Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer?

[Manuel Rodriguez]

Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did with his mystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap into freeenergy, Wikipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a apparatus for transmitting energy.

For building such a device two problems have to be overcome: first, the invention of a logic gate (called squid device) is a must have, which operates on zero celvin temperature with supra-conductivity (Patent Number US613809). The second invention is a programming-language for controlling the machine. And here comes Forth into the game. Forth is a stack-based programming language for building a domain-specific language for controlling everything. The programming of a quantum computer is not easy. The first principle is, that programs are data and data are programs, there is no difference between them.

So my question to the comp.lang.forth community is: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer?

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <d8aff20f-48eb-4bc9...@googlegroups.com>,
Manuel Rodriguez <a...@gmx.net> wrote:
>Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did with his m=
>ystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap into freeenergy, Wi=
>kipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a apparatus for trans=
>mitting energy.=20
>
>For building such a device two problems have to be overcome: first, the inv=
>ention of a logic gate (called squid device) is a must have, which operates=
> on zero celvin temperature with supra-conductivity (Patent Number US613809=
>). The second invention is a programming-language for controlling the machi=
>ne. And here comes Forth into the game. Forth is a stack-based programming =
>language for building a domain-specific language for controlling everything=
>. The programming of a quantum computer is not easy. The first principle is=
>, that programs are data and data are programs, there is no difference betw=
>een them.
>
>So my question to the comp.lang.forth community is: Did Nikola Tesla invent=
>ed the Quantum computer?

As a physicist and a computer expert I would say: "bunk".

Tesla was short on theoretical explanations of his devices, leaving
a lot of room for speculation by pot heads. This is a good example.
At the time of Tesla's demise the very idea of a mechanical computing
device was in its infancy, quantum computing was under the horizon.

(Mechanical devices in this context include electromechanical
and electronic devices. After all, a Pentium could be rebuild in
18-th century clock work fashion, as they did with the Babbage machine.)

Groetjes Albert
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[Manuel Rodriguez]

Am Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2016 14:56:22 UTC+2 schrieb Albert van der Horst:
> At the time of Tesla's demise the very idea of a mechanical computing
> device was in its infancy,

Leibniz has invented the first turing-complete computer (Source: Leibniz researcher Nicholas Rescher, http://www.pitt.edu/~pittcntr/Being_here/last_donut/donut_2011-12/09-06-11_rescher.html) The "Staffelwalze" was only part of a larger mechanism. Leibniz lived from 1646 to 1716 in Germany, thats a country in middle europe.

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <20740973-d03e-4b71...@googlegroups.com>,

Manuel Rodriguez <a...@gmx.net> wrote:
>Am Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2016 14:56:22 UTC+2 schrieb Albert van der Horst:
>> At the time of Tesla's demise the very idea of a mechanical computing
>> device was in its infancy,
>

>Leibniz has invented the first turing-complete computer (Source: Leibniz re=
>searcher Nicholas Rescher, http://www.pitt.edu/~pittcntr/Being_here/last_do=
>nut/donut_2011-12/09-06-11_rescher.html) The "Staffelwalze" was only part o=
>f a larger mechanism. Leibniz lived from 1646 to 1716 in Germany, thats a c=
>ountry in middle europe.

Et alors?

[JUERGEN]

any idea how many square miles such an implementation would be - independent of the reliability aspect ...

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:05:25 +0200 (CEST)
alb...@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

> In article <d8aff20f-48eb-4bc9...@googlegroups.com>,
> Manuel Rodriguez <a...@gmx.net> wrote:

<OT>

I agree that that Tesla developing Quantum computing is most unlikely.

As for the idea that it is possible to create things prior to the
development of scientific theory, that has been done thousands, perhaps
millions, of times throughout history. There was the Baghdad battery
around 250BC before static electricity was discovered by Thales of
Miletus around 585BC. There was also Antikythera mechanism which
predates physics, mechanics, computing, and clockwork mechanisms by 14
to 18 centuries. Etc.

And, I don't follow the rationale of Manuel's whereby one needs a 1)
squid device and 2) a domain specific language, such a Forth, to create
a wireless power source, as suggested by Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower.

As for Wardenclyffe Tower, we've all seen photographs of Tesla holding
lit light-bulbs in his hand powered by high-frequency AC induction, as
well Tesla sitting in front of high-voltage Tesla coils discharging
massive arcs of electricity. What most people don't know, is that you
can use the earth as the return path in AC circuits, instead of using
two wires. This is called "single-wire earth return." You can read
about it on Wikipedia. Today, most understand that broadcasting radio
frequencies also transmits a miniscule amount of energy, but Tesla was
working before or during the development of electromagnetic theory. In
Tesla's case, he was working with high-voltage Tesla coils and
high-frequency AC. High frequency AC is directly related to radio
frequencies and he was aware of the work of others on electromagnetic
waves and radiotelegraphy. If you combine the ideas together, you have
a wireless source of high-power energy. So, it's in the realm of
possibility that Wardenclyffe Tower was supposed to be either a
high-frequency Tesla coil for wireless transmission of AC power via
long-range electromagnetic fields and AC induction, or perhaps a radio
tower for wireless transmission of high-power energy via
radio-frequencies.


Rod Pemberton

[polymorph self]

tesla coulda been parlour tricks and all a lie for all I know

[polymorph self]

doubt it

[hughag...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 5:30:56 AM UTC-7, Manuel Rodriguez wrote:
> Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did with his mystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap into freeenergy, Wikipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a apparatus for transmitting energy.

I saw a book that suggested that his Wardenclyffe Tower was a DEW (directed energy weapon) --- the book suggested that the Tunguska Blast was a test of the weapon.

The official theory on the Tunguska Blast is a meteor going fast enough to detonate in the atmosphere, but this isn't really supported by any evidence. A very fast meteor could conceivably compact the hydrogen enough to cause a nuclear-fusion blast like a hydrogen bomb, but this certainly didn't happen in this case (no evidence of radiation, and the blast was too small). OTOH, if the meteor is small enough to vaporize up in the atmosphere and not hit the ground leaving a crater, then it lacks the energy to cause an explosion as big as we had. So, the explosion was too big to be a shock wave from meteor vaporizing in the atmosphere, but too small to be a nuclear-fusion explosion --- it seems unlikely to be a meteor at all, so it had to be something else.

As for Tesla inventing the quantum computer --- the quantum computer hasn't been invented yet --- there is not much indication that it will ever become more than vague speculation.

In regard to DEW --- a lot of people think that the 9/11/2001 destruction of the Twin Towers was done with a DEW --- I've never seen any evidence to indicate that the towers were hit by airplanes, so it had to be something else.

[Bernd Paysan]

Am Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:16:23 -0400 schrieb Rod Pemberton:

> but Tesla was working before or during the development of
> electromagnetic theory.

Maxwell's equations were first published in 1864; that was when Tesla was
8 years old. Between 1886 and 1888, Heinrich Hertz evaluated these
equations with experiments, and from that point on you can consider them
an accepted scientific theory. Tesla started working on this subject in
1891, and had his first stunning experiments of electric power
transmitted through air ready in 1893.

Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and
discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand anything.
He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory was already
there, and tested: he just applied that theory.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[lawren...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 2:07:32 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> The official theory on the Tunguska Blast is a meteor going fast enough to
> detonate in the atmosphere, but this isn't really supported by any evidence.

A comet, made mostly of ice, could produce exactly such a blast.

[lawren...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:30:56 AM UTC+13, Manuel Rodriguez wrote:
> For building such a device two problems have to be overcome: first, the

> invention of a logic gate (called squid device) is a must have...

What do you mean by “quantum computer”? Consider that no transistor (or vacuum tube!) can work without quantum effects, and you realize that *all* electronic computers are “quantum”.

[rickman]

My dear God! I have not seen such a display of ignorance anywhere on
the Internet... aside from some Trump supporters.

There is plenty of evidence that the Tunguska Blast was indeed a meteor.
Just google a bit and you will find researchers think they have found
a lake made by a fragment with what they suspect is a piece of the
meteorite beneath the bottom.

As to the cause of 9/11 *not* being caused by airplanes... yes, there is
little evidence of the damage being caused by airplane... other than
videos, pictures and thousands if not millions of witnesses.

--

Rick C

[polymorph self]

What about the film of airliners rammign the building, dead families etc?
link to this tungusa blast?

are you doing any forth cgi? for dynamic web apps? is it fast to dev and run?

[polymorph self]

Do you think he did things we dont use now?
I heard he could beam power from one skyscarper to another, and this could be used instead of power lines.
Maybe beam weapons are too powerful? dangerous?
hows your webserver? could it be used for big load balanced busy websites?

[polymorph self]

hey fag watch it I am a Trump supporter as are all non tax parasites...ya fuking social justice warrior kuk!

[polymorph self]

what was the bhadad batery for?

[Paul Rubin]

lawren...@gmail.com writes:
> What do you mean by “quantum computer”?

The term usually means this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

[rickman]

"non tax parsites", you mean like Trump?

--

Rick C

[hughag...@gmail.com]

There is no crater at Tunguska. In the center of the blast area the trees are still standing, but all the trees away from the center are knocked down and pointing outwards away from the center. This indicates a blast in the atmosphere. There was a similar effect for the atomic bombs detonated in the atmosphere over Nagasaki and Hiroshima --- the buildings directly under the blast remained standing, but the buildings away from the center were knocked down pointing outwards away from the center.

Most of the original research of meteors came from Daniel Barringer who bought Meteor Crater in Arizona and drilled into it. He originally believed that he was going to find a big chunk of iron and other heavy metals underground which he could mine. His effort at making money failed because he learned that there is no meteor fragment underground --- the meteor vaporizes upon impact --- he drilled quite deep at the center and never found anything. Also, he originally believed that because the crater was almost perfectly round, the meteor must have come in straight down, and that if it had come in at an angle the crater would have been oblong. He learned that this wasn't true either. He did some tests in which he shot a .22LR bullet into a box of clay and he found that you get a round crater at almost every angle (only extremely shallow angles result in a ricochet and an oblong crater). So, Barringer didn't get rich, but he did learn so much about the subject that he acquired some fame as an amateur scientist. I learned all of this by reading books in the giftshop on my visit to Meteor Crater (I can speed-read, so I don't usually pay for books, but I just read them through while browsing in bookstores).

The only successful mining done at Meteor Crater was by an old guy who prospected the area looking for diamonds. Apparently when the meteor hit it turned graphite into small diamonds that were then flung away for many miles. The old guy apparently got murdered though --- he was well-known to be out there alone prospecting in the desert with his donkey and a backpack full of diamonds --- he carried a big pistol when he went into town to sell his diamonds and buy supplies, and he warned everybody to leave him alone, but then he suddenly disappeared (his camp was found by searchers, but there was no trace of him).

> As to the cause of 9/11 *not* being caused by airplanes... yes, there is
> little evidence of the damage being caused by airplane... other than
> videos, pictures and thousands if not millions of witnesses.

Low-intelligence people have difficulty understanding that television is not reality. When Rickman says that there are "millions of witnesses" he is referring to the millions of people who saw the videos on television. This is moronic! Most if not all of the videos shown on the nightly news are faked --- this is done routinely every day of every year on every channel --- the 9/11/2001 videos were blatantly faked; they're not even close to being realistic.

The television videos look cartoonish; similar to Wily Coyote going through a brick wall and leaving a coyote-shaped hole. The reality is that an airplane is mostly made out of aluminum to make it lightweight, whereas a skyscraper has a framework of steel, so a plane would splatter on the outside (only the engines are heavy enough and solid enough to punch through into the building). Also, the Pentagon was almost certainly hit by a missile. Also, the Pennsylvania crash site was obviously faked because there was no airplane found there (just a trench containing some miscelaneous debris including a few airplane pieces but not from the correct make and model of airplane). I've never actually seen any evidence to support the theory that the Twin Towers were hit by airplanes --- none of the airplanes' wreckage was ever found --- most likely, those airplanes just landed at some airport somewhere and were hidden away, but they never crashed anywhere, which is why there was no airplane wreckage found anywhere.

The fact that the videos on television were faked only proves that the videos were faked, although this does imply that the official story about the planes hitting the buildings is untrue. This does not prove that a DEW was used to destroy the buildings; DEW is just one of several theories. Another theory is that the buildings were destroyed using conventional demolition techniques. This seems likely for Building-7 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU) but rather unlikely for the Twin Towers --- nobody can say with certainty how the Twin Towers were destroyed.

This is a good website discussing the DEW theory in regard to the Twin Towers:
http://www.drjudywood.com/

Only a low-grade moron actually believes what his TV tells him to believe. None of this stuff is true! When 9/11/2001 happened, I noticed right away that the rubble was immediately disposed of without anybody being given a chance to examine it. This reminded me of how, after the Oklahoma City bombing, the rubble was immediately disposed of without anybody being given a chance to examine it. That was fake too --- there is no way that a truck load of AMFO blowing up in the street is going to do anything more than break the windows --- you have to actually cut the pillars with shaped charges in order to cause a big building to collapse. Similarly, Osama bin Laden was supposedly killed by Seal-Team-Six, but then he was given a burial at sea without anybody being given a chance to examine the body to determine that it is really him. Really??? We are supposed to believe this??? Television is an insult to human intelligence!

[rickman]

Hugh, you are misinterpreting the information. Yes, there was an air
blast, but that does not preclude a crater and fragment. In fact they
believe they have found many fragments of this meteorite, just very tiny
ones. None of this precludes a larger fragment from making a crater
which is now a lake.

>> As to the cause of 9/11 *not* being caused by airplanes... yes,
>> there is little evidence of the damage being caused by airplane...
>> other than videos, pictures and thousands if not millions of
>> witnesses.
>
> Low-intelligence people have difficulty understanding that television
> is not reality. When Rickman says that there are "millions of
> witnesses" he is referring to the millions of people who saw the
> videos on television. This is moronic! Most if not all of the videos
> shown on the nightly news are faked --- this is done routinely every
> day of every year on every channel --- the 9/11/2001 videos were
> blatantly faked; they're not even close to being realistic.

Yes, and the thousands of eyewitnesses are on the CIA payroll. I used
to think you just had some mental condition that made you feel
persecuted. Now I see it is much wider ranging than that...

> The television videos look cartoonish; similar to Wily Coyote going
> through a brick wall and leaving a coyote-shaped hole. The reality is
> that an airplane is mostly made out of aluminum to make it
> lightweight, whereas a skyscraper has a framework of steel, so a
> plane would splatter on the outside (only the engines are heavy
> enough and solid enough to punch through into the building). Also,
> the Pentagon was almost certainly hit by a missile. Also, the
> Pennsylvania crash site was obviously faked because there was no
> airplane found there (just a trench containing some miscelaneous
> debris including a few airplane pieces but not from the correct make
> and model of airplane). I've never actually seen any evidence to
> support the theory that the Twin Towers were hit by airplanes ---
> none of the airplanes' wreckage was ever found --- most likely, those
> airplanes just landed at some airport somewhere and were hidden away,
> but they never crashed anywhere, which is why there was no airplane
> wreckage found anywhere.

It is truly mind boggling that you think there was some sort of
conspiracy to fake 9/11. If the planes didn't hit the twin towers,
where *are* they? Did the CIA force the plane to land in a remote
location and execute all the people on board... including the terrorists?

If we didn't kill Osama bin Laden, why wouldn't the terrorist community
be bragging about it? Did we make a deal with him that if he lies low
we would stop hunting him?

So much ignorance...

--

Rick C

[hughag...@gmail.com]

How big would it have to be? How fast would it have to be going?

Have any simulations been done that show a result like this?

Why do you say "made mostly of ice" --- whether it is ice or iron it is going to vaporize --- if it doesn't vaporize, then there is no explosion.

It is theoretically possible that a very high-speed meteor could be compacted so much when it hits the atmosphere that the hydrogen would fuse into helium and you would get a nuclear explosion similar to a hydrogen bomb. This certainly didn't happen at Tunguska. A hydrogen bomb explosion makes a crater 50 miles wide and 5 miles deep --- there is no crater at all in Tunguska though.

As for a meteor vaporizing when it hits the atmosphere, this will cause an explosion too --- but it is not a very big explosion (the meteor is basically a big fast bullet) --- the meteor just doesn't have very much Newtonian energy, even if it is going fast enough to vaporize when it hits the atmosphere.

The Tunguska Blast was comparable in force to an atomic bomb being detonated in the atmosphere --- there is no radiation though --- there is no evidence that this was a nuclear blast.

Humorously, I remember the "In Search Of" television program speculating that this was a flying-saucer crash. lol Of course, I can't explain how a DEW works --- physicists such as Judy Wood think this is possible --- I'm not a physicist, so the whole DEW discussion is above my paygrade.

[hughag...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and
> discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand anything.
> He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory was already
> there, and tested: he just applied that theory.

This is typical Bernd Paysan --- belittles everybody's work --- Tesla actually made significant contributions to people's understanding of electricity, especially in regard to alternating current. AC is used to cancel out inductance, allowing electricity to be transported long distances, although we still lose something like 1/3 of the energy generated in our power plants.

Our "understanding" of electricity could better be desribed as "familiarity" with electricity --- nobody actually knows how electricity works --- inductance is a big WTF for any student of electricity (the analogy about water flowing through a pipe is okay for resistance and current, but not for inductance).

I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing like the physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and touch. We don't know what reality is like --- we don't even know what it would be like to know what it is like.

[rickman]

On 10/17/2016 8:23 PM, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>> Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and
>> discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand
>> anything. He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory
>> was already there, and tested: he just applied that theory.
>
> This is typical Bernd Paysan --- belittles everybody's work --- Tesla
> actually made significant contributions to people's understanding of
> electricity, especially in regard to alternating current.

> AC is used to cancel out inductance,

What??? Ok, your license to even discuss science has been revoked!!!

> allowing electricity to be transported long
> distances, although we still lose something like 1/3 of the energy
> generated in our power plants.

AC vs. DC has nothing to do with canceling inductance or whatever else
your mind is thinking. It is the simple fact that with AC it is easy to
change the voltage and therefore current while this is not so easy in
DC. AC uses transformers (notice the name?) to transform lower voltage
AC to higher voltage AC and back again. The advantage is that at a
higher voltage the resistive losses are lower because of the lower
current. AC has its own set of problem but they are easier to work
with... until recently. Now that practical circuits to transform DC
voltages exist high voltage DC power lines have become a reality. I
have not read up on it to see what the advantages and disadvantages are,
but they are being used.

> Our "understanding" of electricity could better be desribed as
> "familiarity" with electricity --- nobody actually knows how
> electricity works --- inductance is a big WTF for any student of
> electricity (the analogy about water flowing through a pipe is okay
> for resistance and current, but not for inductance).

Lol, you must have flunked physics. A simple mechanical system of a
mass, spring and a damper use exactly the same equations to describe the
motion as the voltage in an AC circuit with inductance, capacitance and
resistance. This is actually a good analogy to learn from.

> I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing like
> the physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and
> touch. We don't know what reality is like --- we don't even know what
> it would be like to know what it is like.

Yeah, people say all sorts of stuff.

--

Rick C

[lawren...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:09:22 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:42:30 PM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> A comet, made mostly of ice, could produce exactly such a blast.
>
> How big would it have to be? How fast would it have to be going?

Comets come from the far outer reaches of the Solar System. That means they would be moving not far short of solar escape velocity. At our depth in the solar gravity well, that’s about 40km/s.

Consider that Earth escape velocity is about 11km/s. Something moving as fast as a comet would have an order of magnitude greater kinetic energy. And pack a correspondingly greater wallop.

[hughag...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 4:24:41 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 6:39 PM, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > the 9/11/2001 videos were
> > blatantly faked; they're not even close to being realistic.
>
> Yes, and the thousands of eyewitnesses are on the CIA payroll. I used
> to think you just had some mental condition that made you feel
> persecuted. Now I see it is much wider ranging than that...

I never mentioned the CIA.

There aren't thousands of witnesses anyway; there are a few dozen. Some research has been done on them, and most are on the payroll of the television stations --- they are actors pretending to be on-the-spot witnesses.

> > I've never actually seen any evidence to
> > support the theory that the Twin Towers were hit by airplanes ---
> > none of the airplanes' wreckage was ever found --- most likely, those
> > airplanes just landed at some airport somewhere and were hidden away,
> > but they never crashed anywhere, which is why there was no airplane
> > wreckage found anywhere.
>
> It is truly mind boggling that you think there was some sort of
> conspiracy to fake 9/11. If the planes didn't hit the twin towers,
> where *are* they?

Well, that is the big question --- where *are* the airplanes --- there was no wreckage found at any of the supposed crash sites.

I find it truly mind-boggling that people can believe that there were plane crashes when there is no wreckage, no black-box, no physical evidence whatsoever --- there is nothing except eye-witness accounts from people of very dubious credibility (the television stations were interviewing their own employees who supposedly just happened to be present at the time of the crashes and saw it all).

> Did the CIA force the plane to land in a remote
> location and execute all the people on board... including the terrorists?

Why do you keep saying the CIA? That is rather speculative. I'm not saying that the CIA wasn't involved --- I think they were --- but they aren't capable of pulling something like this off entirely on their own.

I think Dick Cheney was the mastermind of 9/11-2001 --- he is the most likely suspect.

But, yes --- the planes landed somewhere and everybody on board was executed --- I've never seen any evidence to support the claim that the planes were in the air at the time of the Twin Towers' destruction.

The planes were supposedly hijacked and in the air for over 45 minutes, yet they weren't intercepted by the Air Force or noticed by NORAD, which is unrealistic --- they weren't in the air at all.

> If we didn't kill Osama bin Laden, why wouldn't the terrorist community
> be bragging about it? Did we make a deal with him that if he lies low
> we would stop hunting him?

I think Osama bin Laden has been dead for quite some time. He most likely was killed in the bombing of those Tora Bora tunnels in the immediate aftermath of 9/11/2001. All of those videos of him since that time are fake --- they were made by actors pretending to be him.

I think Osama bin Laden works for the CIA. He had a pretty cozy relationship with America. For example, after the Khobar Towers were bombed, bin Laden construction got the contract to rebuild them. Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi also had pretty cozy relationships with America, maintaining profitable economic ties with America even when they were supposedly mortal enemies of America.

> So much ignorance...

I agree that there is a lot of ignorance...

People believe what they are told to believe. There was no plane wreckage ever found from any of the supposed 9/11/2001 plane crashes, yet people believe that planes crashed. The pillars at the Murrah Federal Building were cut with shaped charges attached to them, yet people believe that a truckload of fertilizer and fuel-oil in the street knocked down the building. Elizabeth Rather has never posted any Forth code on comp.lang.forth except for code snippets copied directly out of the "Starting Forth" book, yet people believe that she is the "leading expert" on Forth. Osama bin Laden's body has never been produced for identification, yet people believe that he was killed by Seal-Team-Six (all of whom died mysteriously afterward, so we can't ask them). People believe that the nightly news represents reality, but it is just images on a television screen provided for entertainment.

It is often said that people were superstitious in the Middle Ages --- actually, superstition is much more common today than it was then --- people routinely believe in things today for which they have no evidence whatsoever, and for which common sense would indicate are not realistic.

[hughag...@gmail.com]

So, if it is going 40 km/s then it is about quadruple the speed of a rocket that is escaping from Earth. That is not very fast. You will get an explosion when the meteor hits the atmosphere and vaporizes, but it is not going to be a very big explosion --- the Tunguska Blast was comparable in force to an atomic bomb --- that is quite a big wallop, and it remains unexplained.

[Cecil Bayona]

We recently had a meteor do an air explosion over in Russia, it was a
very small meteorite at about 65 feet in size, and exploded quite a ways
up but it did a lot o damage from the air waves. It's yield was over 500
Kilotons or 25 times more than the bomb at Hiroshima. One miles in
diameter would be disastrous for the whole planet.

--
Cecil - k5nwa

[polymorph self]

will trump win?

[polymorph self]

how can I make enuf money to retire to pattaya beach thailand?

[polymorph self]

why is there not a forth replacement for debian linux that lets me surf net in chrome liek browser and save and edit files?

[polymorph self]

bernd is a snotty bugger isnt he

usa is way higher than germany standard of living despite millions of illegal immigrants

:)

socialism wont ever work!

[polymorph self]

USA should go 100% atomic power,
0 emissions
0 need for anything but thorium, which we have 100,000 year of and throw awya now
export all who disagree to china

[rickman]

Hugh doesn't know much about this subject. He seems to have formed an
opinion without knowing the facts. The blast size is consistent with a
meteor or comet hitting the earth. There is nothing to say it was not
such. There are many indications that this is what happened. It is
just not proven in the same way a bullet can be matched to a gun.

While it has not been proven what type of cosmic body caused this event,
there is little doubt this is what caused it. I've not found anyone
else talk about hydrogen igniting to cause a nuclear explosion. There
is no evidence anything strange like this happened and there is nothing
inconsistent with the idea of a cosmic body causing the air explosion.

If Hugh wants to know how fast and how big it was, there are plenty of
references on the Internet which can explain this clearly.

--

Rick C

[rickman]

I didn't realize, but while reading up on Tunguska, I found a report
that a large comet is going to pass within 88,000 miles of Mars
tomorrow. NASA is going to have Curiosity turn a camera to the sky to
record what it can see. That will be pretty cool!

They describe this comet as being the size of a small mountain.

--

Rick C

[polymorph self]

I don think any of this is anything but speculations and it doesnt help build more cheap big concrete hosues and grow food.

[polymorph self]

the need to be right sometimes causes humans to waste time and energy

better spent doing pushups and learning

[lawren...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 4:59:35 PM UTC+13, Cecil - k5nwa wrote:
>
> On 10/17/2016 8:26 PM, Hugh Aguilar wrote:

>>
>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:09:22 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:42:30 PM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A comet, made mostly of ice, could produce exactly such a blast.
>>>>
>>>> How big would it have to be? How fast would it have to be going?
>>>
>>> Comets come from the far outer reaches of the Solar System. That means they
>>> would be moving not far short of solar escape velocity. At our depth in the
>>> solar gravity well, that’s about 40km/s.
>>>
>>> Consider that Earth escape velocity is about 11km/s. Something moving as
>>> fast as a comet would have an order of magnitude greater kinetic energy.
>>> And pack a correspondingly greater wallop.
>>
>> So, if it is going 40 km/s then it is about quadruple the speed of a rocket
>> that is escaping from Earth. That is not very fast.

What’s your idea of “very fast”? You *do* realize that kinetic energy goes up as the square of the speed, don’t you?

For comparison, the fastest man-made object ever launched, the New Horizons probe, left Earth at about 16km/s. (And it took nearly a decade to get to Pluto.)

> You will get an explosion when the meteor hits the atmosphere and vaporizes,
> but it is not going to be a very big explosion --- the Tunguska Blast was
> comparable in force to an atomic bomb --- that is quite a big wallop, and it
> remains unexplained.

Feel free to do the numbers.

[Cecil Bayona]

We recently had a meteor make a close pass, and its slated to make an
even closer path in 2019, this next path is going to be very close
estimated to be around 8,000 miles, but 2 years is a long time and it
doesn't take much to alter the path by 8,000 miles so some are nervous
about it. It's a lot bigger but still a small one of about 300+ feet in
diameter, but that will do massive damage if it's a direct hit and would
affect the weather for years. The thing is the orbit crosses earth orbit
twice in a loop and the math says it will keep getting closer with each
iteration unless something else affects it, it orbit is mostly between
us and the sun.

Anyway on the topic of Tesla, I would not think Tesla made a Quantum
computer, even now they have no clue how to make one even though the
math is well understood, and the interface into it would be a bear, no
way it could be done with primitive technology. In any case the man was
an interesting character, and way ahead of his time.

--
Cecil - k5nwa

[rickman]

On 10/17/2016 9:21 PM, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 4:24:41 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>> On 10/17/2016 6:39 PM, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> the 9/11/2001 videos were blatantly faked; they're not even close
>>> to being realistic.
>>
>> Yes, and the thousands of eyewitnesses are on the CIA payroll. I
>> used to think you just had some mental condition that made you feel
>> persecuted. Now I see it is much wider ranging than that...
>
> I never mentioned the CIA.

No I said it as an example of how absurd your statements are sounding.
You might as well have talked about the CIA being involved or aliens.

> There aren't thousands of witnesses anyway; there are a few dozen.
> Some research has been done on them, and most are on the payroll of
> the television stations --- they are actors pretending to be
> on-the-spot witnesses.

A few dozen??? You have to be kidding!!! Only a few were actually
looking when the first plane hit, but hundreds if not thousands of
people saw first hand the second plane hit. That is why there are so
many photos of it... not to mention the many millions who saw it, LIVE
on television. Or are you suggesting the images being broadcast that
day were not live, but some movie or CGI?

If you are in denialist mode there is nothing I can say to convince you
otherwise.

>>> I've never actually seen any evidence to support the theory that
>>> the Twin Towers were hit by airplanes --- none of the airplanes'
>>> wreckage was ever found --- most likely, those airplanes just
>>> landed at some airport somewhere and were hidden away, but they
>>> never crashed anywhere, which is why there was no airplane
>>> wreckage found anywhere.
>>
>> It is truly mind boggling that you think there was some sort of
>> conspiracy to fake 9/11. If the planes didn't hit the twin towers,
>> where *are* they?
>
> Well, that is the big question --- where *are* the airplanes ---
> there was no wreckage found at any of the supposed crash sites.

Not true. There was "little" wreckage found. The PA crash has lots of
debris from the plane. But then there are many kook web sites which say
otherwise paying no attention to the facts.

> I find it truly mind-boggling that people can believe that there were
> plane crashes when there is no wreckage, no black-box, no physical
> evidence whatsoever --- there is nothing except eye-witness accounts
> from people of very dubious credibility (the television stations were
> interviewing their own employees who supposedly just happened to be
> present at the time of the crashes and saw it all).

I can't believe anyone can think there were no plane crashes! Even if
there was some conspiracy to make the world thing 9/11 happen it makes
no sense there would be no planes. The easiest way to make it look like
planes hit the WTC would be to fly planes into the WTC! Anything else
would have to be mind mindbogglingly complex and impossible to pull off.
Only a conspiracy kook would believe the planes didn't really crash
into the WTC.

>> Did the CIA force the plane to land in a remote location and
>> execute all the people on board... including the terrorists?
>
> Why do you keep saying the CIA? That is rather speculative. I'm not
> saying that the CIA wasn't involved --- I think they were --- but
> they aren't capable of pulling something like this off entirely on
> their own.

That's because no one is capable of pulling this off. But you didn't
answer the question, where are the planes and the people? Were they
killed and buried in a trench somewhere? Maybe in PA?

> I think Dick Cheney was the mastermind of 9/11-2001 --- he is the
> most likely suspect.
>
> But, yes --- the planes landed somewhere and everybody on board was
> executed --- I've never seen any evidence to support the claim that
> the planes were in the air at the time of the Twin Towers'
> destruction.

You don't believe the planes hit the WTC because you have seen no
evidence of it, YET, you believe the planes were landed somewhere and
the people executed... even though there is no evidence.

The single biggest reason why this is not fake is because it would be so
much easier to make it happen for real than to stage it all!!!

> The planes were supposedly hijacked and in the air for over 45
> minutes, yet they weren't intercepted by the Air Force or noticed by
> NORAD, which is unrealistic --- they weren't in the air at all.
>
>> If we didn't kill Osama bin Laden, why wouldn't the terrorist
>> community be bragging about it? Did we make a deal with him that
>> if he lies low we would stop hunting him?
>
> I think Osama bin Laden has been dead for quite some time. He most
> likely was killed in the bombing of those Tora Bora tunnels in the
> immediate aftermath of 9/11/2001. All of those videos of him since
> that time are fake --- they were made by actors pretending to be
> him.
>
> I think Osama bin Laden works for the CIA. He had a pretty cozy
> relationship with America. For example, after the Khobar Towers were
> bombed, bin Laden construction got the contract to rebuild them.
> Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi also had pretty cozy relationships
> with America, maintaining profitable economic ties with America even
> when they were supposedly mortal enemies of America.

Ok, I give up. You believe all this without evidence because it makes
sense in you addled mind. You really do need help. I'm not just saying
that to score points or to sound cool on the Internet. Hugh, you have a
very serious problem and should seek counseling. You could be much
happier if you did.

>> So much ignorance...
>
> I agree that there is a lot of ignorance...
>
> People believe what they are told to believe. There was no plane
> wreckage ever found from any of the supposed 9/11/2001 plane crashes,
> yet people believe that planes crashed. The pillars at the Murrah
> Federal Building were cut with shaped charges attached to them, yet
> people believe that a truckload of fertilizer and fuel-oil in the
> street knocked down the building. Elizabeth Rather has never posted
> any Forth code on comp.lang.forth except for code snippets copied
> directly out of the "Starting Forth" book, yet people believe that
> she is the "leading expert" on Forth. Osama bin Laden's body has
> never been produced for identification, yet people believe that he
> was killed by Seal-Team-Six (all of whom died mysteriously afterward,
> so we can't ask them). People believe that the nightly news
> represents reality, but it is just images on a television screen
> provided for entertainment.
>
> It is often said that people were superstitious in the Middle Ages
> --- actually, superstition is much more common today than it was then
> --- people routinely believe in things today for which they have no
> evidence whatsoever, and for which common sense would indicate are
> not realistic.

Yes, words so true... at least for some people.

--

Rick C

[hughag...@gmail.com]

Okay, I agree that a meteor explosion's "yield" can be comparable to a nuclear bomb.

I am still very dubious that the Tunguska Blast was a meteor though. At Tunguska there was a small area where the blast occurred. As I said before, the trees were standing at the center, and then outside of the center the trees for over 100 miles in every direction were knocked down pointing away from the center. So, the blast occurred directly over that center point.

The Chelyabinsk Blast that you mentioned was much different. The meteor was travelling at a shallow angle to the surface of the Earth and it broke up into pieces. Because it was moving fast and almost parallel to the surface, this break up occurred over a stretch of land, not at a single point (there is a photo of it trailing smoke through the sky) --- this is why its yield was so great --- because the damage wasn't at a single point but was stretched out.

I don't think you can really compare Tunguska to Chelyabinsk because Tunguska occurred at a single point, whereas Chelyabinsk did not. Also, Tunguska was a quite a big explosion --- it takes a lot of energy to flatten over 700 square miles of forest --- Chelyabinsk was completely different, and significantly smaller.

[hughag...@gmail.com]

Quadruple the speed means 16 times the energy, given the same mass --- as you said, it is squared.

So, if the meteor is the same weight as the rocket, it has 16 times as much energy as the rocket --- which is not much.

[hughag...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 11:24:30 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 9:21 PM, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> not to mention the many millions who saw it, LIVE
> on television. Or are you suggesting the images being broadcast that
> day were not live, but some movie or CGI?

As I said, low-intelligence people fail to understand that television is not reality --- the videos shown on the nightly news are typically heavily doctored or outright fakes --- yes, it is "some movie or CGI" most of the time.

[lawren...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:01:40 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:

> So, if the meteor is the same weight as the rocket, it has 16 times as much
> energy as the rocket --- which is not much.

The ones that cause trouble are typically not as tiny as rockets. Think mountain-sized as being more typical.

[hughag...@gmail.com]

I agree that having a mountain-sized meteor land on you head is going to hurt --- that is hardly typical though --- that is roughly the size of the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous.

I still don't think that the Tunguska Blast was caused by a meteor --- if Tunguska had been hit by a house-sized meteor, there would have been a crater.

The Chelyabinsk meteor was about 65 feet in diameter (house-sized). It was travelling at a very shallow angle and so it broke up in the atmosphere. If it had been travelling at a steeper angle then it would have hit the ground and likely caused a crater comparable to the Barringer Crater (a.k.a. Meteor Crater) in Arizona.

In Tunguska we had a whopping big explosion at a single point in the atmosphere --- I don't think this was caused by a meteor --- I still think Tesla is the most likely suspect with his Wardenclyffe Tower.

[hughag...@gmail.com]

No --- you don't know what inductance is --- inductance involves imaginary numbers, so a mechanical system with a mass, spring and damper isn't going to be a good analogy. Ohm's Law only involves real numbers, so it can be represented by a mechanical analogy, but Ohm's Law does not take into account inductance.

You are supposedly an electrical engineer??? This is very basic electronics --- most high school students know that alternating-current cancels out inductance and allows electricity to be carried long distances, whereas direct-current can only go short distances --- if you don't know this much, then you are certainly not an electrical engineer, or even an EE student; you're a fake.

> > I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing like
> > the physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and
> > touch. We don't know what reality is like --- we don't even know what
> > it would be like to know what it is like.
>
> Yeah, people say all sorts of stuff.

So, you are saying that you have a firm understanding of what electricity is, and of what reality is? That is very arrogant --- that is B.S. --- it has been several decades since anybody has believed that Newtonian physics describes reality.

Reality is actually nothing like the physical world that we experience with our sight, hearing and touch --- nobody has a firm understanding of what reality is --- we can familiarize ourselves with electricity, and develop equations that describe how it behaves, but we don't know what it is.

[rickman]

What does Ohm's law have to do with mechanical systems? Have you even
looked at how to describe a mechanical system? How do you think a
piezoelectric crystal oscillator works? It's actually mechanical but
appears to the circuit as a tuned LC circuit.

> You are supposedly an electrical engineer??? This is very basic
> electronics --- most high school students know that
> alternating-current cancels out inductance and allows electricity to
> be carried long distances, whereas direct-current can only go short
> distances --- if you don't know this much, then you are certainly not
> an electrical engineer, or even an EE student; you're a fake.

Yes, it *is* basic electronics. Try learning something about it instead
of just ignoring the world.

http://bfy.tw/8F97

>>> I read one physicist who said that reality is actually nothing
>>> like the physical world that we experience with our sight,
>>> hearing and touch. We don't know what reality is like --- we
>>> don't even know what it would be like to know what it is like.
>>
>> Yeah, people say all sorts of stuff.
>
> So, you are saying that you have a firm understanding of what
> electricity is, and of what reality is? That is very arrogant ---
> that is B.S. --- it has been several decades since anybody has
> believed that Newtonian physics describes reality.

I'm saying that the guy you quoted was spouting BS.

> Reality is actually nothing like the physical world that we
> experience with our sight, hearing and touch --- nobody has a firm
> understanding of what reality is --- we can familiarize ourselves
> with electricity, and develop equations that describe how it behaves,
> but we don't know what it is.

If you say so...

If you said that our science is just a model of the world and only an
approximation, then yes, I agree. But I think reality is *exactly* what
we perceive, not what the science describes. Science is limited to the
things that are reproducible. That is why it does so poorly with some
areas, like understanding people. We can study what people do in
numbers, but not what happens in an individual. Science is poor at that
because we can't constrain it to experiments very well.

--

Rick C

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <4e39079b-de4d-4bb3...@googlegroups.com>,
<hughag...@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>So, if it is going 40 km/s then it is about quadruple the speed of a rocket=
> that is escaping from Earth. That is not very fast. You will get an explos=
>ion when the meteor hits the atmosphere and vaporizes, but it is not going =
>to be a very big explosion --- the Tunguska Blast was comparable in force t=
>o an atomic bomb --- that is quite a big wallop, and it remains unexplained=
>.

So here is an exercise from a physics book:

What is the weight of a comet that on impact releases the same energy
as as a hydrogen bomb of 1 megaton ( 10^9 kg of tnt)?
Comets move at about 40km/s relative to earth.
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[Ron Aaron]

On 18/10/2016 14:02, Albert van der Horst wrote:

> So here is an exercise from a physics book:
>
> What is the weight of a comet that on impact releases the same energy
> as as a hydrogen bomb of 1 megaton ( 10^9 kg of tnt)?
> Comets move at about 40km/s relative to earth.

OK, that's kind of fun.

1 ton TNT ~= 4.184e8 joules (according to Wikipedia), so
1 MT TNT ~= 4.184e14 joules (e.g. kg (m/s)^2)

To be found: mass of comet traveling 40 km/s having equivalent kinetic
energy of 1 MT TNT.

E = 0.5 * m * v^2

so:

4.184e14 = m * 0.5 * (40km/s * 1000m/km)^2

or

m = 8.368e14 / 1.6e9
= 5.23e5

or about 523,000 kg

did I drop any units/ miss decimals?

Assuming that's about right, such a comet made of frozen water would be
(if as dense as water) 523000 liters or a cube about 52.3 meters on a
side. Not huge by any means.

[Mark Wills]

Proof that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You've clearly never lived in Germany. I have. Little town called
Flensburg. Lovely place. The standard of living in Germany is higher
than the USA in just about any metric you care to mention.

It's a completely different, (and much nicer) world.

America is dead. Being hollowed out from the inside by millions and
millions of citizens living on food stamps, and no hope of ever finding
a job; continually declining education standards; a race war; and a
completely out of control war-mongering government, controlled by the
military-industrial complex.

I'd rather starve than live in the USA. No offence to the people of
the USA, I like Americans (except for the TSA at airports, WTF is
wrong with those guys?) but, having spent time there (Chicago), well,
let's just say I was VERY glad to get home.

> socialism won't ever work!

You sure? It's alive and well in the USA (foodstamps, Obamacare).
Perhaps take a look closer to home ;-)

[Mark Wills]

0 emissions?

So what is the spent nuclear fuel?

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <nu51ba$l4e$1...@dont-email.me>,

Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 18/10/2016 14:02, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>
>> So here is an exercise from a physics book:
>>
>> What is the weight of a comet that on impact releases the same energy
>> as as a hydrogen bomb of 1 megaton ( 10^9 kg of tnt)?
>> Comets move at about 40km/s relative to earth.
>
>OK, that's kind of fun.
>
>1 ton TNT ~= 4.184e8 joules (according to Wikipedia), so
>1 MT TNT ~= 4.184e14 joules (e.g. kg (m/s)^2)
>
>To be found: mass of comet traveling 40 km/s having equivalent kinetic
>energy of 1 MT TNT.
>
>E = 0.5 * m * v^2
>
>so:
>
>4.184e14 = m * 0.5 * (40km/s * 1000m/km)^2
>
>or
>
>m = 8.368e14 / 1.6e9
> = 5.23e5
>
>or about 523,000 kg
>
>did I drop any units/ miss decimals?

Not till here.

>
>Assuming that's about right, such a comet made of frozen water would be
>(if as dense as water) 523000 liters or a cube about 52.3 meters on a
>side. Not huge by any means.
>

Here you go astray. 523 tons of water is about a cube of 8 m.
(I know my powers of 2 !)

P.S. I made the exercise up.

Groetjes Albert

[Ron Aaron]

On 10/18/2016 16:33, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <nu51ba$l4e$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> did I drop any units/ miss decimals?
>
> Not till here.

Bonus!

>> Assuming that's about right, such a comet made of frozen water would be
>> (if as dense as water) 523000 liters or a cube about 52.3 meters on a
>> side. Not huge by any means.
>>
>
> Here you go astray. 523 tons of water is about a cube of 8 m.
> (I know my powers of 2 !)

Bogus!!!

I hate it when that happens. You're right, and an 8m cube is even less
impressive that a 52m one.

It would be even smaller, of course, if it were a meteorite...

> P.S. I made the exercise up.

:)

[lawren...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:50:05 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:

> if Tunguska had been hit by a house-sized meteor, there would have been a
> crater.

House-sized block of rock, yes. House-sized block of (almost entirely) ice, no.

[lawren...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 9:11:45 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> inductance involves imaginary numbers, so a mechanical system with a mass,
> spring and damper isn't going to be a good analogy.

It’s not an “analogy”. The mathematical term is “isomorphism”. That means the maths is identical:

inductance ≡ inertia
capacitance ≡ spring
resistance ≡ friction

For example, a car’s suspension system can indeed undergo oscillations, if it didn’t have shock absorbers (resistors) to damp them down.

[Manuel Rodriguez]

Was Humboldt the first programmer?
--------------------------------------
I'm a little bit surprised about the reactions to my original post. I
was not aware that the Forth-Community has so many conspiracy theorists
who define themself as political activists. But to the topic itself.

According to additional research, the Forth community discussed the
"Quantum computer" since 2010. There were a SVFIG meeting about it,
http://svcs.net/meetings/svfig/2012/12 But in this meeting, the historical
implications are left open. For my understanding it is importent to
describe the whole picture and not only the invention as it was. For
me, as a amateur the similarity between the patent drawings of Nikola
Tesla about his tesla coil and the patent drawings from dwave's Quantum
machine are clear. If this was really the same invention than most
of current conspiracy theory about Nikola Tesla are wrong. What are
these theories? Often Tesla is described as genius who invented a free
energy generator for producing electric energy out of nothing. This is a
classical perpetum mobile invention. It's unfair to insinuate Tesla this
kind of invention. According to my research Tesla was a mathematican and
a physicists. It is obvious, that such person don't believe in free energy.

The probability is high, that Tesla not wanted to create free
energy, but to measure it. For doing this, a machine like a
superconducting Quantum Coil is necessary. On photos like this
http://spectrum.ieee.org/image/Mjc3MjEzMw.jpeg a SQUID in biomedical
research is shown. This device looks exact like the Nikola Tesla Coil which
is proclaimed as a free energy generator. But, a SQUID can not generate
any kind of energy. It is device for using subatoms for calculating.

One problem remains open: if Nikola Tesla really invent the quantum
computer, what has Charles Babbage done? The answer is confusing. According
to an improved Steampunk universe with not only Steam-computers but
also relais computers the period is called "Electropunk" and defines an
epoche in which Charles Babbage not only built a computer, but also built
a chipmanufactoring plant for producing integrated circuits. Inventions
to do that are:
- Fresnel Lens (1823 in the Cordouan lighthouse) for photolithography
(Alois Senefelder)
- Relay (1835)
- optical microscop (Carl Zeiss)
- electric power (Siemens Halske)
- semiconducting (Michael Faraday)

But one detail not fit into the picture. The realization of hardware may
be possible in the babbage area. But a computer without software makes no
sense. If the electropunk-alternative-timeline is real, then books about
creating programs are missing. Who are these books? The only paper which
i've found are the notes from Ada Lovelace to "Federico Luigi Menabrea:
Sketch of The Analytical Engine". But these notes are not enough for
programming complex machines. Other books about programming a computer
didn't exists. A search in google Booksearch only brings some old manuals
about "calculating logarithm table" to daylight, but in these books are
no algorithm or higher-programming-techniques described.

So a good method for debunking the Electropunk universe and the
Tesla-invent-the-quantum-computer philosophy is to exploit that programming
manuals of the Babbage area are not existing and as consequence the
invention of a computer was not possible.

The question is: Why are these kind of books are missing? The idea
of algorithm was invented by the the persian Al-Khwārizmī in year
800 B.C. Most imperative languages like C and Pascal are algorithm
based. The contrary is called Lambda-Calculus and is used in functional
programming. The lambda calculus was invented in the 1930s. Between these
inventions is a huge gap. Why?

In reality the first time in history where the mathematical theory was
elaborated was around 1930. Alan Turing was the first, who described a
Turing-Machine. The lambda calculus and the algorithm were used at the same
time. This was the invention of the computer. In a alternative-electropunk
setting this mathematical philosophy has to be dated back to year 1830. But
none of the great mathematicans like Fourier, Gauß or Riemann published
a single paper about the problem of programming a computer. Perhaps the
programming of a computer is not a mathemical problem but a linguistics
problem? With a little bit speculation it is possible to to show,
that Leibniz and Humboldt developed are proto-language for expressing
algorithm. Was Humboldt the first programmer?

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <e48cfb15-6435-49e4...@googlegroups.com>,

Tell that to the captain of the Titanic.

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <eb7a7239-79c5-434f...@googlegroups.com>,

Manuel Rodriguez <a...@gmx.net> wrote:
>Was Humboldt the first programmer?
>--------------------------------------
>I'm a little bit surprised about the reactions to my original post. I
>was not aware that the Forth-Community has so many conspiracy theorists
>who define themself as political activists. But to the topic itself.
>
>According to additional research, the Forth community discussed the
>"Quantum computer" since 2010. There were a SVFIG meeting about it,
>http://svcs.net/meetings/svfig/2012/12 But in this meeting, the historical
>implications are left open. For my understanding it is importent to
>describe the whole picture and not only the invention as it was. For
>me, as a amateur the similarity between the patent drawings of Nikola
>Tesla about his tesla coil and the patent drawings from dwave's Quantum
>machine are clear. If this was really the same invention than most
>of current conspiracy theory about Nikola Tesla are wrong. What are
>these theories? Often Tesla is described as genius who invented a free
>energy generator for producing electric energy out of nothing. This is a
>classical perpetum mobile invention. It's unfair to insinuate Tesla this
>kind of invention. According to my research Tesla was a mathematican and
>a physicists. It is obvious, that such person don't believe in free energy.

As a physicist I do believe in free energy.1] Tesla was not a mathematician
nor a physicist, but a technician, an engineer and an inventor.
He was very good in manipulating free energy, transforming the free energy
of Niagara falls into free energy in the form of electricity.

I suspect that you use the crackpots definition of
free energy, or (even worse) you mix the two without even knowing
the difference.

<SNIP>

Groetjes Albert

1] If you call "believing" : understanding a scientific concept and be
able to manipulate it and do calculations with it.

[humptydumpty]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:15:53 PM UTC+3, rickman wrote:

> On 10/18/2016 4:11 AM, hugh wrote:
> > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:49:38 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:

Hi!

> Science is limited to the
> things that are reproducible.

Bad news. At now, an worryingly amounts of experiments
are faked: http://theinternationalforecaster.com/International_Forecaster_Weekly/The_Crisis_of_Science

Have a nice day,
humptydumpty

[polymorph self]

Silence commy dunce!!

USA is by FAR no 1 standard of living!!!
We are stopping muzzy immigration as soon as we have chimpy gone!
Then We building a wall!
Hows that?
German leades fly to mayo clinic when sik!
We have bigger house car and nice weather!
Germany bunch of pussies and multi generational tax parasite wana be duke and courtiers!
Should have let hitler organize europe.

[polymorph self]

youtube kirk sorensen and flibe energy and thorium
you uneducated sploof

[rickman]

I don't know what, 'yes, it is "some movie or CGI" most of the time' is
intended to mean and I'm not asking about the nightly news. I am
specifically asking if you believe the supposedly "live" images of the
WTC broadcast on the morning of 9/11 were faked, CGI or a previously
made recording?

--

Rick C

[Rod Pemberton]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 05:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Mark Wills <markwi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 05:37:23 UTC+1, polymorph self wrote:

<OT>

> > usa is way higher than germany standard of living despite millions
> > of illegal immigrants
>
> Proof that you have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> You've clearly never lived in Germany. I have. Little town called
> Flensburg. Lovely place. The standard of living in Germany is higher
> than the USA in just about any metric you care to mention.

A relative of mine went there many years ago to visit various
automotive suppliers all across Germany. He did enjoy the Autobahn in
areas where there were no speed limits. IIRC, he said that no one
lived in rural or suburban communities. Everyone lived in town. So,
the land wasn't as developed or development wasn't as widespread. I
think he posited that much of the land outside town seemed to be owned
by wealthy estates. If true, that would fit with the problem the E.U.
has with dynastic wealth.

> It's a completely different, (and much nicer) world.

The U.S. has a wide variety of cultures, education, environments, and
wealth levels. As you've seen, there are even radically different
beliefs within our political parties, and wide differences in beliefs
across America. There are a number of free websites which show
demographics by Zipcode, such as ESRI's Ziptapestry, or Nielsen
Segments (formerly Claritas Prizm) Prizm Permier, Prizm, or P$YCLE.
These break America up into different socioeconomic groups, usually 65
to 70 or so, e.g., education, income, race, family size, social groups,
lifestyle activities, entertainment, etc. Zipcodes predominantly
correspond to a geographical area for sending mail, but that's not true
of all Zipcodes, as some refer to buildings, mailboxes, streets, mule
routes, etc. Yes, the U.S. Post Office still delivers mail by mule in
the Grand Canyon.

https://segmentationsolutions.nielsen.com/mybestsegments/
http://www.esri.com/data/esri_data/ziptapestry

Last U.S. Post Office mule route, Supai, Arizona:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supai,_Arizona

> America is dead. Being hollowed out from the inside by millions and
> millions of citizens living on food stamps, and no hope of ever
> finding a job; continually declining education standards;

This is all a result of free-trade which was pushed by liberals,
wealthy elites, and powerful corporations.

> a race war;

That's not here yet. Technically, the majority of blacks (or
African-Americans) are in a constant state of hatred and racism towards
whites. And, presidential candidate Donald Trump has offended a few
minority groups, like Muslims, and Hispanics or Latinos. In the U.S.,
racist blacks can't be called racist, as blacks are seen as the
perpetual victims of racism. It's not politically correct. Also,
since most blacks live in predominantly black communities, many don't
even recognize when they've said something racist towards others. No
one is around to cite them on racist statements.

So, the term "race war" has a very different connotation here. It
means that racist whites managed to provoke all blacks in America to go
on a violent rampage against all whites, and so both non-racist and
racist whites, together, are then forced to defend themselves from the
now violent, uncontrollable blacks by using legal force. I.e., since
whites outnumber blacks by 6 to 1 here, it's a Nazi-like "Final
Solution," but intended for the issue of abundant and poor black
minorities who serve no apparent purpose. This concept is pushed by
racist white groups. It's a wet-dream for racists.

Unfortunately, given that free-trade has decimated blue-collar union
jobs, which employed many blacks and paid well enough to lift people
out of poverty, there really is no need for the black worker in America
today. Their jobs are outsourced to Mexico and China, and now India and
Brazil. So, a race war could still happen in the future as things
will NOT be getting better for blacks in America any time soon.

> and a completely out of control war-mongering government,

I don't see that. I think the U.S. has been handling the threats that
much of the rest of the world is in denial over or failing to action on.
The E.U. has been taking an EXTREMELY passive stance on violence and
terrorism occurring within it's region of control, within their own
countries, and also in regards Russia and Iran. At some point,
weak-willed European countries are going to have to stop using NATO as
an excuse to suckle from America's teats.

> controlled by the military-industrial complex.

I think that is the other way around. U.S. government military demand
drives the military-industrial complex. These companies aren't about
to spend deca-billions developing military products unless they have
money in hand via a guaranteed contract or the financial prize of a
competitive contract is exceptionally large. A single U.S. missile
costs a million dollars. No company would produce a relatively
inexpensive military product, such as a missile, on their own, unless
they had a U.S. government contract, or they had approval from the U.S.
government to export the product to friendly nations or allies.

> I'd rather starve than live in the USA.

It sounds like you had a bad experience in a decrepit area of a major
U.S. city, perhaps an area controlled by drug gangs. I knew a black
guy from Detroit who got beat up and robbed when he went into Chicago.
He was a tall and muscular dude too. He was not a guy you'd approach
with the intent of beating up.

Basically, the wealthy live in core area of U.S. cities and wealthy
enclaves 60 to 80 miles out from the city, the poor and desperate live
in non-core area of major cities, blue-collar workers live in suburbs
just outside and around the city edges, white-collar workers live in
suburbs 25 to 45 miles out from the city, and rural folk live far away
from the city. This holds true for the vast majority of U.S. cities.
There are only a few exceptions where things are slightly different.

> No offence to the people of the USA, I like Americans

...

> (except for the TSA at airports, WTF is wrong with those guys?)

Nobody knows the complete answer to that.

We do know that they are taught to look for "suspicious" people and
behaviors, many of which would just constitute you being nervous,
especially since they're going to feel you up and call it a security
check. And, they're not allowed to "racially profile" people, since
that would be discrimination. So, they're legally justified to
be equally abusive. As a federal agency, they're exempt from many laws
and regulations that would apply under state laws which prevent abuse
and assaults, etc. You can sue for egregious situations, but your case
won't get anywhere. Of course, they generally blame the victim too,
usually directing them to read the TSA's rules and regulations.

Many of TSA minority employees are clearly "diversity hires," but that
is the way with many government and military jobs here. The government
takes people other employers simply wouldn't, e.g., borderline mentally
handicapped, unemployable minorities, people with violent tendencies,
and gang members. If you want to know why some of the military and
government employees go crazy and kill people, this is why. In recent
years, we've seen military people do so, while in the recent past it was
postal workers. If you want to know how gang members learn how to
shoot or use explosives, yes, they were trained by our government when
they joined the military.

> but, having spent time there (Chicago), well, let's just say I was
> VERY glad to get home.

I've not been to Chicago, but I have been to a number of other large
cities, New York, Atlanta, Detroit, etc. I'm assuming it is somewhat
of a cross between New York and Detroit. It has similar levels of
poverty and murder as Detroit, but is more developed like New York. If
you're a white person, there are probably more than a few decrepit,
poverty stricken neighborhoods, which you generally don't want to go
into. While many "good" people and families live in these areas,
they're usually controlled by black or Hispanic minorities, mostly drug
dealing gang members who are usually armed with guns. Riots by blacks
in the 1950s and 1960s in major U.S. cities caused "white flight."
Minorities were wanting better treatment and equality, but most whites
weren't familiar with the social issues facing minorities. So, they
only saw the resulting violence and destruction of the riots. They
were fearful and fled. Of course, poverty stricken minorities didn't
have the capital to own and maintain property. Sometimes the were
discriminated against by banks too. That led to urban decay.

> > socialism won't ever work!
>
> You sure? It's alive and well in the USA (foodstamps, Obamacare).
> Perhaps take a look closer to home ;-)

Well, socialism has failed in many countries. Their economies usually
end up imploding at some point in their history due to hyper inflation,
e.g., Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, and even China, Russia, etc.

Yes, Obama is somewhat socialist, which is part of why he is always
being called a "Muslim." The majority of American blacks strongly
support government social programs, as so many of them are in poverty,
which they claim is driven by racism and the after effects of slavery.
So, while Obama is out of line with the views of most Americans, he's
aligned with the long-standing views of the black community. He also
seems to support many non-Christian religious viewpoints which
irritates everyone as the majority of the U.S. is Christian.

Most of the U.S. identifies as Christian (70%), but even non-Christians
grew up with Christian parents, relatives, and beliefs. Democrats
are 35% of the U.S. population, Republicans are 27%, blacks are 12%, and
independents and/or Libertarians are 40%. So, don't believe the
liberal mainstream U.S. media when they say conservatives or
Republicans are religious, but liberals or Democrats are scientific
minded. Bernie Sanders is a socialist. In our political system, he's
far, far left. I'm not sure if he is off the left end of our scale, but
he's close, if not. He might be a moderate Democrat in the EU or UK.
The fact that millennials supported him was shocking, as America has
always been capitalist and individualist.


Rod Pemberton

[dunno]

rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 11:59 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote:
>> On 10/17/2016 8:26 PM, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, lawren...@gmail.com

>>> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:09:22 PM UTC+13,

>>>> hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:42:30 PM UTC-7, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> A comet, made mostly of ice, could produce exactly such a blast.
>>>>>
>>>>> How big would it have to be? How fast would it have to be going?
>>>>
>>>> Comets come from the far outer reaches of the Solar System. That
>>>> means they would be moving not far short of solar escape velocity. At
>>>> our depth in the solar gravity well, that’s about 40km/s.
>>>>
>>>> Consider that Earth escape velocity is about 11km/s. Something moving
>>>> as fast as a comet would have an order of magnitude greater kinetic
>>>> energy. And pack a correspondingly greater wallop.
>>>

>>> So, if it is going 40 km/s then it is about quadruple the speed of a

>>> rocket that is escaping from Earth. That is not very fast. You will
>>> get an explosion when the meteor hits the atmosphere and vaporizes,
>>> but it is not going to be a very big explosion --- the Tunguska Blast
>>> was comparable in force to an atomic bomb --- that is quite a big
>>> wallop, and it remains unexplained.
>>>
>> We recently had a meteor do an air explosion over in Russia, it was a
>> very small meteorite at about 65 feet in size, and exploded quite a ways
>> up but it did a lot o damage from the air waves. It's yield was over 500
>> Kilotons or 25 times more than the bomb at Hiroshima. One miles in
>> diameter would be disastrous for the whole planet.
>

> Hugh doesn't know much about this subject. He seems to have formed an
> opinion without knowing the facts. The blast size is consistent with a
> meteor or comet hitting the earth. There is nothing to say it was not
> such. There are many indications that this is what happened. It is
> just not proven in the same way a bullet can be matched to a gun.
>
> While it has not been proven what type of cosmic body caused this event,
> there is little doubt this is what caused it. I've not found anyone
> else talk about hydrogen igniting to cause a nuclear explosion. There
> is no evidence anything strange like this happened and there is nothing
> inconsistent with the idea of a cosmic body causing the air explosion.
>
> If Hugh wants to know how fast and how big it was, there are plenty of
> references on the Internet which can explain this clearly.
>

IIRC there were also witnesses who seen the meteor going from West to East
in few Russian cities right before it happened. Knowing when meteor was
seen in particular city help determine its speed.

--
dunno

[dunno]

<hughag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 7:19:58 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>> On 10/16/2016 9:05 PM, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 5:30:56 AM UTC-7, Manuel Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did with
>>>> his mystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap into
>>>> freeenergy, Wikipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a
>>>> apparatus for transmitting energy.
>>>
>>> I saw a book that suggested that his Wardenclyffe Tower was a DEW
>>> (directed energy weapon) --- the book suggested that the Tunguska Blast
>>> was a test of the weapon.
>>>
>>> The official theory on the Tunguska Blast is a meteor going fast enough
>>> to detonate in the atmosphere, but this isn't really supported by any
>>> evidence. A very fast meteor could conceivably compact the hydrogen
>>> enough to cause a nuclear-fusion blast like a hydrogen bomb, but this
>>> certainly didn't happen in this case (no evidence of radiation, and the
>>> blast was too small). OTOH, if the meteor is small enough to vaporize
>>> up in the atmosphere and not hit the ground leaving a crater, then it
>>> lacks the energy to cause an explosion as big as we had. So, the
>>> explosion was too big to be a shock wave from meteor vaporizing in the
>>> atmosphere, but too small to be a nuclear-fusion explosion --- it seems
>>> unlikely to be a meteor at all, so it had to be something else.
>>>
>>> As for Tesla inventing the quantum computer --- the quantum computer
>>> hasn't been invented yet --- there is not much indication that it will
>>> ever become more than vague speculation.
>>>
>>> In regard to DEW --- a lot of people think that the 9/11/2001
>>> destruction of the Twin Towers was done with a DEW --- I've never seen
>>> any evidence to indicate that the towers were hit by airplanes, so it
>>> had to be something else.
>>
>> My dear God! I have not seen such a display of ignorance anywhere on
>> the Internet... aside from some Trump supporters.
>>
>> There is plenty of evidence that the Tunguska Blast was indeed a meteor.
>> Just google a bit and you will find researchers think they have found
>> a lake made by a fragment with what they suspect is a piece of the
>> meteorite beneath the bottom.
>
> There is no crater at Tunguska. In the center of the blast area the trees
> are still standing, but all the trees away from the center are knocked
> down and pointing outwards away from the center. This indicates a blast
> in the atmosphere. There was a similar effect for the atomic bombs
> detonated in the atmosphere over Nagasaki and Hiroshima --- the buildings
> directly under the blast remained standing, but the buildings away from
> the center were knocked down pointing outwards away from the center.
>
> Most of the original research of meteors came from Daniel Barringer who
> bought Meteor Crater in Arizona and drilled into it. He originally
> believed that he was going to find a big chunk of iron and other heavy
> metals underground which he could mine. His effort at making money failed
> because he learned that there is no meteor fragment underground --- the
> meteor vaporizes upon impact --- he drilled quite deep at the center and
> never found anything. Also, he originally believed that because the
> crater was almost perfectly round, the meteor must have come in straight
> down, and that if it had come in at an angle the crater would have been
> oblong. He learned that this wasn't true either. He did some tests in
> which he shot a .22LR bullet into a box of clay and he found that you get
> a round crater at almost every angle (only extremely shallow angles
> result in a ricochet and an oblong crater). So, Barringer didn't get
> rich, but he did learn so much about the subject that he acquired some
> fame as an amateur scientist. I learned all of this by reading books in
> the giftshop on my visit to Meteor Crater (I can speed-read, so I don't
> usually pay for books, but I just read them through while browsing in bookstores).
>
> The only successful mining done at Meteor Crater was by an old guy who
> prospected the area looking for diamonds. Apparently when the meteor hit
> it turned graphite into small diamonds that were then flung away for many
> miles. The old guy apparently got murdered though --- he was well-known
> to be out there alone prospecting in the desert with his donkey and a
> backpack full of diamonds --- he carried a big pistol when he went into
> town to sell his diamonds and buy supplies, and he warned everybody to
> leave him alone, but then he suddenly disappeared (his camp was found by
> searchers, but there was no trace of him).
>
>> As to the cause of 9/11 *not* being caused by airplanes... yes, there is
>> little evidence of the damage being caused by airplane... other than
>> videos, pictures and thousands if not millions of witnesses.
>
> Low-intelligence people have difficulty understanding that television is
> not reality. When Rickman says that there are "millions of witnesses" he
> is referring to the millions of people who saw the videos on television.
> This is moronic! Most if not all of the videos shown on the nightly news
> are faked --- this is done routinely every day of every year on every
> channel --- the 9/11/2001 videos were blatantly faked; they're not even
> close to being realistic.
>
> The television videos look cartoonish; similar to Wily Coyote going
> through a brick wall and leaving a coyote-shaped hole. The reality is
> that an airplane is mostly made out of aluminum to make it lightweight,
> whereas a skyscraper has a framework of steel, so a plane would splatter
> on the outside (only the engines are heavy enough and solid enough to
> punch through into the building). Also, the Pentagon was almost certainly
> hit by a missile. Also, the Pennsylvania crash site was obviously faked
> because there was no airplane found there (just a trench containing some
> miscelaneous debris including a few airplane pieces but not from the
> correct make and model of airplane). I've never actually seen any

> evidence to support the theory that the Twin Towers were hit by airplanes
> --- none of the airplanes' wreckage was ever found --- most likely, those
> airplanes just landed at some airport somewhere and were hidden away, but
> they never crashed anywhere, which is why there was no airplane wreckage found anywhere.
>

> The fact that the videos on television were faked only proves that the
> videos were faked, although this does imply that the official story about
> the planes hitting the buildings is untrue. This does not prove that a
> DEW was used to destroy the buildings; DEW is just one of several
> theories. Another theory is that the buildings were destroyed using
> conventional demolition techniques. This seems likely for Building-7
> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU) but rather unlikely for the
> Twin Towers --- nobody can say with certainty how the Twin Towers were destroyed.

Hugh, I have very bad news for you. You should accept the harsh truth: you
have been fooled by the TV. There were no such things as WTC towers. Never.
Do you think it's possible to hit a building with a steel frame with a
rocket, and make sure the falling building won't fall on its side? Of
course not. Even a skyscrapers made of playing cards are falling on the
side if you remove one card. Do you know why WTC towers disappeared but
everything around them is fine? Because they never existed. All the
pictures of them, all newspaper articles, everything is fake. And you if
you think of it, you'll agree, it's much cheaper to come up with some CGI
for few years then actually devastate actual buildings in the middle of
city.

> This is a good website discussing the DEW theory in regard to the Twin Towers:
> http://www.drjudywood.com/
>
> Only a low-grade moron actually believes what his TV tells him to
> believe. None of this stuff is true! When 9/11/2001 happened, I noticed
> right away that the rubble was immediately disposed of without anybody
> being given a chance to examine it. This reminded me of how, after the
> Oklahoma City bombing, the rubble was immediately disposed of without
> anybody being given a chance to examine it. That was fake too --- there
> is no way that a truck load of AMFO blowing up in the street is going to
> do anything more than break the windows --- you have to actually cut the
> pillars with shaped charges in order to cause a big building to collapse.
> Similarly, Osama bin Laden was supposedly killed by Seal-Team-Six, but
> then he was given a burial at sea without anybody being given a chance to
> examine the body to determine that it is really him. Really??? We are
> supposed to believe this??? Television is an insult to human intelligence!
>



--
dunno

[dunno]

While I mostly agree with you, I should point out that you have chosen the
bad example. Chicago is one of the worst American cities. I hate going
there. Dunno why anyone would decide to live there.

>> socialism won't ever work!
>
> You sure? It's alive and well in the USA (foodstamps, Obamacare).
> Perhaps take a look closer to home ;-)
>

--
dunno

[Elizabeth D. Rather]

Chicago, like all big cities in the US, has some really great areas and
some not so much. And some cities have whole lot of really great parts
(and suburbs). San Francisco and the Bay Area are mostly wonderful. And,
then, there are smaller cities, and lots of places to live not in
cities. America is incredibly varied.

>>> socialism won't ever work!
>>
>> You sure? It's alive and well in the USA (foodstamps, Obamacare).
>> Perhaps take a look closer to home ;-)

It works in many parts of Europe. And food stamps & Obamacare fall far
short of anything resembling socialism.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

--
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[rickman]

Yes, even thorium reactors have spent fuel, just less than a uranium
reactor. So thorium may be better than uranium, but it's still a
radiation source and not a perfect energy source.

Maybe someone here should get interested in the energy generator of
Andrea Rossi? Absolutely no emissions other than heat. Unfortunately
no energy production other than what is put into it, but nothing is
perfect, eh?

--

Rick C

[Cecil Bayona]

Sounds like the perfect guy to sell you a used bridge in Brooklyn at a
discount, cash only please.

--
Cecil - k5nwa

[polymorph self]

The USA is the most moral country ever. Ended slavery. Made modern world. Saved Europe from Nazis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGnue1Cdu7M
We shall brook no criticism from less countries.
Starve in your own poverty and write us a poem as you do!
Good day!

[polymorph self]

no thorium is the answer
see here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYa4GnW4zR0

[hughag...@gmail.com]

I've never been to Chicago, but it has the reputation of being the crime-center of America. It is not really a matter of it having some bad areas, but rather that this is where a lot of the organized crime in America originates.

Chicago is the home of Saul Alinsky. Barrack Obama went to Chicago for the purpose of becoming an Alinskyite. Hillary Clinton is also an Alinskyite.

Most likely, Elizabeth Rather went to Chicago also for the purpose of becoming an Alinskyite.

> >>> socialism won't ever work!
> >>
> >> You sure? It's alive and well in the USA (foodstamps, Obamacare).
> >> Perhaps take a look closer to home ;-)
>
> It works in many parts of Europe. And food stamps & Obamacare fall far
> short of anything resembling socialism.

Really??? If food stamps and Obamacare "fall far short of anything resembling socialism," then what would resemble socialism? This is socialism! Elizabeth Rather is promoting food stamps and Obamacare --- this implies that Elizabeth Rather is a socialist.

Saul Alinsky's game was that he would represent himself as the champion of some minority group (mostly Blacks, but some other groups as well). It is estimated that 2% of all humans are sociopaths, which implies that 2% of every minority group are sociopaths. All of the sociopaths in Alinsky's chosen minority group would become followers of Alinsky and they would extort money from corporations or from the government by representing themselves as the champions of their minority group --- this is despite the fact that the other 98% of that minority group considered them to be sociopaths, criminals, and basically an embarrassement to the group.

Alinsky's extortion game is the foundation of socialism --- Saul Alinsky didn't invent socialism, but he was very good at socialism --- he was good enough at socialism to not just practice it, but to teach it, and all of his students are called Alinskyites.

Elizabeth Rather's support for John Passaniti is classic Alinsky socialism. She is not a homosexual herself, but she just uses homosexuality as a weapon. This is similar to how Saul Alinsky is not Black himself but just uses race as a weapon. Elizabeth Rather's follower Passaniti said my software "sucks" and is "crap" etc. --- I complained that this nastiness and vulgar speech was inappropriate on comp.lang.forth --- Elizabeth Rather then accused me of being homophobic and said that I was no longer welcome on comp.lang.forth, and that I will never be an ANS-Forth programmer, and that Passaniti was a true ANS-Forth programmer. She is using the homosexual group in the same way that Alinsky used the Black race.

Elizabeth Rather's game is to represent herself as the champion of programmers who can't program. She herself is unable to program. All of her followers are unable to program. What she offers them is the opportunity to be ANS-Forth programmers --- no programming is required --- all that is needed is that they are loyal to her and attack her enemies for her, and in exchange she praises them as ANS-Forth programmers.

All Alinskyites are pathological liars. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are obvious examples. Elizabeth Rather is also a pathological liar. She relies entirely on name-dropping to prove her importance in the world. Mostly, this involves endlessly reminding everybody that she was Charles Moore's girlfriend in the 1970s, and claiming that this makes her the "leading expert" on Forth. She also claims to hob-nob with multiple Nobel Peace Prize winners, to hob-nob with Barrack Obama's family, to work for NASA, etc. --- this is despite the fact that none of these people (Charles Moore, the Nobel Peace Prize winners, Barrack Obama or NASA) brag about associating with her, and there is no evidence that any of them do associate with her --- other than Charles Moore, none of them have ever heard of her, and Charles Moore parted company with her in 1982.

Anyway, Mark Wills is right about America having problems, although if Chicago is all that he has seen of America, then he is unfairly extrapolating the worst example of America across the entirety of America. Also, it is disingenuous to say that England is better than America. England is to Europe what Chicago is to America --- the epicenter of socialism --- England is more socialistic than America is.

There are some good things that can be said about America --- nothing good has ever been said about England by anybody other than the English themselves --- and your typical English ex-patriot living elsewhere has nothing good to say about England either.

[hughag...@gmail.com]

Yes, the 9/11/2001 videos of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers were faked. I've already said this multiple times. I also said that you are low-intelligence --- by asking me the same question repeatedly, you are proving my point.

I've seen frame-by-frame analysis of the videos of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers, and they are definitely CGI. With modern computers, it is actually pretty easy to make fake videos, and this is routinely done by the nightly news programs --- the story about the planes crashing into the Twin Towers was just an exceptionally big whopper --- but fake videos on the nightly news are the rule, not the exception.

It is pretty easy to get large numbers of people to believe something that is not true. Stage magicians do this routinely. It is actually easier to hoodwink a large crowd than a small crowd.

Quite a lot of the witnesses to the planes hitting the Twin Towers were employees of the television stations themselves and/or professional actors. Also, it is an easy matter to find people to claim to be eye-witnesses. The television news crews go to people and ask: "Did you see the planes hit the Twin Towers?" This is a leading question. Obviously, if the people want to get interviewed on national television (get their 15 seconds of fame), the only answer that will work is: "Yes!" So, the people lie and claim to have seen the planes hitting the towers. A weird psychological quirk of people who lie, is that they don't consider themselves to be liars --- they rationalize this by thinking that everybody knows that the planes hit the towers, and that they could have easily been looking up at the time and seen it, so it is just a "white lie" to say that they were looking up at the time and saw it.

When I was working as a cab driver, I noticed that my customers would lie routinely. They use their cellphone to call somebody (usually somebody important to them such as a spouse) and they lie about where they are. Typically they are substituting wishful thinking for reality --- they say that they are enroute, but they give a location that is much closer to the destination than their actual location, and they give an ETA that is grossly unrealitic --- most likely, when they arrive late they will blame me for driving too slow and/or taking the wrong route, rather than just admit that they arrived late because they left late.

America is full of liars --- this is a big problem.

Television also distorts reality by selective editing. They don't need every person that they interview to lie and say that they saw the planes hitting the Twin Towers. Even if only 2% of the people interviewed lie, and the other 98% tell the truth, the television station just discards the videos of the 98% and puts the 2% on national television representing reality.

Also, false-memory-syndrome works very well. By showing those videos of the planes hitting the Twin Towers repeatedly, the television induces false memories in the viewers. People who were there, but who didn't actually see the planes hitting the towers, will begin to claim that they saw the planes hitting the towers --- after a while, this lie seems just like the truth, and the liar forgets that it is not actually the truth.

It is very common for people who watch television to have memories in their heads and not know if these are real memories of actual events, or are false memories of television shows. All television watchers are in varying stages of dementia. If people don't believe me, they can test themselves. Have you ever remembered somebody saying something, but not been able to remember if this was a real person talking to you or a television character talking? Be honest! If the answer is 'yes,' then you have dementia --- dementia is defined as:
"the failure to distinguish between reality and fantasy."

[Bernd Paysan]

Am Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:51:04 -0700 schrieb lawrencedo99:

>> You will get an explosion when the meteor hits the atmosphere and
>> vaporizes,
>> but it is not going to be a very big explosion --- the Tunguska Blast
>> was comparable in force to an atomic bomb --- that is quite a big
>> wallop, and it remains unexplained.
>

> Feel free to do the numbers.

Ok, let's do some numbers. Earth escape velocity is 11km/s. Earth
rotation velocity (around the sun) is ~30km/s. The same speed is needed
to escape Sun's gravity (upward, instead of forward), the good thing is
that when you launch a rocket from earth, it has that speed forward, and
you only need a flyby or two to turn forward speed into upward speed
(typical is launch from Earth to Venus and back to earth, which is why
there are tight launch windows about twice a year).

But for a comet, you can expect that it comes in at nearly 30km/s down-
or upwards (depending if already passed by sun or not), and mostly
perpendicular to earth's orbit. That makes on average about 42km/s vs.
earth (the actual velocity depends on other things like the actual angle
the comet or asteroid is flying in, how far it gets out and things like
that, it is an estimate). And you have to add those 11km/s worth of
energy to it, because earth's gravity will accelerate the comet even
further, not by much, just you have now 43.4km/s. So give or take
something, you expect in the order of 40km/s for the speed delta of the
comet vs. earth. Energy is E=1/2 mv². One kiloton TNT is ~4.2TJ (J=kg m²/
s²). You need around 5.25 metric tons of meteorite or comet mass per
kiloton TNT equivalent. The estimate is 10-15 MT TNT, so the estimated
mass of the meteorite is at least around 50Gg (50k metric tons). Assuming
dense ice, I get that with a diameter of at least 45m, assuming iron (10
times as heavy), around 21m diameter. The assumption here is that the
comet or asteroid entering earth's atmosphere is turning its kinetic
energy into heat to evaporate, and there is no remaining speed left after
it did so: all kinetic energy is transferred into heat.

Real ice comets are not very dense (can be down to ~0.1g/cm³, the Rosetta
mission suggests even less), not even the iron asteroids are that dense,
so a more realistic estimate is between 30m and 80m diameter, depending
on the material.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[lawren...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 3:16:43 PM UTC+13, polymorph self wrote:
> The USA is the most moral country ever. Ended slavery.

Interesting that the Thirteen Colonies declared independence just around the time of an important court case in the UK regarding the rights of black people. That way, they were able to hold on to their slaves for nearly another century, while the mother country had declared slavery illegal by 1800.

[Anton Ertl]

Bernd Paysan <be...@net2o.de> writes:
>Am Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:51:04 -0700 schrieb lawrencedo99:
>
>>> You will get an explosion when the meteor hits the atmosphere and
>>> vaporizes,
>>> but it is not going to be a very big explosion --- the Tunguska Blast
>>> was comparable in force to an atomic bomb --- that is quite a big
>>> wallop, and it remains unexplained.
>>
>> Feel free to do the numbers.
>
>Ok, let's do some numbers. Earth escape velocity is 11km/s. Earth
>rotation velocity (around the sun) is ~30km/s. The same speed is needed
>to escape Sun's gravity (upward, instead of forward), the good thing is
>that when you launch a rocket from earth, it has that speed forward, and
>you only need a flyby or two to turn forward speed into upward speed
>(typical is launch from Earth to Venus and back to earth, which is why
>there are tight launch windows about twice a year).

Escape velocity is sqrt(2)*orbiting velocity, i.e., Solar escape
velocity is 42km/s from the position of Earth. Fortunatley, we are
already at 30km/s, so we only need an additional 12km/s (but that's a
big issue when you have already have troubles escaping from Earth's
gravity well. The direction does not really matter as long as you
avoid colliding with something. E.g., you could go inwards at 42km/s
relative to the sun, and you would at first get faster, and after
passing the closest spot (perihelion), get slower again, reaching
42km/s again when crossing Earth orbit, and then escaping; the wonders
of a gravity field at work.

Flybys are not mainly used to change direction, but to avoid having to
pay for the extra 12km/s (or more, if you want to reach the outer
solar system faster) all by yourself. Instead, you exchange impulse
with the planet you fly by, and only need to pay for reaching a close
planet (Venus or Mars).

>But for a comet, you can expect that it comes in at nearly 30km/s down-
>or upwards (depending if already passed by sun or not)

Correct that to 42km/s.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/

[hughag...@gmail.com]

Slavery wasn't important economically in Britain, so it didn't matter there.

Slavery wasn't important anywhere until sugar-cane was discovered in America --- it had largely disappeared after the Roman Empire fell --- with the discovery of sugar-cane however, it was reinstituted.

By the time of the American Civil War, slavery had become unimportant again, because it was no longer economically necessary due to improvements in technology. If there hadn't been a Civil War, slavery would have likely fizzled out --- the South would have voluntarily emancipated the slaves by the turn of the century --- everybody knew that slavery was becoming less and less viable, and that it wouldn't last forever.

Jefferson Davis promoted a plan for gradually ending slavery over a 40 year period (to be completed by the turn of the century). He wanted the slaves to be educated so that when they were freed they could become productive citizens. Also, he wanted to do this gradually so as to not crash the economy. The plan was that slaves would be educated and then freed at age 40, if they wanted to be freed. This age would gradually be lowered --- by the time that it got to 20, slavery would effectively be concluded because you can't base an economy on teenagers.

If Jefferson Davis' plan had been implemented, we could have had a peaceful end to slavery. The Blacks would have been integrated into society with education, so they would have been productive and respectible. As it was, we had a war, and a sudden emancipation of Blacks who were uneducated and unprepared to be integrated into society. Now, over 100 years later, we continue to have racial strife in America as a result. The problem that Jefferson Davis hoped to have solved by 1900 has yet to be solved by 2000. This is what happens when you try to solve problems with war --- you screw everything up --- and everything stays screwed up for decades or even centuries.

[lawren...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 6:06:29 PM UTC+13, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Jefferson Davis promoted a plan for gradually ending slavery over a 40 year

> period ...

... only a century after the civilized world had already decided it was a bad idea.

Is this why the US has such a reputation as a liberal and progressive nation?

[hughag...@gmail.com]

Well, before you get too high and mighty about all of this, note that everybody in Europe bought sugar and became addicted to sugar. They seemed to be pretty happy about the discovery of cane-sugar in America, and not concerned about what was involved in harvesting it.

Are you European?

[jim]

In article <8ac17243-1a79-45d1...@googlegroups.com>,
hughag...@gmail.com says...

> Slavery wasn't important anywhere until sugar-cane was discovered in America --- it had largely disappeared after the Roman Empire fell
>

Tell that to the English after the norman conquest. They lived in conditions far
worse than any black slave for hundreds of years. ... Sorry.. you just poked a sore
spot... I'll bow out again.

[Mark Wills]

> The USA is the most moral country ever.

You realise the USA the is the only country to drop a nuclear bomb (not
one, but two) on another country, right?

Not even Stalin had the balls to do that.

[Mark Wills]

Thorium is the answer, I agree. But it has still has nuclear waste
disposal problems.

One good thing about it is that it can consume spent uranium.
The REALLY good thing about it is its waste products CANNOT be used
to make bombs, which was the ENTIRE point of the nuclear energy frenzy
of the 50s. That they produced "nearly free" clean energy for the population
was a mere selling point to the public.

[Coos Haak]

Op Sun, 23 Oct 2016 04:55:56 -0700 (PDT) schreef Mark Wills:

He had no time. His bomb came four years after the war.
Four years later he was dead himself.

groet Coos

[Cecil Bayona]

Nearly free is a joke, but by the time they get the juice to your house,
so much money will have been spent on safety factors and pay off old
debts that it will be no cheaper than fossil fuels. In my area the
Electric Co. was bought by a larger concern, the first item of business
was to raise the rates to pay for a nuclear reactor that was shutdown in
Louisiana that never served a watt of Electricity to our area or
anyone's area since it never started fully operating. The same thing
would happen with Thorium reactors.

In a strange science fiction book I read a long time ago dealt with
beings from an alternate universe and one of the things that was going
on was that they would exchange Tungsten in out Universe with Thorium,
to them Tungsten was a radioactive material used to generate energy and
food and Thorium was a totally inert material in their Universe. But
there was no such thing as a free lunch, the outcome would be the
merging of the Universes if the process continued, but of course the
ruling authorities didn't see it that way.

--
Cecil - k5nwa

[Cecil Bayona]

In the meantime he made sure that he killed way more persons that the
bomb did.

--
Cecil - k5nwa

[hughag...@gmail.com]

This is true --- Stalin didn't need the atomic bomb --- he managed to kill masses using pedestrian methods such as starvation and forced labor.

America didn't need the atomic bomb to win the war against Japan either --- America could fire-bomb a city and kill more people than they could by dropping an atomic bomb on the city --- this worked especially well against Japanese cities where the houses had paper walls, but it worked pretty well against Dresden too.

On a related topic --- Stalin was America's ally in WWII --- in those days, we were supposed to be cheering for him.

I have a DVD of propaganda films from WWII. One American-propaganda film is actually a Soviet-propaganda film that was dubbed in English. The DVD had both the original Soviet film in Russian and the American film that had been dubbed over in English. People had noticed that the maps shown in the film all had Cyrillic text on them --- this is how they realized that the film was actually made in Russia, not America. A lot of the American propaganda films from those days had the appearance of Soviet propaganda in that they are promoting heavy industry with all the citizens being like worker bees. Another weird thing that I noticed about the Army recruitment films from WWII shown on the DVD, is that they seemed to be promoting homosexuality, or at least saying that it was condoned. One film showed soldiers on R&R and described how soldiers get to have some fun when they aren't killing Nips, and the film showed two naked men on a beach sitting side by side; we only saw them from behind, but I got the impression that they were jerking off together. Really??? Where are the women? Aren't women a crucial ingredient to having fun? Some of the films were blatantly racist too --- one showed some indig men in Burma hanging telephone cable from trees for the Army, and the narrator said: "None better for climbing trees than fuzzy-wuzzies!"

Anyway --- that was in the 1940s --- we are required to change our B.S. periodically, often by 180 degrees (by B.S. I mean: "belief system").

[Rod Pemberton]

There is no perfect source of energy. There are only better sources,
as technology permits. Next is probably a fusion reactor, but that
depletes water over the long term. After that, a Dyson sphere or
similar technology to harvest solar energy from existing stars is the
better option. Other options might be to harvest the energy released
from nuclear bomb blasts, if containable, or use the nuclear explosion
to create usable energy, e.g., via steam or high-power lasers.


Rod Pemberton

[Bernd Paysan]

Am Sat, 22 Oct 2016 16:15:34 +0000 schrieb Anton Ertl:
> Escape velocity is sqrt(2)*orbiting velocity, i.e., Solar escape
> velocity is 42km/s from the position of Earth.

Ah, I used a different system of inertia. From Earth (moving around the
sun), escape velocity is 30km/s straight up (still rotating with 30km/s
around the sun). Together with the horizontal velocity, this gives the
42km/s relative to resting, and shows that moving straight forward "only"
additional 12km/s are sufficient.

Note that while you need 11km/s from earth to leave, you can't just add
that together to get 23km/s from surface to escape, rather you need to
have 12km/s left when you go beyond the moon. So your kinetic energy
must be E_leave_earth+E_12km/s, and that means 16.3km/s are good enough.
IIRC, the fastest object mankind ever accelerated were the Pioneers,
which both had 18km/s (no fly-by required to leave the solar system).

> Fortunatley, we are
> already at 30km/s, so we only need an additional 12km/s (but that's a
> big issue when you have already have troubles escaping from Earth's
> gravity well. The direction does not really matter as long as you avoid
> colliding with something. E.g., you could go inwards at 42km/s relative
> to the sun, and you would at first get faster, and after passing the
> closest spot (perihelion), get slower again, reaching 42km/s again when
> crossing Earth orbit, and then escaping; the wonders of a gravity field
> at work.
>
> Flybys are not mainly used to change direction, but to avoid having to
> pay for the extra 12km/s (or more, if you want to reach the outer solar
> system faster) all by yourself. Instead, you exchange impulse with the
> planet you fly by, and only need to pay for reaching a close planet
> (Venus or Mars).

Oh, also a different inertia system view. From a geometric point of
view, all you get from a fly-by is a change of direction relative to the
object you flew by. Of course, that change of direction is an exchange
of impulse, but it is completely elastic, so you can't gain any speed
relative to that object (the actual unexplained speed difference we
observed is is called "fly-by anomaly", it shouldn't be there, and it is
very small).

Note that from the planet's point of view where you did the fly-by, you
have exactly the same kinetic energy when you came in as when you left.
Only your direction changed.

>>But for a comet, you can expect that it comes in at nearly 30km/s down-
>>or upwards (depending if already passed by sun or not)
>
> Correct that to 42km/s.

It's actually done later, but things are more difficult when you look
closer, because direction matters: you could get anything between 12km/s
(comet coming from behind) and 72km/s (comet coming the other way round).

[Anton Ertl]

Bernd Paysan <be...@net2o.de> writes:
>> Flybys are not mainly used to change direction, but to avoid having to
>> pay for the extra 12km/s (or more, if you want to reach the outer solar
>> system faster) all by yourself. Instead, you exchange impulse with the
>> planet you fly by, and only need to pay for reaching a close planet
>> (Venus or Mars).
>
>Oh, also a different inertia system view. From a geometric point of
>view, all you get from a fly-by is a change of direction relative to the
>object you flew by. Of course, that change of direction is an exchange
>of impulse, but it is completely elastic, so you can't gain any speed
>relative to that object (the actual unexplained speed difference we
>observed is is called "fly-by anomaly", it shouldn't be there, and it is
>very small).
>
>Note that from the planet's point of view where you did the fly-by, you
>have exactly the same kinetic energy when you came in as when you left.
>Only your direction changed.

Of course a flyby doesn't change speed relative to the planet you fly
by (except during the flyby itself).

But you change speed relative to the sun which you want to escape.
E.g., say you fly by Mars, and cross it's path being 2km/s slower than
Mars in approximately the same direction. The flyby can change it's
direction relative to Mars to be 2km/s faster than Mars; no speed
change relative to Mars, but a speed gain relative to the sun (and
Mars has a tiny speed loss relative to the sun).

[Bernd Paysan]

Am Wed, 19 Oct 2016 04:03:52 -0400 schrieb Rod Pemberton:

> A relative of mine went there many years ago to visit various automotive
> suppliers all across Germany. He did enjoy the Autobahn in areas where
> there were no speed limits. IIRC, he said that no one lived in rural or
> suburban communities. Everyone lived in town.

About 75% of the people in Germany live in towns, 25% live in rural
communities. Suburban is included in "towns" - actually, more people live
in suburbs than in the inner cities. In the US, the rural population is
down to 18% now, so a bit more concentrated than Germany. This trend to
urbanization is world-wide, developed countries are ahead, developing
countries have more people living in rural places (China: about half,
India: 2/3).

The size of a typical farm in Germany is considerably smaller than in the
US (438 Acres in the US=177 hectare, 56 hectare in Germany). 1 Acre=0.404
hectare. Though in east Germany, the farms are considerably larger, due
to communist collectivism in the 1950s, which was revised in theory, but
in practice many people who were driven out of their farms in the 1950s
didn't want to become farmers again. So no, we don't have that much the
problem of dynastic wealth.

The "best places to live in" for a long time has no US city in the
top-10; some smaller towns like Sausalito still might make it, but it is
probably just contributing to San Francisco's place 27. Instead, Vienna,
Zurich, Auckland, and Munich are the top 4.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercer_Quality_of_Living_Survey

There was no US city whatsoever in the top 10, half were German
speaking. The top five cities in north America were all in Canada; San
Francisco had place 27 (top US city, I think that is well deserved, with
Boston and Honolulu next, also deserved). So German quality of life is
much better than Hugh's deplorable life as homeless taxi driver living in
his car.

The ignorant-about-the-rest-of-the-world-index while feeling exceptional
and much better off than anybody else has the top-100 cities all in the
US ;-). One problem is that most US citizens never leave the US. Yes,
you always argue "the US is soooo big, we don't need to go elsewhere",
but Europe is big, too, and you don't need a passport for the Schengen
treaty region. Yet most of the US citizens who travel outside the US are
either jet setters on business trips or immigrants visiting their
relatives.

[hughag...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 5:48:30 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> So German quality of life is
> much better than Hugh's deplorable life as homeless taxi driver living in
> his car.

Bernd Paysan routinely takes gratuitous shots at me like this --- somewhat humorously, I recently received an email from a Forth-200x enthusiast telling me to stop making personal attacks on the Forth-200x committee members and stick to technical content --- when the Forth-200x committee members make attacks on me however, these self-appointed morality police have nothing to say.

I remember that Bernd Paysan would publicly consort with John Passaniti here on comp.lang.forth --- where I come from, having truck with homosexuals is not done by decent people --- Germany is the same afaik, so Bernd Paysan's behavior in this regard has brought disgrace down upon the entire nation of Germany.

Bernd Paysan wrote the code for the fake quotations --- they lack access to the parent function's local variables, so they aren't really quotations at all --- he wouldn't put his name on the RfD, and he gave it to Alex McDonald instead, but then Alex McDonald disappeard so now the RfD hangs in limbo waiting for somebody else willing to put his name on it.

Here is the latest thread discussing the quotation RfD:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/ohE8mx7tWQU%5B76-100%5D

Bernd Paysan and Anton Ertl say that it is impossible for a quotation to have access to the parent function's local variables, but I accomplish this easily. I posted my working code here just to make Bernd Paysan and Anton Ertl look stupid --- all of the Forth-200x standard-setters are made to look stupid by any Forth code that works.

On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:23:44 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> As usual, SwiftForth code is grossly over-complicated. I figured it out though. Just as a joke, here is code for both VFX (slightly upgraded to be more efficient) and SwiftForth (not totally trivial, but reasonably easy to write):
>
> \ in the stack-picture comments, R is a continuation (a vector to a quotation)
>
> VFX? SwiftForth? or [if]
>
> \ My code ( VFX or SwiftForth only) requires that the HOF does have local variables.
>
> : rexit ( -- ) rdrop ;
> : (r:) ( -- r ) r@ 5 + ; \ 5 is the size of a JMP instruction in 32-bit x86
> : r[ ( -- r ) postpone (r:) postpone ahead ; immediate
> : ]r ( -- ) postpone rexit postpone then ; immediate
>
> VFX? [if]
>
> code rex ( r -- ) \ HumptyDumpty called this RCALL
> push edi \ this is the HOF's LF which won't be used by the quotation
> mov edi, 0 [edi] \ this is the parent's LF which will be used by the quotation
> mov eax, ebx
> mov ebx, 0 [ebp] lea ebp, w [ebp]
> call eax
> pop edi \ restore HOF's LF
> next, end-code
>
> [then]
>
> SwiftForth? [if]
>
> 156 constant lf-offset \ this is the offset for the local-frame in the user-variables (ESI is the user-variable base)
>
> code rex ( r -- ) \ HumptyDumpty called this RCALL
> lf-offset [esi] edx mov
> edx push \ this is the HOF's LF which won't be used by the quotation
> -4 [edx] eax mov \ this is the old ESP
> 0 [eax] eax mov \ this is the parent's LF which will be used by the quotation
> eax lf-offset [esi] mov
> ebx eax mov [drop]
> eax call
> lf-offset [esi] pop \ restore HOF's LF
> ret end-code
>
> [then]
>
> [else] \ this was written by HumptyDumpty and works on gForth, SwiftForth and VFX
>
> : rexit ( -- ) RDROP ;
> : (r:) ( -- r ) R@ 0 ;
> : r[ ( -- r ) postpone (r:) postpone IF ; immediate
> : ]r ( -- ) postpone REXIT postpone THEN ; immediate
> : rex ( r -- ) >R -1 ; \ HumptyDumpty called this RCALL
>
> \ HumptyDumpty's code requires that the HOF does not have local variables.
>
> [then]
>
> \ char & comment \ this only works for my code (VFX or SwiftForth)
>
> : test-hof { r | y -- }
> 9 to y
> cr ." enter TEST-HOF " y . \ should be 9
> 3 0 do r rex loop
> cr ." leave TEST-HOF " y . \ should be 9
> ;
>
> : test { | x -- }
> 10 to x
> cr ." before: " x . \ should be 10
> r[ 1 +to x ]r test-hof
> cr ." after: " x . \ should be 13
> ;
>
> &

I could most likely do this for any ANS-Forth system --- I haven't bothered yet with Gforth (written by Anton Ertl and Bernd Paysan) --- I don't really waste my time with Gforth; it has never been used for commercial software and never will; it is just a toy.

[another...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 9:58:46 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 1:56:22 PM UTC+1, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> > In article <d8aff20f-48eb-4bc9...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Manuel Rodriguez <a...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > >Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did with his m=
> > >ystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap into freeenergy, Wi=
> > >kipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a apparatus for trans=
> > >mitting energy.=20
> > >
> > >For building such a device two problems have to be overcome: first, the inv=
> > >ention of a logic gate (called squid device) is a must have, which operates=
> > > on zero celvin temperature with supra-conductivity (Patent Number US613809=
> > >). The second invention is a programming-language for controlling the machi=
> > >ne. And here comes Forth into the game. Forth is a stack-based programming =
> > >language for building a domain-specific language for controlling everything=
> > >. The programming of a quantum computer is not easy. The first principle is=
> > >, that programs are data and data are programs, there is no difference betw=
> > >een them.
> > >
> > >So my question to the comp.lang.forth community is: Did Nikola Tesla invent=
> > >ed the Quantum computer?
> >
> > As a physicist and a computer expert I would say: "bunk".
> >
> > Tesla was short on theoretical explanations of his devices, leaving
> > a lot of room for speculation by pot heads. This is a good example.
> > At the time of Tesla's demise the very idea of a mechanical computing
> > device was in its infancy, quantum computing was under the horizon.
> >
> > (Mechanical devices in this context include electromechanical
> > and electronic devices. After all, a Pentium could be rebuild in
> > 18-th century clock work fashion, as they did with the Babbage machine.)
> >
> > Groetjes Albert
> > --
> > Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
> > Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
> > albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
>
> any idea how many square miles such an implementation would be - independent of the reliability aspect ...

This post is almost a year late, but worth sharing. Actually, it is not limited by range, if invented it would make the whole Earth quiver with electrical resonance (aka a 'standing wave'). Read on to learn how it works.
It does this by applying little taps of impulse energy; think of pushing someone on a swing, by timing your pushes correctly, you get resonance. It's interesting to note that t it only exists as an electron on those perfectly timed intervals since they are not a continuous waveform- meaning it not radiation! It is undetectable without knowing its frequency.
Nikola Tesla had planned to use the Earth itself as the conductor, "This planet, with all its appalling immensity, is to electric currents virtually no more than a small metal ball" - Tesla. Since electricity and light (same thing if you didn't know) are electromagnetic in nature, every wire, then, must be insulated to balance the electron (di-electric lines of force) with its magnetic equivalent (magnetic lines of force). The Earth is perfectly balanced because it is insulated in outer space- the perfect insulator. This cleans the signal of interference and distortion over distances.
The transverse-wave nature of light has a shape like shaking a jump tied to a post. Transverse waves can only exist in a solid Medium. All waves travel in a medium (otherwise the physics wouldn't behave the way it does). The proposed medium by which it travels is space itself; which is already defined as a medium because we know it is expanding. Tesla AND Einstein believed in a 'Quasi-rigid luminiferous Aether': Seemingly- but not really-
rigid; Light carrying medium that permeates all of space. Not to confuse you, but it is important to note that the Aether was previously falsely defined as (desired to be) an 'absolute zero speed' from which we can measure all speed from. The ultimate point of reference. After Relativity, which I hope you understand, this part was dropped. Yet many scientic's don't know that today. Since light is carried by space itself, Therefore I can say the signal can even permeate into outer space, or anywhere on the planet.
Tesla's advocation for space as a medium carrying light, "To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view" - Nikola Tesla. He is to say,' Curvature cannot be an attribute of Space- if a vacuum is defined as nothing. Tesla believed a vacuum to be a perfect conductor because no signal would be eaten up by a wire or insulator. Anyway, not really the focus concept here- It's just exposure.
Tesla's device, the magnifying transmitter, transmitted energy through space like that. The transfer of energy is best visualized as a sloshing, or 'quivering'as Tesla would say, where the Earth acts as one part of an LC circuit.
The L stands for inductance; The C stands for capacitance. And likewise, the parts of an LC circuit are simply an inductor and a capacitor transferring energy from magnetic potential (Inductance coil) to di-electric potential energy (spark gap/capacitor plate).
When electricity is generated it is by a spinning electric field via induction (look up AC Motor). And it can be converted to A/C, or stored as AC, by the latter described Method. Tesla's device, the magnifying transmitter, generated and channeled electricity into a smaller LC Circuit and then through a primary coil (large), to a primary coil (larger), to finally an extra coil (largest). The big mushroom top is a capacitance shaped in such a way to contain the most possible magnetic flux- best shaped as a doughnut.
Once again, this is not a radiation emitter I just described. Accurately described, It is an impulse type of light transmission sent through space-time. When Tesla's device steps the AC Voltage up and sends it into the mushroom top- The energy sloshes back down in Voltage and discharged into the Earth. It does not spread out! It
If you've read this far you're unlike most. This is actually a really deep subject, I hope this all makes sense so far. Ultimately I think it would be a silly notion to measure the distance it can transfer electrical energy in anything but light years.

If you are interested in this, contact me or research Eric Dollard's lectures as he also explains it more thoroughly.

- MC

[another...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Am Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:16:23 -0400 schrieb Rod Pemberton:
>
> > but Tesla was working before or during the development of
> > electromagnetic theory.
>
> Maxwell's equations were first published in 1864; that was when Tesla was
> 8 years old. Between 1886 and 1888, Heinrich Hertz evaluated these
> equations with experiments, and from that point on you can consider them
> an accepted scientific theory. Tesla started working on this subject in
> 1891, and had his first stunning experiments of electric power
> transmitted through air ready in 1893.

>
> Thus Tesla based his work on (back then) very recent theories and
> discoveries, and of course a lot of people didn't understand anything.
> He was a genius in practical engineering, but the theory was already
> there, and tested: he just applied that theory.
>

> --
> Bernd Paysan
> "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
> net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
> http://bernd-paysan.de/

Spot on explanation btw.

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <081ce420-c494-4758...@googlegroups.com>,

<another...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 9:58:46 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:

>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 1:56:22 PM UTC+1, Albert van der Horst wro=

>te:
>> > In article <d8aff20f-48eb-4bc9...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > Manuel Rodriguez <a...@gmx.net> wrote:

>> > >Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did with =
>his m=3D
>> > >ystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap into freeenerg=
>y, Wi=3D
>> > >kipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a apparatus for =
>trans=3D
>> > >mitting energy.=3D20
>> > >
>> > >For building such a device two problems have to be overcome: first, th=
>e inv=3D
>> > >ention of a logic gate (called squid device) is a must have, which ope=
>rates=3D
>> > > on zero celvin temperature with supra-conductivity (Patent Number US6=
>13809=3D
>> > >). The second invention is a programming-language for controlling the =
>machi=3D
>> > >ne. And here comes Forth into the game. Forth is a stack-based program=
>ming =3D
>> > >language for building a domain-specific language for controlling every=
>thing=3D
>> > >. The programming of a quantum computer is not easy. The first princip=
>le is=3D
>> > >, that programs are data and data are programs, there is no difference=
> betw=3D
>> > >een them.
>> > >
>> > >So my question to the comp.lang.forth community is: Did Nikola Tesla i=
>nvent=3D
>> > >ed the Quantum computer?
>> >=20

>> > As a physicist and a computer expert I would say: "bunk".

>> >=20

>> > Tesla was short on theoretical explanations of his devices, leaving
>> > a lot of room for speculation by pot heads. This is a good example.
>> > At the time of Tesla's demise the very idea of a mechanical computing
>> > device was in its infancy, quantum computing was under the horizon.

>> >=20

>> > (Mechanical devices in this context include electromechanical
>> > and electronic devices. After all, a Pentium could be rebuild in

>> > 18-th century clock work fashion, as they did with the Babbage machine.=
>)
>> >=20
>> > Groetjes Albert
>> > --=20

>> > Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
>> > Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

>> > albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=3Dn http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.hor=
>st
>>=20
>> any idea how many square miles such an implementation would be - independ=

>ent of the reliability aspect ...
>

> This post is almost a year late, but worth sharing. Actually, it is no=
>t limited by range, if invented it would make the whole Earth quiver with e=

>lectrical resonance (aka a 'standing wave'). Read on to learn how it works.

> It does this by applying little taps of impulse energy; think of pushi=
>ng someone on a swing, by timing your pushes correctly, you get resonance. =
>It's interesting to note that t it only exists as an electron on those perf=
>ectly timed intervals since they are not a continuous waveform- meaning it =
>not radiation! It is undetectable without knowing its frequency.=20
> Nikola Tesla had planned to use the Earth itself as the conductor, "Th=
>is planet, with all its appalling immensity, is to electric currents virtua=
>lly no more than a small metal ball" - Tesla. Since electricity and light (=
>same thing if you didn't know) are electromagnetic in nature, every wire, t=
>hen, must be insulated to balance the electron (di-electric lines of force)=
> with its magnetic equivalent (magnetic lines of force). The Earth is perfe=
>ctly balanced because it is insulated in outer space- the perfect insulator=

>. This cleans the signal of interference and distortion over distances.

> The transverse-wave nature of light has a shape like shaking a jump t=
>ied to a post. Transverse waves can only exist in a solid Medium. All waves=
> travel in a medium (otherwise the physics wouldn't behave the way it does)=
>. The proposed medium by which it travels is space itself; which is already=
> defined as a medium because we know it is expanding. Tesla AND Einstein be=

>lieved in a 'Quasi-rigid luminiferous Aether': Seemingly- but not really-

> rigid; Light carrying medium that permeates all of space. Not to confuse y=
>ou, but it is important to note that the Aether was previously falsely defi=
>ned as (desired to be) an 'absolute zero speed' from which we can measure a=
>ll speed from. The ultimate point of reference. After Relativity, which I =
>hope you understand, this part was dropped. Yet many scientic's don't know =
>that today. Since light is carried by space itself, Therefore I can say the=
> signal can even permeate into outer space, or anywhere on the planet.=20
> Tesla's advocation for space as a medium carrying light, "To say that =
>in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stati=
>ng that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to =
>such a view" - Nikola Tesla. He is to say,' Curvature cannot be an attribut=
>e of Space- if a vacuum is defined as nothing. Tesla believed a vacuum to b=
>e a perfect conductor because no signal would be eaten up by a wire or insu=

>lator. Anyway, not really the focus concept here- It's just exposure.

> Tesla's device, the magnifying transmitter, transmitted energy through=
> space like that. The transfer of energy is best visualized as a sloshing, =
>or 'quivering'as Tesla would say, where the Earth acts as one part of an LC=
> circuit.
> The L stands for inductance; The C stands for capacitance. And likewis=
>e, the parts of an LC circuit are simply an inductor and a capacitor transf=
>erring energy from magnetic potential (Inductance coil) to di-electric pote=

>ntial energy (spark gap/capacitor plate).

> When electricity is generated it is by a spinning electric field via i=
>nduction (look up AC Motor). And it can be converted to A/C, or stored as A=
>C, by the latter described Method. Tesla's device, the magnifying transmitt=
>er, generated and channeled electricity into a smaller LC Circuit and then =
>through a primary coil (large), to a primary coil (larger), to finally an e=
>xtra coil (largest). The big mushroom top is a capacitance shaped in such a=

> way to contain the most possible magnetic flux- best shaped as a doughnut.

> Once again, this is not a radiation emitter I just described. Accurat=
>ely described, It is an impulse type of light transmission sent through spa=
>ce-time. When Tesla's device steps the AC Voltage up and sends it into the =
>mushroom top- The energy sloshes back down in Voltage and discharged into t=
>he Earth. It does not spread out! It=20
> If you've read this far you're unlike most. This is actually a really =
>deep subject, I hope this all makes sense so far. Ultimately I think it wou=
>ld be a silly notion to measure the distance it can transfer electrical ene=

>rgy in anything but light years.
>

>If you are interested in this, contact me or research Eric Dollard's lectur=

>es as he also explains it more thoroughly.
>
> - MC

Have you enough understanding of the Maxwell equations to calculate
e.g. the magnetic field of a sphere with uniform surface charge?

If not getting there would be a good starting point.

[Alex]

On 06-Sep-17 10:14, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> Have you enough understanding of the Maxwell equations to calculate
> e.g. the magnetic field of a sphere with uniform surface charge?

It's zero if the sphere is not spinning.

--
Alex