mass is light.
brian a m stuckless
$$ EVERYthing seen or made manifest is mass.
$$ -- Paul (Saul).
$$ hbar
$$ SI mass = --------- = MiNiMUM photon ..in kilograms.
$$ 2*c^2*sec
$$ h
$$ SI mass = ------------ = MiNiMUM photon m1 ..in SI kilograms.
$$ 4*pi*c^2*sec
$$ So, photons doN'T go anywhere ..they simply pass on the frequency.
$$ For example, Planck *discovered* Helmholtz resonator frequency fL.
$$ For example, Planck *believed* that the photons are ALREADY there.
$$ [The LiNEAR wavelength wL is what travels on ..at light velocity].
tomcat
Everything beyond simple sensation, color, sound, taste, smell, and
touch, is simply hypothetical construct. Verification consists of
mathematical consistency and experimental efficacy.
It has been said that everything is vibration. That theory is probably
as good as any. Optics gives us the impression of light moving in
space/time like objects do. Optics works for making a pair of glasses.
But does it describe the reality of space/time?
And, what are objects anyway? Just more sensation. You touch them,
hear them, taste and smell them, and see them. But just what are they?
Hard fast masses existing separately from you? If they existed
separately from you how could you see them? How could you even know of
them?
This causal nexus of our existence is a bit more complex than either
relativity or quantum mechanics would have us believe.
tomcat
jonathan
"tomcat" <jla...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1149002697.5...@r44g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
"The aim of science is not things themselves, as the dogmatists
in their simplicity imagine, but the relations among things; outside
these relations there is no reality knowable."
Henri Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis, 1905
Only our subjective abilities can properly perceive reality.
The dual nature of light is no more mysterious than the dual
nature of a simple cloud. If you were to take a snapsnot
measurement of a cloud, it'd be pure chance whether
you measured a drop of water or air. Since the two
are at a persistent phase transition between each other.
Like that temperature where water just turns to air, but not quite.
Chaotically jumping between the two possible states.
This is where any deterministic or precise mapping is
impossible due to the non linear and chaotic motion.
And guess what? The chaos and complexity sciences
have made a rather large discovery concerning this universal
dynamic state.
IT IS THE SOURCE OF ALL VISIBLE ORDER IN THE UNIVERSE!!!
The one and only place where objective mathematics, physics etc
are completely helpless. Is also the one and only place where
the underlying source of evolution of the physical /and/ living
worlds can be seen. Where math has always simply skipped
passed. Calling that state a 'discontinuity' and such or
thermodynamics.
"We'll leave that for later". It's just noise they say.
"There's no repeatability there, no precision" they say.
More art than science they say, like the weather.
"We just need a bigger computer" , then we'll
number crunch our way through the chaos ".
No you wont.
The dynamic state responsible for all order would
be the most complicated motion possible in your
objective sciences. But complexity science has inversed
....rigorously...all the frames of references of classical
methods.
Inverse the frame and inverse the results.
This chaotic state is now the simplest motion from
this subjective, holistic, evolutionary frame of reference.
What was hard is now simple.
And the simple truth is that from this dynamic or edge state,
complexity/chaos in the components creates simplicity
in the whole.
From your part driven perspective the universe is almost
infinitely complicated, messy, random and destructive.
So from my perspective the output, or the whole, will be
proportionally simple, elegant, beautiful and creative.
Which it is.
In real world systems the only place simplicity and predictability
are truly found are when systems display this edge of chaos
criticality. The near term future behavior becomes simple.
As it has only two possible future states when at the edge.
Either water or air, either matter or energy, either a particle
or a wave. Either static or chaotic.
And the extreme sensitivity at the edge, like that almost boiling
water, means the slightest change or input will cause a sudden
transition to ....either...a particle or a wave. Fight or flee!
Any equation that has time as a variable does not refer to reality.
Nothing that 'matters' in the universe ever repeats, nothing that matters
maps directly. It's the higher forms of order that matters.
The edge state is best displayed where 'complexity' is at the highest.
The secrets of the universe are not found in it's smallest parts.
It's found in life, the highest expression of life. Intelligence.
An emotion or idea represents the most complex or
highest level of order in the known universe.
Reality is best seen not by looking around us, at things
around us. But they are seen from within each of us.
The grand theory cannot be proved, it cannot be
made into an equation. It cannot be derived.
It can only be known and seen with our eyes.
Look! It's floating past your window.
Each of us has to figure it out by ourselves.
By developing our /subjective/ abilities to the
level of becoming science.
DYNAMICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html
s
>
>
> tomcat
>
tomcat
The simplest dichotomy explains quite a bit. To see means to see
something. That which sees is the 'observer'. That which is seen is
the 'object'. And, the relationship between the two is 'seeing', for
without 'seeing' there would be no observer/object.
Thus, the dichotomy becomes a trichotomy. The relations of our world
are now part of our world and can be analyzed so that they, too, turn
into 'objects' with yet another level of 'seeing' required. This is
the gensis of 'scientific observation' or experimentation/theory.
Soon we have special logics and theories of theories as the process
continues.
But it all boils down to sensation and 'our' observation of it. For
knowledge look outward. For truth look inward. But most people don't
look at all and are destined to be . . . conscious automatons.
tomcat
Alan Anderson
"jonathan" <Wr...@Instead.com> wrote:
> "tomcat" <jla...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:1149002697.5...@r44g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > brian a m stuckless wrote:
This thread is a trifecta of fringe.
Brad Guth
How many photons is your best swag telling us there are per atom?
How much does your typical photon weigh?
What's the maximum mass of a very large/long photon?
Are there extremely long gravity photons?
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
Any evidence for today's kooktheory, Brad?
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer
"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity
jonathan
The simplest dichotomy explains quite a bit. To see means to see
something. That which sees is the 'observer'. That which is seen is
the 'object'. And, the relationship between the two is 'seeing', for
without 'seeing' there would be no observer/object.
Thus, the dichotomy becomes a trichotomy. The relations of our world
are now part of our world and can be analyzed so that they, too, turn
into 'objects' with yet another level of 'seeing' required. This is
the gensis of 'scientific observation' or experimentation/theory.
Soon we have special logics and theories of theories as the process
continues.
But it all boils down to sensation and 'our' observation of it. For
knowledge look outward. For truth look inward. But most people don't
look at all and are destined to be . . . conscious automatons.
tomcat
....................
The relationship between observer and observed is the first
and most important frame of reference of all. Classical methods
have a problem here. They attempt to remove the observer
so that one observation can be compared to another.
It is the notion or desire to compare ...one thing...to another that
is the basic frame of reference mistake.
By instead comparing a thing against itself restores the observer
to the relationship. We ask first NOT what a thing is, but
what range of possibility exists for such things in general.
For each system we first define the opposite extremes in possibility
space. The practical, not theoretical, opposite extremes.
For a simple cloud the static and chaotic extremes in possibility
is merely water and air. For a society is would be law vs freedom.
For genius it would be knowledge and imagination.
So we now would compare an observation to those system specific
extremes. The highest expression of such things exists when both
static and chaotic realms are at simultaneous maximums ...and..interacting
with each other critically, at the edge.
The simplicity or complexity of a system is now judged relative to
its own possible extremes. Near one extreme or the other is where
simplicity lies in behavior. At the phase transition
between the two extremes is the most complex.
Two simple miminums, and one complex maximum.
Instead of a linear scale of order from ultimate simplicity to
infinite complexity, as things are seen now.
These opposite extremes are entirely subjective, which restores
the observer by forcing him to define the extremes or system
boundaries before the observed can be analyzed.
Any thing in the universe has opposite extremes in possibility.
So by comparing things against themselves allows ....all things..
to be analyzed with a ...single...science.
Every discipline dealing with the real world is open to this kind
of analysis. All of them.
And then, and only then, can the commonalities that exist
in reality be /seen/ with a single idea. And what you see when
doing this is nothing short of stunning.
At the edge, where opposite extremes stand poised at a persistent
phase transtion, the system spontaneously organizes. It becomes
adaptive, resilient and begins hill climbing.
Doesn't matter if it's a physical system or a living one.
The properties of Darwinian evolution we all know and love
apply universally. Which implies that the universe is NOT on
a random path of creation and destrucion.
But a directed walk towards ever higher forms of order.
This changes our view of everything.
Jonathan
s
jonathan
"Alan Anderson" <aran...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:aranders-709B5F...@news.isp.giganews.com...
Well, conventional has the following properties.
Can you ever hope to comprehend the sum total of
all scientific knowledge, data and disciplines???
Can anyone?
And as time goes on, and the disciplines become ever
more refined, specialized and numerous. As the data
builds at almost a exponential rate, is any one person
less or more likely to have this ability???
Of course not, over time the current 'equation' of science
takes us ever farther from the possibility of
complete understanding.
But what if we could reverse this situation. Where over
time the opposite occurs. Less and less disciplines, more
and more common axioms. Less and less data as one
system ends up describes them all.
What if?
Where everyone could understand it all with the minimum
of detailed knowledge.
The 'equation' of the conventional scientific method goes
like this. As the reduction to the part details approaches
zero, the complexity of the accumulated science approaches
infinity.
And into the confusing darkness of complexity we descend.
Into meaningless and anxiety ridden views.
Simply inverse the initial frame of reference concerning
the relationship between observer and observed.
From reducing to part details, to expanding to system properties.
From honing objective abilities to subjective.
From using the physical world to understanding the living, to
the reverse. And so on.
I'm not making this stuff up, only putting it in my own words
with some dramatic license. It's taught at MIT for
crying out loud, just to name one.
Robert J. Kolker
> Bryian, I think that I agree.
>
> How many photons is your best swag telling us there are per atom?
>
> How much does your typical photon weigh?
If the frequency of the photon is f, then the mass is h*f/c^2
Bob Kolker
tomcat
It is interesting to note that some theorists believe that electrons
are 'the' fundamental building block of matter/mass. Electrons have
mass. Photons don't. But, when electrons shift orbits they generate
photons and when photons hit metal plate they generate electrons.
It may, therefore, be the case that photons are the fundamental
building block of matter/mass, with photons simply being the flip side
of an electron -- whatever 'flip' means. Our world is certainly mostly
electrons. Everything you touch, in fact, the only things you can
touch are electrons. The neutrons and protons are deep inside the
electron shells.
If there is an equivalence operating here between electrons and photons
then, indeed, the things you touch are light (photons) itself, with the
light given off simply more of the same coming from 'other' sources.
It is not so farfetched then to think of the world as massless light
quanta despite the existence of mass electrons. The two appear to be
interchangeable.
What about protons, neutrons, and various particles? Perhaps they are
just more transpositions of massless photons. Annihilate them, plowing
one into the other, and you will see . . . light. Lots of light.
tomcat
Brad Guth
>If the frequency of the photon is f, then the mass is h*f/c^2
I'm thinking the lower the frequency the greater the potential mass,
then perhaps divide all of that by 2.
? h*1/f/c^2/2
how much is "h" worth these days?
-
Brad Guth
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> It is interesting to note that some theorists believe that electrons
> are 'the' fundamental building block of matter/mass. Electrons have
> mass. Photons don't. But, when electrons shift orbits they generate
> photons and when photons hit metal plate they generate electrons.
The do not generate electrons. They knock electrons loose. The electrons
are already their, bound electrically to a nucleus.
Bob Kolker
Brad Guth
tomcat wrote:
> Brad Guth wrote:
> > Bryian, I think that I agree.
> >
> > How many photons is your best swag telling us there are per atom?
> >
> > How much does your typical photon weigh?
> >
> > What's the maximum mass of a very large/long photon?
> >
> > Are there extremely long gravity photons?
> > -
> > Brad Guth
>
>
> It is interesting to note that some theorists believe that electrons
> are 'the' fundamental building block of matter/mass. Electrons have
> mass. Photons don't. But, when electrons shift orbits they generate
> photons and when photons hit metal plate they generate electrons.
More importantly, it's interesting to note that we're seeing no actual
hard numbers coming from these wizards that usually claim to know all
there is to know.
I believe there's at least 1e100 photons per atom, and we're talking
about all the way from those extremely low frequency gravity photons of
infinite light years to those sub gamma photons of the sub-picometer
status, thus we have lots to pick from.
-
Brad Guth
Robert J. Kolker
> I believe there's at least 1e100 photons per atom, and we're talking
> about all the way from those extremely low frequency gravity photons of
> infinite light years to those sub gamma photons of the sub-picometer
> status, thus we have lots to pick from.
If the gravitational interaction is mediated by a boson, it will be a
spin two boson. A photon is a spin one boson.
Bob Kolker
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> tomcat,
> More importantly, it's interesting to note that we're seeing no actual
> hard numbers coming from these wizards that usually claim to know all
> there is to know.
>
> I believe there's at least 1e100 photons per atom, and we're talking
> about all the way from those extremely low frequency gravity photons of
> infinite light years to those sub gamma photons of the sub-picometer
> status, thus we have lots to pick from.
> -
> Brad Guth
Light is certainly one of the strangest of objects. In the Double Slit
Experiment it acts like a wave until you look for the particles. Then
it becomes particles, instead. Albert Einstein used the speed of light
as the upper bound for all possible speeds in the Universe.
In the broad sense light includes visible light and invisible light,
such as X-Rays and Gamma Rays, besides. This is why solar cells
produce as well on cloudy days as they do on bright sunny days. Solar
cells react to the UV and shorter wavelengths and they can punch
through clouds.
In fact, this is how you entangle photons. One method is to take a UV
photon and turn it into two Infra-Red photons which equal the original
energy of the UV photon.
Recently light was speeded up in a doped optic fiber. Since the light
exceeded the speed of light in a vacuum it transversed the optic fiber
backward, instead of entering where it entered. In other words you
pour the light in end A and it immediately comes at you from end B.
Reference: University of Rochester in New York. This is creating
speculation that exceeding the speed of light can take you backwards in
time.
So, light is a little weird. Perhaps that is why there is some action
on this "mass is light" topic. It is time to air some of the weirdness
of simple photonic . . . light.
tomcat
tomcat
P.S. Reference on the University of Rochester experiment.
See:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/lights-most-exotic-trick-yet-so-fast-it-goes-backwards-10590.html
tomcat
Brad Guth
>on this "mass is light" topic. It is time to air some of the weirdness
>of simple photonic . . . light.
of our very best instruments detect perhaps 0.1% of whatever's photon.
Too bad we haven't established the LL-1 platform for doing real
science.
Do you still think we walked on that gamma and hard-X-ray moon of ours?
This was something interesting.
>Dogon_Tribe_from_Sirius_B / TRUE physical
>Manipulation of the masses is for sociopaths. brian_am_stuckless
>is not a manipulator of anyone. His dialecticisms are framed in
>the highest artform available to engineers - mathematics. One
>would tend to believe that there is a message behind using the
>dollar signs at the borders of his reports - I can see that today
>there is a tremendous ruse being played on the American people -
>liberalism and dialectical moderation to the extreme. Yet the
>ruses of the blind can in no way dilute the potency of the wise.
>Political shadiness are for those who can't withstand the light
>of truth. Only the knowingly-ignorant will perish of their own
>accord. The free will of the force of faithful intuition can never
>be resisted. Mr. brian_a_m_stuckless is a simple example of the
>force of faithful intuition. How much he is right, I am not sure.
>But I can say one thing: the "proud" will succumb to the applica-
>tions of the wise, and will be banished from advancing the
>applications and benefits of harmonious science!
I totally agree with this seriously weird soul, and as you know, I even
have a few of my very own WMD forms of "harmonious science" that
actually has replicated hard-science and otherwise having been based
upon the regular laws of physics to boot, that'll kick serious Usenet
naysay butt in order to prove it.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
P.P.S. Reference on the University of Rochester 'Light' experiment.
See: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2544
tomcat
Brad Guth
tracks and apparently going backwards is essentially in other words of
what others and I'd argued as of several years ago, by which my efforts
blew all sorts of Usenet fuses, and I even crashed FAS .org and .com a
couple of times in the process. I did the same to the lords and
wizards of the MI~NSA BBC/BBCI and summarily got more naysay flack than
I'd thought possible, not to mention having pissed off SETI/OSETI to no
end.
I was merely going for efficient interplanetary and interstellar
communications via photons, as suggesting upon a few science probes or
data packets that could be made of light upon light, instead of our
physically going there or even sending off a physical probe that'll
likely never exceed 1% the speed of light due to the terminal velocity
of the ISM, though 10%'c' might conceivably be sustained via my
Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion thruster that has got a half life Isp that's worthy
of 1600 years...
Here again, I was suggesting upon our utilizing the LSE-CM/ISS as
offering a perfectly viable science platform, if not having arrays of
robotic laser cannons actually deployed upon our moon. Of course, all
that did was start WW-III.
So yes, light and the entire spectrum gauntlet of such photons (the
vast majority of which we can't see, and some of which we can't even
detect) that as a whole seem a whole lot more important than atoms is
indeed extra special in my book. Just don't expect any constructive
Usenet topic support, other than from the likes of myself and damn few
others that would dare to share their 2 cents worth.
-
Brad Guth
jonathan
"sam ende" <s...@sende.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4e536gF...@individual.net...
> jonathan wrote:
>
>
> > DYNAMICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS
> > http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html
>
>
Here's a couple of links where some of the main concepts
are introduced in a less detailed way.
Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
And my favorite site, since they place all the
concepts in essay form.
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm
And here's a link to one of the founders
and his lectures outlining some initial concepts.
If anyone thinks my writing is 'fringy', read this.
He juggles mathematical concepts using terms
like 'trembling hands', 'Adam Smith' and
Demons.
INVESTIGATIONS
THE NATURE OF AUTONOMOUS AGENTS
AND THE WORLDS THEY MUTUALLY CREATE
STUART A. KAUFFMAN
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/Investigations.html
To really see the significance of these concepts, it's important
to spend some time with random boolean networks. Which
are to complexity science as the integral is to calculus.
This allows you to visualize how a random network can
spontaneously organize. And shows how at criticality
the network suddenly goes from a simple cyclic network
to an explosion in network complexity. It shows how
randomness is the ultimate source of evolution, whether
living or physical.
Random Boolean Networks
http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~kaiw/RBN/
CALResCo Software Pages
http://www.calresco.org/sos/calressw.htm#oc
>
> sammi
Art Deco
>Faster than light, slower than light, stopping light dead in it's
>tracks and apparently going backwards is essentially in other words of
>what others and I'd argued as of several years ago, by which my efforts
>blew all sorts of Usenet fuses, and I even crashed FAS .org and .com a
>couple of times in the process. I did the same to the lords and
>wizards of the MI~NSA BBC/BBCI and summarily got more naysay flack than
>I'd thought possible, not to mention having pissed off SETI/OSETI to no
>end.
>
>I was merely going for efficient interplanetary and interstellar
>communications via photons, as suggesting upon a few science probes or
>data packets that could be made of light upon light, instead of our
>physically going there or even sending off a physical probe that'll
>likely never exceed 1% the speed of light due to the terminal velocity
>of the ISM, though 10%'c' might conceivably be sustained via my
>Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion thruster that has got a half life Isp that's worthy
>of 1600 years...
>
>Here again, I was suggesting upon our utilizing the LSE-CM/ISS as
>offering a perfectly viable science platform, if not having arrays of
>robotic laser cannons actually deployed upon our moon. Of course, all
>that did was start WW-III.
Please tell everyone the date that WW-III began, Brad. I must have
missed this headline in the newspapers.
>
>So yes, light and the entire spectrum gauntlet of such photons (the
>vast majority of which we can't see, and some of which we can't even
>detect) that as a whole seem a whole lot more important than atoms is
>indeed extra special in my book. Just don't expect any constructive
>Usenet topic support, other than from the likes of myself and damn few
>others that would dare to share their 2 cents worth.
You should also tell your delusional friend how you managed to get
banned from the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board in record fashion, it only
took four posts.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer
"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity
"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development
Art Deco
>>So, light is a little weird. Perhaps that is why there is some action
>>on this "mass is light" topic. It is time to air some of the weirdness
>>of simple photonic . . . light.
>We humanly detect perhaps 0.0000001% of that weird photon spectrum, and
>of our very best instruments detect perhaps 0.1% of whatever's photon.
>Too bad we haven't established the LL-1 platform for doing real
>science.
>
>Do you still think we walked on that gamma and hard-X-ray moon of ours?
Why do you keep lying about these facts, Brad?
>
>This was something interesting.
>>Dogon_Tribe_from_Sirius_B / TRUE physical
>>Manipulation of the masses is for sociopaths. brian_am_stuckless
>>is not a manipulator of anyone. His dialecticisms are framed in
>>the highest artform available to engineers - mathematics. One
>>would tend to believe that there is a message behind using the
>>dollar signs at the borders of his reports - I can see that today
>>there is a tremendous ruse being played on the American people -
>>liberalism and dialectical moderation to the extreme. Yet the
>>ruses of the blind can in no way dilute the potency of the wise.
>>Political shadiness are for those who can't withstand the light
>>of truth. Only the knowingly-ignorant will perish of their own
>>accord. The free will of the force of faithful intuition can never
>>be resisted. Mr. brian_a_m_stuckless is a simple example of the
>>force of faithful intuition. How much he is right, I am not sure.
>>But I can say one thing: the "proud" will succumb to the applica-
>>tions of the wise, and will be banished from advancing the
>>applications and benefits of harmonious science!
>I totally agree with this seriously weird soul, and as you know, I even
>have a few of my very own WMD forms of "harmonious science" that
>actually has replicated hard-science and otherwise having been based
>upon the regular laws of physics to boot, that'll kick serious Usenet
>naysay butt in order to prove it.
"regular laws of physics" == preconceived pseudoscientific kook notions
in Guth-Speak.
Brad Guth
based items, then perhaps there's a positive photon and a negative
photon per given frequency wave, that's otherwise representing itself
as a single photon to our eyes and instruments. Perhaps this notion
has some bearing on the spin-one/spin-two boson, and of light being
capable of going in reverse.
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
>I'm into thinking
Just give it up, Brad, it still isn't working for you. But it is
amusing that you post to rec.org.mensa; I'm sure you're a big hit
there.
Brad Guth
ours?
>Why do you keep lying about these facts, Brad?
are you flatulating about this time? Are you merely butt flapping as
to excluding upon NASA's own remote science as having afforded
perfectly reasonable soft-science that you should have taken directly
to your offshore tax avoidance Jewish bank, and then to remember to
thank your lucky stars that your butt wasn't on TWA flight 800, that
was either a friendly-fire training and/or required DoD subcontractor
proof-of-contract-proficiency demonstration effort screw-up, or merely
that of an intended special black ops hit, though if so was obviously
yet another botched effort intended for taking out the likes of Henry
Kissinger. Can you prove or even reasonably suggest otherwise?
Then as to what's being said as per the "Art Deco" norm of science and
physics fuckology on a stick; you're still representing yourself as
another incest cloned borg that's into being that highly specialized
and NASA certified brown-nosed liar, that of an e-spook status quo
pagan butt-wipe or bust kind of Third Reich minion, as well as an
intellectual special black ops bigot to boot. I'll bet there's no
obvious lies there to behold.
Other than from your NASA/Apollo infomercial koran and from their many
partners in our perpetrated cold-war(s) of crimes against humanity,
where exactly is your actual proof? Got yourself a fly-by-rocket
lander, of any such R&D prototype (AI/robotic or manned) worth of any
stinking lander, that which can be demonstrated or even as having been
filmed as having been demonstrated? Got your proof that our moon
actually isn't a solid form of a Van Allen belt, as a rather truly
nasty physical zone that's absolutely chuck full of gamma, and
otherwise offering such a nasty TBI lethal dosage worth of hard-X-rays
(especially getting itself extra DNA nasty by day)?
Got any NASA/Apollo squat that isn't MOS infomercial-science as based
entirely upon their skewed conditional laws of physics, that by all
other known and accepted standards is what sucks and blows just about
anything but the truth out of your collective infomercial cheek
flapping butts?
Got that unfiltered Kodak moment of such a highly UV-a and extra
near-UV saturated environment, as well as subsequently being color
skewed worth of every EVA recorded look-see at our physically near coal
dark and nasty moon, that's also double IR hot, and more than just a
wee bit radioactive as well as being sufficiently naked so as to being
highly reactive to the solar and cosmic influx, as seriously bad DNA
news as all get out?
Why in so many of their guano island moonscapes is it so 0.55+ albedo
reflective, and otherwise so unusually smooth (free of any significant
meteors or secondary moon debris) and otherwise essentially clean as
portland cement and cornmeal tends to get?
Why are the terrestrial looking and fairly deep cracks within such
rocks so gosh darn clear of any such clumping or any other moon-dust?
Where do you suppose all of that rock-crack cleaning service via such a
pesky amounts of lunar wind came from?
Why the heck is moon-dust or of whatever moon-debris falling to that
naked deck at roughly 9.8 m/s?
Were those movie and/or video camera set for using merely 5 frames per
second instead of the 30fps norm, when instead it should have taken
18.5 video frames, instead of the 3.06 frames worth. What that heck am
I and every other honest soul on Earth doing wrong, Art Dicko?
Why is the blue of our American flage recorded without spectrum filters
as offering such a deep blue that's identical to what a xenon lamp
spectrum would have provided?
Why is there never once any sign whatsoever of having recorded
secondary/recoil photons of near-blue, as otherwise easily accomplished
at much less applied UV-a energy/m2?
NOTE to pagan brown-nosed butt-wipe Art Sicko; Studio black lighting
affect of obtaining those secondary/recoil photons of near-blue is
usually accomplished quite nicely at roughly 4~5 w/m2, especially
effective if the natural surroundings are of a wussy 0.07 albedo and
then a moonsuit material that's extra reactive due to those material
whitening agents having been added for accommodating the extra thermal
reflective benefit. Ever watch TV or go disco dancing, Art Fucko?
Since the Kodak film had more than sufficient DR as to actually record
upon a couple dozen other items in that crystal clear black sky that's
obviously above all of that nearly coal black (0.07 albedo) moon,
besides big old mother Earth that's capable of illuminating it's bluish
earthshine at 76.5 fold greater impact than moonshine, then where's the
smaller but so much brighter orb of Venus, and especially the likes of
the near-UV and UV-a Sirius star/solar system that should have burned a
nice little hole in that unfiltered Kodak film (especially of their B&W
stuff that's even more sensitive to such spectrum energy).
How the heck did they ever manage to avoid, 6 out of 6 times, such
easily available targets that would have unavoidably recorded via Kodak
film?
Where the heck is our LL-1 science platform?
Where's any hard-science as to raw ice in space?
Why are you still fornicating in front of the kids?
Does NASA and of their MI~NSA/CIA/DoD boss pay by the lie?
Got your special ops official screw humanity merit badge yet?
Got that spare Jewish cross, just in case Jesus Christ returns?
Where's that R&D fly-by-rockt lander w/o momentum reaction wheels?
Have you exterminated any more of those good and innocent Muslims
today?
Got a freaking clue as to what our perpetrated cold-war has cost
humanity?
Give a tinkers damn about our global-warming environment, and of the
innocent lives being taken?
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
>:Do you still think we walked on that gamma and hard-X-ray moon of
>ours?
>>Why do you keep lying about these facts, Brad?
>What's there to lie about?
Why are you asking me, you are the liar.
>What actual facts (not infomercial-facts)
>are you flatulating about this time? Are you merely butt flapping as
>to excluding upon NASA's own remote science as having afforded
>perfectly reasonable soft-science that you should have taken directly
>to your offshore tax avoidance Jewish bank, and then to remember to
>thank your lucky stars that your butt wasn't on TWA flight 800, that
>was either a friendly-fire training and/or required DoD subcontractor
>proof-of-contract-proficiency demonstration effort screw-up, or merely
>that of an intended special black ops hit, though if so was obviously
>yet another botched effort intended for taking out the likes of Henry
>Kissinger. Can you prove or even reasonably suggest otherwise?
Froth.
>
>Then as to what's being said as per the "Art Deco" norm of science and
>physics fuckology on a stick; you're still representing yourself as
>another incest cloned borg that's into being that highly specialized
>and NASA certified brown-nosed liar, that of an e-spook status quo
>pagan butt-wipe or bust kind of Third Reich minion, as well as an
>intellectual special black ops bigot to boot. I'll bet there's no
>obvious lies there to behold.
Froth.
>
>Other than from your NASA/Apollo infomercial koran and from their many
>partners in our perpetrated cold-war(s) of crimes against humanity,
>where exactly is your actual proof? Got yourself a fly-by-rocket
>lander, of any such R&D prototype (AI/robotic or manned) worth of any
>stinking lander, that which can be demonstrated or even as having been
>filmed as having been demonstrated? Got your proof that our moon
>actually isn't a solid form of a Van Allen belt, as a rather truly
>nasty physical zone that's absolutely chuck full of gamma, and
>otherwise offering such a nasty TBI lethal dosage worth of hard-X-rays
>(especially getting itself extra DNA nasty by day)?
Froth.
>
>Got any NASA/Apollo squat that isn't MOS infomercial-science as based
>entirely upon their skewed conditional laws of physics, that by all
>other known and accepted standards is what sucks and blows just about
>anything but the truth out of your collective infomercial cheek
>flapping butts?
Froth.
>
>Got that unfiltered Kodak moment of such a highly UV-a and extra
>near-UV saturated environment, as well as subsequently being color
>skewed worth of every EVA recorded look-see at our physically near coal
>dark and nasty moon, that's also double IR hot, and more than just a
>wee bit radioactive as well as being sufficiently naked so as to being
>highly reactive to the solar and cosmic influx, as seriously bad DNA
>news as all get out?
Froth.
Why do you refuse to address real data that contradicts your
preconceived kooknotions, Brad?
I'll give you the answer if you can't think of one.
Secr...@verizon.net
You are the proven liar, what exactly are you trying to say now ??
Brad Guth wrote:
> :Do you still think we walked on that gamma and hard-X-ray moon of
> ours?
> >Why do you keep lying about these facts, Brad?
> What's there to lie about? What actual facts (not infomercial-facts)
> are you flatulating about this time? Are you merely butt flapping as
> to excluding upon NASA's own remote science as having afforded
> perfectly reasonable soft-science that you should have taken directly
> to your offshore tax avoidance Jewish bank, and then to remember to
> thank your lucky stars that your butt wasn't on TWA flight 800, that
> was either a friendly-fire training and/or required DoD subcontractor
> proof-of-contract-proficiency demonstration effort screw-up, or merely
> that of an intended special black ops hit, though if so was obviously
> yet another botched effort intended for taking out the likes of Henry
> Kissinger. Can you prove or even reasonably suggest otherwise?
>
> Then as to what's being said as per the "Art Deco" norm of science and
> physics fuckology on a stick; you're still representing yourself as
> another incest cloned borg that's into being that highly specialized
> and NASA certified brown-nosed liar, that of an e-spook status quo
> pagan butt-wipe or bust kind of Third Reich minion, as well as an
> intellectual special black ops bigot to boot. I'll bet there's no
> obvious lies there to behold.
>
> Were those movie and/or video camera set for using merely 5 frames per
> second instead of the 30fps norm, when instead it should have taken
> 18.5 video frames, instead of the 3.06 frames worth. What that heck am
> I and every other honest soul on Earth doing wrong, Art Dicko?
>
What you are doing wrong is breathing Brad.
>
> Why is the blue of our American flage recorded without spectrum filters
> as offering such a deep blue that's identical to what a xenon lamp
> spectrum would have provided?
>
> Why is there never once any sign whatsoever of having recorded
> secondary/recoil photons of near-blue, as otherwise easily accomplished
> at much less applied UV-a energy/m2?
>
Why don't I get equal time with Art Deco ??
>
> Since the Kodak film had more than sufficient DR as to actually record
> upon a couple dozen other items in that crystal clear black sky that's
> obviously above all of that nearly coal black (0.07 albedo) moon,
> besides big old mother Earth that's capable of illuminating it's bluish
> earthshine at 76.5 fold greater impact than moonshine, then where's the
> smaller but so much brighter orb of Venus, and especially the likes of
> the near-UV and UV-a Sirius star/solar system that should have burned a
> nice little hole in that unfiltered Kodak film (especially of their B&W
> stuff that's even more sensitive to such spectrum energy).
>
> How the heck did they ever manage to avoid, 6 out of 6 times, such
> easily available targets that would have unavoidably recorded via Kodak
> film?
>
Nobody will read what I am typing here because it is hidden in what you
write Brad and nobody reads your crap.
>
> Where's any hard-science as to raw ice in space?
>
> Why are you still fornicating in front of the kids?
>
> Does NASA and of their MI~NSA/CIA/DoD boss pay by the lie?
>
> Got your special ops official screw humanity merit badge yet?
>
> Got that spare Jewish cross, just in case Jesus Christ returns?
>
> Where's that R&D fly-by-rockt lander w/o momentum reaction wheels?
>
> Have you exterminated any more of those good and innocent Muslims
> today?
>
Chuck Stewart
> Why don't I get equal time with Art Deco ??
You do now... in my killfile.
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Secr...@verizon.net
If Brad is not in your kill-file, then I want to be.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
in alt.fan.art-bell in message <030620061909214691%er...@netcabal.com>:
>
>
> Froth.
> >
>
> Froth.
>
> Froth.
> >
>
> Froth.
> >
>
> Froth.
With a Super-Sized side order of GOBBLE, to go! Oh, and two apple
pies for $1.
--
V.G.
"i would blame them it they went on a holy jhiad and killed off all the infidels, would you?"
- AssLexa's "200+" alien-implanted IQ jumps the rails and crashes into a grade school, killing all inside.
Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
Brad Guth
certified closed naysay mindset, in which case nothing of the truth
matters.
Sorry folks and fellow rusemasters of your pagan realm, no matters how
hard we try (GW Bush, Dick Cheney and all), we simply can't possibly
get ourselves any more snookered and summarily dumb and dumber. Being
100+% snookered and summarily dumbfounded is now within each of our Sir
names, if not by now imprinted into our dumbfounded DNA. It's looking
as though a whole lot of sucking and blowing is about as good as life
gets from here on out.
Quick; we need to save our badly sinking good ship LOLLIPOP; NASA
needs MIB damage control.
Perhaps unlike yourself, at least tj Frazir (among a few others) has
certainly been a worthy though weird physics contributor, and I'd have
to say sufficiently right all along about our NASA/Apollo fiasco. I've
asked of these other Usenet clowns, perhaps such as yourself and any
other such pagan suck-up minions, to bite me or at least show us
village idiots whatever it is they've got that'll science replicate as
being the truth and nothing but the truth.
Besides there being other intelligent life as having existed/coexisted
upon Venus (I've got that proof nailed real good), it seems that I now
have to realize that by far the worse Van Allen belt around is the
physical moon itself, as for representing itself as essentially the
solid ultimate form of a Van Allen zone or Van Allen badlands that's
real TBI(total body irradiation) worthy and thus through and through
DNA nasty, especially if your going out and about on a clear and sunny
day as EVA moonsuit butt naked. By day or night, the local radon (Rn
by day or LRn by night) is in fact a worthy element that's going to
react rather nicely to the solar and otherwise continual cosmic energy
influx, creating more of those nifty soft-gamma and hard-X-rays on the
fly, sort of speak.
Further proof emerges, in that mostlikely yourself and others of your
incest cloned kind are into avoiding those prime core lander issues, by
way of their not honestly contributing or otherwise sharing info about
those powerful momentum reaction wheels that are so required, though so
entirely excluded from their previous Apollo missions, especially
essential because of all the nearby orbital, deorbit and down-range
mascon issues, plus dealing with whatever's of shifting mass and torque
issues within a given lander, nor are these folks and rusemasters
offering so much as any peep about the gamma and hard-X-ray environment
that's in addition to all the tens of meters deep moon-dust that's good
for supporting a surface tension of perhaps at best 0.5 g/cm2 if not at
worse being hopefully not less than 0.1 g/cm2 (don't harly count on any
clumping).
If given a physical dust influx of just a wussy micrometre per given
year (I usually get more than that on my TV set, of which even in our
gravity and wet environment doesn't compact nor otherwise clump worth a
damn), as such represents a meter of dust accumulation per million
years, that is unless somehow having been solar wind blown away, or
otherwise somehow converted into the lunar surface as becoming a
significantly compressed or somewhat chemically vulcanised or otherwise
physically bonded solid form. By the way; it seems such dust being the
likes of titanium, iron and carbon soot like graphites are also going
to become and likely remain as extremely electrostatic, not to mention
of whatever's contributed as radioactive debris mixed in for good
measure, especially TBI nasty to one's DNA since our moon is
essentially a solid form of a Van Allen belt, as having been nearly
naked and thus collecting upon some of the absolute worse known forms
of solar and cosmic contributed radioactive elements, as per easily
having been collected upon and firmly held into it's otherwise
physically dark and somewhat salty surface.
Gamma Ray Moon (downright humanly lethal by day or night)
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Moon_gamma_rays_egret_instrument_cgro.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grsradiation-med.jpg
Hard-X-Ray Moon (survivable by earthshine, though not so mooonsuit/DNA
friendly by day)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Moon_in_x-rays.gif
Remember that it's only the regular laws of physics that'll determine
the degree and/or population of those secondary/recoil photons of
hard-X-rays, that which are continually being made available from the
local and influx of radioactive and subsequent gamma environment, as
well as per such gamma energy interacting as it should with the local
mass of available elements, including the 3+ g/cm3 worth of basalt
density that'll do just perfectly fine and dandy, and of whatever's
heavier density worth of elements the better for generating those
hard-X-rays. I believe it's called radiation physics-101, or perhaps
duh-101.
Just in case you've missed out on one of my previous post, so for an
extra good measure, here it is again.
Usenet topic: "we did not go to the moon.got it?."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/66ba567e0610296e/d1914e4503b42f11?hl=en#d1914e4503b42f11
part one
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1913474363747128107&q=illuminati
part two
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5737681932896358451&q=illumi...
astronauts interviewed
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561&q=moon
>all the evidence you need.is there
>hun; i like the glint on the wires holding them up
>the amazing self standing astronaut and the footage
>catching them placing a transfer of earth over the
>window and claiming to be 150 000 miles from
>earth.classic
Unfortunately, my cheap local internet bandwidth clearly sucks, so I
can't hardly manage to get a reasonable look-see or download without
having a bit more than a few complications, plus taking one heck of a
great deal of time, although I did appreciate what initial portion of
Part-1 that I'd managed to view.
It seems their research into our NASA/Apollo fiasco is certainly
looking as though good enough to eat, but yet most of their study
applied upon those 6X6 cm frame by frame Kodak moments, of their movie
film and fuzzy video camera as having been transferred to film footage
and then back to video format for our review is pretty much focused
upon the various content, which is in fact often skewed well out of
reason, along with several fairly obvious errors. However, I believe
it's not so much the image content as it is the image upon film itself,
that which way more than sucks and blows just about anything but the
NASA/Apollo version of the truth, especially of those unfiltered Kodak
moments that technically suck as even worse rotten eggs more than any
damn village idiot of a fool on any hill can possibly ignore, that
which tells us an even better story via replicated science and of the
well established Kodak laws of photon physics, of having proven our not
having walked moonsuit butt naked upon that physically dark and TBI
nasty moon of ours, that's otherwise chuck full of being about as gamma
and hard-X-ray lethal to human DNA as all get out.
I've often said this one before, that our nearly naked moon is
essentially providing us with a solid form of a lethal Van Allen belt,
and it only manages to get itself so much worse yet by day. How's that
for my warm and fuzzy sharing a little something extra that's the
hard-science and physics truth and nothing but God's truth about our
physically dark and nasty moon?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Here's more of my topic drift that obviously has nothing to do with the
mass of whatever light, just the mass of your incest infomercial
crapolla that's obviously more important than any stinking photon that
obviously isn't Jewish enough to suit your taste for the blood and guts
of most all others.
BTW; I don't recall never intentionally posting myself with this
interesting topic heading of "mass is light." Must be Art Deco's
fault.
Go right ahead and prove us village idiots wrong, by way of selecting
upon any of those pesky items, then please do have at it with every
mutated naysay cell that's within your incest cloned fuckology brain
that's squarely situated between your butt-cheeks.
Other than from your NASA/Apollo infomercial koran and from their many
partners in your perpetrated cold-war(s) of crimes against humanity,
where exactly is your actual proof? Got yourself that fly-by-rocket
lander, of any such R&D prototype (AI/robotic or manned) worth of any
stinking lander, that which can be demonstrated or even as having been
filmed as having been demonstrated? Got your proof that our moon
actually isn't a solid form of a Van Allen belt, as a rather truly
nasty physical zone that's absolutely chuck full of gamma, and
otherwise offering such a nasty TBI lethal dosage worth of hard-X-rays
(especially getting itself extra DNA nasty by day)?
Got any of that NASA/Apollo squat that isn't MOS infomercial-science as
based entirely upon their skewed conditional laws of physics, that by
all other known and accepted standards is what sucks and blows just
about anything but the truth out of your collective infomercial cheek
flapping butts?
Got that unfiltered Kodak moment of such a highly UV-a and extra
near-UV saturated environment, as well as subsequently being color
skewed worth of every EVA recorded look-see at our physically near coal
dark and nasty moon, that's also double IR hot, and more than just a
wee bit radioactive as well as being sufficiently naked so as to being
highly reactive to the solar and cosmic influx, as seriously bad DNA
news as all get out?
Why is it in so many of their guano island moonscapes is it so gosh
darn 0.55+ albedo reflective, and otherwise so unusually smooth (free
of any significant meteors or secondary moon debris) and otherwise
essentially clean as portland cement and cornmeal tends to get?
Why are the terrestrial looking and fairly deep cracks within such
physically bright and relatively clean rocks that somehow remained as
so gosh darn clear of any such clumping or any other moon-dust?
Where do you suppose all of that rock-crack cleaning service via such
downright pesky amounts of lunar wind came from?
Why the heck is moon-dust or of whatever moon-debris falling (via movie
film at 16fps or video camera at 30fps) to that naked deck at roughly
9.8 m/s?
Were those movie and/or video camera set for using merely 5 frames per
second instead of the 30fps video norm or the 16fps of their movie film
norm, when instead it should have taken 18.5 video frames, instead of
the mere 3 frames worth. What that heck am I and every other honest
soul on Earth doing wrong, Art Fucko?
Why is the blue of our American flag as recorded without spectrum
filters offering such a deep blue that's so identical to what a xenon
lamp spectrum would have provided?
Why is there never once any sign whatsoever of having recorded
secondary/recoil photons of near-blue, as otherwise easily accomplished
at much less applied UV-a energy/m2?
NOTE to pagan brown-nosed butt-wipe Art Sicko; Studio black lighting
affect of obtaining those secondary/recoil photons of near-blue is
usually accomplished quite nicely at roughly 4~5 w/m2, especially
effective if the natural surroundings are of a wussy 0.07 albedo and
then a moonsuit material that's extra reactive due to those material
whitening agents having been added for accommodating the extra thermal
reflective benefit. Ever watch TV or go disco dancing, Art Pricko?
Since the Kodak film actually had more than sufficient DR as to
actually record upon a couple dozen other items in that crystal clear
black sky that's obviously above all of that nearly coal black (0.07
albedo) moon, besides big old mother Earth that's capable of
illuminating it's bluish earthshine at 76.5 fold greater impact than
moonshine, then where's the smaller but so much brighter orb of Venus,
and especially the likes of the near-UV and UV-a Sirius star/solar
system that should have burned a nice little hole in that unfiltered
Kodak film (especially of their B&W stuff that's even more sensitive to
such spectrum energy).
Tell us village idiots, Art Bozo, how the freaking heck did they ever
Art Deco
[guthdrool flush]
>I've often said this one before,
And no doubt you'll say it again using the exact same words.
>that our nearly naked moon is
>essentially providing us with a solid form of a lethal Van Allen belt,
>and it only manages to get itself so much worse yet by day.
Bullshit.
>How's that
>for my warm and fuzzy sharing a little something extra
Bullshit.
>that's the
>hard-science and physics truth and nothing but God's truth about our
>physically dark and nasty moon?
A load of bullshit you made up, Brad. You don't understand anything
about radiation, Brad.
Art Deco
>Art
>nasty old fart,
>Jewish
>
>Art Deco's
>
>incest cloned fuckology brain
>that's squarely situated between your butt-cheeks.
>
>your collective infomercial cheek
>flapping butts?
>
>pagan brown-nosed butt-wipe Art Sicko
>Art Pricko?
>
>Art Bozo
>
>still fornicating in front of the kids?
>
>your special ops official screw humanity merit badge yet?
>
>Jewish
>
>exterminated any more of those good and innocent Muslims
>today?
Meltdown complete.
tomcat
Light is no ordinary thing.
In the Double Slit Experiment single photons went through both slits
when no one was looking. As soon, however, as a measuring device was
attached to both slits to determine how a single photon could behave
like a wave, the single photon became a single photon and only went
through one slit, not both. The interference pattern disappeared on
the photographic film, on the other side of the slits, and only a tiny
white dot appeared instead.
"Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was
good."
tomcat
Brad Guth
good."
was bad, very bad.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat wrote:
> Brad Guth wrote:
> > I'm into thinking if photons are purely 2D quantum string frequency
> > based items, then perhaps there's a positive photon and a negative
> > photon per given frequency wave, that's otherwise representing itself
> > as a single photon to our eyes and instruments. Perhaps this notion
> > has some bearing on the spin-one/spin-two boson, and of light being
> > capable of going in reverse.
> > -
> > Brad Guth
> >
>
Art Deco
>"Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was
>good."
>But then that same light shown upon our Art Deco. And, God saw that it
>was bad, very bad.
Are you now claiming to be God, top-posting frothboi?
>-
>Brad Guth
>
>
>tomcat wrote:
>> Brad Guth wrote:
>> > I'm into thinking if photons are purely 2D quantum string frequency
>> > based items, then perhaps there's a positive photon and a negative
>> > photon per given frequency wave, that's otherwise representing itself
>> > as a single photon to our eyes and instruments. Perhaps this notion
>> > has some bearing on the spin-one/spin-two boson, and of light being
>> > capable of going in reverse.
>> > -
>> > Brad Guth
>> >
>>
>> Light is no ordinary thing.
>>
>> In the Double Slit Experiment single photons went through both slits
>> when no one was looking. As soon, however, as a measuring device was
>> attached to both slits to determine how a single photon could behave
>> like a wave, the single photon became a single photon and only went
>> through one slit, not both. The interference pattern disappeared on
>> the photographic film, on the other side of the slits, and only a tiny
>> white dot appeared instead.
>>
>> "Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was
>> good."
>>
>>
>> tomcat
>
--
Brad Guth
I'm certainly a whole lot more God worthy than the naysay pagan
buttology on a stick that the born-again likes of yourself will ever
encounter. However, get that minion brown-nose of your's anywhere near
my butt and I'll cut that nasty sucker off at the root.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was
> good."
> But then that same light shown upon our Art Deco. And, God saw that it
> was bad, very bad.
> -
> Brad Guth
The Creation of 'Good' is certainly one of the tenants of religion.
But we must accept that it follows the necessary conditions for
existence, namely that 'Evil Exists' too. Without Evil there would be
nothing to compare Good to. Everything would be Good as it was in the
Garden of Eden. To have knowledge of Good then, we must have the foil
of Evil.
The same is true of Usenet Posts. For Top Posters to exist there have
to be bottom posters. For Good, informative posters there must be Evil
posters too. And this -- I suspect -- is the Role of Art Deco. His
posts rip and tear at the fabric of knowledge.
He attempts unsuccessfully to destroy every line of thought, every
weave in the fabric of idea creation. And, with him are the Borg.
Destroyers all. They infect the Usenet forcing all of us to do
everything we can to 'ignore', 'sidestep', and 'gloss over' their
unruly posts, their sheer dribble of senseless remarks and sarcasm.
tomcat
Kadaitcha Man
> Brad Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Faster than light, slower than light, stopping light dead in it's
>> tracks and apparently going backwards is essentially in other words
>> of what others and I'd argued as of several years ago, by which my
>> efforts blew all sorts of Usenet fuses, and I even crashed FAS .org
>> and .com a couple of times in the process. I did the same to the
>> lords and wizards of the MI~NSA BBC/BBCI and summarily got more
>> naysay flack than I'd thought possible, not to mention having pissed
>> off SETI/OSETI to no end.
>>
>> I was merely going for efficient interplanetary and interstellar
>> communications via photons, as suggesting upon a few science probes
>> or data packets that could be made of light upon light, instead of
>> our physically going there or even sending off a physical probe
>> that'll likely never exceed 1% the speed of light due to the
>> terminal velocity of the ISM, though 10%'c' might conceivably be
>> sustained via my Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion thruster that has got a half
>> life Isp that's worthy of 1600 years...
>>
>> Here again, I was suggesting upon our utilizing the LSE-CM/ISS as
>> offering a perfectly viable science platform, if not having arrays of
>> robotic laser cannons actually deployed upon our moon. Of course,
>> all that did was start WW-III.
>
> Please tell everyone the date that WW-III began, Brad. I must have
> missed this headline in the newspapers.
Give him the doubt of the benefit, Art. Since he must've stopped light dead
in it's tracks and sent that light accelerating forwards at a speed
exceeding that of light, he must still be suffering light lag and is
therefore speaking in the future.
Meh.
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
ObHint: Just because you argue with a notorious fuckwit netk0oK, it
does not necessarily follow that you are not also a fuckwit netk0oK.
Art Deco
Threats of violence now, venus-boi? How kooky.
All because I laugh at your pseudoscientific kooktales.
Art Deco
>Brad Guth wrote:
>> "Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was
>> good."
>> But then that same light shown upon our Art Deco. And, God saw that it
>> was bad, very bad.
>> -
>> Brad Guth
>
>
>The Creation of 'Good' is certainly one of the tenants of religion.
>But we must accept that it follows the necessary conditions for
>existence, namely that 'Evil Exists' too. Without Evil there would be
>nothing to compare Good to. Everything would be Good as it was in the
>Garden of Eden. To have knowledge of Good then, we must have the foil
>of Evil.
>
>The same is true of Usenet Posts. For Top Posters to exist there have
>to be bottom posters. For Good, informative posters there must be Evil
>posters too. And this -- I suspect -- is the Role of Art Deco. His
>posts rip and tear at the fabric of knowledge.
Hahahahahahahahahahahah
Ph34r Moi!
>
>He attempts unsuccessfully to destroy every line of thought, every
>weave in the fabric of idea creation. And, with him are the Borg.
>Destroyers all. They infect the Usenet forcing all of us to do
>everything we can to 'ignore', 'sidestep', and 'gloss over' their
>unruly posts, their sheer dribble of senseless remarks and sarcasm.
Translation: "WHAAAA! MOMMY! HE LAUGHED AT ME!!"
>tomcat
>
>
>
>
>
>> tomcat wrote:
>> > Brad Guth wrote:
>> > > I'm into thinking if photons are purely 2D quantum string frequency
>> > > based items, then perhaps there's a positive photon and a negative
>> > > photon per given frequency wave, that's otherwise representing itself
>> > > as a single photon to our eyes and instruments. Perhaps this notion
>> > > has some bearing on the spin-one/spin-two boson, and of light being
>> > > capable of going in reverse.
>> > > -
>> > > Brad Guth
>> > >
>> >
>> > Light is no ordinary thing.
>> >
>> > In the Double Slit Experiment single photons went through both slits
>> > when no one was looking. As soon, however, as a measuring device was
>> > attached to both slits to determine how a single photon could behave
>> > like a wave, the single photon became a single photon and only went
>> > through one slit, not both. The interference pattern disappeared on
>> > the photographic film, on the other side of the slits, and only a tiny
>> > white dot appeared instead.
>> >
>> > "Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was
>> > good."
>> >
>> >
>> > tomcat
>
--
tomcat
Art Deco wrote:
> Hahahahahahahahahahahah
> Translation: "WHAAAA! MOMMY! HE LAUGHED AT ME!!"
The above are examples of sheer dribble and senseless remarks.
tomcat
Bookman
No, you simply lack the wit required to get it.
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes
Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're
communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of
Hitler.
- Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead.
WWFSMD?
Brad Guth
Folks, as yourself and most any halfwhit village idiot can plainly see,
this topic/author treatment by the likes of Art Deco is obviously every
bit as good as per all of the similar butt-sucking likes of so many
other unfortunately Jewish rusemasters of their pagan if not heathean
Usenet, that's clearly demonstrating upon their superior Third Reich
collaborating efforts by way of advancing and/or protecting their form
of infomercial lies, that which are continually sucking and blowing
from a very Jewish form of Usenet hell, as for such being nearly as
good as Art Deco ever gets.
Thanks to Art Deco, there's no complicated wonder as to why so often
Jews are being so often thought of as all being of the Art Deco type,
and thus worthy of their getting exterminated by their own kind. I
wonder what other Jews are going to do when Art Deco has no alternative
but to put Jesus Christ right back on his own personal Art Deco stick?
In case you haven't noticed Art Deco's customary off-topic drift into
the nearest disinformation cesspool of such liars telling lies upon
lies until each of them rad-hard NASA/Apollo cows come home, in which
case just go though a few of his thousands of postings and learn first
hand of what a true incest cloned Jewish formulated bigot that's in
lose cannon revenge mode really is all about. I don't believe even
Hitler was of any contest up against the incest cloned likes of such
Art Deco types, and for certain if it weren't for the likes of all
those Third Reich collaborating Deco's, whereas the likes of Hitler
wouldn't have had a chance from the very get-go.
How do all the truly good and otherwise nicely educated Jews that are
obviously smart enough as well as honourable enough and with remorse as
to their having to put up with the incest mutated likes of Art Deco?
Or is this yet another one of those Jewish insider club rules, that no
matters how bad the fruit, how wretched the stench, if it's Jewish it's
perfectly OK regardless of the collateral damage and carnage of the
innocent as well as upon their own kind?
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
> >> Hahahahahahahahahahahah
> >
> >> Translation: "WHAAAA! MOMMY! HE LAUGHED AT ME!!"
>
> No, you simply lack the wit required to get it.
The above are examples of sheer dribble and senseless remarks.
tomcat
Bookman
No, you simply lack the wit required to get it. <Hint: poast editing
is a good way to demonstrat that you don't get it.>
tomcat
> >> >> Hahahahahahahahahahahah
> >> >
> >> >> Translation: "WHAAAA! MOMMY! HE LAUGHED AT ME!!"
> >>
> >>Bookman wrote:
> >> No, you simply lack the wit required to get it.
> No, you simply lack the wit required to get it. <Hint: poast editing
> is a good way to demonstrat that you don't get it.>
The above are examples of sheer dribble and senseless remarks.
tomcat
Art Deco
How many more times will you be posting the same senseless remark,
tommiiee?
Bookman
wrote:
>tomcat <jla...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>> >> >Art Deco wrote:
>>> >> >> Hahahahahahahahahahahah
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Translation: "WHAAAA! MOMMY! HE LAUGHED AT ME!!"
>>> >>
>>> >>Bookman wrote:
>>> >> No, you simply lack the wit required to get it.
>>
>>> No, you simply lack the wit required to get it. <Hint: poast editing
>>> is a good way to demonstrat that you don't get it.>
>>
>>
>>The above are examples of sheer dribble and senseless remarks.
>>
>>
>>tomcat
>
>How many more times will you be posting the same senseless remark,
>tommiiee?
as many as possible? Along with the inevitable clueless poast edits?
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was
> good."
> But then that same light shown upon our Art Deco. And, God saw that it
> was bad, very bad.
> -
> Brad Guth
Yes, Deco and Bookman have all but ruined this beautiful topic. A very
bad thing, indeed.
Getting back to 'Mass Is Light' it is significant that the gravity of
stars, and planets, can bend light. Gravity normally acts only on Mass
so this is an indication of photons having mass.
As far as photons 'being' mass, is the concept 'hard' hard? Is the
concept of 'weight' heavy. Is the concept of hatred hate? So concepts
oft differ from what they are concepts of. But is light a concept of
mass? A carrier of mass? Or, simply possess a little tiny bit of
mass?
Here is a reference on the possibility of light having or, at least,
having once had mass.
See: http://focus.aps.org/story/v10/st9
It is an interesting article that may have been borne out by scientific
observation. Observation is a breath of fresh air when 'pure' theory
has muddied the waters. It is nice to know facts OUTSIDE of those
little 'math' boxes.
tomcat
Brad Guth
>topic. A very bad thing, indeed.
>Gravity normally acts only on Mass so this is an indication of
>photons having mass.
Think of photons as zero mass (2D quantum string like) dump-trucks,
thus each capable of hauling a sub-yoctogram speck worth of mass at
whatever's the photon velocity, which seemingly isn't entirely limited
to 'c', but perhaps limited by the terminal velocity of dark matter.
Now all that we have to determine is the given size and thus hauling
capacity of a given photon, such as for getting such mass through ISM
or dark matter. In order to appreciate what's possible to being hauled
from point(A) to point(B), merely add up as to whatever a few 1e100
beams of waveguides or caravans worth of photons should accommodate.
If photons cause atoms to align and to otherwise spin at different
rates, then we clearly have this association of mass that's involved
with the photon.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> tomcat; Yes, Deco and Bookman have all but ruined this beautiful
> >topic. A very bad thing, indeed.
> It simply proves that Usenet crapolla does flow uphill rather nicely.
>
> >Gravity normally acts only on Mass so this is an indication of
> >photons having mass.
> Think of photons as zero mass (2D quantum string like) dump-trucks,
> thus each capable of hauling a sub-yoctogram speck worth of mass at
> whatever's the photon velocity, which seemingly isn't entirely limited
> to 'c', but perhaps limited by the terminal velocity of dark matter.
Yes, the aether theory is being revived, not only by the ZPE people but
also by other sources as well. Michaelson & Morley were looking for a
'solid' aether and found none, but today the aether is thought to be
fluid instead. It could very well be the elusive 'dark matter' that
astrophysicists have theorized.
> Now all that we have to determine is the given size and thus hauling
> capacity of a given photon, such as for getting such mass through ISM
> or dark matter. In order to appreciate what's possible to being hauled
> from point(A) to point(B), merely add up as to whatever a few 1e100
> beams of waveguides or caravans worth of photons should accommodate.
Today, it is popular to talk of 'wave packets' of light because light
behaves very strangely. But, then again, nearly everything at the
extreme of small behaves strangely.
> If photons cause atoms to align and to otherwise spin at different
> rates, then we clearly have this association of mass that's involved
> with the photon.
There is "association of mass" all over the place with photons. Seems
like a lot of things warp light. Haven't you noticed strong dynamos or
generators causing light distortion? But, in any event, stars and
planets definitely do.
tomcat
Art Deco
>tomcat; Yes, Deco and Bookman have all but ruined this beautiful
>>topic. A very bad thing, indeed.
>It simply proves that Usenet crapolla does flow uphill rather nicely.
Poor babies, did someone laugh at your kooky posts?
>
>>Gravity normally acts only on Mass so this is an indication of
>>photons having mass.
>Think of photons as zero mass (2D quantum string like) dump-trucks,
>thus each capable of hauling a sub-yoctogram speck worth of mass at
>whatever's the photon velocity, which seemingly isn't entirely limited
>to 'c', but perhaps limited by the terminal velocity of dark matter.
Nice Guth Gobble, utterly sans rational meaning.
>
>Now all that we have to determine is the given size and thus hauling
>capacity of a given photon, such as for getting such mass through ISM
>or dark matter. In order to appreciate what's possible to being hauled
>from point(A) to point(B), merely add up as to whatever a few 1e100
>beams of waveguides or caravans worth of photons should accommodate.
>
>If photons cause atoms to align and to otherwise spin at different
>rates, then we clearly have this association of mass that's involved
>with the photon.
Clearly you have no idea what you are yapping about, Guthball.
--
Art Deco
>Brad Guth wrote:
>> tomcat; Yes, Deco and Bookman have all but ruined this beautiful
>> >topic. A very bad thing, indeed.
>> It simply proves that Usenet crapolla does flow uphill rather nicely.
>>
>> >Gravity normally acts only on Mass so this is an indication of
>> >photons having mass.
>> Think of photons as zero mass (2D quantum string like) dump-trucks,
>> thus each capable of hauling a sub-yoctogram speck worth of mass at
>> whatever's the photon velocity, which seemingly isn't entirely limited
>> to 'c', but perhaps limited by the terminal velocity of dark matter.
>
>
>Yes, the aether theory is being revived, not only by the ZPE people but
>also by other sources as well.
Only by clueless pseudoscientific saucerheads such as yourself,
tomkitty.
>Michaelson & Morley were looking for a
>'solid' aether and found none,
You could have just typed "I have no idea what the Michaelson-Morley is
really about" instead.
>but today the aether is thought to be
>fluid instead.
See above.
>It could very well be the elusive 'dark matter' that
>astrophysicists have theorized.
Another flowing space kook.
>
>
>> Now all that we have to determine is the given size and thus hauling
>> capacity of a given photon, such as for getting such mass through ISM
>> or dark matter. In order to appreciate what's possible to being hauled
>> from point(A) to point(B), merely add up as to whatever a few 1e100
>> beams of waveguides or caravans worth of photons should accommodate.
>
>
>Today, it is popular to talk of 'wave packets' of light because light
>behaves very strangely. But, then again, nearly everything at the
>extreme of small behaves strangely.
You could have just typed "I have no idea what quantum mechanics is
really about" instead.
>
>
>> If photons cause atoms to align and to otherwise spin at different
>> rates, then we clearly have this association of mass that's involved
>> with the photon.
>
>
>There is "association of mass" all over the place with photons. Seems
>like a lot of things warp light.
Um, no.
>Haven't you noticed strong dynamos or
>generators causing light distortion?
Hahahahahahahahahahah
>But, in any event, stars and
>planets definitely do.
You could have just typed "I have no idea what EM theory is really
about" instead.
--
Art Deco
>Meltdown of Art Deco in progress; please stand back
Please to demonstrate how I'm in "meltdown", monkey-see-monkey-do boi.
Nice froth, Brad. Even with your constant barrage of ad hominems and
non sequiturs, you still manage to demonstrate that you don't
understand EM radiation, that you don't understand particle radiation,
and that you don't understand much of anything at all.
Typical Brad-Thought:
Brad: "moon landings hoaxed, men die on surface in 30 seconds"
Rational poster: "you are wrong, Brad, you don't understand radiation"
Brad: "Jewish incest cloned borg topic/author stalking Third Reich
Jewish butt-sucking pagan heathean Jewish disinformation stench sucking
Jews collaborating Third Reich carnage lose cannon Hitler rad-hard
cesspool cows wretched mutated Jewish rusemasters heathean exterminated
bigot Christ collaborating Jewish..."
Do you see a pattern here yet, Brad?
tomcat
I hear naysaying but your post contains no information at all. Why is
that?
tomcat
Art Deco
You are as dense as a fencepost and twice as stupid, tomkitty.
Photons have no mass, regardless of how many word salad croutons you
toss into usenet.
Brad Guth
as being Jewish founded, or rather that of a badly screwed up Jewish
mindset (not actually all that different than a Muslim or Catholic
mindset), is most certainly not derived from the vast majority of the
jewish faith, that as such would by way of their own high standards
subdue or if need be allow the extermination of those having so badly
acted and/or having badly overreacted as per "Art Deco" types. Only a
few that were at the time of Hitler and still are powerfull and
seemingly having been smart enough to have known better that had
knowingly gambled on the ends justifying the means of their having
plaied into and/or along with the dirty hands of the Third Reich are at
fault. Unfortunately, it's still of their old-school of revenge and of
their incest cloned replacements as being "Art Deco" types that seem to
have gone very Kissinger revenge-postal at the mere thought of
admitting so much as one bad Jew had run amuck, yet there's existing
proof that most of the primary religions, including the Jewish
religion, do not police or otherwise tend to moderating their own kind,
is clearly self evident in how these "Art Deco" types carry on and on
without feer of their ever being moderated by whatever authority,
Jewish or not.
It's as though there's too much of "Art Deco's" Christ on another stick
worth of their very own internal guilt and/or remorse to deal with,
that which these insecure and likely pagan "Art Deco" types simply
can't permit such otherwise perfectly human truths to see the light of
any Jewish day, at least not unless over lots more of their own dead
bodies. This is obviously why they must continually topic/author
stalk, bash and if at all possible they'll exclude and/or banish as
much of the truth as they can possibly get away with.
Lo and behold, religion and of whatever faith-based government hasn't
changed one damn bit from the beginnings of recorded time, and there's
no apparent sign of any light at the end of this tunnel from their
naysay hell on Earth.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
They really are the Borg and have to be treated as such. They playact
sophistication, pretending to know more than those they attack, but
they never, never, never show any of their pretended sophistication. I
suspect it is because they have none.
They are simply attackers delighting in the destruction to the Usenet
they can create. Stopping meaningful discourse in any way they can.
Pretending to be superior to those they can drive out. They are sick.
tomcat
Brad Guth
> They are simply attackers delighting in the destruction to the Usenet
> they can create. Stopping meaningful discourse in any way they can.
> Pretending to be superior to those they can drive out. They are sick.
>
> tomcat
of which being of the all essential collaborators that gave the likes
of Hitler exactly what information and services of their expertise that
was necessary in order to have accomplished the task of having
pillaged, raped and exterminated so many of their own kind.
These folks of Usenet hell have no viable soul nor a stitch worth of
remorse, and they've even snookered the likes of "tomcat" into being
totally dumbfounded to boot.
-
Brad Guth
Rand Simberg
> Brad Guth wrote:
>
>>The supposed problems or negative/naysay aspects of what's thought of
>>as being Jewish founded, or rather that of a badly screwed up Jewish
>>mindset (not actually all that different than a Muslim or Catholic
>>mindset), is most certainly not derived from the vast majority of the
>>jewish faith, that as such would by way of their own high standards
<snip>
> They really are the Borg and have to be treated as such. They playact
> sophistication, pretending to know more than those they attack, but
> they never, never, never show any of their pretended sophistication. I
> suspect it is because they have none.
>
> They are simply attackers delighting in the destruction to the Usenet
> they can create. Stopping meaningful discourse in any way they can.
> Pretending to be superior to those they can drive out. They are sick.
Brad spews all of this anti-semitic nonsense, and you call his
detractors sick? Is there nothing he writes that you find disturbing?
tomcat
Art Deco wrote:
> Photons have no mass, regardless of how many word salad croutons you
> toss into usenet.
I know that is the contemporary scientific judgment, but what is it
based on? It isn't based on E = M C squared, because only the speed of
light is involved, not it's square.
We live in a world where everything has mass, except light. Light is
very special in the Theory of Relativity as well. But where is the
proof or, for that matter, the basis of light not having mass. Where
does this idea come from?
tomcat
Brad Guth
Rand Simberg wrote:
> Brad spews all of this anti-semitic nonsense, and you call his
> detractors sick? Is there nothing he writes that you find disturbing?
regular laws of physics, as well as for the truth and nothing but the
truth as being "anti-semitic nonsense". How interesting and pro-Bush
of yourself.
-
Brad Guth
Phineas T Puddleduck
Brad Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Apparently you consider hard-science that's replicated and of the
> regular laws of physics, as well as for the truth and nothing but the
> truth as being "anti-semitic nonsense". How interesting and pro-Bush
> of yourself.
Which reminds me. Next time AUK holds their vote for physics k00k of
the month, I must vote for you.
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Brad Guth
For God's sake, don't expect anything but the mainstream status quo of
Art Deco's pagan incest cloned crapolla on a stick.
As far as I can tell, I can't be any more anti-anti-semitic than Jesus
Christ himself. But then, what's your sorry excuse for being so
totally status quo dumbfounded, and continually snookered by your own
kind, none the less?
Think about it; you couldn't possibly be any more Third Reich
qualified if you tried. Even though you don't think so, you're exactly
like all the Art Deco's, running amuck with yet another butt-load of
disinformation brains that obviously haven't so much as a freaking
honest clue emerging from between either of your cheeks.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
Yes, you are right Brad. I guess I just had to prove that the Borg
really are little heckle things, hot air from you know where. Ask them
for point blank for 'content' and they collapse. This is why their
posts never, never, never have any content, anything of substance
whatsoever in them.
At least Deco doesn't use as many 4 letter words as that other Borg guy
does.
tomcat
Brad Guth
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> Which reminds me. Next time AUK holds their vote for physics k00k of
> the month, I must vote for you.
-
Brad Guth
Bookman
>
>Brad Guth wrote:
>> tomcat,
>> For God's sake, don't expect anything but the mainstream status quo of
>> Art Deco's pagan incest cloned crapolla on a stick.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, I can't be any more anti-anti-semitic than Jesus
>> Christ himself. But then, what's your sorry excuse for being so
>> totally status quo dumbfounded, and continually snookered by your own
>> kind, none the less?
>>
>> Think about it; you couldn't possibly be any more Third Reich
>> qualified if you tried. Even though you don't think so, you're exactly
>> like all the Art Deco's, running amuck with yet another butt-load of
>> disinformation brains that obviously haven't so much as a freaking
>> honest clue emerging from between either of your cheeks.
>Yes, you are right Brad.
Yeah, you just love how Brad spews irrational ad hominems, do you?
Bought into his ko0ky "Apollo hoax" fantasies, yet?
>I guess I just had to prove that the Borg
>really are little heckle things, hot air from you know where. Ask them
>for point blank for 'content' and they collapse. This is why their
>posts never, never, never have any content, anything of substance
>whatsoever in them.
>
>At least Deco doesn't use as many 4 letter words as that other Borg guy
>does.
Note to the Guthball & tomkitty slurpfest: "Mainstream crapolla on a
stick" is what is allowing you to poast to usenet, watch cable TV,
listen to satellite radio, get your weather forecasts, and a host of
other things.
Your ko0ktheories, OTOH, are very amusing bits of fiction. HTH.
Brad Guth
> Which reminds me. Next time AUK holds their vote for physics k00k of
> the month, I must vote for you.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Brad Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yep - human. You wouldn't understand, of course.
tomcat
Bookman wrote:.
>
> Note to the Guthball & tomkitty slurpfest: "Mainstream crapolla on a
> stick" is what is allowing you to poast to usenet, watch cable TV,
> listen to satellite radio, get your weather forecasts, and a host of
> other things.
>
> Your ko0ktheories, OTOH, are very amusing bits of fiction. HTH.
Where is the content here, Bookman. What does all that "cable TV"
watching teach you? You haven't said anything. Did you ever study
science? Did you study enough science to know that nothing is
absolutely hard and fast?
This is another BOX thing, isn't it. There are math BOXES, and there
are educational BOXES. When educated just enough to know nothing, one
tends to think they know everything, and that this 'everything' is
contained in a BOX labeled education. Of course, you may have never
reached that point. The effect is about the same in either case.
You -- and all the rest of the Borg -- need to get out of the BOX.
tomcat
Kadaitcha Man
> Did you study enough science to know that nothing is
> absolutely hard and fast?
Stand in front of a speeding train then write that again.
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
ObHint: Just because you argue with a notorious fuckwit netk0oK, it
does not necessarily follow that you are not also a fuckwit netk0oK.
Rising-Star8471
>
> This is another BOX thing, isn't it. There are math BOXES, and there
> are educational BOXES. When educated just enough to know nothing, one
> tends to think they know everything, and that this 'everything' is
> contained in a BOX labeled education. Of course, you may have never
> reached that point. The effect is about the same in either case.
>
> You -- and all the rest of the Borg -- need to get out of the BOX.
>
>
> tomcat
We, The Borg, resent that remark. Your assimilation is assured. Your
technological and biological distinctiveness will be incorperated into
the collective BOX. Then we will seal said box and sell it on
ebay......MUWAHAHAHAHHAHA
tomcat
Rising-Star8471 wrote:
We, The Borg, resent that remark. Your assimilation is assured. Your
technological and biological distinctiveness will be incorperated into
the collective BOX. Then we will seal said box and sell it on
ebay......MUWAHAHAHAHHAHA
The above is 'hard core' proof of the existence of the Borg on the
Usenet.
tomcat
NoTroll
"tomcat" <jla...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1149972050.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
John Griffin's mother tries to sell her box on eBay all time. Bids have
gone as high as $3.
Rand Simberg
<jla...@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
No, it's "hard core" proof that netloons are unable to recognize
satire, and have no sense of humor.
Kadaitcha Man
> The above is 'hard core' proof of the existence of the Borg on the
> Usenet.
Not if I snip it, you shitwitted philistine.
Art Deco
>Art Deco wrote:
>> Photons have no mass, regardless of how many word salad croutons you
>> toss into usenet.
>
>
>
>
>I know that is the contemporary scientific judgment, but what is it
>based on?
Lots and lots and lots of research over the past 200 years. You might
want to study some of it.
>It isn't based on E = M C squared, because only the speed of
>light is involved, not it's square.
The energy of a photon is Planck's constant times the frequency, or
Planck's constant times the speed of light and divided by the
wavelength.
>
>We live in a world where everything has mass, except light. Light is
>very special in the Theory of Relativity as well. But where is the
>proof or, for that matter, the basis of light not having mass. Where
>does this idea come from?
A photon is a wave packet of propagating electric and magnetic fields.
Electric and magnetic fields do not have mass, so a photon has no mass.
Art Deco
>tomcat,
>For God's sake, don't expect anything but the mainstream status quo of
>Art Deco's pagan incest cloned crapolla on a stick.
>
>As far as I can tell, I can't be any more anti-anti-semitic than Jesus
>Christ himself. But then, what's your sorry excuse for being so
>totally status quo dumbfounded, and continually snookered by your own
>kind, none the less?
>
>Think about it; you couldn't possibly be any more Third Reich
>qualified if you tried. Even though you don't think so, you're exactly
>like all the Art Deco's, running amuck with yet another butt-load of
>disinformation brains that obviously haven't so much as a freaking
>honest clue emerging from between either of your cheeks.
You're frothing again, Brad.
>-
>Brad Guth
>
>
>tomcat wrote:
>> Art Deco wrote:
>> > Photons have no mass, regardless of how many word salad croutons you
>> > toss into usenet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I know that is the contemporary scientific judgment, but what is it
>> based on? It isn't based on E = M C squared, because only the speed of
>> light is involved, not it's square.
>>
>> We live in a world where everything has mass, except light. Light is
>> very special in the Theory of Relativity as well. But where is the
>> proof or, for that matter, the basis of light not having mass. Where
>> does this idea come from?
>>
>> tomcat
>
--
Art Deco
No, he isn't. I have never seen anything typed by Brad Guth that has a
shred of truth to it.
>I guess I just had to prove that the Borg
>really are little heckle things, hot air from you know where.
Are you going to start frothing about "Christ on a stick" now also?
>Ask them
>for point blank for 'content' and they collapse.
I answered your question about photons and mass.
>This is why their
>posts never, never, never have any content, anything of substance
>whatsoever in them.
Incorrect.
>
>At least Deco doesn't use as many 4 letter words as that other Borg guy
>does.
You mean Brad Guth and his ad hominems?
>
>
>tomcat
Congratulations on your Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science Award, it
is quite an honor:
<http://www.netcabal.com/auk/kookle.php?search=tomcat>
Art Deco
>Bookman wrote:.
>>
>> Note to the Guthball & tomkitty slurpfest: "Mainstream crapolla on a
>> stick" is what is allowing you to poast to usenet, watch cable TV,
>> listen to satellite radio, get your weather forecasts, and a host of
>> other things.
>>
>> Your ko0ktheories, OTOH, are very amusing bits of fiction. HTH.
>
>
>
>Where is the content here, Bookman.
Um, you and Brad Guth post unsubstantiated theories, it is your
responsibility to provide evidence for them.
>What does all that "cable TV"
>watching teach you? You haven't said anything. Did you ever study
>science? Did you study enough science to know that nothing is
>absolutely hard and fast?
>
>This is another BOX thing, isn't it. There are math BOXES, and there
>are educational BOXES. When educated just enough to know nothing, one
>tends to think they know everything, and that this 'everything' is
>contained in a BOX labeled education. Of course, you may have never
>reached that point. The effect is about the same in either case.
I assume you were prepared to be laughed at prior to setting out on
your crusade to nullify the past 150 years of modern physics?
>
>You -- and all the rest of the Borg -- need to get out of the BOX.
Can you please identify all the members of this alleged Borg cabal?
Art Deco
>tomcat,
>The Usenet borgs are also the secondary or call it the borg recoil
>worth of "tomcat" and of so many similar snookered and summarily
>dumbfounded fool puppets, as having been so much so dumbfounded that
>you'll not even accept upon the hard-science as derived from your own
>kind, especially if it taints your pagan God's infomercial
>accomplishments of having supposedly walked upon our salty moon that's
>so gosh darn gamma and hard-X-ray worthy.
You don't understand anything about radiation, or materials science, or
aerospace engineering.
>
>Ask yourself; why can't the regular laws of physics apply to our naked
>moon?
>Why can't the best available hard-science that's replicated be used to
>further explore and subsequently better explain our moon?
>
>Ask why have we ever once established the moon L-1 or LL-1 science
>platform?
>
>Ask why there's still no such viable R&D prototype of a fly-by-rocket
>lander?
>
>Ask why all the mainstream status quo flak over perfectly good research
>and ideas that should work?
Why are you asking stupid questions, Brad?
>
>We see that the usual topic/author stalking fuckology worth of Art Deco
*ding*
>and of the borg clones are still with us, just like their collaboration
>with the Third Reich was as reliable as our having invented a cash of
>hocus-pocus WMD for the bogus task at hand of knowing thy enemy(the
>innocent public at large) so that the continued snookering/assimilation
>of humanity and the demise of our environment could continue.
>
>I believe it's our responsibility as the supposed village idiots to
>keep asking tough questions, as well as to be giving our free thoughts
>and offering our best SWAG as to our honest interpretation of
>whatever's what, as otherwise the incest cloned likes of these
>perverted Art Deco's are going to continually run the lower 99.9% of
*ding*
>humanity and whatever's left of our environment down the nearest
>space-toilet.
>
>As per usual, this Usenet of e-spooks, moles and NASA's little
>brown-nosed minion helpers have been sharing as much of their
>malware/fuckware into my PC as their GOOGLE/Usenet can possibly
>transfer without terminating itself, whereas I've had to reboot a good
>dozen times in just the last week, and whatever internet usage remains
>at a craw due to all of their usage tracking and/or blockage
>(information banishment) that's involved.
Standard Guth Drool (SGD).
>-
>Brad Guth
>
>
>tomcat wrote:
--
Brad Guth
The Usenet borgs are also reinforced by way of their secondary birth or
call it the borg recoil worth of "tomcat" and of so many similar
been so much so uninformed and/or infomercial-disinformed and thereby
summarily dumbfounded that you'll not even accept upon the hard-science
as derived from your own kind, especially if it taints your pagan God's
infomercial accomplishments of having supposedly walked upon our salty
physically nasty.
Ask yourself and of others; why can't the regular laws of physics
apply equally to our naked moon?
Why can't the best available hard-science that's replicated become used
to further explore and subsequently better explain our salty moon or
other planets?
Ask why have we have ever once established the efficient moon L-1 or
LL-1 science platform?
Ask why there's still no such viable R&D prototype of a form of
fly-by-rocket lander?
Ask why it's taking an extra decade plus so much extra applied energy
with essentially half the payload of getting such back onto orbiting
the moon?
Ask these all-knowing wizards as to why our moon isn't accessed
directly from L-1?
Ask why all the mainstream status quo flak over perfectly good research
and ideas that should work?
Instead of a viable Usenet think-tank of share and share alike, we see
that the usual topic/author stalking fuckology worth of Art Deco and of
those borg clones are still with us, just like their collaboration with
the Third Reich was as reliable as our having invented a cash of
hocus-pocus WMD for the bogus task at hand of knowing thy enemy(the
innocent public at large) so that their continued
snookering/assimilation of humanity and the demise of our environment
could continue.
I believe it's our responsibility as the supposed village idiots to
keep asking tough questions, as well as to be giving our free thoughts
and offering our best SWAG as to our honest interpretation of
whatever's what, as otherwise the incest cloned likes of these
perverted Art Deco's are going to continually run the lower 99.9% of
humanity and whatever's left of our environment down the nearest
space-toilet, just like they'd accomplished on behalf of Hitler.
As per usual, this Usenet of robo-posting e-spooks, MI/NSA moles and
lots of NASA's little brown-nosed minion butt-wipe helpers have been
sharing as much of their malware/fuckware into my PC as their
GOOGLE/Usenet can possibly transfer without terminating itself, whereas
I've had to reboot a good dozen times in just the last week, and of
whatever internet my usage remains at a craw due to all of their
tracking and/or blockage (information banishment) that's involved. The
matter of fact that Art Deco keeps trashing whatever's contributed by
honest folks into their personal cesspools of "alt.fan.art-bell" and
"alt.usenet.kooks" is simply proof-positive that the few of us honest
folks have been a whole lot more right than we're being given credit
for.
The likes of "brian a m stuckless", "tomcat" or myself never have to
use such cloak and dagger fuckology tactics of topic/author stalking,
topic drift or much less hijackings into such damage-control groups of
disinformation cesspools as always introduced by the likes of mutant
borg Jews, such as the incest cloned likes of Art Deco. Instead of
robo-posting bigotry and hatred of the truth, we offer honest research
and a fair trade off of perfectly thoughtful and considerate on-topic
information, while the Usenet borg continually fail at constructively
contributing squat that's other than offered by their Skull and Bones
approved scripts, as extracted from their pagan infomercial koran.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
If you were actually "human", as such you'd be contributing
constructively on-topic, which in this case is related to the likes of
photons or perhaps that of dark energy or of whatever else might rig a
bell on behalf of the original topic at hand.
Whereas instead, it seems the official Usenet borgs encharge are also
being reinforced by way of their secondary birth or call it the borg
recoil worth of "Phineas T Puddleduck" and of so many similar snookered
and summarily dumbfounded fool borg like puppets, as having been so
much so uninformed and/or infomercial-disinformed and thereby summarily
dumbfounded into becoming morons, so much so that you'll not even
accept upon the hard-science as derived from your own kind, especially
if such truth taints your pagan God's infomercial accomplishments of
having supposedly walked upon our salty moon that's so gosh darn gamma
and hard-X-ray worthy, and otherwise physically nastier than a Van
Allen belt that extremely dusty and most easily impact lethal as all
get out.
Try asking of yourself and of others; why can't the regular laws of
physics apply equally to our naked moon?
Why can't the best available hard-science that's replicated become used
to further explore and subsequently better explain our salty moon or
other planets?
Ask why have we have ever once established the efficient moon L-1 or
LL-1 science platform?
Ask why there's still no such viable R&D prototype worth of a form of
fly-by-rocket lander?
Ask why it's taking an extra decade plus so much extra applied energy
with essentially half the payload of getting such back onto orbiting
the moon?
Ask these all-knowing wizards as to why our moon hasn't been accessed
directly from L-1?
Ask why all the mainstream status quo flak over perfectly good research
and ideas that should eventually work?
Instead of having a viable Usenet think-tank of honest share and share
alike, we see that the usual topic/author stalking fuckology worth of
Art Deco and of those borg like clones are still with us, just like
their collaboration with the Third Reich was as reliable as our having
invented a cash of hocus-pocus WMD for the bogus task at hand of
knowing thy enemy(the innocent public at large) so that their continued
snookering/assimilation of humanity and the demise of our environment
could continue.
I believe it's our responsibility as the supposed village idiots to
keep asking tough questions, as well as to be giving our free thoughts
and offering our best SWAG as to our honest interpretation of
whatever's what, as otherwise the incest cloned likes of these
perverted Art Deco's are going to continually run the lower 99.9% of
humanity and whatever's left of our environment down the nearest
space-toilet, just like they'd accomplished on behalf of Hitler.
As per usual, this Usenet of robo-posting e-spooks, MI/NSA moles and
lots of NASA's little brown-nosed minion butt-wipe helpers have been
sharing as much of their malware/fuckware into my PC as their
GOOGLE/Usenet can possibly transfer without terminating itself, whereas
I've had to reboot a good dozen times in just the last week, and of
whatever internet my usage remains at a craw due to all of their
tracking and/or blockage (information banishment) that's involved. The
matter of fact that Art Deco keeps trashing whatever's contributed by
honest folks into their personal cesspools of "alt.fan.art-bell" and
"alt.usenet.kooks" is simply proof-positive that the few of us honest
folks have been a whole lot more right than we're being given credit
for.
The likes of "brian a m stuckless", "tomcat", "tj Frazir" or myself
never have to use such cloak and dagger Usenet fuckology tactics of
topic/author stalking, topic drift or much less hijackings into such
damage-control groups of such obvious disinformation cesspools as
always introduced by the likes of mutant borg Jews, such as the incest
cloned likes of your very own warm and fuzzy Art Deco that's a
collective of mutant incest onto itself. Instead of robo-posting such
bigotry and perpetrated hatred of the truth, we few honest souls seems
to offer perfectly viable research and a fair trade off of thoughtful
and considerate original topics or otherwise on-topic information,
while the Usenet borg incest infomercial collective continually fails
at constructively contributing squat that's other than offered by their
Skull and Bones approved scripts, as extracted from their pagan
infomercial koran of lies upon lies.
-
Brad Guth
Phineas T Puddleduck
Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The likes of "brian a m stuckless", "tomcat", "tj Frazir" or myself
> never have to use such cloak and dagger Usenet fuckology tactics of
> topic/author stalking, topic drift or much less hijackings into such
> damage-control groups of such obvious disinformation cesspools as
> always introduced by the likes of mutant borg Jews, such as the incest
> cloned likes of your very own warm and fuzzy Art Deco that's a
> collective of mutant incest onto itself. Instead of robo-posting such
> bigotry and perpetrated hatred of the truth, we few honest souls seems
> to offer perfectly viable research and a fair trade off of thoughtful
> and considerate original topics or otherwise on-topic information,
> while the Usenet borg incest infomercial collective continually fails
> at constructively contributing squat that's other than offered by their
> Skull and Bones approved scripts, as extracted from their pagan
> infomercial koran of lies upon lies.
Art,
Whats the procedure for nominating for the Science Kook of the Month
award? I've got a shortlist of around 6 - and it seems Jeff Relf and
Brad are in hot competition for top place on my lits.
Art Deco
>In article <1150043294....@m38g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Brad
>Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The likes of "brian a m stuckless", "tomcat", "tj Frazir" or myself
>> never have to use such cloak and dagger Usenet fuckology tactics of
>> topic/author stalking, topic drift or much less hijackings into such
>> damage-control groups of such obvious disinformation cesspools as
>> always introduced by the likes of mutant borg Jews, such as the incest
>> cloned likes of your very own warm and fuzzy Art Deco that's a
>> collective of mutant incest onto itself. Instead of robo-posting such
>> bigotry and perpetrated hatred of the truth, we few honest souls seems
>> to offer perfectly viable research and a fair trade off of thoughtful
>> and considerate original topics or otherwise on-topic information,
>> while the Usenet borg incest infomercial collective continually fails
>> at constructively contributing squat that's other than offered by their
>> Skull and Bones approved scripts, as extracted from their pagan
>> infomercial koran of lies upon lies.
>
>Art,
>
>Whats the procedure for nominating for the Science Kook of the Month
>award? I've got a shortlist of around 6 - and it seems Jeff Relf and
>Brad are in hot competition for top place on my lits.
Someone who isn't a notorious kook makes the nomination (add or change
the subject to include "NOMINATION", and make sure it is crossposted to
AUK), and it must have a valid second. Then the Friendly Neighbourhood
Vote Wrangler rules the nomination as either "accepted" or "rejected".
That is about it, although there is a little fine print:
<http://www.netcabal.com/auk/faq.html>
But it helps a lot for a successful candidate to get exposure in AUK
beforehand. Without such exposure, the nomination will probably be
rejected for lack of evidence. Also, don't be discouraged at the high
levels of competition, there are lots of kooks out there.
Phineas T Puddleduck
<er...@netcabal.com> wrote:
>
> Someone who isn't a notorious kook makes the nomination (add or change
> the subject to include "NOMINATION", and make sure it is crossposted to
> AUK), and it must have a valid second. Then the Friendly Neighbourhood
> Vote Wrangler rules the nomination as either "accepted" or "rejected".
> That is about it, although there is a little fine print:
>
> <http://www.netcabal.com/auk/faq.html>
>
> But it helps a lot for a successful candidate to get exposure in AUK
> beforehand. Without such exposure, the nomination will probably be
> rejected for lack of evidence. Also, don't be discouraged at the high
> levels of competition, there are lots of kooks out there.
Well Brad has had a lot of exposure, but I'm not sure of Jeff - but, he
does tend to be the Leonardo da Vinci of cranks, he just doesn't keep
to one subject. From posting DirectDraw stuff to C.o.L.A to his
temperature fixation in S.P.....
;-)
tomcat
Yes, apparently Rising-Star8471 is their Queen. This explains why we
don't see her much. She is busy organizing the Borg 'hive'. The Borg
suitors keep her very busy.
Everything I mention and everything I have seen -- of a non-political
nature -- Brad discuss has been very well accepted scientific fact.
Indeed, both of us normally post references of unimpeachable character
and authority.
In the course of my life I have read many papers and books, including
those of:
Hippocrates
Plato
Aristotle
Archimedes
Descartes
Locke
Da Vinci
Copernicus
Galileo
Kant
Leibnitz
Hegel
Marx
Hitler
Kepler
Harvey
Boyle
Newton -- from whom I have derived my Rocket Formula
Priestley
Adam Smith
Berkeley
Russell
Lavoisier
Jenner
Dalton
Faraday
Tesla
Frege
Darwin
Maxwell
Peirce
Mendeleev
Pasteur
Roentgen
Curie
Tsiolkovsky
Planck
Boole
Venn
Mill
Freud
Sartre
Einstein
Rutherford
Fermi
Wittgenstein
Ryle
And, these are just to name a few off the top of my head. The science
Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way. It has the
depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to some is that
our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX.
tomcat
Brad Guth
> The science Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way.
> It has the depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to
> some is that our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX.
black hole that only shares their form of infomercial-science, whereas
whatever their mainstream status quo BOX intends to pull off shall be
done, even if it takes another cross. Thus far, their collateral
damage and carnage of the innocent is very much going one-sided and
nearly insurmountable, especially when they've got the likes of
"tomcat" fooled to such an extent, so much so that your denial is in
denial (seven years ago that was myself, now I'm a little smarter about
such matters).
-
Brad Guth
Phineas T Puddleduck
Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What I find funny Brad is that if I take away every OTHER word from
your screeds, I still end up with something equally nonsensical...
> This anti-think-tank is or like naysay of
> black that shares form infomercial-science,
> whatever mainstream quo BOX to off be
> , even it another. Thus , their
> damage carnage the is much one-sided and
> insurmountable, when got likes
> "tomcat" to an , so so your is
> denial ( years that myself, I'm little about
> matters).
tomcat
According to the Goddard Space Flight Center all that is known for
certain is that the mass of light is less than 4 times 10 to the power
of minus 48.
tomcat
tomcat
P.S. My own calculations indicate that a photon of the deep red
wavelength will have a Mass of: [ 9.503939022 x 10 ^ -28 kg ]
Why the discrepancy between my figures and the experimentally based
figure of [ < 4 x 10 ^ -48 ] by the Goddard Space Flight Center, I
can't really say. But, either their figure is in error or they used a
high freqency wavelength of light, instead of a nice big juicy red
photon. Or, maybe they didn't use kg as I did.
tomcat
tomcat
P.P.S. CORRECTION: A deep red photon with the frequency of 4.3 x 10 ^
14 will have a Mass of: [ 3.170172821 x 10 ^ -36 kg ].
This is a little closer to the Goddard Space Flight Center, but there
is still a significant spread between the two.
tomcat
tomcat
The theoretical weight of a red photon simply comes from Planck's
constant [ h = 6.626068 x 10 ^ -34 Joules per Second ] with a Joule
defined as [ 1 kg M ^ 2 / S ^ 2 ].
Using [ E = M C ^ 2 ] equivalent to [ M = E / C ^ 2 ] and C (speed of
light) defined as 299792458 meters/second. Then [ C ^ 2 = 8.987551787
x 10 ^ 16 ].
Planck's constant x frequency equals 2.84920924 x 10 ^ -19.
So, [ Mass = 2.84920924 / 8.987551787 x 10 ^ 16 ].
Which means that a deep red photon with the frequency of 4.3 x 10 ^
14 will have a Mass of: [ 3.170172821 x 10 ^ -36 kg ].
tomcat
AC
From/De [tomcat]
On/Le [2006/06/12 15:01]
------------------------------------------
Wow, I'm floored!!!!
And all along I thought that you had some understanding of physics!!!!!!
You apparently have none.
Just a little note for your understanding (I'm mislead I know, but I
have to try): E=MC^2 describes not the relation between energy and mass
of any object at any speed, it describes the energy of mass itself
irrespective of any other factor. An object without mass may have energy
of a different kind, an object with mass will have at a minimum the
energy corresponding to the mass as described by the equation E=MC^2
plus other forms of energy such as that derived from speed (in a given
reference) or other potential energies from the effect of different
fields...
In other words you cannot derive a photon's mass the way you have tried
it (you're mixing apples and pears - putting together equations just
because they have the same dimensions is no valid logic; besides you
should learn to use the correct dimension symbols, meters is lower case
m, seconds is lower case s).
But now I know I'm feeding a troll (or a self ingratiating would-be
physicist with a lot to learn yet), goodbye!
Regards,
A.