see all those photons meant for me to see.

What does wave/particle velocity have to do with the seeing of
photons?

Either there's a detectable wave, or there isn't.

[Uirgil]

In article
<c6370a49-83c1-4cf1...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> Turn or BURN

The only safe way is to turn AWAY from Jesus.
Only those who follow Jesus can get life after death, at least according
to the Bible, and those who don't get it will not be around when it
comes time to burn.

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/6/12 6:35 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2:39 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/6/12 12:43 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>> Why do individual photons have to move?
>>
>> If photon didn't propagate, you would never see anything, Guth. :-o
>
> I'd probably see all those photons meant for me to see.
>

Nope -- If photons didn't propagate, you would not see anything, Guth.

[Sam Wormley]

How is that, Guth?

[hanson]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> speed of light. It's the "cosmic law"!
>

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam, why does whatever I and Einstein think, bother you so?
>
hanson wrote:
... only in s.p! Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahanson

[hanson]

"Painius" <stars...@aol.com> wrote:

> Hey, I'm just an unsung poet, Harlow.
> I'm not yet convinced that there isn't a way
> to make entanglement work for us to send
> intelligent information long distances instantaneously.
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine Ellsworth @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
>
hanson wrote:
Ellsworth, why are you paining yourself with that?
Billions, some 80+% of humanity, is entangled with
"sending such intelligent information long distances
instantaneously". It's called __payers__.... and then
>
they also insist "Indelibly" that they "receive intelligent
information long distances instantaneously" and even
tell the judge that "God made them do it"...
>
Of course, "scientists" try to nail that entanglement
down... to get it from one Belief-system into an other
one.
>
Science is funny, dude. Only very entangled, sorry
Dreidels think that science must be like a walk thru the
grave yard... Thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson

[GogoJF]

On Oct 6, 9:21 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

> "Painius" <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Hey, I'm just an unsung poet, Harlow.
> > I'm not yet convinced that there isn't a way
> > to make entanglement work for us to send
> > intelligent information long distances instantaneously.
> > Indelibly yours,

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

>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Ellsworth, why are you paining yourself with that?
> Billions, some 80+% of humanity, is entangled with
> "sending such intelligent information long distances
> instantaneously". It's called __payers__.... and then
>
> they also insist "Indelibly" that they "receive intelligent
> information long distances instantaneously" and even
> tell the judge that "God made them do it"...
>
> Of course, "scientists" try to nail that entanglement
> down... to get it from one Belief-system into an other
> one.
>
> Science is funny, dude. Only very entangled, sorry
> Dreidels think that science must be like a walk thru the
> grave yard...   Thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson

Well, Hanson you know instantaneous theory is my meat and potatoes.
One realization is that man is extremely limited to what exists in the
universe- and this being a fact- I also realized that there must be
some minimum absolute for which man- at least may claim to its' own
picture of reality. We see thing far away and we see things small-
and within this realm I cannot in terms of time a difference.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/6/2012 5:37 PM, linuxgal wrote:
> HVAC wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 2:04 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> However what? You believe that NON-material objects can travel faster
>>>> than light? Are we talking ghosts here? What do you mean by a
>>>> 'non-material' object? Is that like your non-trivial' deity? (lol)
>>>
>>> HVAC, you moron, NON-material things DO travel faster than light
>>
>>
>> Can you name any 'non-material' object?
>> I'll wait right here for your answer.
>>
>
> When you open a pair of scissors, the intersection between the blades
> has no speed limit. If you had a big enough pair of scissors, this
> intersection could move faster than light. But it's not a material object.

OMG! Even "Linuxgal" is smarter than the man with the highest IQ (well,
SECOND highest, next to TREEBert) on the planet!

Hey HVAC, you STILL "waiting" for someone to clue you in?

I TOLD you that "...everybody with ANY knowledge of science (lets
Wormley, Snider, and the usual suspects out!) knows it". Next time,
perhaps you'll pay more attention to your intellectual superiors?

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

Sorry, Sam, I hate to be the one to give you the bad news that contrary
to your undying belief in anything written in Scientific American, but
stooopidity is NOT cured by eye contact.

You ready to explain how heat constantly and increasingly entering a
material object can LOWER it's temperature yet? Or am I going to get
your "internet" act of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing
La, La, La, La, La, real loud? Seems HVAC is into that one too!

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/6/2012 6:07 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Ben, you are the kind of a guy I wouldn't mind having a face-to-face
> conversation with.

I'll bet you wouldn't be so quick to lie and be slanderous in that case.
(Unlike all your anonymous "good buddies" who use the Internet for
anonymous hate) I'm always here and easy to find!

[HVAC]

No. I am tested yearly.

[HVAC]

On 10/6/2012 5:37 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>>>> However what? You believe that NON-material objects can travel faster
>>>> than light? Are we talking ghosts here? What do you mean by a
>>>> 'non-material' object? Is that like your non-trivial' deity? (lol)
>>
>>> HVAC, you moron, NON-material things DO travel faster than light
>>
>> woops! the insane cunt made another insane claim.
>
>
> Uneducated big-mouth moron makes more slanderous statements in a
> world-wide public forum, proving he knows nothing. Enjoy the
> embarrassment, I presume.

Gentlemen, gentlemen...Please keep this discourse civil.

[HVAC]

On 10/6/2012 5:19 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> They like to use semantics and silly wordage issues against anyone
> that's an outsider like yourself. After all, it's what ZNR certified
> FUD-masters are paid and/or otherwise required to do.

Look, BJ....Brad Goth is on YOUR side in this! Doesn't that give you a
warm/fuzzy feeling inside?


Usenet Rule # 37
If Goth agrees with you, that proves you are wrong.

[HVAC]

On 10/6/2012 5:37 PM, linuxgal wrote:
> HVAC wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 2:04 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> However what? You believe that NON-material objects can travel faster
>>>> than light? Are we talking ghosts here? What do you mean by a
>>>> 'non-material' object? Is that like your non-trivial' deity? (lol)
>>>
>>> HVAC, you moron, NON-material things DO travel faster than light
>>
>>
>> Can you name any 'non-material' object?
>> I'll wait right here for your answer.
>>
>
> When you open a pair of scissors, the intersection between the blades
> has no speed limit. If you had a big enough pair of scissors, this
> intersection could move faster than light. But it's not a material object.

Ya. I think I debunked that idea when I was 10. Relativistic effects
come into play.

[HVAC]

On 10/6/2012 5:52 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>> Can you name any 'non-material' object?
>> I'll wait right here for your answer.
>
> Are you doing the Wormley, "stooopid" act again?
> Do I have to rub your nose in it and smack you with a newspaper?
> You KNOW you enjoy that sort of thing, ACDC!

So you have no answer?

>
> Here is my previous post which HVAC chose to ignore all but the first line:
> ------
> Previous Post:
>
> "HVAC, you moron, NON-material things DO travel faster than light and
> everybody with ANY knowledge of science (lets Wormley, Snider, and the
> usual suspects out!) knows it. Shame on your "high IQ" ass."
>
> "Hint: Google "EM Phase velocity". Why are you always trying to bring
> the subject around to strawmen you can chop to pieces like "ghosts". Do
> you feel you are not "doing your job" if you aren't debunking "forbidden
> topics"?"
> ------
> As usual, Harlow, you love to order everyone ELSE to go research the
> things you demand, but ignore any and all implications that YOU do a bit
> of typing on your keyboard.
>
> See that "hint" above. Go DO IT fer Crissake!
>
> You LOVE the smell of your own shit on your nose, don't you?
>
> Still waiting for that answer? Maybe if you do a doobie while you wait
> it will help lower that excessive IQ a bit.
>

[HVAC]

On 10/7/2012 12:30 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>>> Can you name any 'non-material' object?
>>> I'll wait right here for your answer.
>>>
>>
>> When you open a pair of scissors, the intersection between the blades
>> has no speed limit. If you had a big enough pair of scissors, this
>> intersection could move faster than light. But it's not a material
>> object.
>
>
> OMG! Even "Linuxgal" is smarter than the man with the highest IQ (well,
> SECOND highest, next to TREEBert) on the planet!

The poster named 'Linuxgal' I find to be an exceptionally bright and
well-spoken individual. Bert? No so much.

[Martin Musatov]

On Oct 6, 4:51 pm, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote:
> In article
> <c6370a49-83c1-4cf1-aee3-d5618d28b...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

[Bill Snyder]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:06:57 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/6/2012 5:52 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
>>> Can you name any 'non-material' object?
>>> I'll wait right here for your answer.
>>
>> Are you doing the Wormley, "stooopid" act again?
>> Do I have to rub your nose in it and smack you with a newspaper?
>> You KNOW you enjoy that sort of thing, ACDC!
>
>
>So you have no answer?

Santa Claus. Santa can do it; how else would he be able to cover
the entire world in a single night?


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/7/2012 7:02 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 5:19 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>> They like to use semantics and silly wordage issues against anyone
>> that's an outsider like yourself. After all, it's what ZNR certified
>> FUD-masters are paid and/or otherwise required to do.
>
>
> Look, BJ....Brad Goth is on YOUR side in this! Doesn't that give you a
> warm/fuzzy feeling inside?

EEEW! NO!

> Usenet Rule # 37
> If Goth agrees with you, that proves you are wrong.

Yes, that is the reason! But then, Even a blind pig...etc. etc.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/7/2012 6:58 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 5:37 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> However what? You believe that NON-material objects can travel faster
>>>>> than light? Are we talking ghosts here? What do you mean by a
>>>>> 'non-material' object? Is that like your non-trivial' deity? (lol)
>>>
>>>> HVAC, you moron, NON-material things DO travel faster than light
>>>
>>> woops! the insane cunt made another insane claim.
>>
>>
>> Uneducated big-mouth moron makes more slanderous statements in a
>> world-wide public forum, proving he knows nothing. Enjoy the
>> embarrassment, I presume.
>
>
> 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.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/7/2012 7:04 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 5:37 PM, linuxgal wrote:
>> HVAC wrote:
>>> On 10/6/2012 2:04 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> However what? You believe that NON-material objects can travel faster
>>>>> than light? Are we talking ghosts here? What do you mean by a
>>>>> 'non-material' object? Is that like your non-trivial' deity? (lol)
>>>>
>>>> HVAC, you moron, NON-material things DO travel faster than light
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you name any 'non-material' object?
>>> I'll wait right here for your answer.
>>>
>>
>> When you open a pair of scissors, the intersection between the blades
>> has no speed limit. If you had a big enough pair of scissors, this
>> intersection could move faster than light. But it's not a material
>> object.
>
>
> Ya. I think I debunked that idea when I was 10. Relativistic effects
> come into play.

And then you decided to be a professional GS gummint "debunker" for the
rest of your life.

Still haven't Googled "EM phase velocity", have you? You don't do very
well unless you are giving everyone else orders, do you? The basic idea
founding America is Freedom, not Fascism, Harlow.

[HVAC]

On 10/7/2012 10:40 AM, bja...@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?

[HVAC]

On 10/7/2012 10:37 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>>> They like to use semantics and silly wordage issues against anyone
>>> that's an outsider like yourself. After all, it's what ZNR certified
>>> FUD-masters are paid and/or otherwise required to do.
>>
>>
>> Look, BJ....Brad Goth is on YOUR side in this! Doesn't that give you a
>> warm/fuzzy feeling inside?
>
> EEEW! NO!
>
>> Usenet Rule # 37
>> If Goth agrees with you, that proves you are wrong.
>
> Yes, that is the reason! But then, Even a blind pig...etc. etc.

Comparing Goth to a blind pig is quite an insult to sighted bacon lovers
everywhere.

[HVAC]

On 10/7/2012 10:45 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>>> When you open a pair of scissors, the intersection between the blades
>>> has no speed limit. If you had a big enough pair of scissors, this
>>> intersection could move faster than light. But it's not a material
>>> object.
>>
>>
>> Ya. I think I debunked that idea when I was 10. Relativistic effects
>> come into play.
>
>
> And then you decided to be a professional GS gummint "debunker" for the
> rest of your life.

On my 10th birthday I got the book: Tom Swift And The Race To The Moon.

I was on my way!

> Still haven't Googled "EM phase velocity", have you?

Correct. I'd much rather hear your kooky take on it than read about it
on some gay web page.

> You don't do very
> well unless you are giving everyone else orders, do you?

Everyone has their limitations. That's my job...To point them out.

[HVAC]

These people just seem to string words together and think they actually
means something. What the fuck is a 'non material' object?

Kooks! They crack me up!

[linuxgal]

HVAC wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 5:37 PM, linuxgal wrote:
>> HVAC wrote:
>>> Can you name any 'non-material' object?
>>> I'll wait right here for your answer.
>>>
>>
>> When you open a pair of scissors, the intersection between the blades
>> has no speed limit. If you had a big enough pair of scissors, this
>> intersection could move faster than light. But it's not a material
>> object.
>
>
> Ya. I think I debunked that idea when I was 10. Relativistic effects
> come into play.
>

Allow me to provide another example. When ocean waves approach the
shore they "break" and you see a line of white water. If the wave
strikes the shore at an angle, this transition from symmetrical wave to
whitewater moves, depending on how far from the perpendicular the wave
strikes. If the wave is oriented almost, but not exactly 90 degrees
from the shore, this line will move fast indeed, perhaps even faster
than light. The point where it breaks is an abstract thing. The human
mind is wired to see "movement" in marquees when what's really happening
is some lights are turning on and off. There is no upper limit to the
velocity of that kind of motion.

--
Conservatives fear that you won't understand their proposals; liberals
fear that you will.

[linuxgal]

HVAC wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 10:40 AM, bja...@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?
>

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.