The gravitational photon
CCRyder
A photon is a tiny gravitational charge unit. It is a time rate
gradient field or a null motion gradient field. It is a charge and its
conjugate superimposed on each other to produce an absolute null motion
gradient structure. A sink superimposed on a source. Why do you
suppose that groups of photons can carry information from place to
place and give you a perfect snapshot of a prior event? There is no
degradation of the information because it is absolutely frozen in time
from the instant it was produced until the instant of its reception no
matter if it traveled across the room or across light years. The
unification of electromagnetism and gravity is trivial but those who
think that they are the illuminati of this age when, in fact, they are
merely the regurgitators of rancid thought processes cannot approach
the mystery the nature of light. One can even declare it openly to
them and they will array themselves against it because, in fact, what
light they ever had in them have they long since extinguished through
their affection for the darkness. Even the nature of light do they not
want revealed for it will be found that there is none of it in them and
that they are the children of darkness and not light.
A gamma ray photon can disassociate into its subcomponents which are an
electron and a positron, two oppositely charged particles; a charge and
its conjugate. A sink and a source. A charge and its conjuage,
meaning an electron and a positron can recombine into a photo. We call
the process of disassociation a pair creation event and the process of
recombination a pair annihilation event. But knowing what a photon is
doesn't automatically tell us what a charged particle is unless one is
gifted with unusual intuition.
So what is a charged particle in the first place?
To answer that question one must first understand things that are even
simpler.
A basic axiom of modern physics is that all motion is relative.
But if we apply this axiom to the subcomponents of the universe which
is to say to quantum particles then we can re-state it saying:
1) Quantum particles can only have motion with respect to other quantum
particles and not with respect to any arbitrarily contrived coordinate
system.
As soon as we impose a background we pervert and obscure the truth and
prevent ourselves from learning the true physics of the universe. It
seems obvious that the the components of the universe are embedded in
'space' but, in reality, there is nothing further from the truth. The
apparent background or appearance of spatial volume is an artifact of
simpler principles not a basic component of the universe itself.
I'm going to show you how to get free from this mispreception, this
entanglement concerning which if you do not get free from you will
remain forever trapped.
All motion between quantum particles is binary.
Motion is the continuous magnitude change of the one dimensional
relationship between quanta. But no single preception point or
intellectual consideration point of the motion of one quantum particle
with respect to another is preferential. This is because of the basic
axiom of the relativity of motion. 'All motion is relative.' as an
axiom implies that both perception points must be simultaneously valid.
If only one perception were to be considered valid then that would
automatically impose a coordinate system on the universe with the
preferential viewpoint quantum particle as the origin. If quantum
particle A has relative motion with respect to quantum particle B then
we must apply the same rules to A as we do to B. The frame of A from
A's viewpoint is static and all other quantum particles which have
motion with respect to A either move directly toward or directly away
from A. We can use vectors to indicate or symbolize the direction of
motion so that B is away from A as the one dimensional relationship
between B an A is increasing in magnitude and hence from A's viewpoint
we assign a vector that points away from A to B. Since neither A's nor
B's viewpoint is preferential then from B's viewpoint a vector pointing
away from B is assigned to A. What we end up with is two antiparallel
vectors (pointing in exact opposite directions) when we accept both A's
and B's perceptions simultaneously. This is true whether A and B are
getting closer together or getting farther apart. This is why one can
say that all motion between quantum particles is binary.
If there are n quanta in the universe then any one quantum particle has
motion with respect to n-1 other quantum particles. Since there are n
quanta that this applies to then there are n(n-1) binary relationships
in the universe.
(n^2)-n binary relationships that exist in a universe of n quanta. We
can further break this down to ((n^2)-n)/2 relationships in which the
one dimensional relationship is decreasing and ((n^2)-n)/2
relationships in which the one dimensional relationship is increasing.
We can assess that each quantum particle only consists of its
relationships between other quantum particles. Let me recap:
Now, I have to say that revealing the model of the charge or how I
develop the notion of charge almost immediately also reveals how to
unify electromagnetism and gravity. And yet I developed this model by
following the axiomatic principle of the relativity of motion.
We start with the notion of particles as things (quanta) which can have
relative motion with respect to other particles. It is through
exploring the matrix of vectors produced by the relative motion of a
multiplicity of quanta that the 'field' of a charged particle can be
discovered.
The notion of a 'whole' particle.
If the universe has n particles then each particle has (or can have)
motion with respect to n-1 other particles. Each motion relationship
is a function of a pair of particles. As such, each motion
relationship is composed of a pair of primitive velocity vectors that
are antiparallel or pointing in exact opposite directions; and this is
true whether a pair of particles is decreasing the magnitude of the one
dimensional relationship between them or increasing it. Each 'whole'
particle has n-1 motion relationships and each relationship has two
primitive velocity subcomponents. I call such velocity related
subcomponents 'velocity potentials'. So each 'whole' particle
consists of all of its relationships and thus each 'whole' particle is
composed of n-1 'sink' type velocity potentials and n-1 'source' type
velocity potentials. Think about this philosophically also because I'm
requiring that particles actually consist of its relationships. There's
no hard little marble under it all that exists independent of other
particles but each particle is precisely defined by its relationships
and only its relationships. See, everything is defined by its
relationships so that the things which we call particles are bundles of
relationships each of which is somewhat like a pointer to other bundles
of relationships. Let's take a side trip for a moment and examine the
thoughts of another on this subject:
David Mermin in quant- ph/ 9801057 v2 2 Sep 1998 What Is Quantum
Mechanics Trying to Tell Us? N. David Mermin Laboratory of Atomic and
Solid State Physics Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-2501 writes:
"Correlations have physical reality; that which they correlate does
not." ...
"And that's all there is to it. The rest is commentary."
In that commentary he begins to expand by saying:
"II. Correlations and only correlations
Let me expand on my ten-word answer to what quantum mechanics is all
about, which I have called elsewhere the Ithaca interpretation of
quantum mechanics (IIQM). Note first that the term "physical reality"
is not necessarily synonymous with unqualified "reality". The
distinction is of no interest in understanding what classical
electrodynamics is trying to tell us, but it may be deeply relevant to
why quantum mechanics has not been widely seen to be a theory of
correlation without correlata. I shall set aside for now the tension
between reality and physical reality , but as noted in Section IV
below, it will come back to force itself upon us. 4 According to the
IIQM the only proper subjects for the physics of a system are its
correlations. The physical reality of a system is entirely contained in
(a) the correlations among its subsystems and (b) its correlations with
other systems, viewed together with itself as subsystems of a larger
system. I shall refer to these as the internal and external
correlations of the system. A completely isolated system is one that
has no external correlations or external dynamical interactions."
Mermin, at least, grasps the central premise of relationships and I
only allow that the simplest relationships are those of what we
generally class as motion.
Now, I'm suggesting that a 'whole' particle can decompose into two
'half' particles one of which is composed of all sink velocity
potentials and the other of which is composed of all source velocity
potentials. Of course, right there you ought to recognize that a
'half' particle is, in fact, an elementary charged particle. You can
see that the unit charge is composed of n velocity potentials (all sink
or all source). One might try to illustrate the model on a paper with
a pen but in the end we see that these dynamic relationships (velocity
potentials) provide the means to satisfy Mach's principle and more.
Every source structure is linked to every sink structure and every sink
therefore is linked to every source structure. So every source is
linked to n sinks and every sink is linked to n sources. Every source
provides exactly one velocity potential for every sink and since there
are n sources then there are n sinks. It is a simple concept. And it
is derived from the simple analysis of motion as being of a binary
nature and that emerges from the simple axiom that all motion is
relative.
Even if a 'whole' particle decomposes to two elementary charged
particles those two 'half' particles remain a completely correlated
pair. Thus an elementary charged particle cannot truly exist in
isolation but always remains correlated to a conjugate mate. Now a
velocity potential and its conjugate in physical superposition produce
a null velocity line or relationship. If you have two oppositely
charged particles which are correlated conjugates in physical
superposition then you emerge with a structure that has a null velocity
potential gradient. That, my friend is the same thing as a
gravitational field because a gravitational field is 'time-gradient'
'field' and now you can see that I'm using the term 'field' not to
describe an infinitely differentiable structure but rather a structure
which is composed of a finite number (albeit a very large number) of
discrete subcomponents. So we end up with discovering the structure of
the unit charge and on top of that we also end up with the structure of
the unit gravitational charge and have successfully unified
electromagnetism and gravity.
Because we can now identify a gravitational field as a time gradient
field then we can see that a gravitational field will produce a charge
separation effect. That effect follows from the fact that at or near
the terminus region of a time gradient field (gravitational field)
where the time dilation is greatest that pairs of particles (from
remote perspectives) will appear to reduce their relative motion and
this means that they will begin to overlap in momentum space and then
we can refer to our previous discovery related to how elementary
charged particles which are overlapping in momentum space are predicted
to behave.
So, friend, I'm offering a whole cloth physics which covers the gamut
from the structure of charge to unifying electromagnetism and gravity.
This physics is based upon deducing the properties of the universe from
axiomatic principles. Not from inductive logic, not from a posteriori
reasoning but from a priori reasoning which allows us to deduce
certainties. And it allows us to make interesting predictions about
gravitational fields which in fact sticks a stake right the heart of
the Equivalence Principle which is the foundational pillar of General
Relativity.
Now, I don't know if I can interest you in this or not but there's
actually quite a bit more. And, in fact, the existence of flux loops
and the problem of mathematically illustrating the rotation of the flux
vectors in a flux loop so that it undergoes a mode change is a
component part of this physics. And see, I'm not saying to you to
come and play some physics version of Dungeons and Dragons where
players make up rules as they go along and in which long time players
must maintain a huge set of complex rules in their head none of which
emerges from any general logical principles at all but only from the
whims of the players. Instead, I'm saying that physics can be deduced
from basic axioms. I don't call what I do theorizing but rather it is
a form of logical discovery that I call 'modeling' so what I have is
not a 'theory' but rather a 'model' which happens to be very
substantially consistent with known data. Remember, I won't say that
it was consistent with interpretations of data but only consistent with
the data. And it is not an ad hoc ex post facto description of the
universe but rather a model that makes specific predictions that we
can, I believe, translate into new and unexpected technological
innovations.
Now you know a little bit more about the model because you have a basic
conception of the origin of charge now and from there it is intuitively
obvious how to unify electromagnetism and gravity. We can see that
any flux loop system produces a gravitational 'field' and that the
terminus of such gravitational field is the toroidal axis of said flux
loop.
CCRyder
anti spam measure/lose the 't' for email
Robert J. Kolker
CCRyder wrote:
>
> A photon is a tiny gravitational charge unit.
The gravity boson, if it exists at all, has spin 2. The photon has spin
1. Go back and try again.
Bob Kolker
Uncle Al
>
> A photon is a tiny gravitational charge unit.
Fucking imbecile Cagle. Hey stooopid - electromagnetic forces are
transmitted by massless virtual vector bosons. If gravitation is
quantized at all, it propagates as massless tensor bosons. Idiot.
> It is a time rate
> gradient field or a null motion gradient field.
Babbling idiot. The Earth's gravitational field is a divergent,
invariant with time to first order, moving gradient field
(Lense-Thirring effect and Gravity probe B, you ineducable jackass).
> It is a charge and its
> conjugate superimposed on each other to produce an absolute null motion
> gradient structure.
Your ass has come unstuck, Cagle. You are leaking.
[snip 240 lines of prolix random crap]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
xxein
> A photon is a tiny gravitational charge unit.
xxein: Rube Goldberg was a physicist.
Sam Wormley
>
> A photon is a tiny gravitational charge unit.
No--Self-taught physicist Charles Cagle
said on the Art Bell show the world
will end in the year 2000. God told him.
Besides, he read it on the Internet. Plus
he has some really cool PhotoShop
Did you ever wonder "What the heck is a photon, anyway?"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
General Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GeneralRelativity.html
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Briefs/Cranks.html
Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Singularity+Technologies%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
Franz Heymann
"CCRyder" <fusi...@directway.com> wrote in message
news:280420041540354639%fusi...@directway.com...
>
>
> gradient field or a null motion gradient field.
If you start off with this amount of gobbledegook, the reat of your
guff won't be worth reading, so I scrap it.
[snip]
Franz
CCRyder
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Kolker,
You're merely regurgitating a speculation. If the so-called illuminati
of physics today understood gravity, which they most assuredly do not,
then they'd have the same solution which I have found. Photons are
units of gravitational charge but it is like the ultimate 'Purloined
Letter' sitting right in front of the whole world but utterly
misunderstood. Your regurgitation emerges from incompetent modeling;
that you are unable to grasp this is understandable.
From http://physics.about.com/cs/gravity/g/Graviton.htm we have the
following definition:
Graviton Definition: the hypothetical field quantum of the
gravitational field. Just as photons are the quantized particles of
electromagnetic waves, gravitons are the quantized particles of gravity
waves.
Now pay attention. 'The hypothetical field quantum of the
gravitational field'. Did you catch the part where it says
'hypothetical'?
At http://tena4.vub.ac.be/beyondstringtheory/generalrelativity.html
you can get some further information about this hypothetical particle
that has never been observed. The point that it seems that you miss is
that the scientific community really is quite clueless about how to
unify electromagnetism and gravity. This brings me to the point of
wondering how it could possibly be that you could be so utterly
arrogant and simultaneously so utterly ignorant of your own ignorance.
CCRyder
CCRyder
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> CCRyder wrote:
> >
> > A photon is a tiny gravitational charge unit.
>
> No--Self-taught physicist Charles Cagle
> said on the Art Bell show the world
> will end in the year 2000. God told him.
> Besides, he read it on the Internet. Plus
> he has some really cool PhotoShop
Not a word of that is true. I've never ever stated that the world is
going to end at any time. Not on Art Bell, not anywhere at any time.
The liar that printed that remains the liar that he is the first time
he posted it. That you repost the bullshit from Wes Thomas makes you a
confederate liar with him. Aren't you just so special, Mr. Wormley?
Not a damn care in the world for any facts.
CCRyder (Charles Cagle)
These Gremlins Grammaticus, Forever and Anon
> gradient field or a null motion gradient field. It is a charge and its
> conjugate superimposed on each other to produce an absolute null motion
> gradient structure. A sink superimposed on a source. Why do you
> suppose that groups of photons can carry information from place to
> place and give you a perfect snapshot of a prior event? There is no
> degradation of the information because it is absolutely frozen in time
> from the instant it was produced until the instant of its reception no
> matter if it traveled across the room or across light years.
Gribbin pointed this one out. (Schroedinger's Kittens)
Sam Wormley
Give us the URL to the show transcript!
Bill Hobba
> In article <MzXjc.51452$GR.7155034@attbi_s01>, Robert J. Kolker
> <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > CCRyder wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > A photon is a tiny gravitational charge unit.
> >
> > The gravity boson, if it exists at all, has spin 2. The photon has spin
> > 1. Go back and try again.
> >
> > Bob Kolker
>
> Mr. Kolker,
>
> You're merely regurgitating a speculation. If the so-called illuminati
> of physics today understood gravity, which they most assuredly do not,
> then they'd have the same solution which I have found. Photons are
> units of gravitational charge but it is like the ultimate 'Purloined
> Letter' sitting right in front of the whole world but utterly
> misunderstood. Your regurgitation emerges from incompetent modeling;
> that you are unable to grasp this is understandable.
As other posters have said photons have spin 1, gravitons have spin 2 - and
it is not speculation. Such follows from the principles of Quantum Field
Theory - Read Feynamns Lectures on Gravitation which explains in full
mathematical detail why the difference in spin is required and what its
consequences are. Of course you will probably reply Feynman was an idiot -
which would be the final insult to anyone that knows the slightest bit about
physics.
>
> From http://physics.about.com/cs/gravity/g/Graviton.htm we have the
> following definition:
>
> Graviton Definition: the hypothetical field quantum of the
> gravitational field. Just as photons are the quantized particles of
> electromagnetic waves, gravitons are the quantized particles of gravity
> waves.
>
> Now pay attention. 'The hypothetical field quantum of the
> gravitational field'. Did you catch the part where it says
> 'hypothetical'?
Now pay attention. The existence of a photon is not hypothetical and it has
spin 1. When one applies QFT to photons one does not obtain the properties
of gravity. However when it is applied to a particle of spin 2 GR results.
>
> At http://tena4.vub.ac.be/beyondstringtheory/generalrelativity.html
>
> you can get some further information about this hypothetical particle
> that has never been observed. The point that it seems that you miss is
> that the scientific community really is quite clueless about how to
> unify electromagnetism and gravity. This brings me to the point of
> wondering how it could possibly be that you could be so utterly
> arrogant and simultaneously so utterly ignorant of your own ignorance.
The point your missing is that basic principles applied to spin 1 particles
does not allow gravity to emerge - the minimum spin for that to occur is
spin 2.
Idiot
Bill
CCRyder
<bho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "CCRyder" <fusi...@directway.com> wrote in message
> news:290420040032238222%fusi...@directway.com...
> > In article <MzXjc.51452$GR.7155034@attbi_s01>, Robert J. Kolker
> > <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > CCRyder wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > A photon is a tiny gravitational charge unit.
> > >
> > > The gravity boson, if it exists at all, has spin 2. The photon has spin
> > > 1. Go back and try again.
> > >
> > > Bob Kolker
> >
> > Mr. Kolker,
> >
> > You're merely regurgitating a speculation. If the so-called illuminati
> > of physics today understood gravity, which they most assuredly do not,
> > then they'd have the same solution which I have found. Photons are
> > units of gravitational charge but it is like the ultimate 'Purloined
> > Letter' sitting right in front of the whole world but utterly
> > misunderstood. Your regurgitation emerges from incompetent modeling;
> > that you are unable to grasp this is understandable.
>
> As other posters have said photons have spin 1, gravitons have spin 2 - and
> it is not speculation.
Nonsense. That is exactly what it is. Speculation in the form of long
accepted theories which are well known not to yield the unification of
electromagnetism and gravity. But that doesn't keep you from
regurgitating that nonsense does it. I suppose that since that crap is
the only thing that you've ever swallowed that there is nothing else
that I could expect could come up.
Are you calling yourself an Idiot? As in Idiot Bill? If you're
calling me an idiot then you've no right to a substantive rely from me
with such an insult.
On the other hand you might consider why a spin-0 particle at rest
decays into an electron-positron pair. Two spin 1/2 particles (an
electron and a positron) combine to produce a photon. The photon is a
boson with integral spin. There's an obvious conclusion here which is
that a photon is not really a spin +1 structure but rather a spin 0
quantum.
Feyman confessed that he did not understand the nature of gravity nor
truly understood the nature of photons.
Wheeler and R. Feynman, labored for years, without success (according
to Feynman) to comprehend the direct implication found in Maxwell's
equations that the emission of any EM quanta as a retarded wave
required the propagation backward through time of the conjugate EM
quanta (advanced wave) from the target in the future.
You ought to get a clue that applying QFT to photons because it doesn't
allow gravity to emerge then must be categorically wrong. In fact,
the photoelectric effect that earned Einstein his Nobel prize is a
demonstration of a predicted property of a gravitational field which is
a charge separation effect. I predicted this property of a
gravitational field and it is the central key to unifying
electromagnetism and gravity. I don't think Feynman was an idiot at
all but rather I think he was more candid about his own ignorance than
most physicists have the courage or character to admit.
It is amusing how you are able to twist things and it goes right by you
that you have practiced this sort of deception even on your own self.
It didn't work on me, however. I wrote with respect to the
hypothetical graviton and you responded that the photon is not
hypothetical apparently thinking to yourself that you have somehow
mysteriously borne away the victory by such a non sequitor declaration.
Popular theories present gravitons as spin-2 quanta but those popular
theories are void of logic when they start from hypothesis for which no
substantiation exists at all. Just because they are in print and
perhaps because they appear to be mathematically consistent doesn't
mean that they have damn thing to do with the physical reality of the
universe. That people like you continue to insist on quoting sources
which do not actually provide the solutions to the unification of
electromagnetism and gravity simply reveals your hysteria toward any
person who challenges the so called wisdom which indeed is known to not
be wisdom at all. Honestly, if this is the best that you can do in the
the way of a rebuttal then you truly did sign off correctly as Idiot
Bill.
CCRyder (aka Charles Cagle)
CCRyder
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Go find it yourself you lying son of a bitch. There does not exist any
transcript wherein I claimed that the world was ever going to end. Wes
Thomas has a hatred for me because I pointed out what a lying son of a
bitch he was because he perverted things that I did say so that they
did not even resemble my own remarks. I shoved his lies right back
down his throat and so he in response cobbled together a web page that
contains a batch of outright lies and reinvented versions of what I did
actually say. Fools like you are so ready to suck up lies and then
regurgitate them and feel no responsibility for your acts. Practicing
such behavior pulls you beneath contempt as a human being. I'm sure
there is no shame at all in your conscience for your behavior because
you are not capable of taking responsibility.
CCRyder (aka Charles Cagle)
Sam Wormley
You must be referring to
http://www.rense.com/earthchanges/frenchfry.htm
http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/wrath.html
Apocalyptic Physics:
The End Is Nigh!
by Wes Thomas
12-7-97
Self-taught physicist Charles Cagle is on a mission from God.
The world will end in the year 2000 and he has a Web site and
some cool PhotoShop images to prove it.
Amateur scientist Charles Cagle must have *really* weird
dreams. He predicts huge CME's (coronal mass ejections -- see
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/news/9712/newsrelease.html)
from the Sun, a magnetic pole reversal, and catastrophic
planet-wide destruction (http://www.artbell.com/cagle.html).
The CME's will "raise the temperature of the atmosphere for
regions as large as a million square miles several hundred
degrees in as little as 4-5 minutes," he predicts on his Wrath
Of God Web page
(http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/wrath.html). "Whole crops
will destroyed over a large geographic area which will lead to
widespread famine for many of those left who have yet survived
the other catastrophic events. Large forest lands, like the
Brazilian rain forest system would undergo extensive
devastation. Rapid heating of the ocean surface will generate
extreme weather conditions.... [There will be] rapid thinning
and subsidence of island and mountain chains which have hot
basements. The Hawaiian chain will subside more rapidly that
[than?] it will be possible to evacuate people from them (some
of the islands will go down in a day). Likewise will most new
major mountain chains like the Himalayas, Rockies, Andes,
Alps and many others begin rapid subsidence. Sea floor
spreading zones will become very active and the planet will
begin to expand.".
He says he based these predictions on the fact (read:
assumption) that Cycle 23 (the one we're now entering -- see
graph at http://www.sel.noaa.gov/info/Cycle23.html) will be
larger than Cycle 19 (the largest ever recorded). "The fact is
that many scientists are predicting that cycle 23 will be the
largest solar maximum ever recorded."
(http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/wrath.html)
Proof: I read it on the Internet
When I asked him to produce names, he said he read it on the
Internet and didn't have any names. He further admitted to
me when I pinned him down that he didn't have any data on
solar emissions and was not even a solar scientist.
Reality check: According to a panel of top scientists assembled
by NOAA and NASA: "The conditions presently being
observed in the Sun-Earth environment are not consistent with
those observed prior to Cycle 19 and do not support the idea
that Cycle 23 will be as large as Cycle 19."
(http://www.sel.noaa.gov/info/Cycle23.html)
In another deceptive (but transparent) attempt
(http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/wrath.html) to impress the
non-scientist, Charles quotes solar scientist Cary Oler:
"There is strong evidence that we may now be within the rapid
rising phase of new solar cycle 23. July and August had high
mean sunspot numbers. In fact, August's mean sunspot number
of around 36 (unofficial) is the highest observed since the
decline of solar cycle 22 several years ago. The continued
formation of new active regions (of the correct new cycle
polarity) together with the increasing levels of sunspot
numbers and associated solar flux levels suggests we are very
likely now entering the rapid ascension phase of cycle 23."
I asked Cary: Do you feel your quote is out of context? It
appears that way to me. He replied (I'm quoting with
permission):
"Based on what you've said, YES! Very certainly it has been
taken out of context. What I stated is true and factual. But it
has no relationship whatsoever to his apocalyptic prediction. I
merely stated that we are in the ascending phase of the new
solar cycle. And that is in fact exactly what is happening. But
this happens every 11 years, as he is very much aware. There is
nothing unusual about it. It's a natural cycle of the Sun. It is
progressing normally, with the usual number of odd spurts and
burps that have always accompanied the arrival of the
ascending phases. If you'll look at predictions with actual
sunspot numbers, you'll see that we're well within prediction
limits. I don't see what he's getting at. Nothing unusual is
happening!
"He knows very well I would not consent to his request to
accept his theory as a valid one. Why he would say that the
paragraph you quoted justifies his theory is really beyond me.
It sounds like he is desparately trying to grasp at straws that
don't exist. I think most psychologists out there would
probably agree that this is a natural reaction from someone
who can't admit defeat but knows they don't ha7ve the support
to win a debate.
"Let's look at this objectively. In the over 300-years since we
have been observing the sun religiously, there has never been a
coronal mass ejection with a strength large enough to even
come close to proving his theory. In fact, I can't recall a single
episode which may have even proven a small part of his theory
correct. I'm sure (and I hope) he will refute me if I'm mistaken
(and I hope you will pass me his comments to confirm his
evidence). For several millenia prior to our earliest telescopic
observations, the Earth has not undergone anything as serious
as he suggests may happen this solar cycle.
"So, if nothing has happened in over 300 solar cycles, I think
it's fairly safe to say (simply by persistent predictions alone!)
that cycle 23 is not going to result in an apocalyptic tragedy.
"If the Sun and Earth are capable of interacting in the violent
manner he predicts, then there must be some form of evidence
indicating that it happened at least one time in the distant
past. The scale of the destruction and the level of radiation
that would supposedly be introduced into living tissues would
almost certainly be traceable in a large-scale (even global)
way."
Besides, God told me
Charles further based his catatrophe prediction on his
"catastrophe physics" model. When I asked him for numerical
details on the model and for the results of peer reviews by
scientists (the normal scientific discovery process), he
launched into an irrational tirade about the wrath of God. His
APOCALYPTIC PHYSICS
(http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/Apocal.html), he
explained, is "taught to men by the LIVING GOD."
Right, in other words, when challenged to produce the most
basic facts to support his speculations, he appeals to religious
authority -- or at least his private tortured apocalytic
interpretation of it. An admission that his speculations are
groundless pseudoscience.
Charles further bases his predictions on magnetic pole reversal
resulting from the CME, while providing no evidence for it.
Rice University Space Sciences Department of Space Physics
& Astronomy physicist Andrew Urquhart
<URQU...@alfven.rice.edu, who compiles a comprehensive
list of Web sites on Sun-Earth interaction (Space Weather
Resources, http://space.rice.edu/ISTP/), comments: "The
terrestrial [magnetic pole shift] cycle operates on geologic time
scales and isn't of particular concern now." Meaning that shifts
occur over hundreds of thousands of years. For a sanity check,
see the geomagnetic polarity time scale at
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/chron/paleomag/TIME.HTML.
Das Master Plan
It used to be that wild-eyed prophets predicting "the end is
nigh" would be ignored as they carried signs on the street and
gave out tracts. Today they have Web sites and appear on the
Art Bell show, so they're taken seriously. I guess the Internet,
apocalyptic pseudoscience, and aliens here to save us fill the
gap left by religion. "I want to believe," as the X-Files poster
says.
Or is this part of a grand Illuminati scheme by the Secret
Government to convince the scientifically naive (most of us)
that's it's so hopeless we should give up and agree to their
conveniently-timed Year 2000 one-world-government master
plan, spearheaded by a messianic dictator?
"The only acceptable sacrifice which is a broken heart and a
contrite spirit," as Charles puts it
(http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/wrath.html).
No thanks.
CCRyder
respect to the nonsense that Thomas has posted and now Wormley has
fallen for the same b.s. that Wes Thomas was slinging about.
X-From_: sing...@teleport.com Mon Feb 23 02:47:29 1998
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 02:51:08 -0800
From: sing...@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
To: sing...@teleport.com
Subject: Re: Cagle: More interesting info.
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.1.5
(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following
newsgroups:
sci.geo.geology)
In article <6cr2vh$kov$1...@news1.bu.edu>, jha...@bu.edu (Jeremy Hallum)
wrote:
>Here's something I just pulled off of dejanews. I guess Chuckles,
about
>3-4 months ago, in a deranged PR, blitz posted his warnings to such
groups
>as alt.bible.prophecy , alt.bible, hawaii.ads.wanted,
>alt.religion.christnet-*, and misc.activism.militia. From this last
>group, via a dejanews search, comes an article from a militia e-zine.
>Check it out. Most important are the quoted information by Cary Oler,
>who is said to be "quoted" in Charles Web Page, but is actually
misquoted
>by omission of several facts.
Hallum has a history of stretching things around till they fit his
twistoflex vision.
Here's part of my website quote:
POSSIBLE RAPID ASCENSION PHASE
OF NEW SOLAR CYCLE 23 OBSERVED
<Begin quote from internet post by Cary Oler Post>
There is strong evidence that we may now be within the rapid rising
phase
of new solar cycle 23. July and August had high mean sunspot numbers. In
fact, August's mean sunspot number of around 36 (unofficial) is the
highest observed since the decline of solar cycle 22 several years ago.
The continued formation of new active regions (of the correct new cycle
polarity) together with the increasing levels of sunspot numbers and
associated solar flux levels suggests we are very likely now entering
the
rapid ascension phase of cycle 23."
<End of quote from Oler Post>
**Note** Oler has nothing to do with this website and this quote is not
designed to try to encourage people to buy his software which processes
digital data collected from instruments which are monitoring solar
processes.
Note that I mention that Oler has nothing to do with this website?
>Note to Charles: Here's another of your precious premises knocked to
the
>ground. I'm pretty sure if I root around, I can find more than a few
more.
But it's not knocked to the ground.
>NOTE to the faithful reader: The reposter doesn't endorse any of the
>conspiracy views of the writer (just the view that Chuckles needs to
pack
>it in)
>NOTE2: Also can be found at http://www.sonic.net/~west/cagle.htm (with
>pictures!)
>
>NOTE3: The author of this article is not a scientist nor does he play
one
>on TV. If there are any corrections to be made, please send him email
at
>we...@sonic.net
>From: The Konformist 02/22/98 PT2
>
>
>
>Apocalyptic Physics: the end is nigh! Self-taught physicist Charles
>Cagle is on a mission from God.The world will end in the year 2000 and
>he has a Web site and some cool PhotoShop images to prove it.
>
>by Wes Thomas
>
>Amateur scientist Charles Cagle <sing...@teleport.com> must have
>*really* weird dreams. He predicts huge CME's (coronal mass ejections
>-- see http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/news/9712/newsrelease.html)
>from the Sun, a magnetic pole reversal, and catastrophic planet-wide
>destruction (http://www.artbell.com/cagle.html). The CME's will
"raise
>the temperature of the atmosphere for regions as large as a million
square
>miles several hundred degrees in as little as 4-5 minutes," he predicts
>on his Wrath Of God Web page
(http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/wrath.html).
>
>"Whole crops will be destroyed over a large geographic area which will
>lead to widespread famine for many of those left who have yet survived
>the other catastrophic events. Large forest lands, like the Brazilian
>rain forest system would undergo extensive devastation. Rapid heating
of
>the ocean surface will generate extreme weather conditions.... [There
>will be] rapid thinning and subsidence of island and mountain chains
>which have hot basements. The Hawaiian chain will subside more rapidly
>that [than?] it will be possible to evacuate people from them (some of
the
>islands will go down in a day). Likewise will most new major mountain
>chains like the Himalayas, Rockies, Andes, Alps and many others begin
>rapid subsidence. Sea floor spreading zones will become very active and
>the planet will begin to expand.".
>
>He says he based these predictions on the fact (read: assumption) that
>Cycle 23 (the one we're now entering -- see graph at
>http://www.sel.noaa.gov/info/Cycle23.html) will be larger
>than Cycle 19 (the largest ever recorded). "The fact is that many
>scientists are predicting that cycle 23 will be the largest solar
>maximum ever recorded." =
(http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/wrath.html)
>Proof: I read it on the Internet When I asked him to produce names, he
>said he read it on the Internet and didn't have any names. He further
>admitted to me when I pinned him down that he didn't have any data on
>solar emissions and was not even a solar scientist.
>
>====--------------------------------- =
>
>Reality check: According to a panel of top scientists assembled by NOAA
>and NASA: "The conditions presently being observed in the Sun-Earth
>environment are not consistent with those observed prior to Cycle 19
and
>do not support the idea that Cycle 23 will be as large as Cycle 19."
>(http://www.sel.noaa.gov/info/Cycle23.html)
>
>In another deceptive (but transparent) attempt
>(http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/wrath.html) to impress the
>non-scientist, Charles quotes solar scientist Cary Oler
><ol...@holly.cc.uleth.ca>: "There is strong evidence that we may now be
Well what Carey doesn't know about he can't comment on now can he? I
got into quite a ruckus with Oler specifically because Thomas egged him
on. After I shoved their noses into their nonsense neither person wants
any more. Thomas runs a disaster list from which he hopes to glean
story info from posters. Doesn't have any real insight of his own but
thinks he knows enough to debunk others.
>"He knows very well I would not consent to his request to accept his
>theory as a valid one. Why he would say that the paragraph you quoted
>justifies his theory is really beyond me.
Since I never made such a statement this is just an example of how
Thomas egged Oler on and lied to him about what I wrote.
It sounds like he is
>desparately trying to grasp at straws that don't exist. I think most
>psychologists out there would probably agree that this is a natural
>reaction from someone who can't admit defeat but knows they don't have
>the support to win a debate.
>"Let's look at this objectively. In the over 300-years since we have
=
>been observing the sun religiously, there has never been a coronal
mass
>ejection with a strength large enough to even come close to proving
his
>theory.
Let's do look at it objectively. I've never said that there was
evidence for a dipole reversal for anytime during the last 1000 years.
I have indicated that the Greek Phaeton legend is a very good candidate
for perhaps the last recorded evidence of a dipole reversal which when
the dipole was down allowed the incursion of CME's to literally scorch
the Earth. It is interesting to note that even the Bible contains a
passage which is indicative of the dipole field being down because the
Earth is prophesied to be once again scorched from the sun.
Revelation 16:8-9 (KJV) And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon
the sun; and power was given unto him to [scorch] men with fire. And
men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God,
which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him
glory.
>In fact, I can't recall a single episode which may have even
>proven a small part of his theory correct. I'm sure(and I hope) he
will
>refute me if I'm mistaken (and I hope you will pass me his comments to
>confirm his evidence). For several millenia prior to our earliest
>telescopic observations, the Earth has not undergone anything as
serious
>as he suggests may happen this solar cycle.
The Phaeton record is all I have which indicates scorching. However,
the fact that the Earth has gone through at least 171 dipole reversals
since the period known as the Jurassic should ring some bells of
warning since the biosphere suffered numerous catastrophic events from
the Early Jurassic to now.
>"So, if nothing has happened in over 300 solar cycles, I think
>it's fairly safe to say (simply by persistent predictions alone!) that
>cycle 23 is not going to result in an apocalyptic tragedy.
A note here. I've never predicted that these events would take place
during this solar cycle but only that it is likely that a more intense
a solar cycle turns out to be the more CME's it will generate and that
CME's are the triggering mechanism for dipole reversals or dipole
excursions.
>"If the Sun and Earth are capable of interacting in the violent manner
>he predicts, then there must be some form of evidence indicating that
>it happened at least one time in the distant past. The scale of the
>destruction and the level of radiation that would supposedly be
>introduced into living tissues would almost certainly = be traceable
in a
>large-scale (even global) way."
Actually there is tremendous evidence of this. Each time the dipole
goes through an excursion or reversal sequence there is evidence of
massive sea floor spreading. The Earth has expanded greatly and does
it by producing a huge quantity of neutrons in the core each time the
magnetotoroid goes into the poloidal current mode. My website pretty
much outlines the evidence for this process but Thomas, having the
heart of a liar, doesn't want the entire picture shown. It is more
convenient for his purposes to tell part of the story and then take
potshots at it in that way.
Check out these sites which were put up by researchers who have
collected a great deal of evidence which supports massive planetary
expansion.
http://people.enternet.com.au/~jmaxlow/
Maxlow recently successfully defended his Master's thesis on Earth
Expansion based upon a careful analysis of seafloor spreading zone
chronology.
> Besides, God told me = Charles further based his catatrophe
>prediction on his "catastrophe physics" model. When I asked him for
>numerical details on the model and for the results of peer reviews by
>scientists (the normal scientific discovery process), he launched into
an
>irrational tirade about the wrath of God.
Actually, that's not quite the truth but then Thomas isn't really in the
business of telling the truth.
His APOCALYPTIC PHYSICS
>(http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/Apocal.html), he explained, is
"taught
>to men by the LIVING GOD." Right, in other words, when challenged to
>produce the most basic facts to support his speculations, he appeals to
>religious authority -- or at least his private tortured apocalytic
>interpretation of it.
Well, I claim that this physics *was* taught to me by GOD. This is
about the only thing which Thomas is conveying correctly. Certainly no
man taught me. The fact that Thomas couldn't conceive of that
happening isn't surprising.
>An admission that his speculations are groundless pseudoscience.
Nonsense. There's not even the hint of such an admission. Shame on you
for lying again Thomas. Actually the fact that the model is highly
testable and already has quite a lot of data to back it up is ignored by
Thomas.
>Charles further bases his predictions on magnetic pole
>reversal resulting from the CME, while providing no evidence for it.
More nonsense. Actually, there's a great deal of evidence for it but
Thomas isn't looking for that evidence and wouldn't accept it if handed
to him on a silver platter.
Rice
>University Space Sciences Department of Space Physics Astronomy
>physicist Andrew Urquhart <URQU...@alfven.rice.edu>, who compiles a
>comprehensive list of Web sites on Sun-Earth interaction (Space
Weather
>Resources, http://space.rice.edu/ISTP/), comments: "The terrestrial
>[magnetic pole shift] cycle operates on geologic time scales and isn't
>of particular concern now." Meaning that shifts occur over hundreds of
>thousands of years. For a sanity check, see the geomagnetic polarity
>time scale at <http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/chron/paleomag/TIME.HTML>.
Urquhart is a nitwit if he believes there isn't evidence for rapid
dipole
declines but I suspect that Wes Thomas really only used his quote and
then
added his own asinine comment to it which suggests that dipole reversals
or excursions take place over hundreds of thousands of years. Since the
Steen's Mountain lava flow studies it is evident that there can be a
complete dipole decline in as little as 15 days.
For a genuine reality check. The evidence for very rapid dipole
declines
is rock solid (pun intended) and has been published in Nature.
see: (Appenzeller, Tim; "A Conundrum at Steens Mountain," Science,
255:31, 1992. Lewin, Roger; "Earth's Field Flips Flipping Fast," New
Scientist, p. 26, January 25, 1992.)
Also see (Coe, R.S., et al; "New Evidence for Extraordinarily Rapid
Change of the Geomagnetic Field during a Reversal," Nature, 374:687,
1995. Merrill, Ronald T.; "Principle of Least Astonishment," Nature,
374:674, 1995.)
>Das Master Plan
>
>It used to be that wild-eyed prophets predicting "the end is nigh"
>would be ignored as they carried signs on the street and gave out
>tracts.
So Thomas sings his version of K. Kristofferson's 'We don't need no
hairy headed prophets scarin' decent folks like you and me'. Indeed,
if you let Thomas or one of his ilk lead you down the path where you
can be lulled to sleep, you will one day awake with a start when the
wrath of the LIVING GOD begins to be manifested upon the Earth. Sadly,
Thomas might not be so much against catastrophism since he maintains a
disaster list from which to milk ideas as he is against me. I shoved
his head back into his own nonsense, lies and twisted versions of what
I wrote and he didn't like it one bit. This tirade of his is his
cowardly and pathetic attempt at a rebuttal.
>Today they have Web sites and appear on the Art Bell show, so
>they're taken seriously. I guess the Internet, apocalyptic
pseudoscience,
>and aliens here to save us fill the gap left by religion.
Poor Thomas actually thinks there is a gap left by religion as if it
was gone. He must suppose that religion isn't taken seriously by
anyone so that there's now a gap. The only gap that I know of is the
space between Thomas's ears if he believes such nonsense.
"I want to
>believe," as the X-Files poster says.
Here Thomas supposes that just because a show has high ratings that
people believe it is true. Can you spell 'e-n-t-e-r-t-a-i-m-e-n-t'
Thomas? While it may be true that some people don't know the difference
the great majority are just amused by the antics of these two bumbling
FBI agents.
Or is this part of a grand
>Illuminati scheme by the Secret Government to convince the
scientifically
>naive (most of us) that's it's so hopeless we should give up and agree
to
>their conveniently-timed Year 2000 one-world-government master plan,
>spearheaded by a messianic dictator?
Here Thomas has gone totally off of the deep end if he thinks there's
illuminati schemes and so forth aimed at a one world government.
>"The only acceptable sacrifice which is a broken heart and a contrite
>spirit," as Charles puts it
(http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/wrath.html).
>
>No thanks.
So Thomas rejects the call to repentance which has come from the mouth
of prophets for 3000 years and to which every person on this planet
needs to positively respond if they are going to survive the coming
catastrophe.
--
C. Cagle
Franz Heymann
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4092609A...@mchsi.com...
> CCRyder wrote:
Thanks Sam, you provided a nice bit of background to help us
understand Chaz's character and the state of his knowledge.
It is a pity that when his god chose him to be the apocalyptic prophet
of all time, he forgot to endow him with sufficient intellect to
understand what he was talking about.
In the interest of saving bandwidth and readers' time, I snip your
contribution, but at the same time I urge interested readers to read
what you said in the note to which I am replying here.
[snip]
Franz
Bill Hobba
Then find the error in Feynmans Lectures on Gravitation and in QED that
shows a spin one particle couples to all matter as is required for it to be
a theory of gravity.
>Speculation in the form of long
> accepted theories which are well known not to yield the unification of
> electromagnetism and gravity.
Refute: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9805018.
>But that doesn't keep you from
> regurgitating that nonsense does it.
Your the one regurgitating nonsense. Refute the sources and links I have
given above then you may claim to have some basis for you assertions. Until
you do all you have is assertions not backed up by anything but the most
basic of misconceptions.
> I suppose that since that crap is
> the only thing that you've ever swallowed that there is nothing else
> that I could expect could come up.
I suspect that, because you obviously can't tell the difference between
truth and grap, you would not be in a position to know.
I am calling you an idiot. Idiot: A foolish or stupid person. Your posting
of drivel without the support of any reasoned argument labels you as such.
>
> On the other hand you might consider why a spin-0 particle at rest
> decays into an electron-positron pair.
Please detail the particle your talking about, the evidence it was at rest
and why it was a problem.
> Two spin 1/2 particles (an
> electron and a positron) combine to produce a photon. The photon is a
> boson with integral spin. There's an obvious conclusion here which is
> that a photon is not really a spin +1 structure but rather a spin 0
> quantum.
It is not obvious to me at all - please detail your reasoning.
>
> Feyman confessed that he did not understand the nature of gravity nor
> truly understood the nature of photons.
>
And what makes you think you do?
>
> Wheeler and R. Feynman, labored for years, without success (according
> to Feynman) to comprehend the direct implication found in Maxwell's
> equations that the emission of any EM quanta as a retarded wave
> required the propagation backward through time of the conjugate EM
> quanta (advanced wave) from the target in the future.
So?
>
> You ought to get a clue that applying QFT to photons because it doesn't
> allow gravity to emerge then must be categorically wrong.
.
Statements made without reasoning leading to its conclusions are statements
of 'A foolish or stupid person', basically an idiot.
> In fact,
> the photoelectric effect that earned Einstein his Nobel prize is a
> demonstration of a predicted property of a gravitational field which is
> a charge separation effect.
Then provide the details
> I predicted this property of a
> gravitational field and it is the central key to unifying
> electromagnetism and gravity. I don't think Feynman was an idiot at
> all but rather I think he was more candid about his own ignorance than
> most physicists have the courage or character to admit.
What admit there are things they do not understand? They do so often. It
is crackpots like you that never admit that.
>
> It is amusing how you are able to twist things
By twist things you basically mean demand evidence and a reasoned refutation
of standard peer reviewed literature and textbooks.
> and it goes right by you
> that you have practiced this sort of deception even on your own self.
The only deception is that you can not provide any evidence for your wild
claims, or refute the links and sources I gave, and still believe your
rubbish.
> It didn't work on me, however.
I leave that for a therapist to look into.
> I wrote with respect to the
> hypothetical graviton and you responded that the photon is not
> hypothetical apparently thinking to yourself that you have somehow
> mysteriously borne away the victory by such a non sequitor declaration.
You wrote that the photon is able to explain gravity. The photon is not a
hypothetical particle and does not couple to mass in general so can not do
what you claim.
>
> Popular theories present gravitons as spin-2 quanta but those popular
> theories are void of logic when they start from hypothesis for which no
> substantiation exists at all.
I challenge you to find the error in Feynmans Lectures of Gravitation.
> Just because they are in print and
> perhaps because they appear to be mathematically consistent doesn't
> mean that they have damn thing to do with the physical reality of the
> universe.
Just because you do not like them does not relieve you of the burden of
showing where they are wrong.
> That people like you continue to insist on quoting sources
> which do not actually provide the solutions to the unification of
> electromagnetism and gravity
The following source provides details on how gravity and elctromangism can
be unified: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9805018.
> simply reveals your hysteria toward any
> person who challenges the so called wisdom which indeed is known to not
> be wisdom at all.
Your inability to back up statements by actual evidence and claims at
variance with the facts label you as the crank and idiot you are. However I
have linked you to peer reviewed papers and standard literature refuting
your assertions. You might like to actually address those instead of
posting you incoherent drivel.
> Honestly, if this is the best that you can do in the
> the way of a rebuttal then you truly did sign off correctly as Idiot
Your refusal to address standard texts and peer reviewed literature labels
you the crackpot you are.
Gagle is an idiot.
Bill
Bill Hobba
Bill Hobba
I hasten to add that I am not saying or implying we know the graviton
exists - but the graviton is a hypothetical particle of spin 2 not spin 1.
That they are hypothesized to have spin 2 is the point. As Feynman explains
in his Lecture on Gravitation's spin 1 particles can not have the properties
necessary for gravitation (chapter 3 page 29). One of the consequences of a
spin 1 theory is that 'likes repel, unlike attract' (page 30).
Thanks
Bill
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> On the other hand you might consider why a spin-0 particle at rest
> decays into an electron-positron pair.
Which particle would that be?
> Two spin 1/2 particles (an
> electron and a positron) combine to produce a photon.
Which two would that be?
[snip]
Franz
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>This is just a copy of a rebuttal I wrote years ago (see the date) with
>respect to the nonsense that Thomas has posted and now Wormley has
>fallen for the same b.s. that Wes Thomas was slinging about.
[blah blah bullshit bullshit he never said it blah blah bullshit
bullshit]
Unfortunately for you, Cagle, there is this thing called "Google."
And it has a "groups search" function. And it is possible to use this
function to recover *ALL* of what you said, as opposed to what you now
want to claim you said.
On the 2nd of February, 1999, you posted to sci.geo.geology (long URL
which I have broken with a couple of CR's at obvious points; anybody
having trouble with it can use the Advanced Group Search with the
"author" field set to "cagle" and the "exact phrase" field set to
"solar cycle" to find this post, along with other doom & gloom)
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22solar+cycle%22+author:cagle
&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&selm=singtech-020219990436076362%40sd00-47.inet-x.net&rnum=2>
and you began this article by claiming:
>The following information is intended to inform people of the very real
>and imminent danger which faces the entire population of the planet.
Nahh, you never predicted disaster -- did you, you contemptible lying
glob of slime? Let's have a look at what follows; we'll skip over the
introductory Cagle-physics and get to the good stuff:
> *** ISLAND AND MOUNTAIN CHAIN SUBSIDENCE ***
>There is rapidly accumulating evidence of the generation of neutrons
>from dense current elements (same process as generating magnetic
>sunspot loop systems but at the micro scale). Hence, the earth's
>magnetotoroid, during the poloidal current phase of a dipole reversal,
>will begin to generate hundreds of billions of tons of mass in the form
>of nuetrons in the core per second. This mass generation will
>immediately lead to lithospheric tension which will cause the rapid
>thinning and subsidence of island and mountain chains which have hot
>basements. The Hawaiian chain will subside more rapidly that it will
>be possible to evacuate people from them (some of the islands will go
>down in a day). Likewise will most new major mountain chains like the
>Himalayas, Rockies, Andes, Alps and many others begin rapid subsidence.
Gee, that looks uncannily like what all those lying slanderers were
claiming you said. Pretty much word-for-word, in fact. Let's see
some more:
> *** CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS and Solar Flares WILL SCORCH THE EARTH ***
>Whole crops will destroyed over a large geographic area
>which will lead to widespread famine for many of those left who
>have yet survived the other catastrophic events. Large forest lands,
>like the Brazilian rain forest system would undergo extensive
>devastation. Rapid heating of the ocean surface will generate extreme
>weather conditions with much greater consequences than any el Nino.
>Before the magnetotoroid of the earth returns to the toroidal current
>mode it is likely that at least two thirds of the population of the earth
>will have been killed.
Whoa. I better make sure my insurance is paid up. Again, it's really
eerie, the word-for-word correspondence between this and what all
those evil unbelievers charged you with saying.
>If you are interested in learning how to survive these events or how to
>contribute to getting wider distribution of this message please reply
>by email to sing...@telestream.com.
You went on to claim there would be "no fee or charge." Uh-huh.
What does the LIVING GOD that you're so fond of blathering about have
in store for liars, Cagle? For creatures without the truth in them?
Is it possible he might visit some of that famous WRATH on them? Hope
you're better at setting the "No Archive" bit with Him than you are at
doing it here on Usenet.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
CCRyder
> Refute: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9805018.
Mr. Hobba, I'll put your poor manners aside for a moment and address
this one thing just because is demonstrates how utterly out of touch
your are. You'll note that the abstract of the paper you cite
contains the following line:
"We review higher-dimensional unifed theories from the general
relativity, rather than the particle physics side."
This paper reviews concepts of gravity which are higher-dimensional.
No higher dimensional theory of gravity has ever successfully unified
electromagnetism, gravity and quantum physics. None have come close.
My model isn't a 'theory' but rather I am careful to refer to it as a
'model' because it is derived from basic axioms that most rational
people accept as reasonable or even intuitively obvious once the
simplicity and logic is pointed out and straightforward data and
Maxwell's equations written in terms of E and H only. I use deductive
logic and arrive at certainties. There is nothing of my model which
could be described as having anything to do at all with 'higher
dimensional unified theories'. It is a model which not only derives
the nature of charge but identifies particles as consisting wholly of
relationships. The model identifies the smallest subcomponent of the
unit charge and the smallest subcomponent of the unit gravitational
charge. This model is so far beyond what you are capable of grasping
that I'm not sure why you want to make a public spectacle of yourself
in what can't even be characterized as a half hearted attempt. You ask
me to refute that paper as if there was anything at all about it that
was valid in the first place. That is tantamount to asking me to
refute Santa Claus. Please, if you want to believe in such nonsense I
wouldn't want to stop you and I believe it was with wisdom that
Alexander Pope wrote of such inclinations in people as you have
demonstrated when he penned: "The ruling Passion be what it will, the
ruling passion conquers reason still."
It seems that people like you have absolutely no recognition of the
absolutely necessary and vital role that espistemology should play in
assessing the quality of the so-called 'knowledge' which is regularly
presented in academia. If you did, you'd go hide your head in shame at
your utterly foolish eructions.
CCRyder (aka Charles Cagle)
CCRyder
<bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:10:29 -0700, CCRyder <fusi...@directway.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This is just a copy of a rebuttal I wrote years ago (see the date) with
> >respect to the nonsense that Thomas has posted and now Wormley has
> >fallen for the same b.s. that Wes Thomas was slinging about.
>
>
> [blah blah bullshit bullshit he never said it blah blah bullshit
> bullshit]
>
>
> Unfortunately for you, Cagle, there is this thing called "Google."
> And it has a "groups search" function. And it is possible to use this
> function to recover *ALL* of what you said, as opposed to what you now
> want to claim you said.
Utter nonsense. It isn't unfortunate for me at all but rather is quite
nice because it shows that not only Wes Thomas but that people who
quote him are, in fact, liars since only by reading more into what I
wrote than I did write they have misrepresented the facts. You're
simple enough to swallow it even when you have the facts right in front
of you. I note that most people like Thomas, and fools who lap up
their venom (that would be people like you) are incapable of realizing
that some people are very careful to write exactly what they mean,
nothing more and nothing less. Even when you are shown to be a liar
you don't have the grace to back off but are compelled by the evil
which resides in your heart to simply upgrade your rant.
>
> On the 2nd of February, 1999, you posted to sci.geo.geology (long URL
> which I have broken with a couple of CR's at obvious points; anybody
> having trouble with it can use the Advanced Group Search with the
> "author" field set to "cagle" and the "exact phrase" field set to
> "solar cycle" to find this post, along with other doom & gloom)
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22solar+cycle%22+author:cagle
> &hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
> 8&selm=singtech-020219990436076362%40sd00-47.inet-x.net&rnum=2>
>
> and you began this article by claiming:
>
> >The following information is intended to inform people of the very real
> >and imminent danger which faces the entire population of the planet.
>
> Nahh, you never predicted disaster -- did you, you contemptible lying
> glob of slime? Let's have a look at what follows; we'll skip over the
> introductory Cagle-physics and get to the good stuff:
Pay attention. Never have I said that I didn't predict disaster. What
you said was that I predicted the end of the world. If you are
incapable of making the distinction then you're simply intellectually
inept and really should go hide your face in embarrassment that
whatever money you spent on an education was money thrown away.
>
>
> > *** ISLAND AND MOUNTAIN CHAIN SUBSIDENCE ***
>
> >There is rapidly accumulating evidence of the generation of neutrons
> >from dense current elements (same process as generating magnetic
> >sunspot loop systems but at the micro scale). Hence, the earth's
> >magnetotoroid, during the poloidal current phase of a dipole reversal,
> >will begin to generate hundreds of billions of tons of mass in the form
> >of nuetrons in the core per second. This mass generation will
> >immediately lead to lithospheric tension which will cause the rapid
> >thinning and subsidence of island and mountain chains which have hot
> >basements. The Hawaiian chain will subside more rapidly that it will
> >be possible to evacuate people from them (some of the islands will go
> >down in a day). Likewise will most new major mountain chains like the
> >Himalayas, Rockies, Andes, Alps and many others begin rapid subsidence.
>
> Gee, that looks uncannily like what all those lying slanderers were
> claiming you said. Pretty much word-for-word, in fact. Let's see
> some more:
That isn't the end of the world but rather processes which have struck
our planet time and again.
>
> > *** CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS and Solar Flares WILL SCORCH THE EARTH ***
>
> >Whole crops will destroyed over a large geographic area
> >which will lead to widespread famine for many of those left who
> >have yet survived the other catastrophic events. Large forest lands,
> >like the Brazilian rain forest system would undergo extensive
> >devastation. Rapid heating of the ocean surface will generate extreme
> >weather conditions with much greater consequences than any el Nino.
> >Before the magnetotoroid of the earth returns to the toroidal current
> >mode it is likely that at least two thirds of the population of the earth
> >will have been killed.
>
> Whoa. I better make sure my insurance is paid up. Again, it's really
> eerie, the word-for-word correspondence between this and what all
> those evil unbelievers charged you with saying.
What is it with you? Don't you know when you're lying? Those are my
words but it is not the end of the world. It is just the elimination
of most of the wicked people in the world (right now you're probably
numbered among them). Next, I never ever said that it would happen in
the year 2000. I stated that it was possible that the solar maximum
could produce phenomena that could stimulate the Earth's EMT into a
mode change. But I never said that it would do it during that solar
maximum. If you can find where I said that it was going to happen for
solar cycle 23 then post it. The reality is that I know that I never
said that it was going to happen during solar cycle 23. Not once, not
ever. "Could happen", "might happen", "is possible" are not
interchangeable phrases with 'will happen' or 'is going to happen'. I
specified the types of geological processes which "will" accompany the
"next" mode change of the Earth's EMT. At the time I thought there was
a possiblity that it "could happen" during the last solar maximum but
never once did I write that it was definitely going to happen at that
solar maximum.
> >If you are interested in learning how to survive these events or how to
> >contribute to getting wider distribution of this message please reply
> >by email to sing...@telestream.com.
>
> You went on to claim there would be "no fee or charge." Uh-huh.
You've found evidence to the contrary? I don't think so.
> What does the LIVING GOD that you're so fond of blathering about have
> in store for liars, Cagle? For creatures without the truth in them?
> Is it possible he might visit some of that famous WRATH on them? Hope
> you're better at setting the "No Archive" bit with Him than you are at
> doing it here on Usenet.
Since you're the one who has insisted on lying I think that God shall
do to such people should be of much more concern for you than for me.
³But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers,
and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall
have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.² (Revelation 21:8)
Repent.
CCRyder (aka Charles Cagle)
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> My model isn't a 'theory' but rather I am careful to refer to it as
a
> 'model' because it is derived from basic axioms that most rational
> people accept as reasonable or even intuitively obvious once the
> simplicity and logic is pointed out and straightforward data and
> Maxwell's equations written in terms of E and H only. I use
deductive
> logic and arrive at certainties.
Firstly, that sentence is far too long.
Secondly, you have neither theory nor model. Your readers have asked
you for years now to put it on a sufficiently quantitative footing to
allow it to be assessed by means other than your hand waving.
You have consistently refused to do so. The reason is obvious. You
do not possess the intellect to actually produce either a theory or a
model.
[snip]
Franz
CCRyder
<notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Right there, Mr. Heymann, you show that you can't even follow a single
sentence. Whatever gave you the notion that you had the capablity to
follow a model logically deduced from first principles and Maxwell's
equations? Face it, it is more than you can grasp primarily because
you already have grabbed ahold of two fistfulls and a double armload of
nonsensical fictions which you've never had the wit nor insight to
debunk as the pseudoscientific tripe that it is.
CCRyder
CCRyder
Sam Wormley
>
> A photon is a tiny gravitational charge unit.
Did you ever wonder "What the heck is a photon, anyway?"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
General Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GeneralRelativity.html
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Briefs/Cranks.html
Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Singularity+Technologies%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://www.rense.com/earthchanges/frenchfry.htm
http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/wrath.html
Apocalyptic Physics:
The End Is Nigh!
by Wes Thomas
12-7-97
Self-taught physicist Charles Cagle is on a mission from God.
The world will end in the year 2000 and he has a Web site and
some cool PhotoShop images to prove it.
Amateur scientist Charles Cagle must have *really* weird
dreams. He predicts huge CME's (coronal mass ejections -- see
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/news/9712/newsrelease.html)
from the Sun, a magnetic pole reversal, and catastrophic
planet-wide destruction (http://www.artbell.com/cagle.html).
The CME's will "raise the temperature of the atmosphere for
regions as large as a million square miles several hundred
degrees in as little as 4-5 minutes," he predicts on his Wrath
Of God Web page
(http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/wrath.html). "Whole crops
will destroyed over a large geographic area which will lead to
widespread famine for many of those left who have yet survived
the other catastrophic events. Large forest lands, like the
Brazilian rain forest system would undergo extensive
devastation. Rapid heating of the ocean surface will generate
extreme weather conditions.... [There will be] rapid thinning
and subsidence of island and mountain chains which have hot
basements. The Hawaiian chain will subside more rapidly that
[than?] it will be possible to evacuate people from them (some
of the islands will go down in a day). Likewise will most new
major mountain chains like the Himalayas, Rockies, Andes,
Alps and many others begin rapid subsidence. Sea floor
spreading zones will become very active and the planet will
begin to expand.".
He says he based these predictions on the fact (read:
assumption) that Cycle 23 (the one we're now entering -- see
graph at http://www.sel.noaa.gov/info/Cycle23.html) will be
larger than Cycle 19 (the largest ever recorded). "The fact is
that many scientists are predicting that cycle 23 will be the
largest solar maximum ever recorded."
(http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/wrath.html)
Proof: I read it on the Internet
When I asked him to produce names, he said he read it on the
Internet and didn't have any names. He further admitted to
me when I pinned him down that he didn't have any data on
solar emissions and was not even a solar scientist.
Reality check: According to a panel of top scientists assembled
by NOAA and NASA: "The conditions presently being
observed in the Sun-Earth environment are not consistent with
those observed prior to Cycle 19 and do not support the idea
that Cycle 23 will be as large as Cycle 19."
(http://www.sel.noaa.gov/info/Cycle23.html)
In another deceptive (but transparent) attempt
(http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/wrath.html) to impress the
non-scientist, Charles quotes solar scientist Cary Oler:
"He knows very well I would not consent to his request to
accept his theory as a valid one. Why he would say that the
paragraph you quoted justifies his theory is really beyond me.
It sounds like he is desparately trying to grasp at straws that
don't exist. I think most psychologists out there would
probably agree that this is a natural reaction from someone
who can't admit defeat but knows they don't ha7ve the support
to win a debate.
"Let's look at this objectively. In the over 300-years since we
have been observing the sun religiously, there has never been a
coronal mass ejection with a strength large enough to even
come close to proving his theory. In fact, I can't recall a single
episode which may have even proven a small part of his theory
correct. I'm sure (and I hope) he will refute me if I'm mistaken
(and I hope you will pass me his comments to confirm his
evidence). For several millenia prior to our earliest telescopic
observations, the Earth has not undergone anything as serious
as he suggests may happen this solar cycle.
"So, if nothing has happened in over 300 solar cycles, I think
it's fairly safe to say (simply by persistent predictions alone!)
that cycle 23 is not going to result in an apocalyptic tragedy.
"If the Sun and Earth are capable of interacting in the violent
manner he predicts, then there must be some form of evidence
indicating that it happened at least one time in the distant
past. The scale of the destruction and the level of radiation
that would supposedly be introduced into living tissues would
almost certainly be traceable in a large-scale (even global)
way."
Besides, God told me
Charles further based his catatrophe prediction on his
"catastrophe physics" model. When I asked him for numerical
details on the model and for the results of peer reviews by
scientists (the normal scientific discovery process), he
launched into an irrational tirade about the wrath of God. His
APOCALYPTIC PHYSICS
(http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/Apocal.html), he
explained, is "taught to men by the LIVING GOD."
Right, in other words, when challenged to produce the most
basic facts to support his speculations, he appeals to religious
authority -- or at least his private tortured apocalytic
interpretation of it. An admission that his speculations are
groundless pseudoscience.
Charles further bases his predictions on magnetic pole reversal
resulting from the CME, while providing no evidence for it.
Rice University Space Sciences Department of Space Physics
& Astronomy physicist Andrew Urquhart
<URQU...@alfven.rice.edu, who compiles a comprehensive
list of Web sites on Sun-Earth interaction (Space Weather
Resources, http://space.rice.edu/ISTP/), comments: "The
terrestrial [magnetic pole shift] cycle operates on geologic time
scales and isn't of particular concern now." Meaning that shifts
occur over hundreds of thousands of years. For a sanity check,
see the geomagnetic polarity time scale at
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/chron/paleomag/TIME.HTML.
Das Master Plan
It used to be that wild-eyed prophets predicting "the end is
nigh" would be ignored as they carried signs on the street and
gave out tracts. Today they have Web sites and appear on the
Art Bell show, so they're taken seriously. I guess the Internet,
apocalyptic pseudoscience, and aliens here to save us fill the
gap left by religion. "I want to believe," as the X-Files poster
says.
Or is this part of a grand Illuminati scheme by the Secret
Government to convince the scientifically naive (most of us)
that's it's so hopeless we should give up and agree to their
conveniently-timed Year 2000 one-world-government master
plan, spearheaded by a messianic dictator?
Franz Heymann
The fact that I know some physics and you do not.
Quit trying to bluff. Your "model", if i may call that trash a model,
was deduced neither logically nor illogically from either first
principles
or from Maxwell's equations.
To be blunt: Where is this missing deduction?
> Face it, it is more than you can grasp primarily because
> you already have grabbed ahold of two fistfulls and a double armload
of
> nonsensical fictions which you've never had the wit nor insight to
> debunk as the pseudoscientific tripe that it is.
That is, of course, your coded way of saying that I know some physics.
In that sense, you are right.
I understand enough physics to know that you understand none.
Quit trying to bluff your way unsuccessfully, and cope with some of
the problems which have been posed to you during the many years in
which you have been regurgitating the same twaddle without ever
progressing to the stage of quantifying your crap.
In the many years you have been posting here, you had ample time to
let us have the coupling terms which would allow a poloidal earth's
magnetic field to switch into a solenoidal field. Where are they and
what are they?
Franz
CCRyder
<notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Hey, please don't confuse the pseudophysics that you know with the
facts.
>
> Quit trying to bluff. Your "model", if i may call that trash a
> model, was deduced neither logically nor illogically from either
> first principles or from Maxwell's equations. To be blunt: Where is
> this missing deduction?
>
> > Face it, it is more than you can grasp primarily because you
> > already have grabbed ahold of two fistfulls and a double armload
> > of nonsensical fictions which you've never had the wit nor
> > insight to debunk as the pseudoscientific tripe that it is.
>
> That is, of course, your coded way of saying that I know some
> physics.
No. It is my direct way of saying that have again and again
demonstrated that you are versed in pseudophysics and are unable to
differentiate between reason and illogic which happens to be
established not by force of argument but by consensus alone.
> In that sense, you are right. I understand enough physics to
> know that you understand none. Quit trying to bluff your way
> unsuccessfully, and cope with some of the problems which have been
> posed to you during the many years in which you have been
> regurgitating the same twaddle without ever progressing to the stage
> of quantifying your crap.
>
> In the many years you have been posting here, you had ample time to
> let us have the coupling terms which would allow a poloidal earth's
> magnetic field to switch into a solenoidal field. Where are they and
> what are they?
Coupling terms? What kind of voodoo chicken feather nonsense is that?
Are you interested in the mechanism of how an EMT
(electromagnetotoroid) can be stimulated into changing modes? Is that
what you are so clumsily trying to spit out? But first you ought to
confirm that you actually believe that EMTs exist and that they have
two primary mode states and that they can undergo a transformation from
one mode to the other. Can you do that? If you can get that far then
you've come a long ways but if you can't then you'd have to explain how
being enlightened would help you since the suggested enlightenment
would cover aspects of physics concerning which you have essentially
zero comprehension.
CCRyder
Franz Heymann
Well, where *is* this missing deduction?
> > > Face it, it is more than you can grasp primarily because you
> > > already have grabbed ahold of two fistfulls and a double
armload
> > > of nonsensical fictions which you've never had the wit nor
> > > insight to debunk as the pseudoscientific tripe that it is.
> >
> > That is, of course, your coded way of saying that I know some
> > physics.
>
> No. It is my direct way of saying that have again and again
> demonstrated that you are versed in pseudophysics and are unable to
> differentiate between reason and illogic which happens to be
> established not by force of argument but by consensus alone.
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the content of modern
physics by reiterating that mantra.
> > In that sense, you are right. I understand enough physics to
> > know that you understand none. Quit trying to bluff your way
> > unsuccessfully, and cope with some of the problems which have been
> > posed to you during the many years in which you have been
> > regurgitating the same twaddle without ever progressing to the
stage
> > of quantifying your crap.
> >
> > In the many years you have been posting here, you had ample time
to
> > let us have the coupling terms which would allow a poloidal
earth's
> > magnetic field to switch into a solenoidal field. Where are they
and
> > what are they?
>
> Coupling terms? What kind of voodoo chicken feather nonsense is
that?
> Are you interested in the mechanism of how an EMT
Yes. Terms which will result in the convdrsion of a poloidal field
into a solenoidal one, and vice versa.
It is obvious that your knowledge does not extend to recognising that
the two types of field have different topologies,and that you have not
proven that there is a way of producing a continuous deformation of
current density distribution which will lead from one of these
topologies to the other.
> (electromagnetotoroid) can be stimulated into changing modes?
What might that chimera be?
> Is that
> what you are so clumsily trying to spit out? But first you ought to
> confirm that you actually believe that EMTs exist and that they have
> two primary mode states and that they can undergo a transformation
from
> one mode to the other.
Balls.
> Can you do that?
No, but I can do the precise opposite, namely to state that you are
manufacturing a pile of horse dung.
Where are the postulates for this crap?
Where are the deductions from the postulates?
Which of them have been verified experimentally?
And don't tell me that you are your god's prophet and he told you it
was so.
> If you can get that far then
> you've come a long ways but if you can't then you'd have to explain
how
> being enlightened would help you since the suggested enlightenment
> would cover aspects of physics concerning which you have essentially
> zero comprehension.
Get it into your mind: You are hot on the handwaving. You have not
shown any quantitative work of any kind anywhere in this ng. You are
just a blustering twerp.
Franz
Franz Heymann
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c7m9an$rc9$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
[snip]
> Yes. Terms which will result in the convdrsion of a poloidal field
> into a solenoidal one, and vice versa.
Correction. Not solenoidal, but toroidal. Throughout. My apologies.
[snip]
Franz
CCRyder
<notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
When you can get down on your knees and apologize for being such a
rude, vile, distasteful fellow then you might get some answers but
since you prefer to continuously eruct bile I'm not disposed to provide
you with much help. Sure, toroidal. I had assumed that you meant
closed solenoidal because you were ignorant of the term toroidal, just
as you're ignorant of the term electromagnetotoroid. And if not simply
ignorant then absolutely antagonistic toward a reasonable term that is
not in use in any texts that you have used. You're like a dog. If you
can't eat it or it looks unfamiliar then you raise your leg and piss on
it. You really need to get better manners before some irate person
that you've carelessly offended with your potty mouth and pig like
manners hunts you down and pays a couple of local toughs to pull your
tongue out of your head with a set of vice-grips. I'd hate to see that
happen to you and wouldn't advocate it but then I can't imagine
shedding any tears for you if such a thing happened. What is wrong
with simply carrying on a decent dialogue instead of one filled with
such hate? Occasionally you ask a reasonable question and I am
disposed to provide you with an answer but then your post is also
slathered up with such outrageous and impolite behavior that my
instinct is to simply let you go suck on your own toes and to make no
move to enlighten you at all. After all your demeanor isn't one of
expectation of learning something new but rather one of a person who
expects to be handfed and coddled as if somehow I was desparate for you
to learn something. But I'm not. I really don't care if you remain in
the profound ignorance and rancidity of thought that you already seem
to be up to your neck in.
You had written in your previous post:
> Yes. Terms which will result in the convdrsion of a poloidal field
> into a solenoidal one, and vice versa.
> It is obvious that your knowledge does not extend to recognising that
> the two types of field have different topologies,and that you have not
> proven that there is a way of producing a continuous deformation of
> current density distribution which will lead from one of these
> topologies to the other.
Proven? And topologies? Topology is a pretty difficult word to define
and I'm not sure you really understand what the hell you're talking
about when you say that the two types of fields have diffent
topologies. They are both toroidal. Their characteristics are,
however, quite different. One produces the attributes of a magnetic
dipole while the other produces the characteristics of an electric
dipole. If one could (at every point) cause the pi/2 radian rotation
(all in the same direction) of the flux density vector around the axis
of the Poynting vector (which at all points would be a normal to the
toroidal equipotential surface of a flux loop system) then one type
would make a mode change to the other type and vice versa. That much
should be intuitively obvious. Now if you don't have a mathematical
function that could characterize such a rotation then at least you'd
have to admit that even if such a mechanism was unknown that the effect
of such rotation would produce the exact mode change that I specified.
Now if you reject this much then buzz off because it is probably beyond
your ability to follow. My research led me to believe that large
scale flux loop systems did indeed change modes but the mechanism
remained a mystery to me for about three years. Now here you are
challenging me to disclose what I have discovered with regard to the
actual mechanism but doing it not with the expectation of learning
anything (because you act like you already know everything and that
what you don't know can't be worth learning). So, my inclination is to
leave you to your ignorance and to morbidly peek at your next post
which will be a tirade of further bad language and bad manners with
accusations that I have found no such mechanism or else I would have
been happy to post it for your review and approval. Like I actually
cared. In fact, it might be more rewarding for me to tittilate you to
your regular rage level where you can twitch around with your rant of
bad spelling, foul language and atrocious pig like manners.
So mind your manners.
CCRyder.
Michael Varney
> In article <c7nckj$sir$5...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
> <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:c7m9an$rc9$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Yes. Terms which will result in the convdrsion of a poloidal field
> > > into a solenoidal one, and vice versa.
> >
> > Correction. Not solenoidal, but toroidal. Throughout. My apologies.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Franz
>
> When you can get down on your knees and apologize for being such a
> rude, vile, distasteful fellow then you might get some answers but
> since you prefer to continuously eruct bile I'm not disposed to provide
> you with much help.
The one thing about cranks like you that is very interesting is your
megalomania.
CCRyder
<varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:
Your perverse manners on the other hand is not at all interesting even
when it gives immediate insight to your upbringing and into your inner
nature; shoddy and full of darkness. Nothing interesting about that.
Each post you make only reifies this. Shortly, you've shown the whole
of your one trick pony and it remains as boring as the first time you
led it out and put it on display. You truly are boring and boorish.
CCRyder.
Michael Varney
*yawn*
Your megalomania is getting tiresome.
Franz Heymann
reify: Convert (person, abstract concept) into thing, materialise
You are the only one who has frequently used and consistently misused
this word. It makes you look like a fool. Look up another fancy word
and use it correctly.
[snip]
Franz
CCRyder
<notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> reify: Convert (person, abstract concept) into thing, materialise
>
> You are the only one who has frequently used and consistently misused
> this word. It makes you look like a fool. Look up another fancy word
> and use it correctly.
>
> [snip]
>
> Franz
The only fool is you. I used the word correctly. I'll do it again.
Your last post only reifies my contention that you are a fool.
(establishes by example that my contention that you are a fool is
true.).
CCRyder
Franz Heymann
reify: Convert (person, abstract concept) into thing, materialise.
Oxford English Dictionary
Franz
>
> CCRyder
CCRyder
<notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> "CCRyder" <fusi...@directway.com> wrote in message
> news:130520040005581425%fusi...@directway.com...
> > In article <c7u29e$rfu$5...@hercules.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
> > <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > > reify: Convert (person, abstract concept) into thing,
> materialise
> > >
> > > You are the only one who has frequently used and consistently
> misused
> > > this word. It makes you look like a fool. Look up another fancy
> word
> > > and use it correctly.
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Franz
> >
> > The only fool is you. I used the word correctly. I'll do it again.
> > Your last post only reifies my contention that you are a fool.
> > (establishes by example that my contention that you are a fool is
> > true.).
>
> reify: Convert (person, abstract concept) into thing, materialise.
> Oxford English Dictionary
>
> Franz
Your density surpasses that of depleted Uranium. See where it means
to materialize? Let's use it in the context which I did. "Your last
post 'materializes' my contention that you are fool." In this
instance it means that it makes it real. To materialize is to bring
forth from the realm of conjecture or hypothesis or abstraction a
reality based upon that abstraction. You do that again and again.
Your posts reify my contention (a held abstraction) that you are a
fool. This is fun bring on the old Oxford again. :-).
CCRyder
Franz Heymann
No.
> To materialize is to bring
> forth from the realm of conjecture or hypothesis or abstraction a
> reality based upon that abstraction. You do that again and again.
> Your posts reify my contention (a held abstraction) that you are a
> fool. This is fun bring on the old Oxford again. :-).
No.
Franz