info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Rainbow Angle
3 views
Skip to first unread message
jon car
Oct 22, 2011, 5:37:13 PM10/22/11
to
It has none. They all appear to everyone without any angle.
Of course science has an angle of its own but it doesn't change
the fact that it will never be able to explain how something can
appear exactly the same or without angle from every angle.
Belief is important here. The fact here is in your memory.
and in every picture ever taken.
Just produce a photograph and show me where I am wrong!
I dare you Gutless wonders!
Mitchell Raemsch
Of course science has an angle of its own but it doesn't change
the fact that it will never be able to explain how something can
appear exactly the same or without angle from every angle.
Belief is important here. The fact here is in your memory.
and in every picture ever taken.
Just produce a photograph and show me where I am wrong!
I dare you Gutless wonders!
Mitchell Raemsch
Michael Beck
Oct 22, 2011, 7:05:46 PM10/22/11
to
jon car
Oct 22, 2011, 10:58:55 PM10/22/11
to
So don't worry about your meds.
You might be willing to scramble your brain but I aint.
Rainbows are never seen from an angle no matter where you are.
Does that offend your science Beck?
Don Stockbauer
Oct 22, 2011, 11:53:19 PM10/22/11
to
outside when you were little and leave you alone? Is this why you
seek attention by writing CRAP all the time????????
CWatters
Oct 23, 2011, 8:44:29 AM10/23/11
to
On 22/10/2011 22:37, jon car wrote:
> It has none. They all appear to everyone without any angle.
>
> Of course science has an angle of its own but it doesn't change
> the fact that it will never be able to explain how something can
> appear exactly the same or without angle from every angle.
>
A rainbow does not appear "exactly the same" from every angle. If you
> It has none. They all appear to everyone without any angle.
>
> Of course science has an angle of its own but it doesn't change
> the fact that it will never be able to explain how something can
> appear exactly the same or without angle from every angle.
>
move to a different place the rainbow moves. You can prove this easily
to yourself with a compass.
jon car
Oct 23, 2011, 3:03:35 PM10/23/11
to
On Oct 23, 5:44 am, CWatters <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com>
wrote:
You have missed the point. They never contract by orientation.
Every angle looks the same. I am not talking distance only around.
wrote:
Every angle looks the same. I am not talking distance only around.
The Last Danish Pastry
Oct 23, 2011, 3:48:37 PM10/23/11
to
"jon car" <jon.c...@gmail.com> wrote...
Ah... yes. They never *do* contract by orientation.
I had never really noticed that before, but, now you mention it ... of
course!
And, needless to say, every angle looks the same.
Thanks for that.
--
Clive Tooth
I had never really noticed that before, but, now you mention it ... of
course!
And, needless to say, every angle looks the same.
Thanks for that.
--
Clive Tooth
jon car
Oct 23, 2011, 4:00:42 PM10/23/11
to
On Oct 23, 12:48 pm, "The Last Danish Pastry" <cli...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote...
> Clive Tooth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is showing science something it can never do
and therefore the truth of it to science is highly unwelcome!
Mitchell Raemsch
wrote:
> "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote...
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is showing science something it can never do
and therefore the truth of it to science is highly unwelcome!
Mitchell Raemsch
porky_...@my-deja.com
Oct 23, 2011, 4:54:39 PM10/23/11
to
PPJ.
Bart Goddard
Oct 23, 2011, 7:06:44 PM10/23/11
to
jon car <jon.c...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6af1f86b-ad93-4885...@g27g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> This is showing science something it can never do
> and therefore the truth of it to science is highly unwelcome!
It always amazes me when some freakishly stupid person is
still, somehow, able to pass a drivers test and get a
legitimate license. Likewise, as Raemsch gets dumber by
the day, I remain amazed that he's able to work a keyboard.
His stupid "dares" (which don't even reach the level of
the sacred "triple dog dare) indicate his childishness.
So here's a triple dog dare for him: Cite one piece of
evidence, however tiny, however insignificant, that
"science" can't explain the phenominon you've described
or that it wouldn't welcome such an explanation.
Go ahead, you useless troll, back up your own idiotic
assertions.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
news:6af1f86b-ad93-4885...@g27g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> This is showing science something it can never do
> and therefore the truth of it to science is highly unwelcome!
still, somehow, able to pass a drivers test and get a
legitimate license. Likewise, as Raemsch gets dumber by
the day, I remain amazed that he's able to work a keyboard.
His stupid "dares" (which don't even reach the level of
the sacred "triple dog dare) indicate his childishness.
So here's a triple dog dare for him: Cite one piece of
evidence, however tiny, however insignificant, that
"science" can't explain the phenominon you've described
or that it wouldn't welcome such an explanation.
Go ahead, you useless troll, back up your own idiotic
assertions.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Androcles
Oct 23, 2011, 7:25:04 PM10/23/11
to
"Bart Goddard" <godd...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9F87B84493171go...@74.209.136.89...
He'z uzing speach rekognishun ind uh speling chequer
(a AI app he downloaded into his phone) which corrects
his syntax but not his grammar. Nothing can correct his
idiocy, but the app does its best.
jon car
Oct 23, 2011, 8:17:27 PM10/23/11
to
On Oct 23, 4:25 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.October.
2011> wrote:
> "Bart Goddard" <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9F87B84493171go...@74.209.136.89...
> | jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in
you can photograph the new yourself for proof.
Also Google Images will do the job of irefutable evidence of no
rainbow angle.
> |
> Raemsch can NOT operate a keyboard.
> He'z uzing speach rekognishun ind uh speling chequer
> (a AI app he downloaded into his phone) which corrects
> his syntax but not his grammar. Nothing can correct his
> idiocy, but the app does its best.
Science is so dumb to claim it can explain a rainbow when it can't.
But you can lie about it can't you?
Mitchell Raemsch
2011> wrote:
> "Bart Goddard" <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9F87B84493171go...@74.209.136.89...
> | jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in
> |news:6af1f86b-ad93-4885...@g27g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> |
> |
> | > This is showing science something it can never do
> | > and therefore the truth of it to science is highly unwelcome!
> |
> | It always amazes me when some freakishly stupid person is
> | still, somehow, able to pass a drivers test and get a
> | legitimate license. Likewise, as Raemsch gets dumber by
> | the day, I remain amazed that he's able to work a keyboard.
> |
> | His stupid "dares" (which don't even reach the level of
> | the sacred "triple dog dare) indicate his childishness.
> |
> | So here's a triple dog dare for him: Cite one piece of
> | evidence, however tiny, however insignificant, that
> | "science" can't explain the phenominon you've described
> | or that it wouldn't welcome such an explanation.
> |
> | Go ahead, you useless troll, back up your own idiotic
> | assertions.
If you can't remember this fact when seeing a rainbow pehaps
> |
> |
> | > This is showing science something it can never do
> | > and therefore the truth of it to science is highly unwelcome!
> |
> | It always amazes me when some freakishly stupid person is
> | still, somehow, able to pass a drivers test and get a
> | legitimate license. Likewise, as Raemsch gets dumber by
> | the day, I remain amazed that he's able to work a keyboard.
> |
> | His stupid "dares" (which don't even reach the level of
> | the sacred "triple dog dare) indicate his childishness.
> |
> | So here's a triple dog dare for him: Cite one piece of
> | evidence, however tiny, however insignificant, that
> | "science" can't explain the phenominon you've described
> | or that it wouldn't welcome such an explanation.
> |
> | Go ahead, you useless troll, back up your own idiotic
> | assertions.
you can photograph the new yourself for proof.
Also Google Images will do the job of irefutable evidence of no
rainbow angle.
> |
> Raemsch can NOT operate a keyboard.
> He'z uzing speach rekognishun ind uh speling chequer
> (a AI app he downloaded into his phone) which corrects
> his syntax but not his grammar. Nothing can correct his
> idiocy, but the app does its best.
But you can lie about it can't you?
Mitchell Raemsch
porky_...@my-deja.com
Oct 23, 2011, 11:08:42 PM10/23/11
to
On Oct 23, 7:06 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
stage of Alzheimer decease and still remember how to play piano.
PPJ.
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote innews:6af1f86b-ad93-4885...@g27g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
> > This is showing science something it can never do
> > and therefore the truth of it to science is highly unwelcome!
>
> It always amazes me when some freakishly stupid person is
> still, somehow, able to pass a drivers test and get a
> legitimate license. Likewise, as Raemsch gets dumber by
> the day, I remain amazed that he's able to work a keyboard.
>
It's mostly motor skills, you know. Like you can have an advanced
>
> > This is showing science something it can never do
> > and therefore the truth of it to science is highly unwelcome!
>
> It always amazes me when some freakishly stupid person is
> still, somehow, able to pass a drivers test and get a
> legitimate license. Likewise, as Raemsch gets dumber by
> the day, I remain amazed that he's able to work a keyboard.
>
stage of Alzheimer decease and still remember how to play piano.
PPJ.
Androcles
Oct 23, 2011, 11:37:12 PM10/23/11
to
<porky_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:09dfe08f-b384-4911...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
Alzheimer's disease deceases you?
Bart Goddard
Oct 24, 2011, 12:09:00 AM10/24/11
to
jon car <jon.c...@gmail.com> wrote in news:42da852e-9096-474e-a978-
94b996...@v33g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>> | Go ahead, you useless troll, back up your own idiotic
>> | assertions.
>
> If you can't remember this fact when seeing a rainbow pehaps
> you can photograph the new yourself for proof.
> Also Google Images will do the job of irefutable evidence of no
> rainbow angle.
If you can't back up your assertions, then just man up
and admit it.
94b996...@v33g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>> | Go ahead, you useless troll, back up your own idiotic
>> | assertions.
>
> If you can't remember this fact when seeing a rainbow pehaps
> you can photograph the new yourself for proof.
> Also Google Images will do the job of irefutable evidence of no
> rainbow angle.
and admit it.
jon car
Oct 24, 2011, 1:32:09 AM10/24/11
to
On Oct 23, 9:09 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:42da852e-9096-474e-a978-
> 94b99626b...@v33g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
wrong!
You can remember rainbows can't you?
You can look at photographs also.
Science is wrong to say it knows something when it is in denial
instead.
All images can demonstrate the truth if you care to look.
Show me the one that came at an angle.
Mitchell Raemsch
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:42da852e-9096-474e-a978-
> 94b99626b...@v33g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> | Go ahead, you useless troll, back up your own idiotic
> >> | assertions.
>
> > If you can't remember this fact when seeing a rainbow pehaps
> > you can photograph the new yourself for proof.
> > Also Google Images will do the job of irefutable evidence of no
> > rainbow angle.
>
> If you can't back up your assertions, then just man up
> and admit it.
Yes. You are a liar. Oportunities are invited. Show me where I am
> >> | Go ahead, you useless troll, back up your own idiotic
> >> | assertions.
>
> > If you can't remember this fact when seeing a rainbow pehaps
> > you can photograph the new yourself for proof.
> > Also Google Images will do the job of irefutable evidence of no
> > rainbow angle.
>
> If you can't back up your assertions, then just man up
> and admit it.
wrong!
You can remember rainbows can't you?
You can look at photographs also.
Science is wrong to say it knows something when it is in denial
instead.
All images can demonstrate the truth if you care to look.
Show me the one that came at an angle.
Mitchell Raemsch
CWatters
Oct 24, 2011, 4:56:47 AM10/24/11
to
CWatters
Oct 24, 2011, 5:02:51 AM10/24/11
to
rainbow angle.
CWatters
Oct 24, 2011, 5:05:00 AM10/24/11
to
angle".
Androcles
Oct 24, 2011, 6:58:25 AM10/24/11
to
"CWatters" <colin....@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
news:PrqdnVenStwjtDjT...@brightview.co.uk...
understand it.
The rainbow is where the rain is and moves with the observer.
http://www.glittermachine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/rainbow.jpg
It is in front of the tree, in front of the animals, in front of the
grass in the foreground. It would complete the circle if the
ground didn't get in the way.
Wonder
Oct 24, 2011, 8:00:04 AM10/24/11
to
From comp.risks:
>Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:10:56 -0400
>From: Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com>
>Subject: NJ election cover-up (Andrew Appel)
>
>By Andrew Appel, Freedom to Tinker, 13 Sep 2011
>
>During the June 2011 New Jersey primary election, something went wrong in
>Cumberland County, which uses Sequoia AVC Advantage direct-recording
>electronic voting computers. From this we learned several things:
>
> 1. New Jersey court-ordered election-security measures have not been
> effectively implemented.
>
> 2. There is a reason to believe that New Jersey election officials have
> destroyed evidence in a pending court case, perhaps to cover up the
> noncompliance with these measures or to cover up irregularities in this
> election. There is enough evidence of a cover-up that a Superior Court
> judge has referred the matter to the State prosecutor's office.
>
> 3. Like any DRE voting machine, the AVC Advantage is vulnerable to
> software-based vote stealing by replacing the internal vote-counting
> firmware. That kind of fraud probably did not occur in this case. But
> even without replacing the internal firmware, the AVC Advantage voting
> machine is vulnerable to the accidental or deliberate swapping of
> vote-totals between candidates. It is clear that the machine
> misreported votes in this election, and both technical and procedural
> safeguards proved ineffective to fully correct the error.
> [...]
>
> https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/nj-election-cover
>
>
>Did NJ election officials fail to respect court order to improve security of
>elections?
>https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/did-nj-election-officials-fail-respect-court-order-improve-security-elections
>
>Will the NJ Attorney General investigate the NJ Attorney General?
>https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/will-nj-attorney-general-investigate-nj-attorney-general
>
>What happens when the printed ballot face doesn't match the electronic ballot definition?
>https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/what-happens-when-printed-ballot-face-doesnt-match-electronic-ballot-definition
>
>http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/voting/nj-election-cover-up.pdf
If it's electronic, it's no election.
>Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:10:56 -0400
>From: Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com>
>Subject: NJ election cover-up (Andrew Appel)
>
>By Andrew Appel, Freedom to Tinker, 13 Sep 2011
>
>During the June 2011 New Jersey primary election, something went wrong in
>Cumberland County, which uses Sequoia AVC Advantage direct-recording
>electronic voting computers. From this we learned several things:
>
> 1. New Jersey court-ordered election-security measures have not been
> effectively implemented.
>
> 2. There is a reason to believe that New Jersey election officials have
> destroyed evidence in a pending court case, perhaps to cover up the
> noncompliance with these measures or to cover up irregularities in this
> election. There is enough evidence of a cover-up that a Superior Court
> judge has referred the matter to the State prosecutor's office.
>
> 3. Like any DRE voting machine, the AVC Advantage is vulnerable to
> software-based vote stealing by replacing the internal vote-counting
> firmware. That kind of fraud probably did not occur in this case. But
> even without replacing the internal firmware, the AVC Advantage voting
> machine is vulnerable to the accidental or deliberate swapping of
> vote-totals between candidates. It is clear that the machine
> misreported votes in this election, and both technical and procedural
> safeguards proved ineffective to fully correct the error.
> [...]
>
> https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/nj-election-cover
>
>
>Did NJ election officials fail to respect court order to improve security of
>elections?
>https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/did-nj-election-officials-fail-respect-court-order-improve-security-elections
>
>Will the NJ Attorney General investigate the NJ Attorney General?
>https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/will-nj-attorney-general-investigate-nj-attorney-general
>
>What happens when the printed ballot face doesn't match the electronic ballot definition?
>https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/what-happens-when-printed-ballot-face-doesnt-match-electronic-ballot-definition
>
>http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/voting/nj-election-cover-up.pdf
If it's electronic, it's no election.
Bart Goddard
Oct 24, 2011, 9:00:23 AM10/24/11
to
jon car <jon.c...@gmail.com> wrote in news:f8939d2f-341e-4b5b-ba56-
9f0dff...@z28g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>> If you can't back up your assertions, then just man up
>> and admit it. я
personify it, but anyway) couldn't explain rainbows. Yet you
offered no evidence that it can't explain rainbows. That makes
you less than useless.
9f0dff...@z28g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>> If you can't back up your assertions, then just man up
>
> Yes. You are a liar. Oportunities are invited. Show me where I am
> wrong!
I did. You asserted that "science" (who knows why you would
> Yes. You are a liar. Oportunities are invited. Show me where I am
> wrong!
personify it, but anyway) couldn't explain rainbows. Yet you
offered no evidence that it can't explain rainbows. That makes
you less than useless.
jon car
Oct 24, 2011, 3:33:59 PM10/24/11
to
On Oct 24, 6:00 am, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:f8939d2f-341e-4b5b-ba56-
> 9f0dff4db...@z28g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> You asserted that "science" (who knows why you would
> personify it, but anyway) couldn't explain rainbows. Yet you
> offered no evidence that it can't explain rainbows. That makes
> you less than useless.
Science is arogant and stupid about having to know when it cannot
always know.
>
> --
> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
If rainbows do the impossible science is out of luck!
The rainbow angle is that it has none!
You can lie about it but it won't get you anywhere.
Science that won't correct itself is pure stupidity bart.
Mitchell Raemsch
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:f8939d2f-341e-4b5b-ba56-
> 9f0dff4db...@z28g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> If you can't back up your assertions, then just man up
> >> and admit it. ÿ
> >> If you can't back up your assertions, then just man up
>
> > Yes. You are a liar. Oportunities are invited. Show me where I am
> > wrong!
>
> I did.
And where is that?
> > Yes. You are a liar. Oportunities are invited. Show me where I am
> > wrong!
>
> I did.
> You asserted that "science" (who knows why you would
> personify it, but anyway) couldn't explain rainbows. Yet you
> offered no evidence that it can't explain rainbows. That makes
> you less than useless.
always know.
>
> --
> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
The rainbow angle is that it has none!
You can lie about it but it won't get you anywhere.
Science that won't correct itself is pure stupidity bart.
Mitchell Raemsch
Bart Goddard
Oct 24, 2011, 4:12:45 PM10/24/11
to
jon car <jon.c...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2638a9a9-befa-4596-aea3-
6ed963...@h30g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 24, 6:00 am, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:f8939d2f-341e-4b5b-ba56-
>> 9f0dff4db...@z28g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> If you can't back up your assertions, then just man up
>> >> and admit it. ÿ
>>
>> > Yes. You are a liar. Oportunities are invited. Show me where I am
>> > wrong!
>>
>> I did.
>
> And where is that?
Above and below.
> Science is arogant and stupid about having to know when it cannot
> always know.
Again, unsupported assertions. How can anyone be so damn dumb as
to think he can judge science, when he can't even support his own
assertions? Even worse, "science" is not a person, so it can't
exhibit traits like "arogant". As always, it's the guy running
about saying "liar, liar" who is the biggest liar. You're such
a bad liar that you even tell lies that can't possibly be
credible, like an inanimate thing like "science" being "arogant."
I triple dog dare you to support your assertions, child.
6ed963...@h30g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 24, 6:00 am, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:f8939d2f-341e-4b5b-ba56-
>> 9f0dff4db...@z28g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> If you can't back up your assertions, then just man up
>> >> and admit it. ÿ
>>
>> > Yes. You are a liar. Oportunities are invited. Show me where I am
>> > wrong!
>>
>> I did.
>
> And where is that?
> Science is arogant and stupid about having to know when it cannot
> always know.
to think he can judge science, when he can't even support his own
assertions? Even worse, "science" is not a person, so it can't
exhibit traits like "arogant". As always, it's the guy running
about saying "liar, liar" who is the biggest liar. You're such
a bad liar that you even tell lies that can't possibly be
credible, like an inanimate thing like "science" being "arogant."
I triple dog dare you to support your assertions, child.
jon car
Oct 24, 2011, 8:06:15 PM10/24/11
to
On Oct 24, 1:12 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2638a9a9-befa-4596-aea3-
> 6ed963217...@h30g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
Science judged Albert Einstein when Einstein was right and I will help
that. If I am a judge of science it is because they are my judge. But
it is only going to go one way. You can count on it.
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2638a9a9-befa-4596-aea3-
> 6ed963217...@h30g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
that. If I am a judge of science it is because they are my judge. But
it is only going to go one way. You can count on it.
Bart Goddard
Oct 24, 2011, 10:00:09 PM10/24/11
to
jon car <jon.c...@gmail.com> wrote in news:9bfd11cc-9ed9-4a9d-87df-
b06723...@x16g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>> I triple dog dare you to support your assertions, child.
>>
>> --
>> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
>
> Science judged Albert Einstein when Einstein was right and I will help
> that. If I am a judge of science it is because they are my judge. But
> it is only going to go one way. You can count on it.
>
So again, you didn't support your assertions. Drop the phony
bravado, and just support your assertions. If you can't, you're
dishonest and a liar.
b06723...@x16g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>> I triple dog dare you to support your assertions, child.
>>
>> --
>> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
>
> Science judged Albert Einstein when Einstein was right and I will help
> that. If I am a judge of science it is because they are my judge. But
> it is only going to go one way. You can count on it.
>
bravado, and just support your assertions. If you can't, you're
dishonest and a liar.
jon car
Oct 24, 2011, 10:37:05 PM10/24/11
to
On Oct 24, 7:00 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:9bfd11cc-9ed9-4a9d-87df-
> b06723503...@x16g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
That's what I would ask you to do.
Don't lie about it anymore!
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:9bfd11cc-9ed9-4a9d-87df-
> b06723503...@x16g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> I triple dog dare you to support your assertions, child.
>
> >> --
> >> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
>
> > Science judged Albert Einstein when Einstein was right and I will help
> > that. If I am a judge of science it is because they are my judge. But
> > it is only going to go one way. You can count on it.
>
> So again, you didn't support your assertions. Drop the phony
> bravado, and just support your assertions. If you can't, you're
> dishonest and a liar.
>
> --
> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Take a picture! or find one.
> >> I triple dog dare you to support your assertions, child.
>
> >> --
> >> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
>
> > Science judged Albert Einstein when Einstein was right and I will help
> > that. If I am a judge of science it is because they are my judge. But
> > it is only going to go one way. You can count on it.
>
> So again, you didn't support your assertions. Drop the phony
> bravado, and just support your assertions. If you can't, you're
> dishonest and a liar.
>
> --
> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
That's what I would ask you to do.
Don't lie about it anymore!
Bart Goddard
Oct 25, 2011, 12:14:46 AM10/25/11
to
jon car <jon.c...@gmail.com> wrote in news:07378ea9-b25a-4c13-9891-
89790f...@h30g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
You're the one who's lying. You're being completely dishonest
and you're doing it on purpose to hide your ignorance.
Unfortunately for you, you're too stupid to realize that
everyone sees through your charade.
You obviously can't back up your assertions, so you keep
avoiding the plain and simple challenge.
(Hint: Google "circle rainbow airplane" and see what you
get, nimrod.)
89790f...@h30g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
and you're doing it on purpose to hide your ignorance.
Unfortunately for you, you're too stupid to realize that
everyone sees through your charade.
You obviously can't back up your assertions, so you keep
avoiding the plain and simple challenge.
(Hint: Google "circle rainbow airplane" and see what you
get, nimrod.)
David Bernier
Oct 25, 2011, 1:04:53 AM10/25/11
to
the authority to mandate that the New Jersey Secretary of
State _must_ use old-fashioned paper ballots in all State
and Federal elections, within the State of New Jersey?
David Bernier
--
true prophets are the gateway to true revelation
false prophets are the gateway to false revelation
Wonder
Oct 25, 2011, 11:31:38 AM10/25/11
to
If that legislative assembly has the authority, but
lacks the motivation (due to the impression that
the fix would in fact be in for them), then what
recourse would exist?
jbriggs444
Oct 25, 2011, 1:51:37 PM10/25/11
to
On Oct 24, 6:58 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.October.
2011> wrote:
> "CWatters" <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
Having done the experiment myself with a garden hose and a thumb,
I know that it _does_ complete the circle except for where the shadow
of your body gets in the way.
The underlying behavior was freaking obvious enough that
I felt no need to re-run the experiment while hanging upside-down.
This was at about age 10. I would claim that this puts an upper
bound on Mitch's mental age. It seems clear that the bound is
not tight.
2011> wrote:
> "CWatters" <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
I know that it _does_ complete the circle except for where the shadow
of your body gets in the way.
The underlying behavior was freaking obvious enough that
I felt no need to re-run the experiment while hanging upside-down.
This was at about age 10. I would claim that this puts an upper
bound on Mitch's mental age. It seems clear that the bound is
not tight.
jon car
Oct 25, 2011, 4:21:53 PM10/25/11
to
On Oct 24, 9:14 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:07378ea9-b25a-4c13-9891-
> 89790f625...@h30g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
If you won't look at the evidence readily available
you should provide your image of a rainbow angle.
The issue can be settled completely by that.
Wherever there is dishonesty it will not pass.
Show me your image. All of Google is mine.
> and you're doing it on purpose to hide your ignorance.
> Unfortunately for you, you're too stupid to realize that
> everyone sees through your charade.
>
> You obviously can't back up your assertions, so you keep
> avoiding the plain and simple challenge.
Hoe do falling drops arange to radiate an unmoving image
over the time of the rainbow?
>
> (Hint: Google "circle rainbow airplane" and see what you
> get, nimrod.)
That is my favorite. It doesn't have an angle but is circular!
What is sciences dumb answer to that?
> --
> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.- Hide quoted text -
Mitch Raemsch
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:07378ea9-b25a-4c13-9891-
> 89790f625...@h30g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 7:00 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:9bfd11cc-9ed9-4a9d-87df-
> >> b06723503...@x16g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> I triple dog dare you to support your assertions, child.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
>
> >> > Science judged Albert Einstein when Einstein was right and I will
> help
> >> > that. If I am a judge of science it is because they are my judge.
> But
> >> > it is only going to go one way. You can count on it.
>
> >> So again, you didn't support your assertions. Drop the phony
> >> bravado, and just support your assertions. If you can't, you're
> >> dishonest and a liar.
>
> >> --
> >> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
>
> > Take a picture! or find one.
>
> > That's what I would ask you to do.
>
> > Don't lie about it anymore!
>
> You're the one who's lying.
> You're being completely dishonest
You are dishonest with yourself.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 7:00 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:9bfd11cc-9ed9-4a9d-87df-
> >> b06723503...@x16g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> I triple dog dare you to support your assertions, child.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
>
> >> > Science judged Albert Einstein when Einstein was right and I will
> help
> >> > that. If I am a judge of science it is because they are my judge.
> But
> >> > it is only going to go one way. You can count on it.
>
> >> So again, you didn't support your assertions. Drop the phony
> >> bravado, and just support your assertions. If you can't, you're
> >> dishonest and a liar.
>
> >> --
> >> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
>
> > Take a picture! or find one.
>
> > That's what I would ask you to do.
>
> > Don't lie about it anymore!
>
> You're the one who's lying.
> You're being completely dishonest
If you won't look at the evidence readily available
you should provide your image of a rainbow angle.
The issue can be settled completely by that.
Wherever there is dishonesty it will not pass.
Show me your image. All of Google is mine.
> and you're doing it on purpose to hide your ignorance.
> Unfortunately for you, you're too stupid to realize that
> everyone sees through your charade.
>
> You obviously can't back up your assertions, so you keep
> avoiding the plain and simple challenge.
over the time of the rainbow?
>
> (Hint: Google "circle rainbow airplane" and see what you
> get, nimrod.)
What is sciences dumb answer to that?
> --
> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Get it pinhead?
> - Show quoted text -
Mitch Raemsch
Bart Goddard
Oct 25, 2011, 4:42:15 PM10/25/11
to
jon car <jon.c...@gmail.com> wrote in news:b5cb487e-7dee-4674-a3dd-
494e72...@t38g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>> You're the one who's lying. ˙
>> You're being completely dishonest
>
> You are dishonest with yourself.
>
> If you won't look at the evidence readily available
> you should provide your image of a rainbow angle.
If there was evidence readily available to support your
dishonest and childish assertions about "science", then
you would be able to supply them yourself. But that
would be too intellectually honest for you. You're like
an buffoon who says "Leprechauns exist, prove me wrong."
494e72...@t38g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>> You're the one who's lying. ˙
>> You're being completely dishonest
>
> You are dishonest with yourself.
>
> If you won't look at the evidence readily available
> you should provide your image of a rainbow angle.
dishonest and childish assertions about "science", then
you would be able to supply them yourself. But that
would be too intellectually honest for you. You're like
an buffoon who says "Leprechauns exist, prove me wrong."
alie...@gmail.com
Oct 25, 2011, 4:51:43 PM10/25/11
to
do you think it is ALWAYS the same apparent diameter?
Mark L. Fergerson
jon car
Oct 25, 2011, 5:38:28 PM10/25/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
What you are talking about doesn't apply on this thread.
> - Show quoted text -
Please show me I am wrong by providing an image of any
rainbow that is ever at an angle. They don't exist.
But I dare you.
Mitchell Raemsch
Androcles
Oct 25, 2011, 5:44:43 PM10/25/11
to
"jbriggs444" <jbrig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f201c35-7578-468d...@g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
What is truly striking is if you do the experiment with a garden
hose and a thumb when there is full-sky rainbow. You'll find that
the spray you create is a perfect extension to the bow which
terminates at your feet. The leprechaun's crock of gold is at
the other end.
I offer no challenge to the mental age of Raemsch who is likely
to search for the crock the way Hawking will search for a black hole.
jon car
Oct 25, 2011, 5:36:13 PM10/25/11
to
On Oct 25, 1:42 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:b5cb487e-7dee-4674-a3dd-
> 494e72425...@t38g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> You're the one who's lying. ÿ
Show me any that have an angle? even the circular from the sky?
One at an angle that you could provide would make what you
are saying a fact. So please back that up if you can!
Mitchell Raemsch
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:b5cb487e-7dee-4674-a3dd-
> 494e72425...@t38g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> You're the one who's lying. ÿ
> >> You're being completely dishonest
>
> > You are dishonest with yourself.
>
> > If you won't look at the evidence readily available
> > you should provide your image of a rainbow angle.
>
> If there was evidence readily available to support your
> dishonest and childish assertions about "science", then
> you would be able to supply them yourself. But that
> would be too intellectually honest for you. You're like
> an buffoon who says "Leprechauns exist, prove me wrong."
>
> --
> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Stop ignoring the images readily available. These are facts.
>
> > You are dishonest with yourself.
>
> > If you won't look at the evidence readily available
> > you should provide your image of a rainbow angle.
>
> If there was evidence readily available to support your
> dishonest and childish assertions about "science", then
> you would be able to supply them yourself. But that
> would be too intellectually honest for you. You're like
> an buffoon who says "Leprechauns exist, prove me wrong."
>
> --
> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Show me any that have an angle? even the circular from the sky?
One at an angle that you could provide would make what you
are saying a fact. So please back that up if you can!
Mitchell Raemsch
Bart Goddard
Oct 25, 2011, 6:15:54 PM10/25/11
to
jon car <jon.c...@gmail.com> wrote in news:3bed9b75-1ea5-4f91-93f9-
6f1df4...@q35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> Stop ignoring the images readily available. These are facts.
> Show me any that have an angle? even the circular from the sky?
> One at an angle that you could provide would make what you
> are saying a fact. So please back that up if you can!
There are no facts here, so there's nothing to ignore.
You're so damn dumb and dishonest that you can't even
make a sensible argument. You haven't defined what you
mean by "angle" and you make assertions but have nothing
to back them up. So you post, instead, playground nonsense
"daring" people to prove you wrong. If you have something
to say, back it up. It's not our job to make your arguments
for you, you big stupid baby.
6f1df4...@q35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> Stop ignoring the images readily available. These are facts.
> Show me any that have an angle? even the circular from the sky?
> One at an angle that you could provide would make what you
> are saying a fact. So please back that up if you can!
You're so damn dumb and dishonest that you can't even
make a sensible argument. You haven't defined what you
mean by "angle" and you make assertions but have nothing
to back them up. So you post, instead, playground nonsense
"daring" people to prove you wrong. If you have something
to say, back it up. It's not our job to make your arguments
for you, you big stupid baby.
David Bernier
Oct 25, 2011, 10:25:24 PM10/25/11
to
New Jersey Statutes - Title 19 Elections
cf.:
< http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/19-elections/index.html >
Dave
Wonder
Oct 27, 2011, 7:47:49 AM10/27/11
to
in many other states to deprive voters of real ballots.
jim
Oct 27, 2011, 8:17:53 AM10/27/11
to
>
> >Will the NJ Attorney General investigate the NJ Attorney General?
> >https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/will-nj-attorney-general-inv...
> >Will the NJ Attorney General investigate the NJ Attorney General?
>
> >What happens when the printed ballot face doesn't match the electronic ballot definition?
> >https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/what-happens-when-printed-ba...
> >What happens when the printed ballot face doesn't match the electronic ballot definition?
>
> >http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/voting/nj-election-cover-up.pdf
>
> If it's electronic, it's no election.
Hollywood may be the only people that work
> >http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/voting/nj-election-cover-up.pdf
>
> If it's electronic, it's no election.
on retail electronics anymore.
And the stuff a lot of cops work on is so nearly
illegal, the military are the only people that build it
jim
Oct 27, 2011, 1:18:04 PM10/27/11
to
Since they started building submarines over 200 years ago, and
got exactly nowhere but Norfolk with them,
the people who know how military weapons really work,
discovered 21st Century Helicopters and Mail Order Armageddon.
konyberg
Oct 27, 2011, 3:07:09 PM10/27/11
to
wet it's only raining where the rainbow is.
KON
konyberg
Oct 27, 2011, 3:29:43 PM10/27/11
to
KON
Wonder
Oct 27, 2011, 4:24:08 PM10/27/11
to
jon car
Oct 27, 2011, 6:02:18 PM10/27/11
to
On Oct 25, 3:15 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:3bed9b75-1ea5-4f91-93f9-
> 6f1df46ee...@q35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
Chances are the possible exceptions are still never at an angle.
The rainbow hangs but the drops are falling.
Mitrchell Raemsch
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:3bed9b75-1ea5-4f91-93f9-
> 6f1df46ee...@q35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
The rainbow hangs but the drops are falling.
Mitrchell Raemsch
Unknown
Oct 27, 2011, 7:47:05 PM10/27/11
to
Bart Goddard
Oct 28, 2011, 8:57:41 AM10/28/11
to
jon car <jon.c...@gmail.com> wrote in news:db81452f-8d15-4f12-a55b-
2f89d3...@m5g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
Still avoiding the questions. This just proves that you
are aware that you haven't said anything rational. It's
one thing to be stupid, and another thing to be deliberately
stupid and dishonest.
2f89d3...@m5g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
are aware that you haven't said anything rational. It's
one thing to be stupid, and another thing to be deliberately
stupid and dishonest.
PD
Oct 28, 2011, 9:59:16 AM10/28/11
to
talking with a homeless guy with mental problems.
jon car
Oct 28, 2011, 5:06:21 PM10/28/11
to
On Oct 28, 6:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/28/2011 7:57 AM, Bart Goddard wrote:
>
> > jon car<jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in news:db81452f-8d15-4f12-a55b-
> On 10/28/2011 7:57 AM, Bart Goddard wrote:
>
> > 2f89d3fce...@m5g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> On Oct 25, 3:15 pm, Bart Goddard<goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> Chances are the possible exceptions are still never at an angle.
> >> The rainbow hangs but the drops are falling.
>
> >> Mitrchell Raemsch
>
> > Still avoiding the questions. This just proves that you
> > are aware that you haven't said anything rational. It's
> > one thing to be stupid, and another thing to be deliberately
> > stupid and dishonest.
>
> He's not deliberately stupid and dishonest. He IS irrational. You're
> talking with a homeless guy with mental problems.
How does an arc of prismatic falling raindrops stay in place?
> >> On Oct 25, 3:15 pm, Bart Goddard<goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> Chances are the possible exceptions are still never at an angle.
> >> The rainbow hangs but the drops are falling.
>
> >> Mitrchell Raemsch
>
> > Still avoiding the questions. This just proves that you
> > are aware that you haven't said anything rational. It's
> > one thing to be stupid, and another thing to be deliberately
> > stupid and dishonest.
>
> He's not deliberately stupid and dishonest. He IS irrational. You're
> talking with a homeless guy with mental problems.
A rainbow would have no duration. It would fall with
the drops.
MItchell Raemsch
Michael Moroney
Oct 28, 2011, 10:03:46 PM10/28/11
to
> How does an arc of prismatic falling raindrops stay in place?
Nobody ever said they do. (and there is no arc of raindrops, just
raindrops)
jon car
Oct 28, 2011, 10:19:44 PM10/28/11
to
On Oct 28, 7:03 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
What? Are you going to start lying about what we are talking about
again?
Science has no solution and it never will.
"Man knows the odds; but God knows every outcome."
wrote:
> > How does an arc of prismatic falling raindrops stay in place?
>
> Nobody ever said they do.
(and there is no arc of raindrops, just raindrops)
Then you are not talking about a the rainbow effect idiot!
>
> Nobody ever said they do.
(and there is no arc of raindrops, just raindrops)
What? Are you going to start lying about what we are talking about
again?
Science has no solution and it never will.
"Man knows the odds; but God knows every outcome."
Peter Webb
Oct 28, 2011, 10:34:24 PM10/28/11
to
"jon car" <jon.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ac1b307-3ea6-4da8...@g27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Why didn't you just Google rainbow?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow provides a scientific explanation of
rainbows. That they are caused by reflection and refraction within raindrops
has been known since 1307. A full worked treatment explaining all known
facts about rainbows was produced in 1820.
Science has had a full explanation for rainbows for almost 200 years. To say
that science does not have a solution is obviously incorrect, as 10 seconds
Googling would have shown you.
Now, is there any aspect of the scientific explanation for rainbows in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow that you don't understand, or do you
now understand the cause of the phenomenon?
If there *is* any part of this scientific explanation you don't understand,
quote the part you are having trouble with and I will explain it to you.
jon car
Oct 28, 2011, 10:51:36 PM10/28/11
to
On Oct 28, 7:34 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
> "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in message
No. Science's answer is like the Leprachaun at its End.
> To say
> that science does not have a solution is obviously incorrect, as 10 seconds
> Googling would have shown you.
>
> Now, is there any aspect of the scientific explanation for rainbows inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbowthat you don't understand, or do you
Either we have perfect photography or rainbows are never at an angle.
Someone provided one that looked a little different at top
but how can that be an exception? what makes the rest never with an
angle?
?Statistically most rainbows are never seen at an angle?
Science is an idiot for lying to themselves about something
they can't get away with. Try Google.
Mitchell Raemsch
<webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
> "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4ac1b307-3ea6-4da8...@g27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 28, 7:03 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
> > > How does an arc of prismatic falling raindrops stay in place?
>
> > Nobody ever said they do.
>
> (and there is no arc of raindrops, just raindrops)
>
> Then you are not talking about a the rainbow effect idiot!
> What? Are you going to start lying about what we are talking about
> again?
>
> Science has no solution and it never will.
> "Man knows the odds; but God knows every outcome."
>
> ____________________________________________
> Why didn't you just Google rainbow?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbowprovides a scientific explanation of
> news:4ac1b307-3ea6-4da8...@g27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 28, 7:03 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
> > > How does an arc of prismatic falling raindrops stay in place?
>
> > Nobody ever said they do.
>
> (and there is no arc of raindrops, just raindrops)
>
> Then you are not talking about a the rainbow effect idiot!
> What? Are you going to start lying about what we are talking about
> again?
>
> Science has no solution and it never will.
> "Man knows the odds; but God knows every outcome."
>
> ____________________________________________
> Why didn't you just Google rainbow?
>
> rainbows. That they are caused by reflection and refraction within raindrops
> has been known since 1307. A full worked treatment explaining all known
> facts about rainbows was produced in 1820.
>
> Science has had a full explanation for rainbows for almost 200 years.
So it's a complete theory? BaHaHaHa.
> has been known since 1307. A full worked treatment explaining all known
> facts about rainbows was produced in 1820.
>
> Science has had a full explanation for rainbows for almost 200 years.
No. Science's answer is like the Leprachaun at its End.
> To say
> that science does not have a solution is obviously incorrect, as 10 seconds
> Googling would have shown you.
>
> now understand the cause of the phenomenon?
>
> If there *is* any part of this scientific explanation you don't understand,
> quote the part you are having trouble with and I will explain it to you.
Science can't do the impossible.
>
> If there *is* any part of this scientific explanation you don't understand,
> quote the part you are having trouble with and I will explain it to you.
Either we have perfect photography or rainbows are never at an angle.
Someone provided one that looked a little different at top
but how can that be an exception? what makes the rest never with an
angle?
?Statistically most rainbows are never seen at an angle?
Science is an idiot for lying to themselves about something
they can't get away with. Try Google.
Mitchell Raemsch
Peter Webb
Oct 28, 2011, 11:19:13 PM10/28/11
to
news:9afb7d3f-d0ea-4f9b...@p20g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Yes.
BaHaHaHa.
__________________________________
What part don't you understand?
No. Science's answer is like the Leprachaun at its End.
__________________________________
How?
> To say
> that science does not have a solution is obviously incorrect, as 10
> seconds
> Googling would have shown you.
>
> Now, is there any aspect of the scientific explanation for rainbows
> inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbowthat you don't understand, or do you
> now understand the cause of the phenomenon?
>
> If there *is* any part of this scientific explanation you don't
> understand,
> quote the part you are having trouble with and I will explain it to you.
Science can't do the impossible.
Either we have perfect photography or rainbows are never at an angle.
________________________________________
That doesn't follow.
Someone provided one that looked a little different at top
but how can that be an exception? what makes the rest never with an
angle?
___________________________________________
Perhaps if you were to provide a link to the rainbow that doesn't seem (to
you) to be compatible with teh scientific explanation?
?Statistically most rainbows are never seen at an angle?
Science is an idiot for lying to themselves about something
they can't get away with. Try Google.
____________________________________________
You are talking gibberish.
IS THERE ANY PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTION OF RAINBOWS GIVEN IN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, OR THINK IS
WRONG?
If so, please post the bit that you are having trouble with and I will
explain it to you.
As I said, we have had a correct (but basic) explanantion of rainbows since
1307, and a complete explanation since 1820. Rainbows are extremely well
understood by science, and with a little effort they can even be understood
by you.
Mitchell Raemsch
On Oct 28, 7:34 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
> "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4ac1b307-3ea6-4da8...@g27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 28, 7:03 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
> > > How does an arc of prismatic falling raindrops stay in place?
>
> > Nobody ever said they do.
>
> (and there is no arc of raindrops, just raindrops)
>
> Then you are not talking about a the rainbow effect idiot!
> What? Are you going to start lying about what we are talking about
> again?
>
> Science has no solution and it never will.
> "Man knows the odds; but God knows every outcome."
>
> ____________________________________________
> Why didn't you just Google rainbow?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbowprovides a scientific explanation of
> rainbows. That they are caused by reflection and refraction within
> raindrops
> has been known since 1307. A full worked treatment explaining all known
> facts about rainbows was produced in 1820.
>
> Science has had a full explanation for rainbows for almost 200 years.
So it's a complete theory?
_______________________________
<webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
> "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4ac1b307-3ea6-4da8...@g27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 28, 7:03 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
> > > How does an arc of prismatic falling raindrops stay in place?
>
> > Nobody ever said they do.
>
> (and there is no arc of raindrops, just raindrops)
>
> Then you are not talking about a the rainbow effect idiot!
> What? Are you going to start lying about what we are talking about
> again?
>
> Science has no solution and it never will.
> "Man knows the odds; but God knows every outcome."
>
> ____________________________________________
> Why didn't you just Google rainbow?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbowprovides a scientific explanation of
> rainbows. That they are caused by reflection and refraction within
> raindrops
> has been known since 1307. A full worked treatment explaining all known
> facts about rainbows was produced in 1820.
>
> Science has had a full explanation for rainbows for almost 200 years.
So it's a complete theory?
Yes.
BaHaHaHa.
__________________________________
What part don't you understand?
No. Science's answer is like the Leprachaun at its End.
How?
> To say
> that science does not have a solution is obviously incorrect, as 10
> seconds
> Googling would have shown you.
>
> Now, is there any aspect of the scientific explanation for rainbows
> inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbowthat you don't understand, or do you
> now understand the cause of the phenomenon?
>
> If there *is* any part of this scientific explanation you don't
> understand,
> quote the part you are having trouble with and I will explain it to you.
Science can't do the impossible.
Either we have perfect photography or rainbows are never at an angle.
That doesn't follow.
Someone provided one that looked a little different at top
but how can that be an exception? what makes the rest never with an
angle?
Perhaps if you were to provide a link to the rainbow that doesn't seem (to
you) to be compatible with teh scientific explanation?
?Statistically most rainbows are never seen at an angle?
Science is an idiot for lying to themselves about something
they can't get away with. Try Google.
You are talking gibberish.
IS THERE ANY PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTION OF RAINBOWS GIVEN IN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, OR THINK IS
WRONG?
If so, please post the bit that you are having trouble with and I will
explain it to you.
As I said, we have had a correct (but basic) explanantion of rainbows since
1307, and a complete explanation since 1820. Rainbows are extremely well
understood by science, and with a little effort they can even be understood
by you.
Mitchell Raemsch
jon car
Oct 28, 2011, 11:34:13 PM10/28/11
to
On Oct 28, 8:19 pm, "Peter Webb"
in a band?
Rainbows would fall.
And they can't organize themselves!
Mitchell Raemsch
<webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
> "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9afb7d3f-d0ea-4f9b...@p20g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 28, 7:34 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
>
>
> <webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
> > "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:4ac1b307-3ea6-4da8...@g27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 28, 7:03 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > wrote:
>
> > > > How does an arc of prismatic falling raindrops stay in place?
>
> > > Nobody ever said they do.
>
> > (and there is no arc of raindrops, just raindrops)
>
> > Then you are not talking about a the rainbow effect idiot!
> > What? Are you going to start lying about what we are talking about
> > again?
>
> > Science has no solution and it never will.
> > "Man knows the odds; but God knows every outcome."
>
> > ____________________________________________
> > Why didn't you just Google rainbow?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbowprovidesa scientific explanation of
> "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9afb7d3f-d0ea-4f9b...@p20g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 28, 7:34 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
>
>
> <webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
> > "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:4ac1b307-3ea6-4da8...@g27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 28, 7:03 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > wrote:
>
> > > > How does an arc of prismatic falling raindrops stay in place?
>
> > > Nobody ever said they do.
>
> > (and there is no arc of raindrops, just raindrops)
>
> > Then you are not talking about a the rainbow effect idiot!
> > What? Are you going to start lying about what we are talking about
> > again?
>
> > Science has no solution and it never will.
> > "Man knows the odds; but God knows every outcome."
>
> > ____________________________________________
> > Why didn't you just Google rainbow?
>
> > rainbows. That they are caused by reflection and refraction within
> > raindrops
> > has been known since 1307. A full worked treatment explaining all known
> > facts about rainbows was produced in 1820.
>
> > Science has had a full explanation for rainbows for almost 200 years.
>
> So it's a complete theory?
> _______________________________
> Yes.
>
> BaHaHaHa.
> __________________________________
> What part don't you understand?
>
> No. Science's answer is like the Leprachaun at its End.
> __________________________________
> How?
>
> > To say
> > that science does not have a solution is obviously incorrect, as 10
> > seconds
> > Googling would have shown you.
>
> > Now, is there any aspect of the scientific explanation for rainbows
> > inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbowthatyou don't understand, or do you
> > raindrops
> > has been known since 1307. A full worked treatment explaining all known
> > facts about rainbows was produced in 1820.
>
> > Science has had a full explanation for rainbows for almost 200 years.
>
> So it's a complete theory?
> _______________________________
> Yes.
>
> BaHaHaHa.
> __________________________________
> What part don't you understand?
>
> No. Science's answer is like the Leprachaun at its End.
> __________________________________
> How?
>
> > To say
> > that science does not have a solution is obviously incorrect, as 10
> > seconds
> > Googling would have shown you.
>
> > Now, is there any aspect of the scientific explanation for rainbows
> > now understand the cause of the phenomenon?
>
> > If there *is* any part of this scientific explanation you don't
> > understand,
> > quote the part you are having trouble with and I will explain it to you.
>
> Science can't do the impossible.
>
> Either we have perfect photography or rainbows are never at an angle.
>
> ________________________________________
> That doesn't follow.
>
> Someone provided one that looked a little different at top
> but how can that be an exception? what makes the rest never with an
> angle?
> ___________________________________________
> Perhaps if you were to provide a link to the rainbow that doesn't seem (to
> you) to be compatible with teh scientific explanation?
>
> ?Statistically most rainbows are never seen at an angle?
>
> Science is an idiot for lying to themselves about something
> they can't get away with. Try Google.
> ____________________________________________
> You are talking gibberish.
>
> IS THERE ANY PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTION OF RAINBOWS GIVEN INhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RainbowTHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, OR THINK IS
>
> > If there *is* any part of this scientific explanation you don't
> > understand,
> > quote the part you are having trouble with and I will explain it to you.
>
> Science can't do the impossible.
>
> Either we have perfect photography or rainbows are never at an angle.
>
> ________________________________________
> That doesn't follow.
>
> Someone provided one that looked a little different at top
> but how can that be an exception? what makes the rest never with an
> angle?
> ___________________________________________
> Perhaps if you were to provide a link to the rainbow that doesn't seem (to
> you) to be compatible with teh scientific explanation?
>
> ?Statistically most rainbows are never seen at an angle?
>
> Science is an idiot for lying to themselves about something
> they can't get away with. Try Google.
> ____________________________________________
> You are talking gibberish.
>
> WRONG?
>
> If so, please post the bit that you are having trouble with and I will
> explain it to you.
>
> As I said, we have had a correct (but basic) explanantion of rainbows since
> 1307, and a complete explanation since 1820. Rainbows are extremely well
> understood by science, and with a little effort they can even be understood
> by you.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> If so, please post the bit that you are having trouble with and I will
> explain it to you.
>
> As I said, we have had a correct (but basic) explanantion of rainbows since
> 1307, and a complete explanation since 1820. Rainbows are extremely well
> understood by science, and with a little effort they can even be understood
> by you.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
How do the raindrop prisms remain in place for us to see their colours
> - Show quoted text -
in a band?
Rainbows would fall.
And they can't organize themselves!
Mitchell Raemsch
Peter Webb
Oct 29, 2011, 12:14:59 AM10/29/11
to
news:2463b289-2cfa-437a...@t38g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
__________________________
They don't. The water droplets that cause (say) a red colour are those water
droplets that are at the correct angle at that particular time. The water
droplets fall to the ground, but new falling water droplets replace them at
the correct angle. Your logical error is assuming that the same water drops
are always responsible for the (say) red colour. If this was the case then
the rainbow would move when the droplets fell, as you imply. But its not.
Rainbows would fall.
___________________________
Well, yes, if you assumed that the colour was a function of the water
droplet. Its not. Its a function of the position of the droplet. When one
droplet falls, another moves into the same general area.
And they can't organize themselves!
Mitchell Raemsch
_____________________________
Is there any other part of the scientific explanation of rainbows that you
don't understand, or is this all cleared up?
They don't. The water droplets that cause (say) a red colour are those water
droplets that are at the correct angle at that particular time. The water
droplets fall to the ground, but new falling water droplets replace them at
the correct angle. Your logical error is assuming that the same water drops
are always responsible for the (say) red colour. If this was the case then
the rainbow would move when the droplets fell, as you imply. But its not.
Rainbows would fall.
___________________________
Well, yes, if you assumed that the colour was a function of the water
droplet. Its not. Its a function of the position of the droplet. When one
droplet falls, another moves into the same general area.
And they can't organize themselves!
Mitchell Raemsch
Is there any other part of the scientific explanation of rainbows that you
don't understand, or is this all cleared up?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Oct 29, 2011, 12:25:08 AM10/29/11
to
You are dealing with someone with very severe brain issues, or to put it
another way, he is nutty as a fuitcake, both oars aren't in the water,
he's a couple of cards short of a full deck.
No matter what you say to him all you will get is babbling nonsense in
return.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
jon car
Oct 29, 2011, 9:37:37 AM10/29/11
to
On Oct 28, 9:25 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Science can't handle a rainbow. It has a Leprachaun of an explanation
of its own
and no pot of Gold.
> In sci.physics Peter Webb <webbfam...@optusnetdiespamdie.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9afb7d3f-d0ea-4f9b...@p20g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 28, 7:34 pm, "Peter Webb"
> > <webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
> >> "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:4ac1b307-3ea6-4da8...@g27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Oct 28, 7:03 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > > How does an arc of prismatic falling raindrops stay in place?
>
> >> > Nobody ever said they do.
>
> >> (and there is no arc of raindrops, just raindrops)
>
> >> Then you are not talking about a the rainbow effect idiot!
> >> What? Are you going to start lying about what we are talking about
> >> again?
>
> >> Science has no solution and it never will.
> >> "Man knows the odds; but God knows every outcome."
>
> >> ____________________________________________
> >> Why didn't you just Google rainbow?
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbowprovidesa scientific explanation of
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9afb7d3f-d0ea-4f9b...@p20g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 28, 7:34 pm, "Peter Webb"
> > <webbfam...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote:
> >> "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:4ac1b307-3ea6-4da8...@g27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Oct 28, 7:03 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > > How does an arc of prismatic falling raindrops stay in place?
>
> >> > Nobody ever said they do.
>
> >> (and there is no arc of raindrops, just raindrops)
>
> >> Then you are not talking about a the rainbow effect idiot!
> >> What? Are you going to start lying about what we are talking about
> >> again?
>
> >> Science has no solution and it never will.
> >> "Man knows the odds; but God knows every outcome."
>
> >> ____________________________________________
> >> Why didn't you just Google rainbow?
>
> >> rainbows. That they are caused by reflection and refraction within
> >> raindrops
> >> has been known since 1307. A full worked treatment explaining all known
> >> facts about rainbows was produced in 1820.
>
> >> Science has had a full explanation for rainbows for almost 200 years.
>
> > So it's a complete theory?
> > _______________________________
> > Yes.
>
> > BaHaHaHa.
> > __________________________________
> > What part don't you understand?
>
> > No. Science's answer is like the Leprachaun at its End.
> > __________________________________
> > How?
>
> >> To say
> >> that science does not have a solution is obviously incorrect, as 10
> >> seconds
> >> Googling would have shown you.
>
> >> Now, is there any aspect of the scientific explanation for rainbows
> >> inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbowthatyou don't understand, or do you
> >> raindrops
> >> has been known since 1307. A full worked treatment explaining all known
> >> facts about rainbows was produced in 1820.
>
> >> Science has had a full explanation for rainbows for almost 200 years.
>
> > So it's a complete theory?
> > _______________________________
> > Yes.
>
> > BaHaHaHa.
> > __________________________________
> > What part don't you understand?
>
> > No. Science's answer is like the Leprachaun at its End.
> > __________________________________
> > How?
>
> >> To say
> >> that science does not have a solution is obviously incorrect, as 10
> >> seconds
> >> Googling would have shown you.
>
> >> Now, is there any aspect of the scientific explanation for rainbows
> >> now understand the cause of the phenomenon?
>
> >> If there *is* any part of this scientific explanation you don't
> >> understand,
> >> quote the part you are having trouble with and I will explain it to you.
>
> > Science can't do the impossible.
>
> > Either we have perfect photography or rainbows are never at an angle.
>
> > ________________________________________
> > That doesn't follow.
>
> > Someone provided one that looked a little different at top
> > but how can that be an exception? what makes the rest never with an
> > angle?
> > ___________________________________________
> > Perhaps if you were to provide a link to the rainbow that doesn't seem (to
> > you) to be compatible with teh scientific explanation?
>
> > ?Statistically most rainbows are never seen at an angle?
>
> > Science is an idiot for lying to themselves about something
> > they can't get away with. Try Google.
> > ____________________________________________
> > You are talking gibberish.
>
> > IS THERE ANY PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTION OF RAINBOWS GIVEN IN
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RainbowTHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, OR THINK IS
>
> >> If there *is* any part of this scientific explanation you don't
> >> understand,
> >> quote the part you are having trouble with and I will explain it to you.
>
> > Science can't do the impossible.
>
> > Either we have perfect photography or rainbows are never at an angle.
>
> > ________________________________________
> > That doesn't follow.
>
> > Someone provided one that looked a little different at top
> > but how can that be an exception? what makes the rest never with an
> > angle?
> > ___________________________________________
> > Perhaps if you were to provide a link to the rainbow that doesn't seem (to
> > you) to be compatible with teh scientific explanation?
>
> > ?Statistically most rainbows are never seen at an angle?
>
> > Science is an idiot for lying to themselves about something
> > they can't get away with. Try Google.
> > ____________________________________________
> > You are talking gibberish.
>
> > IS THERE ANY PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTION OF RAINBOWS GIVEN IN
> > WRONG?
>
> > If so, please post the bit that you are having trouble with and I will
> > explain it to you.
>
> > As I said, we have had a correct (but basic) explanantion of rainbows since
> > 1307, and a complete explanation since 1820. Rainbows are extremely well
> > understood by science, and with a little effort they can even be understood
> > by you.
>
> Not a chance.
>
> You are dealing with someone with very severe brain issues, or to put it
> another way, he is nutty as a fuitcake, both oars aren't in the water,
> he's a couple of cards short of a full deck.
>
> No matter what you say to him all you will get is babbling nonsense in
> return.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > If so, please post the bit that you are having trouble with and I will
> > explain it to you.
>
> > As I said, we have had a correct (but basic) explanantion of rainbows since
> > 1307, and a complete explanation since 1820. Rainbows are extremely well
> > understood by science, and with a little effort they can even be understood
> > by you.
>
> Not a chance.
>
> You are dealing with someone with very severe brain issues, or to put it
> another way, he is nutty as a fuitcake, both oars aren't in the water,
> he's a couple of cards short of a full deck.
>
> No matter what you say to him all you will get is babbling nonsense in
> return.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I won't put up with science's nonsense about what it can't do.
> - Show quoted text -
Science can't handle a rainbow. It has a Leprachaun of an explanation
of its own
and no pot of Gold.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Oct 29, 2011, 1:44:57 PM10/29/11
to
In sci.physics jon car <jon.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I won't put up with science's nonsense about what it can't do.
> Science can't handle a rainbow. It has a Leprachaun of an explanation
> of its own
> and no pot of Gold.
You are, and have been for years now, nothing but a babbling lunatic
> I won't put up with science's nonsense about what it can't do.
> Science can't handle a rainbow. It has a Leprachaun of an explanation
> of its own
> and no pot of Gold.
posting gibberish nonsense.
Michael Moroney
Oct 29, 2011, 4:41:01 PM10/29/11
to
jon car <jon.c...@gmail.com> writes:
>How do the raindrop prisms remain in place for us to see their colours
>in a band?
Nobody ever said they do. They don't, and it's not necessary that they do.
>How do the raindrop prisms remain in place for us to see their colours
>in a band?
>Rainbows would fall.
Rainbows are not a physical object that can fall, or be viewed from an
angle, or be climbed etc. They are a phenomenon, a result of refraction.
jon car
Oct 29, 2011, 7:59:50 PM10/29/11
to
On Oct 29, 1:41 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Rain-bow comes from rain - drops- in a bow or arc
And they don't work scientifically.
We see what we cannot explain.
This is a lesson for science.
Stop lying about what you think you know.
wrote:
And they don't work scientifically.
We see what we cannot explain.
This is a lesson for science.
Stop lying about what you think you know.
CWatters
Oct 29, 2011, 8:32:49 PM10/29/11
to
On 28/10/2011 22:06, jon car wrote:
> How does an arc of prismatic falling raindrops stay in place?
> A rainbow would have no duration. It would fall with
> the drops.
>
> MItchell Raemsch
Cars drive past my house. Each time they get to a particular point the
> How does an arc of prismatic falling raindrops stay in place?
> A rainbow would have no duration. It would fall with
> the drops.
>
> MItchell Raemsch
sunlight reflects off the car window into my eys. The flash of light
appears in the same place even when the car is moving. It's the same for
the rainbow.
jon car
Oct 29, 2011, 9:52:29 PM10/29/11
to
On Oct 29, 5:32 pm, CWatters <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com>
wrote:
What was that?
The rainbow doesn't move of itself.
wrote:
The rainbow doesn't move of itself.
CWatters
Oct 30, 2011, 3:16:14 PM10/30/11
to
jon car
Oct 30, 2011, 3:23:41 PM10/30/11
to
On Oct 30, 12:16 pm, CWatters
> Nor does the flash from the car windows.- Hide quoted text -
by a window reflection. You simply have no asnwer. Science cannot
successfully explain its Lepechaun of a Rainbow!
Mitchell Raemsch
>
> - Show quoted text -
That association is a dumb correlation. A rainbow arc cannot be proven
> - Show quoted text -
by a window reflection. You simply have no asnwer. Science cannot
successfully explain its Lepechaun of a Rainbow!
Mitchell Raemsch
CWatters
Oct 30, 2011, 6:10:56 PM10/30/11
to
jon car
Oct 30, 2011, 7:08:12 PM10/30/11
to
On Oct 30, 3:10 pm, CWatters <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com>
> I'm not the one with the question. I don't need an answer.- Hide quoted text -
God did it!
Mitchell Raemsch
>
> - Show quoted text -
But science always has to have an answer.
> - Show quoted text -
God did it!
Mitchell Raemsch
CWatters
Oct 31, 2011, 3:46:56 AM10/31/11
to
> God did it!
Who said he didn't? Science says how something is done not who did it.
PD
Oct 31, 2011, 12:03:32 PM10/31/11
to
want to hear the answers, and would prefer to think that science does
not have answers to certain questions. You're one of those people who
doesn't really want science to have answers, and so you think this gives
you a reason to charge science with failing.
jon car
Oct 31, 2011, 1:17:47 PM10/31/11
to
On Oct 31, 12:46 am, CWatters
> Who said he didn't? Science says how something is done not who did it.- Hide quoted text -
leeprechaun!
Mitchell Raemsch
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scince's answer is a leprechaun. If it has to have an answer it is a
> - Show quoted text -
leeprechaun!
Mitchell Raemsch
Michael Moroney
Oct 31, 2011, 2:54:33 PM10/31/11
to
jon car <jon.c...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > But science always has to have an answer.
>>
>> Science has an answer, you just don't like it.
>>
>> > God did it!
>>
>> Who said he didn't? Science says how something is done not who did it.- H=
>> > But science always has to have an answer.
>>
>> Science has an answer, you just don't like it.
>>
>> > God did it!
>>
>ide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>Scince's answer is a leprechaun. If it has to have an answer it is a
>leeprechaun!
You have been given the answer many times. You either just refuse to
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>Scince's answer is a leprechaun. If it has to have an answer it is a
>leeprechaun!
believe it, or are too stoopid to understand it. It's simple optics.
BTW your complaints about moving raindrops are as silly as claiming it's
impossible to photograph Niagara Falls because it only takes a few seconds
for water to fall from the top to the river. Yet every night they shine
pretty colored lights on Niagara Falls, and the sun shines light on
raindrops falling through the air, and their prismatic refraction forms
rainbows.
jon car
Oct 31, 2011, 8:40:52 PM10/31/11
to
On Oct 31, 11:54 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Rain prism stays in place how?
Mitchell Raemsch
wrote:
Mitchell Raemsch
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Oct 31, 2011, 8:51:42 PM10/31/11
to
the characteristic angles away from the eye,
are different for water rainbows & ice rainbows, and
all of this is elementary "geometrical optics"
with teh indices of refraction ... even if
"there are no God-am photons,
just because Fig Newton had an incorrect theory of them."
are different for water rainbows & ice rainbows, and
all of this is elementary "geometrical optics"
with teh indices of refraction ... even if
"there are no God-am photons,
just because Fig Newton had an incorrect theory of them."
jon car
Oct 31, 2011, 9:28:43 PM10/31/11
to
On Oct 31, 5:51 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
everyone? No angle at every orientation proves rainbows are
beyond science.
wrote:
> the characteristic angles away from the eye,
It has to go into the eye. But how can it appear identical to
everyone? No angle at every orientation proves rainbows are
beyond science.
CWatters
Nov 1, 2011, 5:10:08 AM11/1/11
to
On 01/11/2011 01:28, jon car wrote:
> On Oct 31, 5:51 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane<Space...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> the characteristic angles away from the eye,
>
> It has to go into the eye. But how can it appear identical to
> everyone?
Why do you persist in stating that they appear identical to everyone?
> On Oct 31, 5:51 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane<Space...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> the characteristic angles away from the eye,
>
> It has to go into the eye. But how can it appear identical to
> everyone?
Sometimes you only have to move a few yards and they dissapear while the
person you left behind can still see it.
PD
Nov 1, 2011, 9:34:21 AM11/1/11
to
On 10/31/2011 7:40 PM, jon car wrote:
>
> Rain prism stays in place how?
>
The very same way your image in a mirror stays in the same place even if
>
> Rain prism stays in place how?
>
the mirror falls.
jon car
Nov 1, 2011, 12:10:08 PM11/1/11
to
jon car
Nov 1, 2011, 12:11:38 PM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 2:10 am, CWatters <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com>
wrote:
How did you find that out?
Please prove it.
Mitchell Raemsch
wrote:
Please prove it.
Mitchell Raemsch
PD
Nov 1, 2011, 12:44:36 PM11/1/11
to
Michael Moroney
Nov 1, 2011, 12:48:54 PM11/1/11
to
giant running belt sander on its end with a mirror replacing the
sandpaper, your image would stay still even though the mirror is
"falling". Why wouldn't it?
Every night they shine pretty lights on Niagara Falls. The light
reflections stay in place even though the water is constantly falling.
Rainbows appear to stay in place, even though the raindrops that form them
are continuously falling (and in this case they often fall very slowly).
Michael Moroney
Nov 1, 2011, 12:55:03 PM11/1/11
to
jon car <jon.c...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Nov 1, 2:10=A0am, CWatters <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com>
>wrote:
>> > It has to go into the eye. But how can it appear identical to
>> > everyone?
>>
>> Why do you persist in stating that they appear identical to everyone?
>>
>> Sometimes you only have to move a few yards and they dissapear while the
>> person you left behind can still see it.
>How did you find that out?
>Please prove it.
I have seen this myself, see a rainbow, move, the rainbow is gone, move
back and it's there.
This is _easily_ observed by creating rainbows with water spray from a
garden hose, move around and the rainbow shifts or vanishes.
>On Nov 1, 2:10=A0am, CWatters <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com>
>wrote:
>> > It has to go into the eye. But how can it appear identical to
>> > everyone?
>>
>> Why do you persist in stating that they appear identical to everyone?
>>
>> Sometimes you only have to move a few yards and they dissapear while the
>> person you left behind can still see it.
>How did you find that out?
>Please prove it.
back and it's there.
This is _easily_ observed by creating rainbows with water spray from a
garden hose, move around and the rainbow shifts or vanishes.
jon car
Nov 1, 2011, 1:28:17 PM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 9:48 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
There are whole raindrops then their is a whole mirror and they are
not the same.
Mitchell Raemsch
wrote:
not the same.
Mitchell Raemsch
jon car
Nov 1, 2011, 1:30:09 PM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 9:55 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
And you are also a liar or self deluded; ir both.
wrote:
> jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Nov 1, 2:10=A0am, CWatters <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com>
> >wrote:
> >> > It has to go into the eye. But how can it appear identical to
> >> > everyone?
>
> >> Why do you persist in stating that they appear identical to everyone?
>
> >> Sometimes you only have to move a few yards and they dissapear while the
> >> person you left behind can still see it.
> >How did you find that out?
> >Please prove it.
>
> I have seen this myself,
And it just proves my point. Science can't deal.
> >On Nov 1, 2:10=A0am, CWatters <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com>
> >wrote:
> >> > It has to go into the eye. But how can it appear identical to
> >> > everyone?
>
> >> Why do you persist in stating that they appear identical to everyone?
>
> >> Sometimes you only have to move a few yards and they dissapear while the
> >> person you left behind can still see it.
> >How did you find that out?
> >Please prove it.
>
> I have seen this myself,
And you are also a liar or self deluded; ir both.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Nov 1, 2011, 9:14:37 PM11/1/11
to
just move around a sprinkler ... in the daytime.
of course, they look the same to anyone;
it is just refraction in the drops or crystals,
knwon for centuries.
of course, they look the same to anyone;
it is just refraction in the drops or crystals,
knwon for centuries.
jon car
Nov 1, 2011, 9:27:44 PM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 6:14 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
rainbow or the Aurora Borialis.
The hose will make the same kind of light patch. This other form is
not full spectrum though.
> of course, they look the same to anyone;
> it is just refraction in the drops or crystals,
> knwon for centuries.
>
>
>
> > > I have seen this myself,- Hide quoted text -
wrote:
> just move around a sprinkler ... in the daytime.
Sprinkler produces a light patch that is just as unexplainable as the
rainbow or the Aurora Borialis.
The hose will make the same kind of light patch. This other form is
not full spectrum though.
> of course, they look the same to anyone;
> it is just refraction in the drops or crystals,
> knwon for centuries.
>
>
>
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Nov 2, 2011, 1:45:01 AM11/2/11
to
it's all in various textbooks on meteorology and light;
my favorite is ... I forget the title,
but it is self-exlanatory, maybe a Dover publ.
ah, why bother with you?
my favorite is ... I forget the title,
but it is self-exlanatory, maybe a Dover publ.
ah, why bother with you?
Narasimham
Nov 2, 2011, 3:48:38 AM11/2/11
to
On Oct 22, 4:37 pm, jon car <jon.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It has none. They all appear to everyone without any angle.
>
> Of course science has an angle of its own but it doesn't change
> the fact that it will never be able to explain how something can
> appear exactly the same or without angle from every angle.
>
> Belief is important here. The fact here is in your memory.
> and in every picture ever taken.
>
> Just produce a photograph and show me where I am wrong!
> I dare you Gutless wonders!
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
I did not read the entire thread...Rainbows are formed by refraction
of light while entering into many droplets of water and reemergence
after total internal reflection. It can be shown, a rainbow forms when
angle S (sun) E (eye) W ( water droplet) is about 43 degrees.When this
is satisfied a rainbow can be made to appear by means of a gardenhose
or carwash spray even at noon!
Narasimham
> It has none. They all appear to everyone without any angle.
>
> Of course science has an angle of its own but it doesn't change
> the fact that it will never be able to explain how something can
> appear exactly the same or without angle from every angle.
>
> Belief is important here. The fact here is in your memory.
> and in every picture ever taken.
>
> Just produce a photograph and show me where I am wrong!
> I dare you Gutless wonders!
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
I did not read the entire thread...Rainbows are formed by refraction
of light while entering into many droplets of water and reemergence
after total internal reflection. It can be shown, a rainbow forms when
angle S (sun) E (eye) W ( water droplet) is about 43 degrees.When this
is satisfied a rainbow can be made to appear by means of a gardenhose
or carwash spray even at noon!
Narasimham
CWatters
Nov 2, 2011, 4:52:19 AM11/2/11
to
to a flexible membrane.
James Warren
Nov 2, 2011, 4:36:04 PM11/2/11
to
On 10/29/2011 8:59 PM, jon car wrote:
> On Oct 29, 1:41 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>>> How do the raindrop prisms remain in place for us to see their colours
>>> in a band?
>>
>> Nobody ever said they do. They don't, and it's not necessary that they do.
>>
>>> Rainbows would fall.
>>
>> Rainbows are not a physical object that can fall, or be viewed from an
>> angle, or be climbed etc. They are a phenomenon, a result of refraction.
>
> Rain-bow comes from rain - drops- in a bow or arc
It's not the same drops though from moment to moment.
> And they don't work scientifically.
> We see what we cannot explain.
> This is a lesson for science.
> Stop lying about what you think you know.
> On Oct 29, 1:41 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>>> How do the raindrop prisms remain in place for us to see their colours
>>> in a band?
>>
>> Nobody ever said they do. They don't, and it's not necessary that they do.
>>
>>> Rainbows would fall.
>>
>> Rainbows are not a physical object that can fall, or be viewed from an
>> angle, or be climbed etc. They are a phenomenon, a result of refraction.
>
> Rain-bow comes from rain - drops- in a bow or arc
It's not the same drops though from moment to moment.
> And they don't work scientifically.
> We see what we cannot explain.
> This is a lesson for science.
> Stop lying about what you think you know.
jon car
Nov 2, 2011, 5:54:55 PM11/2/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no angle from the Sun that can explain a raibow.
> - Show quoted text -
They do the impossible for science.
Mitchell Raemsch
0 new messages