I traveled INFINITE miles by car this year ( 2009 ).
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Meaningful statement:
I traveled ZERO miles by car this year ( 2009 ).
Meaningless statement:
I traveled INFINITE miles by car this year ( 2009 ).
Zero has meaning, infinity does not.
All the same, there are no (positive) 64·bit IEEE·floating point values
below “ 2.470·328·229·206·232·7 × 10^-324 ” ( “Positive Underflow” ).
Nightcrawler
>
> Meaningful statement:
> I traveled ZERO miles by car this year ( 2009 ).
>
> Meaningless statement:
> I traveled INFINITE miles by car this year ( 2009 ).
>
> Zero has meaning, infinity does not.
Some people don't like definitions, so they change what they are.
Zero is an absence of anything.
Infinite is either forever, as with time, or never ending, as in
length. Though, some might try to loop it a bit.
Some fake aleeuns want you to think that zero and infinity are a
Yin/Yang symbol.
fitlike min
definition of nothing:
a matchstick with the wood shaved off
a bladeless knife without a handle.
F.
Yubiwan
<_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid> wrote in message
news:_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Dec24.10.31am.ZO...
>
While your first statement does indeed sound meaningful, how many people
actually speak like that?
And if you don't understand infinity, then how do you know the second
statement is meaningless?
Can't you find ways to reduce values even further?
--
Yubiwan
Be well and come... be welcome!
Yubiwan
"Nightcrawler" <Dirty...@dirtcheap.net> wrote in message
news:U46dnWDJgNFNIa7W...@giganews.com...
Some people don't like definitions that merely say what something is not.
What is "absence"?
What is "anything"?
Zero is not a pickup truck.
Well, if not a pickup truck, then what?
Your definitions for infinity pretty much sum up where humans are on
infinity.
And the zero - infinity connection is far, far closer than the yin - yang
one.
They are not opposites nor compliments of each other.
Zero and infinity are one and the same exact thing.
When you wrap yourself around this, you will find clarity enough to resolve
Zeno's paradoxes.
Yubiwan
"fitlike min" <kill...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:7d0ca6d2-64ac-4fdc...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
One could go on and on in this mode without ever actually defining
"nothing".
"an Earth without mass"
"a star without hydrogen and other elements"
"a Saul without a bad mood"
etc., etc., etc.
But what actually is "nothing"?
Double-A
> "fitlike min" <killwh...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
Easy. Nothing is no thing.
Double-A
Semmalon
Again, to say "nothing is no thing" is defining nothing as the absence of a
thing.
This begs the question, "What is a 'thing'?" and just because it is absent,
does this really mean that there isn't "something else" remaining?
Isn't "nothing" relativistic in nature?
--
S e m m a
Be well and come... be welcome!
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.com> wrote in message
news:fdabb947-f67a-4b9e...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Double-A
> Hi Double-A for Alt.Astronomy!
> Again, to say "nothing is no thing" is defining nothing as the absence of a
> thing.
> This begs the question, "What is a 'thing'?" and just because it is absent,
> does this really mean that there isn't "something else" remaining?
> Isn't "nothing" relativistic in nature?
>
> --
> S e m m a
> Be well and come... be welcome!
>
Of course nothing does not exist, because if it existed, it would be a
thing. So there can be no such thing as nothing. Space is not
nothing, because space exists. If space exists between two books on
your coffee table, you should not say there is nothing between them.
If the two books are slammed up against each other as tightly as
possible, then there is nothing between them.
Double-A
Nightcrawler
> Some people don't like definitions that merely say what something is not.
>
> What is "absence"?
> What is "anything"?
> Zero is not a pickup truck.
>
> Well, if not a pickup truck, then what?
Things are what they are.
>
> Your definitions for infinity pretty much sum up where humans are on
> infinity.
>
> And the zero - infinity connection is far, far closer than the yin - yang
> one.
> They are not opposites nor compliments of each other.
> Zero and infinity are one and the same exact thing.
Yeah, like infinitely empty, eh? Our definition means exactly what it
states. Maybe you need to come up with a word that actually describes
your thought process, and a method of explaining it properly.
Zero lacks value, infinite does not.
Semmalon
>
> Of course nothing does not exist, because if it existed, it would be a
> thing. So there can be no such thing as nothing. Space is not
> nothing, because space exists. If space exists between two books on
> your coffee table, you should not say there is nothing between them.
> If the two books are slammed up against each other as tightly as
> possible, then there is nothing between them.
>
> Double-A
>
Whew!
I had reset all the adjustments back to "default", but I see the error in
this now.
Your above paragraph is correct, and it implies that "nothing" is a relative
term, doesn't it?
As such, "nothing" is ultimately definable without resorting to literate
tricks.
Nothing, or zero, like infinity, does not exist as a true number.
True numbers denote "quantity" as opposed to "nothing".
And this is where human science fails.
As we go higher and higher in the atmosphere of Earth, there is a point we
reach where the atmosphere becomes so thin that this point can be called the
"maximum extent of Earth's atmosphere".
For Newton, beyond that, there is, for all intents and purposes, "nothing".
Called a "vacuum", it is the space vacuum or the vacuum of space.
But there is much in this vacuum that cannot be "seen".
And of course you know that it is not truly "nothing" anymore than the space
that exists between the two books in your above description is nothing.
There are photons everywhere!
But your science did not consider this energy to be "something", as that
would be saying that it is structurally a kind of "matter".
Then enter Einstein, and gradually the energy that could be sensed became
"something" again, in a similar fashion to the air between your books is
something.
Even photons, due to their "quantum" characteristic and their particle
behavior were "something".
But now, your science digs no deeper than the energy that can be detected
with your eyes, with your instruments.
They subtract all that in their minds, and then there truly is "nothing".
But is there truly nothing?
No, just like the air between the books, there is still "something".
And since this something is the cause of gravity, one would think your
physicists would be trying much harder than their mere "theoretical",
"mathematical" studies, which lead them on many unreal pathways.
Do they feel hampered in some way?
I wonder why they don't continue to make their instruments even more
sensitive?
Has the so-called "uncertainty principle" caused them to raise their hands
and give up?
A mere small leap beyond the calculus, beyond relativity, and the energy of
gravity is yours.
But your science is blocked by some things, including "guilt".
Science lovers and scientists, too, all need to forgive science.
Truly and deep forgive.
Then progress will be made.
Remember when science had its last lapse?
Great men with great minds spent their time categorizing the animal and
plant species.
As you may guess, this was an agonizingly mundane task, and of course
useful.
After that, once again much more was discovered, learned, and applied to
everyday usage.
Humans are once again in this very slow, mundane mode, and they've been
there for quite a while.
It is once again high time, time for great discovery!
Semmalon
Doesn't it?
Very well, let's go with simple math, first.
And we shall attempt to cross the ultimate land using the "undefined" path.
If 1/0 = oo/1 and 1/oo = 0/1, then:
oo x 0 = 1 x 1
0 = 1 = oo
However, we intuitively know that:
0 =/= 1
What is not known intuitively is whether:
0 = oo or 0 =/= oo
However, you SENSE that zero does not equal infinity.
Even if "nothing" cannot be concretely defined, and even if infinity is only
little understood, you strongly sense that zero is "nothing" and infinity is
"everything", it is "all", it goes on "forever and ever".
And here we are telling you that beyond any shadow of doubt:
0 = oo and oo = 0
No one is expecting miracles, so take your time.
This is not an easy idea to wrap yourself around.
Don't accept it blindly, try to disprove it soundly.
Calculus is your friend.
Relativity is your mentor.
Reality is your only true target.
Aim well; climb high out of the box.
Don't go gently into the night,
Do go gently into the light.
The light of understanding
Is not nearly as demanding
As the night, dark night of blindness,
To yourself, start rite of kindness.
Don't you just HATE poetry?!
--
S e m m a
Nightcrawler
> Doesn't it?
>
> Very well, let's go with simple math, first.
> And we shall attempt to cross the ultimate land using the "undefined" path.
>
> If 1/0 = oo/1 and 1/oo = 0/1, then:
>
> oo x 0 = 1 x 1
>
> 0 = 1 = oo
>
> However, we intuitively know that:
>
> 0 =/= 1
>
> What is not known intuitively is whether:
>
> 0 = oo or 0 =/= oo
Interesting math.
If Rock = Scissors and Scissors = Rock, then:
Rock > Paper and Paper < Scissors while Paper =/= Paper
Semmalon
Sounds like you get three-finger slapped a lot.
Try thinking.
Thought works better than rock, paper, or scissors.
As you know, that game is an "instant" one, no time for thought.
And no second chances.
Your science is in a shambles.
Here is a possible opportunity to make it progress again.
But there are second chances.
If you don't see the potential, someone else will.
It has always been the way of the human.
A least likely person becomes the next trail blazer.
Double-A
> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message
Even Newton knew that space had to be filled with photons. How else
would they get from the Sun to the Earth? Newton believed that
photons (corpuscles) were particles, as did Feynman, but for different
reasons. As particles they were something he must have believed
filled space. Privately Newton speculated much on the cause of
gravity too, but being able to prove none of his speculations,
publicly stated, "Hypothesis non fingo."
Thanks, Semi (Couldn't resist!)
Double-A
Nightcrawler
> Try thinking.
Use your own advice for a change.
> Thought works better than rock, paper, or scissors.
> As you know, that game is an "instant" one, no time for thought.
> And no second chances.
> Your science is in a shambles.
Hardly. It used definitions like yours. Thus showing what a
shambles YOUR science is.
Please try to get with the program. Changing the definition
to suit a desired outcome is no better than claiming that
there are more guppies than goldfish since you consider amoebas
to be guppies.
Double-A
> "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote in message
Back to basics:
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/index.htm
Double-A
Semmalon
And isn't it very interesting that he couldn't actually prove his
"corpuscle" theory any more than his speculations about gravity, and yet he
was quite vocal about one and quite mum about the other (except in private
correspondence)?
With wave theories running out and about, science still settled for a
"nothing" that they called an "ether".
It was nothing because, again, there was no evidence beyond sheer logic for
its existence.
And now, you're back to nothing, not even the wispiest ether, just a bunch
of photons, zipping and roaming all over, just a bunch of energy.
(Or should I say just tiny "bunches" of energy?)
Is "nothing", then, all you have?
Learning takes a turn -- Here come da Cern!
Oy! if we can just get past those nasty, little black holes!
QGP, vhat da hell's zat?
Semmalon
You really should at least TRY to think before you post.
Get with vhat program?
Vhat program? Earth science?
The same science that knows practically nothing (oops, there's that word
again) about quantum city, and yet brought you so many things like the
computer and newsgroup you thoughtlessly post to?
The same science that now wallows in theoretical physics slowly sinking
deeper into the quagmire?
The same science that thus far has done very little to ease the plight of
the downtrodden people on Earth?
That same science that put a man on the Moon, vhat? forty years ago? and
hasn't been back since?
You say I'm changing a definition to suit a desired outcome?
How can one change a definition of a term that has no definition in the
first place?
1/0 is "undefined".
If you try to use it, then you think you abuse the mathematics.
And all you do is abuse yourself.
Think beyond yourself!
Beyond calculus -- beyond relativity a little.
I'm not asking for much; I'm just saying a scientist shouldn't be such a
schmuck.
Double-A
Aether is not nothing! (Excuse the double negative.)
> It was nothing because, again, there was no evidence beyond sheer logic for
> its existence.
In one of his most beloved and hated quotes, Einstein said, "According
to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable;"
> And now, you're back to nothing, not even the wispiest ether, just a bunch
> of photons, zipping and roaming all over, just a bunch of energy.
> (Or should I say just tiny "bunches" of energy?)
> Is "nothing", then, all you have?
> Learning takes a turn -- Here come da Cern!
> Oy! if we can just get past those nasty, little black holes!
> QGP, vhat da hell's zat?
>
> --
> S e m m a
> Be well and come... be welcome!
If we get past those nasty, little black holes, we may gain
considerable knowledge. Otherwise, just a log entry in some sean
ship's log, noting the star date when the Earth shrank to become a
black hole itself!
Double-A
Semmalon
AGAIN with the jokes!
That's very good, Double-A, at least you think before you post.
And after mastering more trig and some geometry, then try something like:
A little this, a little that, maybe a little rehash of SR and GR, and viola!
You're this close, THIS CLOSE, to "infinite clarity".
AAAND -- you'll see what some very smaht mathematicians are in a big tizzy
about, yes you will.
And the tizzy is growing! iiit's growing!
I bet you squash Zeno into a thousand quantum leaps! lmfjao!
Nightcrawler
> You say I'm changing a definition to suit a desired outcome?
> How can one change a definition of a term that has no definition in the
> first place?
> 1/0 is "undefined".
There you go with the brain farts again.
I think you need to go over associative rules, Darla.
Androcles
> On 12/28/2009 3:00 PM, Semmalon wrote:
>
>> You say I'm changing a definition to suit a desired outcome?
>> How can one change a definition of a term that has no definition in the
>> first place?
>> 1/0 is "undefined".
>
> There you go with the brain farts again.
>
> I think
Do ewe have any evidence to support that absurd assertion?
> you need to go over associative rules, Darla.
Since "Semmalon" is 100% correct you need Imodium AD for
your brain.
Loperamide (Imodium, Kaopectate)
Veterinary & Aquatic Services Department, Drs. Foster & Smith
http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=0+1303+1459&aid=1432
Nightcrawler
>> I think
>
> Do ewe have any evidence to support that absurd assertion?
Apparently, not.
>> you need to go over associative rules, Darla.
>
> Since "Semmalon" is 100% correct you need Imodium AD for
> your brain.
Oh, so you are with (whatever the fake aleeun's current name is)
assertion that zero is equal to infinity, and that zero is not
a lack of something? Like, five apples times zero still equals
something?
Androcles
> On 12/28/2009 4:27 PM, Androcles wrote:
>
>>> I think
>>
>> Do ewe have any evidence to support that absurd assertion?
>
> Apparently, not.
>
>>> you need to go over associative rules, Darla.
>>
>> Since "Semmalon" is 100% correct you need Imodium AD for
>> your brain.
>
> Oh, so you are with (whatever the fake aleeun's current name is)
> assertion that zero is equal to infinity,
Not at all, 1/0 is undefined as the fake aleeun correctly stated.
Get some kaopectate for your mental diarrhea, your brain farts are wet.
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
“Zeno” is a method, a procedure, code;
it simply CAN'T draw a conclusion about the arrow hitting the target.
Use a method that works, if you want, a USEFUL method.
Zero is very useful, very meaningful.
Infinity is used to indicate: “Not a Meaningful Figure”.
Besides that, you have to consider precision.
For a positive, 64 bit IEEE floating·point number,
anything below “ 2.470·328·229·206·232·7 × 10^-324 ”
is a “Positive Underflow”.
Nightcrawler
> Not at all, 1/0 is undefined as the fake aleeun correctly stated.
> Get some kaopectate for your mental diarrhea, your brain farts are wet.
You must not have followed this conversation before the Subject line
was changed, the topic was cross posted, and the fake aleeun in question
changed it's handle.
I am well aware that 1/0 is undefined. I am also well aware that zero
has its roots in Arabic, with the original translation being "nothing".
The aleeun wants to change the rules of division.
I'll let you figure out it's original thought for yourself.
Quote:
Going with these assumptions, we find the need for a set of numbers like
the
following:
{ 4/1, 4/�, 4/�, ... n }
or
{ 4 � 1, 4 � �, 4 � �, ... n }
or
{ 4, 8, 16, ... n }
This begs the question, "Why doesn't 4 divided by nothing 'work'?"
What must "n" equal?
The symbol "n" must be equal to infinity.
Infinity is not defined as a number, which leads to: 4/0 is "undefined".
And this leads to every defined number, a/0, as "undefined".
Isn't it high time that human mathematicians defined it?
And defined it in terms a 6-year-old can understand?
What's keeping you?
End Quote.
Androcles
I have no doubt that the aleeun doesn't understand why division
by zero is undefined, but that doesn't excuse you from brain
farting when the aleeun eventually gets it right - even if it doesn't
know why. You should either congratulate it when you've taught
it something or move on to another topic.
a = b (given)
a^2 = ab (multiply both sides by a)
a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2 (subtract b^2 from both sides)
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) (factorize)
a+b = b (divide both sides by a-b)
b+b = b (substitute a because a = b, given)
2b = b (vector sum, 2 is a scalar)
2 =1 (divide both sides by b)
but let's go on...
2a = b
a*2a = ab (multiply both sides by a)
....
and hence
3 = 1
4 = 1...
That divide by a-b leads to any result we want it to.
The magician Einstein pulled the same stunt, almost as
clever as Houdini escaping from a straight jacket or
David Copperfield making an elephant disappear.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people
some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
Some of the people are fooled all of the time. I'm not one of them.
I'll let you figure out any original thought for yourself.
Double-A
Floating point is crap! The one application wrote using it, I had to
write a lot of code watching for and avoiding underflows and
overflows, because you just can't let that crap show up on a
professional looking report. And in a dollar and sense application,
there really is a difference between 0.999... and 1.00.
Double-A
Nightcrawler
> I have no doubt that the aleeun doesn't understand why division
> by zero is undefined, but that doesn't excuse you from brain
> farting when the aleeun eventually gets it right - even if it doesn't
> know why. You should either congratulate it when you've taught
> it something or move on to another topic.
Fair enough.
<equations snipped>
> That divide by a-b leads to any result we want it to.
> The magician Einstein pulled the same stunt, almost as
> clever as Houdini escaping from a straight jacket or
> David Copperfield making an elephant disappear.
Yes, but aren't those predominately examples of indeterminate, not
undefined?
Androcles
> On 12/28/2009 6:56 PM, Androcles wrote:
>
>> I have no doubt that the aleeun doesn't understand why division
>> by zero is undefined, but that doesn't excuse you from brain
>> farting when the aleeun eventually gets it right - even if it doesn't
>> know why. You should either congratulate it when you've taught
>> it something or move on to another topic.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> <equations snipped>
>
>> That divide by a-b leads to any result we want it to.
>> The magician Einstein pulled the same stunt, almost as
>> clever as Houdini escaping from a straight jacket or
>> David Copperfield making an elephant disappear.
>
> Yes
Well done, you've observed something. Have you learnt anything?
Semmalon
>> And isn't it very interesting that he couldn't actually prove his
>> "corpuscle" theory any more than his speculations about gravity, and yet
>> he
>> was quite vocal about one and quite mum about the other (except in
>> private
>> correspondence)?
>> With wave theories running out and about, science still settled for a
>> "nothing" that they called an "ether".
>
>
> Aether is not nothing! (Excuse the double negative.)
>
Yah, I'll excuse the double vowel, too.
Ether, schmaether, in its long-perceived state, it was soundly trounced!
So it was nothing, after all.
>> It was nothing because, again, there was no evidence beyond sheer logic
>> for
>> its existence.
>
>
> In one of his most beloved and hated quotes, Einstein said, "According
> to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> unthinkable;"
>
Not so much WHAT he said as WHEN he said it, nah?
1920 wasn't it?
Tell you what, let's put that awful statement in context a little:
More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the
special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny
ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only
we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to
it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last
mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it.
We shall see later that this point of view, the
conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to
make more intelligible by a somewhat halting
comparison, is justified by the results of the general
theory of relativity.
...
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general
theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz
consists in this, that the state of the former is at every
place determined by connections with the matter and
the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are
amenable to law in the form of differential equations;
whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the
absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by
nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The
ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted
conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute
constants for the functions of space which describe the
former, disregarding the causes which condition its
state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of
the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the
Lorentzian ether, through relativation.
"Relativation"? oi
Now, you can understand from that whatever you wish, because the physical,
the REAL, implications were never worked out.
This address has been frequently misunderstood as requiring the return of
the ether theory.
Like Einstein's god, which was like nobody else's god, Einstein's ether was
not like any ether of 19th century physics, as we can see from his
concluding paragraph:
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the
general theory of relativity space is endowed with
physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists
an ether. ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF
RELATIVITY SPACE WITHOUT ETHER IS UNTHINKABLE;
for in such space there not only would be no propagation
of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards
of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor
therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with
the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as
consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
Alfred Einstein, �ther und Relativit�ts-Theorie
Does it make you wonder what the "E" stands for in "Alfred E. Newman"?
http://www.janleighton.com/images/Einstein_new2.jpg
He HAD to say there was an ether, or otherwise he couldn't justify his
"curved space".
Has to be SOMEthing out there curving, yah?
And he was right, the gravitational field doesn't move; energy fields, power
fields, they don't move.
But boy, do they have OOMPH!
And those teeny, tiny sub-particles, those quarks, they generate that field
and they are moved by it.
They move right toward a mass and enter it, and that's what causes you to
fall from a two story house.
An ant falls from a two-story house, and it doesn't faze her.
A lizard falls from a two-story, and she might lie there a minute gathering
her senses, but she's not hurt either.
A person falls from a two-story house and oi! dat hurt!
Hey, look at the guy with his arm in a sling; let's sign his cast everybody:
"To the putz that jumped off a house, may you have many more flights of
fancy."
"Yah, break a leg next time."
You know -- good stuff.
Einstein was correct.
The gravity field is his ether.
NOT the ether of 19th century physics, no, but EINSTEIN'S ether.
And its power depends upon the mass of the matter its quarks head for.
It is most powerful at the surface of the matter.
If the mass of the matter is large enough, the power of the gravitational
field will bury any magnetic power, and electrical power or any combination
of the two.
And if the mass is REALLY huge, the gravity power buries even the WNF and
the SNF.
That's why the seans say that gravitational energy is, at one and the same
time, both the weakest and the most powerful force in the universe.
Even they can't touch it.
But they do have ways of getting around it.
Like a fancy two-step, they can circumvent the gravitational field by
generating one of their own.
It's actually not that big a deal when you know how.
>> And now, you're back to nothing, not even the wispiest ether, just a
>> bunch
>> of photons, zipping and roaming all over, just a bunch of energy.
>> (Or should I say just tiny "bunches" of energy?)
>> Is "nothing", then, all you have?
>> Learning takes a turn -- Here come da Cern!
>> Oy! if we can just get past those nasty, little black holes!
>> QGP, vhat da hell's zat?
>>
>> --
>> S e m m a
>> Be well and come... be welcome!
>
> If we get past those nasty, little black holes, we may gain
> considerable knowledge. Otherwise, just a log entry in some sean
> ship's log, noting the star date when the Earth shrank to become a
> black hole itself!
>
> Double-A
>
>
The CERN has great potential, yes, but their main problems will be the
public outcry, and the great difficulty they have in explaining both what
they're trying to do, and they're interpretations of the test results.
They might be "right as rain", but if they gain understanding, but cannot
explain it plainly, then what good is it?
I bet YOU know what good it is, don't you?
And don't sveat the small stuff.
Earth will come out smelling like a fresh bagel.
Mm, with some cream cheese and roe -- knocks me out!
Semmalon
You're wasting time.
Five apples times zero just means you ate some apples.
Calculus is your friend!
Double-A
> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message
>
> news:084395b9-9066-4735...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 28, 12:44 pm, "Semmalon" <darlaperen...@maol.com> wrote:
>
> >> And isn't it very interesting that he couldn't actually prove his
> >> "corpuscle" theory any more than his speculations about gravity, and yet
> >> he
> >> was quite vocal about one and quite mum about the other (except in
> >> private
> >> correspondence)?
> >> With wave theories running out and about, science still settled for a
> >> "nothing" that they called an "ether".
>
> > Aether is not nothing! (Excuse the double negative.)
>
> Yah, I'll excuse the double vowel, too.
Dipthong.
> Ether, schmaether, in its long-perceived state, it was soundly trounced!
> So it was nothing, after all.
Not nothing!
He said his was the God of Spinoza.
> Einstein's ether was
> not like any ether of 19th century physics, as we can see from his
> concluding paragraph:
He only changed one thing!
> Recapitulating, we may say that according to the
> general theory of relativity space is endowed with
> physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists
> an ether. ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF
> RELATIVITY SPACE WITHOUT ETHER IS UNTHINKABLE;
> for in such space there not only would be no propagation
> of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards
> of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor
> therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
> But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with
> the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as
> consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
> The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
> Alfred Einstein, Äther und Relativitäts-Theorie
Yes, "The idea of motion may not be applied to it." That's all he
changed about it. In other words, aether does not constitute any kind
of rest frame. You cannot say you are in motion or at rest relative
to it.
> Does it make you wonder what the "E" stands for in "Alfred E. Newman"?
I have take Alfred's motto, "What, me worry?" to heart. Since doing
so, my formerly 200 plus blood pressure has plummeted along with my
fortune. Must we really choose between success and health in this
life?
> http://www.janleighton.com/images/Einstein_new2.jpg
>
> He HAD to say there was an ether, or otherwise he couldn't justify his
> "curved space".
Dah!
> Has to be SOMEthing out there curving, yah?
> And he was right, the gravitational field doesn't move; energy fields, power
> fields, they don't move.
> But boy, do they have OOMPH!
> And those teeny, tiny sub-particles, those quarks, they generate that field
> and they are moved by it.
> They move right toward a mass and enter it, and that's what causes you to
> fall from a two story house.
How do I know this isn't just another erroneous presupposition?
> An ant falls from a two-story house, and it doesn't faze her.
> A lizard falls from a two-story, and she might lie there a minute gathering
> her senses, but she's not hurt either.
> A person falls from a two-story house and oi! dat hurt!
Sounds like you're arguing Aristotle's case!
> Hey, look at the guy with his arm in a sling; let's sign his cast everybody:
> "To the putz that jumped off a house, may you have many more flights of
> fancy."
> "Yah, break a leg next time."
> You know -- good stuff.
>
> Einstein was correct.
> The gravity field is his ether.
> NOT the ether of 19th century physics, no, but EINSTEIN'S ether.
> And its power depends upon the mass of the matter its quarks head for.
Einstein's theory was not quarky!
> It is most powerful at the surface of the matter.
What about a body that has no surface? e.g. Jupiter?
> If the mass of the matter is large enough, the power of the gravitational
> field will bury any magnetic power, and electrical power or any combination
> of the two.
> And if the mass is REALLY huge, the gravity power buries even the WNF and
> the SNF.
> That's why the seans say that gravitational energy is, at one and the same
> time, both the weakest and the most powerful force in the universe.
I would tend to agree with that.
> Even they can't touch it.
> But they do have ways of getting around it.
> Like a fancy two-step, they can circumvent the gravitational field by
> generating one of their own.
> It's actually not that big a deal when you know how.
Did the Egyptians know about it when they built the pyramids?
> >> And now, you're back to nothing, not even the wispiest ether, just a
> >> bunch
> >> of photons, zipping and roaming all over, just a bunch of energy.
> >> (Or should I say just tiny "bunches" of energy?)
> >> Is "nothing", then, all you have?
> >> Learning takes a turn -- Here come da Cern!
> >> Oy! if we can just get past those nasty, little black holes!
> >> QGP, vhat da hell's zat?
>
> >> --
> >> S e m m a
> >> Be well and come... be welcome!
>
> > If we get past those nasty, little black holes, we may gain
> > considerable knowledge. Otherwise, just a log entry in some sean
> > ship's log, noting the star date when the Earth shrank to become a
> > black hole itself!
>
> > Double-A
>
> The CERN has great potential, yes, but their main problems will be the
> public outcry, and the great difficulty they have in explaining both what
> they're trying to do, and they're interpretations of the test results.
> They might be "right as rain", but if they gain understanding, but cannot
> explain it plainly, then what good is it?
So? They still haven't been able to explain quantum weirdness plainly
to the general public.
> I bet YOU know what good it is, don't you?
>
> And don't sveat the small stuff.
> Earth will come out smelling like a fresh bagel.
> Mm, with some cream cheese and roe -- knocks me out!
As long as it doesn't come out of it looking the size of a pea!
> --
> S e m m a
> Be well and come... be welcome!
Semma, you sure can ramble on and on. Sort of like another poster I
remember who used to post here. Hmmm.
Double-A
Semmalon
> On Dec 29, 2:00 am, "Semmalon" <darlaperen...@maol.com> wrote:
>> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:084395b9-9066-4735...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Dec 28, 12:44 pm, "Semmalon" <darlaperen...@maol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> And isn't it very interesting that he couldn't actually prove his
>> >> "corpuscle" theory any more than his speculations about gravity, and
>> >> yet
>> >> he
>> >> was quite vocal about one and quite mum about the other (except in
>> >> private
>> >> correspondence)?
>> >> With wave theories running out and about, science still settled for a
>> >> "nothing" that they called an "ether".
>>
>> > Aether is not nothing! (Excuse the double negative.)
>>
>> Yah, I'll excuse the double vowel, too.
>
>
> Dipthong.
>
Now, dat wasn't very nice, was it? <G>
>> Ether, schmaether, in its long-perceived state, it was soundly trounced!
>> So it was nothing, after all.
>
>
> Not nothing!
>
Well, nothing of consequence.
Well, Spinoza was dead when he said it, so I could have said, ". . . which
was like nobody-else-who-is-living's god . . .', but the post was already
too long.
Spinoza made his money grinding lenses.
That's probably what did him in at age 44 - all that glass dust he was
always inhaling.
44 years, that's all, and he will always be remembered.
Figure that.
>> Einstein's ether was
>> not like any ether of 19th century physics, as we can see from his
>> concluding paragraph:
>
>
> He only changed one thing!
>
Yeah, but it was the MAIN thing!
>> Recapitulating, we may say that according to the
>> general theory of relativity space is endowed with
>> physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists
>> an ether. ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF
>> RELATIVITY SPACE WITHOUT ETHER IS UNTHINKABLE;
>> for in such space there not only would be no propagation
>> of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards
>> of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor
>> therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
>> But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with
>> the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as
>> consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
>> The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
>> Alfred Einstein, �ther und Relativit�ts-Theorie
>
>
> Yes, "The idea of motion may not be applied to it." That's all he
> changed about it. In other words, aether does not constitute any kind
> of rest frame. You cannot say you are in motion or at rest relative
> to it.
>
And now we know this is correct only with respect to the energy field that
is space.
But not with respect to what GENERATES THAT FIELD.
>> Does it make you wonder what the "E" stands for in "Alfred E. Newman"?
>
>
> I have take Alfred's motto, "What, me worry?" to heart. Since doing
> so, my formerly 200 plus blood pressure has plummeted along with my
> fortune. Must we really choose between success and health in this
> life?
>
Nah, there are many rich people who are healthy.
And there are many poor people who aren't.
The choice isn't between success or health.
The choice is between continuing on despite all negative events or giving
up.
And yes, it IS a choice.
>> http://www.janleighton.com/images/Einstein_new2.jpg
>>
>> He HAD to say there was an ether, or otherwise he couldn't justify his
>> "curved space".
>
>
> Dah!
>
>
>> Has to be SOMEthing out there curving, yah?
>> And he was right, the gravitational field doesn't move; energy fields,
>> power
>> fields, they don't move.
>> But boy, do they have OOMPH!
>> And those teeny, tiny sub-particles, those quarks, they generate that
>> field
>> and they are moved by it.
>> They move right toward a mass and enter it, and that's what causes you to
>> fall from a two story house.
>
>
> How do I know this isn't just another erroneous presupposition?
>
Because Tholen didn't say so?
>> An ant falls from a two-story house, and it doesn't faze her.
>> A lizard falls from a two-story, and she might lie there a minute
>> gathering
>> her senses, but she's not hurt either.
>> A person falls from a two-story house and oi! dat hurt!
>
>
> Sounds like you're arguing Aristotle's case!
>
Aristotle must have been a very smart man!
>> Hey, look at the guy with his arm in a sling; let's sign his cast
>> everybody:
>> "To the putz that jumped off a house, may you have many more flights of
>> fancy."
>> "Yah, break a leg next time."
>> You know -- good stuff.
>>
>> Einstein was correct.
>> The gravity field is his ether.
>> NOT the ether of 19th century physics, no, but EINSTEIN'S ether.
>> And its power depends upon the mass of the matter its quarks head for.
>
>
> Einstein's theory was not quarky!
>
Actually it WAS quarky, quarky as hell.
Vhat the heck do you think a quantum is?
A spinning, low-frequency sub-quark.
>> It is most powerful at the surface of the matter.
>
>
> What about a body that has no surface? e.g. Jupiter?
>
Jupiter has a surface, a gaseous surface.
When density is low, then the thickness comes into play.
For the purposes of "gravitational power at the surface", the main
consideration is still how much mass is below vs. how much mass is above.
A planet like Jupiter? you have to go pretty deep before there's a
significant change.
>> If the mass of the matter is large enough, the power of the gravitational
>> field will bury any magnetic power, and electrical power or any
>> combination
>> of the two.
>> And if the mass is REALLY huge, the gravity power buries even the WNF and
>> the SNF.
>> That's why the seans say that gravitational energy is, at one and the
>> same
>> time, both the weakest and the most powerful force in the universe.
>
>
> I would tend to agree with that.
>
>
>> Even they can't touch it.
>> But they do have ways of getting around it.
>> Like a fancy two-step, they can circumvent the gravitational field by
>> generating one of their own.
>> It's actually not that big a deal when you know how.
>
>
> Did the Egyptians know about it when they built the pyramids?
>
Nope, that was ingenious manpower.
They used a secret that few people know about.
And the ones that do ain't talking.
>> >> And now, you're back to nothing, not even the wispiest ether, just a
>> >> bunch
>> >> of photons, zipping and roaming all over, just a bunch of energy.
>> >> (Or should I say just tiny "bunches" of energy?)
>> >> Is "nothing", then, all you have?
>> >> Learning takes a turn -- Here come da Cern!
>> >> Oy! if we can just get past those nasty, little black holes!
>> >> QGP, vhat da hell's zat?
>>
>> >> --
>> >> S e m m a
>> >> Be well and come... be welcome!
>>
>> > If we get past those nasty, little black holes, we may gain
>> > considerable knowledge. Otherwise, just a log entry in some sean
>> > ship's log, noting the star date when the Earth shrank to become a
>> > black hole itself!
>>
>> > Double-A
>>
>> The CERN has great potential, yes, but their main problems will be the
>> public outcry, and the great difficulty they have in explaining both what
>> they're trying to do, and they're interpretations of the test results.
>> They might be "right as rain", but if they gain understanding, but cannot
>> explain it plainly, then what good is it?
>
>
> So? They still haven't been able to explain quantum weirdness plainly
> to the general public.
>
Not a story teller among them?
>> I bet YOU know what good it is, don't you?
>>
>> And don't sveat the small stuff.
>> Earth will come out smelling like a fresh bagel.
>> Mm, with some cream cheese and roe -- knocks me out!
>
>
> As long as it doesn't come out of it looking the size of a pea!
>
If I would criticize Carl Sagan for one thing, it would be the way he made
people feel so small with that blue dot thing.
The size Earth looks is just a perceptual thing.
Compared to an infinite universe, Earth is a giant!
We won't let anything bad happen to it.
>> --
>> S e m m a
>> Be well and come... be welcome!
>
>
> Semma, you sure can ramble on and on. Sort of like another poster I
> remember who used to post here. Hmmm.
>
> Double-A
>
Oh, you mean the popular one?
The one everybody liked because of being such a nice person?
Now that sounds more like Saul Levy.
Double-A
But that didn't mean Spinoza's God was dead (Friedrich Nietzsche's
proclamations not withstanding).
> Spinoza made his money grinding lenses.
> That's probably what did him in at age 44 - all that glass dust he was
> always inhaling.
Lead crystal?
> 44 years, that's all, and he will always be remembered.
> Figure that.
>
> >> Einstein's ether was
> >> not like any ether of 19th century physics, as we can see from his
> >> concluding paragraph:
>
> > He only changed one thing!
>
> Yeah, but it was the MAIN thing!
>
> >> Recapitulating, we may say that according to the
> >> general theory of relativity space is endowed with
> >> physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists
> >> an ether. ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF
> >> RELATIVITY SPACE WITHOUT ETHER IS UNTHINKABLE;
> >> for in such space there not only would be no propagation
> >> of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards
> >> of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor
> >> therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
> >> But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with
> >> the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as
> >> consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
> >> The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
> >> Alfred Einstein, �ther und Relativit�ts-Theorie
>
> > Yes, "The idea of motion may not be applied to it." That's all he
> > changed about it. In other words, aether does not constitute any kind
> > of rest frame. You cannot say you are in motion or at rest relative
> > to it.
>
> And now we know this is correct only with respect to the energy field that
> is space.
> But not with respect to what GENERATES THAT FIELD.
Huh?
> >> Does it make you wonder what the "E" stands for in "Alfred E. Newman"?
>
> > I have take Alfred's motto, "What, me worry?" to heart. Since doing
> > so, my formerly 200 plus blood pressure has plummeted along with my
> > fortune. Must we really choose between success and health in this
> > life?
>
> Nah, there are many rich people who are healthy.
> And there are many poor people who aren't.
> The choice isn't between success or health.
> The choice is between continuing on despite all negative events or giving
> up.
Shirking all work responsibilities and just kicking back has certainly
improved my health! The 18 year old guy working at Starbucks is
already suffering from an ucler. No uclers for me in my carefree
life!
> And yes, it IS a choice.
>
> >>http://www.janleighton.com/images/Einstein_new2.jpg
>
> >> He HAD to say there was an ether, or otherwise he couldn't justify his
> >> "curved space".
>
> > Dah!
>
> >> Has to be SOMEthing out there curving, yah?
> >> And he was right, the gravitational field doesn't move; energy fields,
> >> power
> >> fields, they don't move.
> >> But boy, do they have OOMPH!
> >> And those teeny, tiny sub-particles, those quarks, they generate that
> >> field
> >> and they are moved by it.
> >> They move right toward a mass and enter it, and that's what causes you to
> >> fall from a two story house.
>
> > How do I know this isn't just another erroneous presupposition?
>
> Because Tholen didn't say so?
When Tholen speaks on science, I listen. Only when he speaks about
anything else is he a kOok.
> >> An ant falls from a two-story house, and it doesn't faze her.
> >> A lizard falls from a two-story, and she might lie there a minute
> >> gathering
> >> her senses, but she's not hurt either.
> >> A person falls from a two-story house and oi! dat hurt!
>
> > Sounds like you're arguing Aristotle's case!
>
> Aristotle must have been a very smart man!
He described things as they appeared.
> >> Hey, look at the guy with his arm in a sling; let's sign his cast
> >> everybody:
> >> "To the putz that jumped off a house, may you have many more flights of
> >> fancy."
> >> "Yah, break a leg next time."
> >> You know -- good stuff.
>
> >> Einstein was correct.
> >> The gravity field is his ether.
> >> NOT the ether of 19th century physics, no, but EINSTEIN'S ether.
> >> And its power depends upon the mass of the matter its quarks head for.
>
> > Einstein's theory was not quarky!
>
> Actually it WAS quarky, quarky as hell.
> Vhat the heck do you think a quantum is?
> A spinning, low-frequency sub-quark.
Eisntein never heard of a quark. Quark theory wasn't developed until
the 1960's.
> >> It is most powerful at the surface of the matter.
>
> > What about a body that has no surface? e.g. Jupiter?
>
> Jupiter has a surface, a gaseous surface.
I'd like to see you try to define that one!
You better not! Or our ghosts will haunt your ships forever!
> >> --
> >> S e m m a
> >> Be well and come... be welcome!
>
> > Semma, you sure can ramble on and on. Sort of like another poster I
> > remember who used to post here. Hmmm.
>
> > Double-A
>
> Oh, you mean the popular one?
> The one everybody liked because of being such a nice person?
> Now that sounds more like Saul Levy.
>
> --
> S e m m a
> Be well and come... be welcome!
The one that .... well why am I telling you? You know who you are.
Double-A
HVAC
Shirking all work responsibilities and just kicking back has certainly
improved my health! The 18 year old guy working at Starbucks is
already suffering from an ucler. No uclers for me in my carefree
life!
Then why are you bitching about soggy, cold feet?
Semmalon
>> >> Like Einstein's god, which was like nobody else's god,
>>
>> > He said his was the God of Spinoza.
>>
>> Well, Spinoza was dead when he said it, so I could have said, ". . .
>> which
>> was like nobody-else-who-is-living's god . . .', but the post was already
>> too long.
>
>
> But that didn't mean Spinoza's God was dead (Friedrich Nietzsche's
> proclamations not withstanding).
>
On this planet, the death of a god just means nobody believes in him
anymore.
>> Spinoza made his money grinding lenses.
>> That's probably what did him in at age 44 - all that glass dust he was
>> always inhaling.
>
>
> Lead crystal?
>
Does anybody know or care?
Did he grind lenses for magnifying glasses or for eyeglasses?
Did he even die from the glass dust? or from some genetic syndrome?
If these things are important to anyone, they'll be researched and pulled
after official contact.
>> >> But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with
>> >> the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as
>> >> consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
>> >> The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
>> >> Alfred Einstein, �ther und Relativit�ts-Theorie
>>
>> > Yes, "The idea of motion may not be applied to it." That's all he
>> > changed about it. In other words, aether does not constitute any kind
>> > of rest frame. You cannot say you are in motion or at rest relative
>> > to it.
>>
>> And now we know this is correct only with respect to the energy field
>> that
>> is space.
>> But not with respect to what GENERATES THAT FIELD.
>
>
> Huh?
>
What generates the energy field are the billions of little sub-particles
that vibrate between the energetic state and the material state.
They move.
The energy field doesn't move.
The sub-particles are in motion toward the less energy-dense areas.
They move into matter and cause the effect of gravity.
So Einstein was correct about the energy field, his ether, not being in
motion.
But he was incorrect in regards to the make-up of his ether that actually
generates the energy field, which is in motion.
How could he know?
And the funny thing IS -- He DID know!
He knew that the only thing that would make the "ether" move would be
something like that Wolter friend of Jughead's "SCO", some kind of
outrageously powerful pressure behind the field pushing it.
Einstein wasn't about to bring something like that into his theory.
It would have meant scientific suicide and ridicule.
So he said the ether was not in motion.
He also knew that SOMETHING had to be in motion to cause gravity.
But he couldn't prove any of it, and it wasn't important at that time to
make his theory work.
So he put it on the back burner, and he didn't think of it much until he was
too old to make a difference.
To recap: The gravitational field is generated by the little, tiny
sub-particles, the quarks and subquarks, spinning crazily in and out of
material existence.
The energy field they generate does not move throughout the infinite
universe.
And the energy field is Einstein's "ether".
Those little sub-particles do move toward less and less dense (energy dense)
parts of the universe.
So they move toward galaxies, they move toward star systems, they move
toward stars, they move toward planets, and they even move toward the
tiniest of atoms, the hydrogen.
Jughead's (Wolter's) right about the "flow-sink" behavior of matter.
>> >> Does it make you wonder what the "E" stands for in "Alfred E. Newman"?
>>
>> > I have take Alfred's motto, "What, me worry?" to heart. Since doing
>> > so, my formerly 200 plus blood pressure has plummeted along with my
>> > fortune. Must we really choose between success and health in this
>> > life?
>>
>> Nah, there are many rich people who are healthy.
>> And there are many poor people who aren't.
>> The choice isn't between success or health.
>> The choice is between continuing on despite all negative events or giving
>> up.
>
>
> Shirking all work responsibilities and just kicking back has certainly
> improved my health! The 18 year old guy working at Starbucks is
> already suffering from an ucler. No uclers for me in my carefree
> life!
>
So you take this learning with you, start small and build something for
yourself.
And you'll always remember the critical importance of "just kicking back"
from time to time to stay healthy.
The more stress you encounter on the job, the more you need to kick back and
relax every chance you give yourself.
And you give yourself lots of chances.
Vhatever, it's still and always will be a CHOICE.
Your friend at the coffee house could be just as carefree and ulcer-free as
you, if only he CHOSE to.
Remember Spinoza!
He made his living, a modest one, helping people, and in a way that people
EXPECTED to pay for his work.
He was so well-liked that some of his friends GAVE him money -- not lent him
money -- GAVE him a little money when he needed it.
His great philosophical work?
He didn't make a dime on it.
>>
>> >>http://www.janleighton.com/images/Einstein_new2.jpg
>>
>> >> He HAD to say there was an ether, or otherwise he couldn't justify his
>> >> "curved space".
>>
>> > Dah!
>>
>> >> Has to be SOMEthing out there curving, yah?
>> >> And he was right, the gravitational field doesn't move; energy fields,
>> >> power
>> >> fields, they don't move.
>> >> But boy, do they have OOMPH!
>> >> And those teeny, tiny sub-particles, those quarks, they generate that
>> >> field
>> >> and they are moved by it.
>> >> They move right toward a mass and enter it, and that's what causes you
>> >> to
>> >> fall from a two story house.
>>
>> > How do I know this isn't just another erroneous presupposition?
>>
>> Because Tholen didn't say so?
>
>
> When Tholen speaks on science, I listen. Only when he speaks about
> anything else is he a kOok.
>
If he's a kook, then he's suspect in everything.
He probably ought to take note of this fact.
You, you're different from most people.
You seem to be able to separate the good from the bad better than most.
But the fact remains that, if Tholen wants to stop being considered a kook,
then he either better stop behaving like one, or he better come up with some
really great scientific discovery.
A great discovery would erase ALL the past kooky acts.
Well, not really erase them, but great discoverers are usually EXPECTED to
be a little bit kooky.
>> >> An ant falls from a two-story house, and it doesn't faze her.
>> >> A lizard falls from a two-story, and she might lie there a minute
>> >> gathering
>> >> her senses, but she's not hurt either.
>> >> A person falls from a two-story house and oi! dat hurt!
>>
>> > Sounds like you're arguing Aristotle's case!
>>
>> Aristotle must have been a very smart man!
>
>
> He described things as they appeared.
>
Yes, he was a practical man, much more practical than his teacher, Plato.
Yet he too had a metaphysics, in which he sometimes "went out on a limb".
He just wasn't predisposed to saw his own limb off.
Other people sawed it off for him.
>> >> Hey, look at the guy with his arm in a sling; let's sign his cast
>> >> everybody:
>> >> "To the putz that jumped off a house, may you have many more flights
>> >> of
>> >> fancy."
>> >> "Yah, break a leg next time."
>> >> You know -- good stuff.
>>
>> >> Einstein was correct.
>> >> The gravity field is his ether.
>> >> NOT the ether of 19th century physics, no, but EINSTEIN'S ether.
>> >> And its power depends upon the mass of the matter its quarks head for.
>>
>> > Einstein's theory was not quarky!
>>
>> Actually it WAS quarky, quarky as hell.
>> Vhat the heck do you think a quantum is?
>> A spinning, low-frequency sub-quark.
>
>
> Eisntein never heard of a quark. Quark theory wasn't developed until
> the 1960's.
>
Okay, so he was "quantummy".
Same difference.
>> >> It is most powerful at the surface of the matter.
>>
>> > What about a body that has no surface? e.g. Jupiter?
>>
>> Jupiter has a surface, a gaseous surface.
>
>
> I'd like to see you try to define that one!
>
Look at Jupiter through a scope.
You can see it's surface.
So what if it's gas?
It's still a surface you can see.
In the context of the "gravitational power at the surface", then Jupiter and
Saturn both have a very thick "surface".
You go sink a few feet below most of Jupiter's surface, look up, and check
if you can see any of the universe.
To a hypothetical being that floats around under Jupiter's gaseous surface,
the whole universe is the surrounding environment.
Just like porpii! lmfjao!
Let me reiterate:
>> When density is low, then the thickness comes into play.
>> For the purposes of "gravitational power at the surface", the main
>> consideration is still how much mass is below vs. how much mass is above.
>> A planet like Jupiter? you have to go pretty deep before there's a
>> significant change.
>>
>> >> And don't sveat the small stuff.
>> >> Earth will come out smelling like a fresh bagel.
>> >> Mm, with some cream cheese and roe -- knocks me out!
>>
>> > As long as it doesn't come out of it looking the size of a pea!
>>
>> If I would criticize Carl Sagan for one thing, it would be the way he
>> made
>> people feel so small with that blue dot thing.
>> The size Earth looks is just a perceptual thing.
>> Compared to an infinite universe, Earth is a giant!
>> We won't let anything bad happen to it.
>
>
> You better not! Or our ghosts will haunt your ships forever!
>
We get that a lot! <G>
>>
>> > Semma, you sure can ramble on and on. Sort of like another poster I
>> > remember who used to post here. Hmmm.
>>
>> Oh, you mean the popular one?
>> The one everybody liked because of being such a nice person?
>> Now that sounds more like Saul Levy.
>>
>
> The one that .... well why am I telling you? You know who you are.
>
> Double-A
>
Yeah, I'm a Leo, if that's any help.
No, no, not my sign.
That was my name before I was rescued, Leo Fisher.
We're all given sean names that are long as both my legs put together.
So I chose "Semmalon . . . yada yada"
Anybody out there besides Saul who is antisemmalonic? lmfjao!
greysky
"Semmalon" <darlap...@maol.com> wrote in message
news:4b3de0db$0$5124$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
This explanation ties in very well with my theory of particle origins...
Those sub-particles are what we call 'virtual' particles. But the
explanation of how they arise is faulty. Science stops at the virtual, and
explains their existence as energy being borrowed from ...well, something.
An unsurprisingly dull explanation and lacking in many areas. My studies of
the N-slit experiment, specifically the single slit experiment, shows just
how faulty this explanation is. In such an experiment the path not travelled
is just as valid as the path the particle did take. If the particle could
only travel down either path A or path B, path A being where the particle
collided with the slit material and path B being where the particle went
through the slit and hit the target, and you examine your results after the
experiment and see that the particle hit the target and hence could be said
to have moved down path B, then it also means that an imaginary particle
moved down path A and hit the slit. Now, you can not see the imaginary
particle hitting the slit but that doesn't mean it isn't there, only that
since its energy is imaginary it can not ever collapse the wavefunction. The
behavior of these imaginary particles are fully governed by probability
levels. I call these P2 remnant waves: if the particle had a 50% chance of
either hitting the target of the slit material, then the imaginary particle
(the one you can't see) is also at a 50% probability level. P1 describes the
probability level of the real particle (the one you can see), and P1 + P2 =
100%
Now, what if you had two imaginary P2 waves each at the 50% probability
level intersect each other? Well, where they constructively add together
there would now be a 100% chance of a particle existing for a short time and
voila! a 'virtual particle' pops into existence at the point where this
constructive interference occurs, until the P2 waves pass through each other
and go on their merry ways. In short, imaginary probability levels can lead
to spontaneous wavefunction collapse in the virtual domain. This explains
the existence of imaginary particles, and it has the important point of not
using energy to do it.
No real particles or energy fields were hurt in the formulation of this
theory...
Greysky
Double-A
> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message
If it's not one thing it's another!
Double-A
Double-A
> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0811733f-5c02-4a31...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 30, 11:01 am, "Semmalon" <darlaperen...@maol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Like Einstein's god, which was like nobody else's god,
>
> >> > He said his was the God of Spinoza.
>
> >> Well, Spinoza was dead when he said it, so I could have said, ". . .
> >> which
> >> was like nobody-else-who-is-living's god . . .', but the post was already
> >> too long.
>
> > But that didn't mean Spinoza's God was dead (Friedrich Nietzsche's
> > proclamations not withstanding).
>
> On this planet, the death of a god just means nobody believes in him
> anymore.
Reminds me of a poem that went something like: O God, what will you
do when I am dead? For without me to believe in you, you won't exist
anymore!
> >> Spinoza made his money grinding lenses.
> >> That's probably what did him in at age 44 - all that glass dust he was
> >> always inhaling.
>
> > Lead crystal?
>
> Does anybody know or care?
Made made think of Ben Franklin's ill fated armonica, or glass
harmonica. They say musicians may have died from getting lead in
their blood from touching the spinning glass.
> Did he grind lenses for magnifying glasses or for eyeglasses?
> Did he even die from the glass dust? or from some genetic syndrome?
> If these things are important to anyone, they'll be researched and pulled
> after official contact.
Too late for an autopsy?
> >> >> But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with
> >> >> the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as
> >> >> consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
> >> >> The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
> >> >> Alfred Einstein, ther und Relativit ts-Theorie
>
> >> > Yes, "The idea of motion may not be applied to it." That's all he
> >> > changed about it. In other words, aether does not constitute any kind
> >> > of rest frame. You cannot say you are in motion or at rest relative
> >> > to it.
>
> >> And now we know this is correct only with respect to the energy field
> >> that
> >> is space.
> >> But not with respect to what GENERATES THAT FIELD.
>
> > Huh?
>
> What generates the energy field are the billions of little sub-particles
> that vibrate between the energetic state and the material state.
> They move.
> The energy field doesn't move.
> The sub-particles are in motion toward the less energy-dense areas.
> They move into matter and cause the effect of gravity.
> So Einstein was correct about the energy field, his ether, not being in
> motion.
> But he was incorrect in regards to the make-up of his ether that actually
> generates the energy field, which is in motion.
I would feel more confident about accepting your pronouncenent if you
had a physics PhD behind your name.
That's good to know.
> >> >> Does it make you wonder what the "E" stands for in "Alfred E. Newman"?
>
> >> > I have take Alfred's motto, "What, me worry?" to heart. Since doing
> >> > so, my formerly 200 plus blood pressure has plummeted along with my
> >> > fortune. Must we really choose between success and health in this
> >> > life?
>
> >> Nah, there are many rich people who are healthy.
> >> And there are many poor people who aren't.
> >> The choice isn't between success or health.
> >> The choice is between continuing on despite all negative events or giving
> >> up.
>
> > Shirking all work responsibilities and just kicking back has certainly
> > improved my health! The 18 year old guy working at Starbucks is
> > already suffering from an ucler. No uclers for me in my carefree
> > life!
>
> So you take this learning with you, start small and build something for
> yourself.
> And you'll always remember the critical importance of "just kicking back"
> from time to time to stay healthy.
> The more stress you encounter on the job, the more you need to kick back and
> relax every chance you give yourself.
> And you give yourself lots of chances.
> Vhatever, it's still and always will be a CHOICE.
>
> Your friend at the coffee house could be just as carefree and ulcer-free as
> you, if only he CHOSE to.
Glib answer.
> Remember Spinoza!
> He made his living, a modest one, helping people, and in a way that people
> EXPECTED to pay for his work.
> He was so well-liked that some of his friends GAVE him money -- not lent him
> money -- GAVE him a little money when he needed it.
> His great philosophical work?
> He didn't make a dime on it.
Of course. And you still won't make anything today off a great
philosophical work, or a great scientific work. Einstein didn't die
rich. You have to do it out of your love for knowledge, and perhaps
your desire to contribute it to humanity.
Tholen has already made a number of important discoveries in
astronomy, but he also seems to work hard at being a kook. Perhaps it
is his sense of seeking balance.
> >> >> An ant falls from a two-story house, and it doesn't faze her.
> >> >> A lizard falls from a two-story, and she might lie there a minute
> >> >> gathering
> >> >> her senses, but she's not hurt either.
> >> >> A person falls from a two-story house and oi! dat hurt!
>
> >> > Sounds like you're arguing Aristotle's case!
>
> >> Aristotle must have been a very smart man!
>
> > He described things as they appeared.
>
> Yes, he was a practical man, much more practical than his teacher, Plato.
> Yet he too had a metaphysics, in which he sometimes "went out on a limb".
> He just wasn't predisposed to saw his own limb off.
> Other people sawed it off for him.
Same thing could happen today to all those scientists out on that
"global warming" limb. Someone is bound to saw it off!
No, no, no!
> So what if it's gas?
A gas doesn't have a surface!
> It's still a surface you can see.
Virtual.
> In the context of the "gravitational power at the surface", then Jupiter and
> Saturn both have a very thick "surface".
> You go sink a few feet below most of Jupiter's surface, look up, and check
> if you can see any of the universe.
> To a hypothetical being that floats around under Jupiter's gaseous surface,
> the whole universe is the surrounding environment.
> Just like porpii! lmfjao!
Porpii?
> Let me reiterate:
>
> >> When density is low, then the thickness comes into play.
> >> For the purposes of "gravitational power at the surface", the main
> >> consideration is still how much mass is below vs. how much mass is above.
> >> A planet like Jupiter? you have to go pretty deep before there's a
> >> significant change.
>
> >> >> And don't sveat the small stuff.
> >> >> Earth will come out smelling like a fresh bagel.
> >> >> Mm, with some cream cheese and roe -- knocks me out!
>
> >> > As long as it doesn't come out of it looking the size of a pea!
>
> >> If I would criticize Carl Sagan for one thing, it would be the way he
> >> made
> >> people feel so small with that blue dot thing.
> >> The size Earth looks is just a perceptual thing.
> >> Compared to an infinite universe, Earth is a giant!
> >> We won't let anything bad happen to it.
>
> > You better not! Or our ghosts will haunt your ships forever!
>
> We get that a lot! <G>
The threat? Or the ghosts?
> >> > Semma, you sure can ramble on and on. Sort of like another poster I
> >> > remember who used to post here. Hmmm.
>
> >> Oh, you mean the popular one?
> >> The one everybody liked because of being such a nice person?
> >> Now that sounds more like Saul Levy.
>
> > The one that .... well why am I telling you? You know who you are.
>
> > Double-A
>
> Yeah, I'm a Leo, if that's any help.
> No, no, not my sign.
> That was my name before I was rescued, Leo Fisher.
Ever consider leaving the sean service? Their customs must seem
rather, well, alien to you.
> We're all given sean names that are long as both my legs put together.
> So I chose "Semmalon . . . yada yada"
> Anybody out there besides Saul who is antisemmalonic? lmfjao!
Oy vey!
>
> --
> S e m m a
> Be well and come... be welcome!
Double-A
HVAC
>
> Then why are you bitching about soggy, cold feet?
~~~If it's not one thing it's another!
And another thing.... You're not even really homeless.
You live in a storage unit.
So really what you are is bathroomless.
And I'm sure you've made provisions for that.
Semmalon
>> Did he grind lenses for magnifying glasses or for eyeglasses?
>> Did he even die from the glass dust? or from some genetic syndrome?
>> If these things are important to anyone, they'll be researched and pulled
>> after official contact.
>
>
> Too late for an autopsy?
>
Hah! Now, dat's funny!
Actually, it's not so funny.
I wouldn't put anything past these seans, here.
They can probably get DNA from a piece of coal used by a cavegirl to draw
her favorite clubman! <G>
>>
>> What generates the energy field are the billions of little sub-particles
>> that vibrate between the energetic state and the material state.
>> They move.
>> The energy field doesn't move.
>> The sub-particles are in motion toward the less energy-dense areas.
>> They move into matter and cause the effect of gravity.
>> So Einstein was correct about the energy field, his ether, not being in
>> motion.
>> But he was incorrect in regards to the make-up of his ether that actually
>> generates the energy field, which is in motion.
>
>
> I would feel more confident about accepting your pronouncenent if you
> had a physics PhD behind your name.
>
Don't worry.
Nobody's really asking you to believe it yet.
CERN will shed some light on it.
>> So you take this learning with you, start small and build something for
>> yourself.
>> And you'll always remember the critical importance of "just kicking back"
>> from time to time to stay healthy.
>> The more stress you encounter on the job, the more you need to kick back
>> and
>> relax every chance you give yourself.
>> And you give yourself lots of chances.
>> Vhatever, it's still and always will be a CHOICE.
>>
>> Your friend at the coffee house could be just as carefree and ulcer-free
>> as
>> you, if only he CHOSE to.
>
>
> Glib answer.
>
Yeah, maybe so.
Doesn't make it wrong, though.
You have to go out and get this "fate" thing by the tiger tail, Double-A.
As long as you keep choosing to go the way you're going, you'll keep going
the way you're going.
Life is a combination of destiny and choice.
Choices can bring us closer to our destiny, or they can take us farther
away.
It ain't just the little things that are left up to us, you know!
>> Remember Spinoza!
>> He made his living, a modest one, helping people, and in a way that
>> people
>> EXPECTED to pay for his work.
>> He was so well-liked that some of his friends GAVE him money -- not lent
>> him
>> money -- GAVE him a little money when he needed it.
>> His great philosophical work?
>> He didn't make a dime on it.
>
>
> Of course. And you still won't make anything today off a great
> philosophical work, or a great scientific work. Einstein didn't die
> rich. You have to do it out of your love for knowledge, and perhaps
> your desire to contribute it to humanity.
>
The best things in life ARE free?
>>
>> If he's a kook, then he's suspect in everything.
>> He probably ought to take note of this fact.
>>
>> You, you're different from most people.
>> You seem to be able to separate the good from the bad better than most.
>> But the fact remains that, if Tholen wants to stop being considered a
>> kook,
>> then he either better stop behaving like one, or he better come up with
>> some
>> really great scientific discovery.
>> A great discovery would erase ALL the past kooky acts.
>> Well, not really erase them, but great discoverers are usually EXPECTED
>> to
>> be a little bit kooky.
>
>
> Tholen has already made a number of important discoveries in
> astronomy, but he also seems to work hard at being a kook. Perhaps it
> is his sense of seeking balance.
>
What? an asteroid?
How many people have discovered asteroids and other planets and countless
comets?
What he needs is a discovery that will set him apart, will make him notable
enough to go on Oprah.
Something that'll get him remembered by a whole lot of people.
A discovery that few or no people have ever made before him.
Like the first to see a supernova that becomes as bright or brighter than
the Moon!
Something like dat.
>> >> >> An ant falls from a two-story house, and it doesn't faze her.
>> >> >> A lizard falls from a two-story, and she might lie there a minute
>> >> >> gathering
>> >> >> her senses, but she's not hurt either.
>> >> >> A person falls from a two-story house and oi! dat hurt!
>>
>> >> > Sounds like you're arguing Aristotle's case!
>>
>> >> Aristotle must have been a very smart man!
>>
>> > He described things as they appeared.
>>
>> Yes, he was a practical man, much more practical than his teacher, Plato.
>> Yet he too had a metaphysics, in which he sometimes "went out on a limb".
>> He just wasn't predisposed to saw his own limb off.
>> Other people sawed it off for him.
>
>
> Same thing could happen today to all those scientists out on that
> "global warming" limb. Someone is bound to saw it off!
>
Everybody's afraid of that lump above their neck getting CHOPPED off!
>>
>> Look at Jupiter through a scope.
>> You can see it's surface.
>
>
> No, no, no!
>
Vhat "No, no, no!"?
>> So what if it's gas?
>
>
> A gas doesn't have a surface!
>
Then what is it that you see when you look at the gas giants through a
scope?
No, they don't have a surface like you're USED to, that's for sure.
But hey, science is always talking about things that are happening on the
Sun's "surface" right?
Sunspots, flares, magnetic loops reaching out "from the surface of the Sun",
right?
So, what? a rock planet and star can have a "surface", but a gas giant
can't?
>> It's still a surface you can see.
>
>
> Virtual.
>
Actually it's very real.
>> In the context of the "gravitational power at the surface", then Jupiter
>> and
>> Saturn both have a very thick "surface".
>> You go sink a few feet below most of Jupiter's surface, look up, and
>> check
>> if you can see any of the universe.
>> To a hypothetical being that floats around under Jupiter's gaseous
>> surface,
>> the whole universe is the surrounding environment.
>> Just like porpii! lmfjao!
>
>
> Porpii?
>
Let me alliterate:
You possibly passed up the post with the putz's pathetic pluralizing of
"porpoise"?
I gotta go take a pee. <G>
>
>> Let me reiterate:
>>
>> >> When density is low, then the thickness comes into play.
>> >> For the purposes of "gravitational power at the surface", the main
>> >> consideration is still how much mass is below vs. how much mass is
>> >> above.
>> >> A planet like Jupiter? you have to go pretty deep before there's a
>> >> significant change.
>>
>> >> >> And don't sveat the small stuff.
>> >> >> Earth will come out smelling like a fresh bagel.
>> >> >> Mm, with some cream cheese and roe -- knocks me out!
>>
>> >> > As long as it doesn't come out of it looking the size of a pea!
>>
>> >> If I would criticize Carl Sagan for one thing, it would be the way he
>> >> made
>> >> people feel so small with that blue dot thing.
>> >> The size Earth looks is just a perceptual thing.
>> >> Compared to an infinite universe, Earth is a giant!
>> >> We won't let anything bad happen to it.
>>
>> > You better not! Or our ghosts will haunt your ships forever!
>>
>> We get that a lot! <G>
>
>
> The threat? Or the ghosts?
>
Yes!
>>
>> Yeah, I'm a Leo, if that's any help.
>> No, no, not my sign.
>> That was my name before I was rescued, Leo Fisher.
>
>
> Ever consider leaving the sean service? Their customs must seem
> rather, well, alien to you.
>
Actually, they're not that much different than me.
Mostly all business, but they like a good laugh.
History buffs, all of them.
They're extremely curious about their own history gaps, mostly from when
they were still evolving on their planet.
Their history is pretty well-archived until you get back to their
cave-porpoise era. <G>
(See vhat I did there?)
And that means that what happens to us and this planet is crucial to them.
They don't even know if they had help or not from ancient ETs.
But anyway, that's why they interfere very little with Earth and the life.
They don't want to affect what might be a near-parallel history with their
own beginnings.
So they concentrate only on things that would kill off a lot of life, or on
things that would really damage the planet.
I guess that might not say much for the future of mankind on Earth, does it?
But the good thing IS: Nobody's got crystal balls, except maybe for Levy, a
man who knows everything there is to know about everything there is to know.
Did you know he even took the time to type up some manuscripts for some
really smart astronomers?
Yeah, they're online:
http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/histcomp/abt-ha_auth/index-tl-2.html
They're almost lost among so many good papers.
And Levy must have done a very good typing job for his "collaborators",
because they sometimes even let him put his name at the top after theirs.
I think the "G" in S G Levy stands for "Gaither" with a very guttural sound
at the beginning.
Yeah, "G-Ghhh-aither", yeah dat's right.
>> We're all given sean names that are long as both my legs put together.
>> So I chose "Semmalon . . . yada yada"
>> Anybody out there besides Saul who is antisemmalonic? lmfjao!
>
> Oy vey!
>
> Double-A
>
Hah! now vhy didn't I tink o' dat?
Double-A
> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e75a8cb5-7dd3-40b8...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Then why are you bitching about soggy, cold feet?
>
> ~~~If it's not one thing it's another!
>
> And another thing.... You're not even really homeless.
> You live in a storage unit.
> So really what you are is bathroomless.
And kitchenless, and couchless, and heatless, and cable TV-less.
Though I also think of Safeway as my home, because I spend as much
time there as in the locker. I used to think of Haggen as my home
when I was sleeping in their food court. Anything better than when
the park was my home. Trying to sleep sitting on a park bench in the
snow with newspapers over me was no fun at all. And on really cold
nights I just had to keep walking all night just to keep from
freezing. Or stand all night in the alcove of a furniture store
window to stay out of the rain and the cold wind.
> And I'm sure you've made provisions for that.
Yeah, a piss jug.
Double-A
Double-A
> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message
>
> news:64f3bde5-2ce6-4214...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 1, 3:47 am, "Semmalon" <darlaperen...@maol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Did he grind lenses for magnifying glasses or for eyeglasses?
> >> Did he even die from the glass dust? or from some genetic syndrome?
> >> If these things are important to anyone, they'll be researched and pulled
> >> after official contact.
>
> > Too late for an autopsy?
>
> Hah! Now, dat's funny!
> Actually, it's not so funny.
> I wouldn't put anything past these seans, here.
> They can probably get DNA from a piece of coal used by a cavegirl to draw
> her favorite clubman! <G>
Even just bones can tell a tale if the cause of death was lead
poisoning.
Sort of like the payouts of the machines in the bottle return room
here!
> Choices can bring us closer to our destiny, or they can take us farther
> away.
> It ain't just the little things that are left up to us, you know!
>
> >> Remember Spinoza!
> >> He made his living, a modest one, helping people, and in a way that
> >> people
> >> EXPECTED to pay for his work.
> >> He was so well-liked that some of his friends GAVE him money -- not lent
> >> him
> >> money -- GAVE him a little money when he needed it.
> >> His great philosophical work?
> >> He didn't make a dime on it.
>
> > Of course. And you still won't make anything today off a great
> > philosophical work, or a great scientific work. Einstein didn't die
> > rich. You have to do it out of your love for knowledge, and perhaps
> > your desire to contribute it to humanity.
>
> The best things in life ARE free?
I hope so because that is all I can afford right now!
Well, discovering a doomsday asteroid can be pretty important if it
actually ends up destroying life on Earth! Tholen's work on Pluto was
important too, but ironically probably helped lead to its being
stripped of planet status, thus tending to lessen the perceived
importance of his work. It's sort of like the manager I heard about
who discovered an efficiency improvement that led to the elimination
on his department and his job as its supervisor!
> >> >> >> An ant falls from a two-story house, and it doesn't faze her.
> >> >> >> A lizard falls from a two-story, and she might lie there a minute
> >> >> >> gathering
> >> >> >> her senses, but she's not hurt either.
> >> >> >> A person falls from a two-story house and oi! dat hurt!
>
> >> >> > Sounds like you're arguing Aristotle's case!
>
> >> >> Aristotle must have been a very smart man!
>
> >> > He described things as they appeared.
>
> >> Yes, he was a practical man, much more practical than his teacher, Plato.
> >> Yet he too had a metaphysics, in which he sometimes "went out on a limb".
> >> He just wasn't predisposed to saw his own limb off.
> >> Other people sawed it off for him.
>
> > Same thing could happen today to all those scientists out on that
> > "global warming" limb. Someone is bound to saw it off!
>
> Everybody's afraid of that lump above their neck getting CHOPPED off!
>
>
>
> >> Look at Jupiter through a scope.
> >> You can see it's surface.
>
> > No, no, no!
>
> Vhat "No, no, no!"?
>
> >> So what if it's gas?
>
> > A gas doesn't have a surface!
>
> Then what is it that you see when you look at the gas giants through a
> scope?
A big bag of gas!
> No, they don't have a surface like you're USED to, that's for sure.
> But hey, science is always talking about things that are happening on the
> Sun's "surface" right?
They are? The Sun doesn't have a surface either.
> Sunspots, flares, magnetic loops reaching out "from the surface of the Sun",
> right?
Photosphere.
> So, what? a rock planet and star can have a "surface", but a gas giant
> can't?
Only rock planets and planets with liquids have surfaces. Now, a
neutron star has a surface.
> >> It's still a surface you can see.
>
> > Virtual.
>
> Actually it's very real.
Virtual in the sense that it looks like a surface, it is what your
see, but it isn't really a surface.
> >> In the context of the "gravitational power at the surface", then Jupiter
> >> and
> >> Saturn both have a very thick "surface".
> >> You go sink a few feet below most of Jupiter's surface, look up, and
> >> check
> >> if you can see any of the universe.
> >> To a hypothetical being that floats around under Jupiter's gaseous
> >> surface,
> >> the whole universe is the surrounding environment.
> >> Just like porpii! lmfjao!
>
> > Porpii?
>
> Let me alliterate:
>
> You possibly passed up the post with the putz's pathetic pluralizing of
> "porpoise"?
I pass up a lot of those posts. Too repetitious.
> I gotta go take a pee. <G>
Thankfully I just did before starting ro reply to this long post!
> >> Let me reiterate:
>
> >> >> When density is low, then the thickness comes into play.
> >> >> For the purposes of "gravitational power at the surface", the main
> >> >> consideration is still how much mass is below vs. how much mass is
> >> >> above.
> >> >> A planet like Jupiter? you have to go pretty deep before there's a
> >> >> significant change.
>
> >> >> >> And don't sveat the small stuff.
> >> >> >> Earth will come out smelling like a fresh bagel.
> >> >> >> Mm, with some cream cheese and roe -- knocks me out!
>
> >> >> > As long as it doesn't come out of it looking the size of a pea!
>
> >> >> If I would criticize Carl Sagan for one thing, it would be the way he
> >> >> made
> >> >> people feel so small with that blue dot thing.
> >> >> The size Earth looks is just a perceptual thing.
> >> >> Compared to an infinite universe, Earth is a giant!
> >> >> We won't let anything bad happen to it.
>
> >> > You better not! Or our ghosts will haunt your ships forever!
>
> >> We get that a lot! <G>
>
> > The threat? Or the ghosts?
>
> Yes!
At least, unlike Tholen, you're bit afraid to give a yes or no answer!
> >> Yeah, I'm a Leo, if that's any help.
> >> No, no, not my sign.
> >> That was my name before I was rescued, Leo Fisher.
>
> > Ever consider leaving the sean service? Their customs must seem
> > rather, well, alien to you.
>
> Actually, they're not that much different than me.
> Mostly all business, but they like a good laugh.
> History buffs, all of them.
> They're extremely curious about their own history gaps, mostly from when
> they were still evolving on their planet.
> Their history is pretty well-archived until you get back to their
> cave-porpoise era. <G>
> (See vhat I did there?)
> And that means that what happens to us and this planet is crucial to them.
> They don't even know if they had help or not from ancient ETs.
> But anyway, that's why they interfere very little with Earth and the life.
> They don't want to affect what might be a near-parallel history with their
> own beginnings.
> So they concentrate only on things that would kill off a lot of life, or on
> things that would really damage the planet.
Maybe they are waiting for us land creatures to kill ourselves off so
they can take over the dry surface like they did on their home planet!
> I guess that might not say much for the future of mankind on Earth, does it?
> But the good thing IS: Nobody's got crystal balls, except maybe for Levy, a
> man who knows everything there is to know about everything there is to know.
> Did you know he even took the time to type up some manuscripts for some
> really smart astronomers?
> Yeah, they're online:
>
> http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/histcomp/abt-ha_auth/index-tl-2.html
Saul played an important role in the history of astronomy. You can't
take that away from him.
> They're almost lost among so many good papers.
> And Levy must have done a very good typing job for his "collaborators",
> because they sometimes even let him put his name at the top after theirs.
> I think the "G" in S G Levy stands for "Gaither" with a very guttural sound
> at the beginning.
> Yeah, "G-Ghhh-aither", yeah dat's right.
Now you're sounding like Bert.
> >> We're all given sean names that are long as both my legs put together.
> >> So I chose "Semmalon . . . yada yada"
> >> Anybody out there besides Saul who is antisemmalonic? lmfjao!
>
> > Oy vey!
>
> > Double-A
>
> Hah! now vhy didn't I tink o' dat?
>
> --
> S e m m a
> Be well and come... be welcome!
Double-A
HVAC
>
> And another thing.... You're not even really homeless.
> You live in a storage unit.
> So really what you are is bathroomless.
>>>And kitchenless, and couchless, and heatless, and cable TV-less.
Is there a light in there?
If so, just get an adapter that screws in and gives you an outlet.
Presto! Now you've got everything except cable TV !
Though I also think of Safeway as my home, because I spend as much
time there as in the locker. I used to think of Haggen as my home
when I was sleeping in their food court. Anything better than when
the park was my home. Trying to sleep sitting on a park bench in the
snow with newspapers over me was no fun at all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think they made a song about that.
> And I'm sure you've made provisions for that.
>>>Yeah, a piss jug.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXOyFHYwbgw
Enjoy!
Darla
Double-A, we still love to be in the sea, and we can walk around on the "dry
surface" anytime.
Yes, we are waiting.
We're waiting to see what happens.
If, heavens forbid, humans desolate the dry land as they did on our home
planet, then we shall study the if and how your marine mammals get a
foothold on the dry land.
If humans are able to continue their existence, then they will reach a time
when they are ready to engage the option of joining our galactic community,
just as many other human civilizations have done.
>> I guess that might not say much for the future of mankind on Earth, does
>> it?
>> But the good thing IS: Nobody's got crystal balls, except maybe for
>> Levy, a
>> man who knows everything there is to know about everything there is to
>> know.
>> Did you know he even took the time to type up some manuscripts for some
>> really smart astronomers?
>> Yeah, they're online:
>>
>> http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/histcomp/abt-ha_auth/index-tl-2.html
>
>
> Saul played an important role in the history of astronomy. You can't
> take that away from him.
>
I'm certain you're right about Saul.
I think Semmalon was just trying to get him off of his laurels seat.
He was just speaking Saul's bawdy language.
--
**** Darla
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!
Darla
"greysky" <ftl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b3e6c24$1...@news.x-privat.org...
Those are interesting ideas and theory, Greysky!
Is your new website almost ready?
Double-A
> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message
It is interesting how sea turtles got a foothold on dry land by
burying their eggs in the sand on the beaches. This kept them safe
from sea predators, and began at the time when there were no land or
air predators to bother them. Now however, The young turtles hatching
out are decimated by seagulls as they make their death march to the
sea!
> If humans are able to continue their existence, then they will reach a time
> when they are ready to engage the option of joining our galactic community,
> just as many other human civilizations have done.
What is the criteria for being ready to join the galactic community?
Must we become so advanced that we are becoming a threat to other
civilizations and have to be dealt with before that happens?
>
> >> I guess that might not say much for the future of mankind on Earth, does
> >> it?
> >> But the good thing IS: Nobody's got crystal balls, except maybe for
> >> Levy, a
> >> man who knows everything there is to know about everything there is to
> >> know.
> >> Did you know he even took the time to type up some manuscripts for some
> >> really smart astronomers?
> >> Yeah, they're online:
>
> >>http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/histcomp/abt-ha_auth/index-tl-2.html
>
> > Saul played an important role in the history of astronomy. You can't
> > take that away from him.
>
> I'm certain you're right about Saul.
> I think Semmalon was just trying to get him off of his laurels seat.
> He was just speaking Saul's bawdy language.
>
> --
> **** Darla
> Be well and come... be welcome
> You are the fifth star!
I have stopped playing games with Tholen. It is good that Semmalon
has stopped playing games with Saul.
Double-A
Darla
Ah, but they lay Enough eggs so that an adequate number make it back to the
sea, and even after being further decimated by sea creatures, still number
enough members to carry on the species.
It's really no wonder that they are more ancient than snakes and even
lizards!
They are very wise creatures.
>> If humans are able to continue their existence, then they will reach a
>> time
>> when they are ready to engage the option of joining our galactic
>> community,
>> just as many other human civilizations have done.
>
>
> What is the criteria for being ready to join the galactic community?
> Must we become so advanced that we are becoming a threat to other
> civilizations and have to be dealt with before that happens?
>
Oh, heavens no!
The main present criteria is just that your projected suicide indicator come
down to an acceptable value.
There are other criteria that must be met, however they are minor compared
with the above.
>>
>> >> I guess that might not say much for the future of mankind on Earth,
>> >> does
>> >> it?
>> >> But the good thing IS: Nobody's got crystal balls, except maybe for
>> >> Levy, a
>> >> man who knows everything there is to know about everything there is to
>> >> know.
>> >> Did you know he even took the time to type up some manuscripts for
>> >> some
>> >> really smart astronomers?
>> >> Yeah, they're online:
>>
>> >>http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/histcomp/abt-ha_auth/index-tl-2.html
>>
>> > Saul played an important role in the history of astronomy. You can't
>> > take that away from him.
>>
>> I'm certain you're right about Saul.
>> I think Semmalon was just trying to get him off of his laurels seat.
>> He was just speaking Saul's bawdy language.
>>
>> --
>> **** Darla
>> Be well and come... be welcome
>> You are the fifth star!
>
>
> I have stopped playing games with Tholen. It is good that Semmalon
> has stopped playing games with Saul.
>
> Double-A
>
Mmm, such games can be fun for a time, but they thin out and become
stagnate.
More of the same and the same and the same becomes tedious and unworthy of
one's time.
If there are other games more to your liking that you can play online, you
might consider challenging the planet Pluto examiner.
Double-A
But that is plan "B". Originally it was a great strategy due to lack
of any predators on land. Now they remind me of spiders that lay eggs
that hatch out into millions of spiders in the spring, but only a few
of them survive until fall to lay more eggs. A curious strategy of
survival by shear large numbers. It would be sort of like if humans
could only reproduce when they reached their nineties, but where then
capable of each producing large numbers of offspring!
> It's really no wonder that they are more ancient than snakes and even
> lizards!
> They are very wise creatures.
>
> >> If humans are able to continue their existence, then they will reach a
> >> time
> >> when they are ready to engage the option of joining our galactic
> >> community,
> >> just as many other human civilizations have done.
>
> > What is the criteria for being ready to join the galactic community?
> > Must we become so advanced that we are becoming a threat to other
> > civilizations and have to be dealt with before that happens?
>
> Oh, heavens no!
> The main present criteria is just that your projected suicide indicator come
> down to an acceptable value.
> There are other criteria that must be met, however they are minor compared
> with the above.
The current population has been exposed to so many space age ideas and
space alien fantasies, that I think they would mostly take FOC right
in stride, just like they did when the newspapers were proclaiming
back in the 90's, "Life Discovered on Mars!" referring to the apparent
fossil cells found in that Antarctic meteorite.
The "planet" Pluto occasionally posts, you know, but I feel kind of
strange replying to a "planet"!
Double-A
Darla
> On Jan 4, 1:55 pm, "Darla" <darlaperen...@maol.com> wrote:
>> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message
>> news:03e6e2af-095e-4a99...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jan 4, 9:23 am, "Darla" <darlaperen...@maol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> If humans are able to continue their existence, then they will reach a
>> >> time
>> >> when they are ready to engage the option of joining our galactic
>> >> community,
>> >> just as many other human civilizations have done.
>>
>> > What is the criteria for being ready to join the galactic community?
>> > Must we become so advanced that we are becoming a threat to other
>> > civilizations and have to be dealt with before that happens?
>>
>> Oh, heavens no!
>> The main present criteria is just that your projected suicide indicator
>> come
>> down to an acceptable value.
>> There are other criteria that must be met, however they are minor
>> compared
>> with the above.
>
>
> The current population has been exposed to so many space age ideas and
> space alien fantasies, that I think they would mostly take FOC right
> in stride, just like they did when the newspapers were proclaiming
> back in the 90's, "Life Discovered on Mars!" referring to the apparent
> fossil cells found in that Antarctic meteorite.
>
>
> Double-A
>
Yes, and there is still a bit of a stir about that, because scientifically,
test results were "inconclusive".
But the "popular" vote was that the "fossil" remnants did not indicate life.
A clear-cut case of denial.
I'm not saying that the meteorite findings DO indicate life on Mars, however
anyone who says they clearly DON'T indicate life on Mars is in speculative
denial.
This is similar to the denial shown by the "global warming caused by human
technology" buffs.
There is no conclusive scientific evidence to support either premise,
neither the condition nor the cause.
And yet there is a popular "bandwagon" that is clearly in denial of this
fact.
Lest we forget, there are the still remaining "Diana" fans (the recently
rejuvenated "V" series), as well as the also remade Wells classic starring
Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning.
And a wealth of other "Angry Red Planet" type films on top of that turn a
healthy common human psyche into a neurotic horde, and give "life" to the
now classic "aliens are out to getcha" ideal.
Yes, the potential suicide count has been slowly, steadily dropping, but
there is still a considerable gap between where it is now, and where we
would like it to be.
It's not just a matter of discovering life that is otherworldly and yet
similar to 3 billion years ago on Earth, Double-A.
This concerns the fears connected with being 100% certain that there exist
civilizations with much higher technologies, and that one or more of these
groups are aware of Earth and of human beings.
There are religious, cultural, psychological, even neurological health
reasons that will send people over the edge if they know about us right now.
We have to lose some, but it is incumbent upon us to see that few people as
possible are lost.
Right this moment, we are as a potential fire in a building made of wood.
When official contact takes place, many will see us as a real fire set to
burn the building to the ground.
We just want to find ways to keep as many people as possible from jumping
out the windows just to get away from the fire.
On a brighter note, I thought Dakota Fanning was exquisitely superb in "War
of the Worlds"!
Tom Cruise? Oh yes! Tom Cruise!
Those two together were nitro and glycerine!
But oh please!
The climax is so contrived, and a typical human misstep.
If a sentient society is advanced enough to cross a great expanse between
star systems, how can one honestly think they'd be stupid enough to be
downed by some Earthly microorganism? <G>
As Lomriy once said to me, oh, about fifty years go, "Be real, Daddy-oh!"
greysky
"Darla" <darlap...@maol.com> wrote in message
news:4b4225d4$0$4973$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Thanks, Darla. I thought you'd find it interesting - If space is filled with
virtual quark - antiquark pairs and this q - aq flow into mass is what
generates the gravity field, then I want to lift the rug a bit and find out
how these virtual particles get permission to do what they do. I found out
energy is not necessary for all this to happen. The virtual particle sea is
filled with a plenum of imaginary particles - where the difference between
real, virtual, and imaginary particles is only in how they are allowed to
interact with reality. Of course, human scientists don't like this
interpretation of reality because it means an entire other set of waves and
particles that would have to be dealt with. But it makes quantum mechanics
so much more understandable - makes it almost simple. I still have some work
to do before I bring out the web site - and even then it'll mostly be stuff
I've already posted. New stuff will come later as I get time to develop a
proper presentation. But hey, every journey begins with the first quantum
jump! :-)
Greysky
Darla
<G> Indeed!
You are correct in that no energy (not electromagnetic, gravitational, nor
energy of any kind) is necessary to keep the "foam" foaming.
The quarks and antiquarks "get permission" under your science from the
"uncertainty principle".
Important differences between this blatantly inhumble explanation and the
present "quantum foam" concept, in case anyone is pursuing a theory of
quantum gravitation, are:
1) these are not "virtual particles", but instead they are
real sub-particles -antiparticles that are in constant
transition between energy and their m-am states,
2) these sub-particles and sub-antiparticles only rarely
annihilate because they very quickly pass between the
material/antimaterial and energetic states,
3) these many billions and trillions of q-aq pairs generate
the energy required to give them motion in a direction
that is toward less energy dense areas.
So the energy generated by q-aq-pair transitions is a stable, stationary
"gravitational field" that ultimately accelerates the (you may want to hear
"stream", however that description is too dimensionally challenged) all
encompassing foam of q-aq pairs toward all material objects, from galaxies
to stars to planets to protons, etc.
I do look forward to seeing your new material and to synthesizing it with
your existing ideas!
BradGuth
Just keep in mind that an intelligent planet like "Pluto" has a very
cold and seemingly lifeless sense of humor.
~ BG
Double-A
Further tests on the meteorite have revived the debate:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34207864/ns/technology_and_science-space/
> This is similar to the denial shown by the "global warming caused by human
> technology" buffs.
> There is no conclusive scientific evidence to support either premise,
> neither the condition nor the cause.
> And yet there is a popular "bandwagon" that is clearly in denial of this
> fact.
But for Al Gore it is the greatest thing since he invented the
Internet!
> Lest we forget, there are the still remaining "Diana" fans (the recently
> rejuvenated "V" series), as well as the also remade Wells classic starring
> Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning.
> And a wealth of other "Angry Red Planet"
That was really bad! You could actually see the strings pulling the
legs of the Martian monsters! The audience at the theater I was at
booed!
> type films on top of that turn a
> healthy common human psyche into a neurotic horde, and give "life" to the
> now classic "aliens are out to getcha" ideal.
>
> Yes, the potential suicide count has been slowly, steadily dropping, but
> there is still a considerable gap between where it is now, and where we
> would like it to be.
> It's not just a matter of discovering life that is otherworldly and yet
> similar to 3 billion years ago on Earth, Double-A.
> This concerns the fears connected with being 100% certain that there exist
> civilizations with much higher technologies, and that one or more of these
> groups are aware of Earth and of human beings.
But what if Earth astronomers, radio astronomers, or a listening
project like SETI discover overwhelming evidence of extraterrestrial
intelligent life before FOC? I didn't hear of this headline causing
any suicides:
http://thecrit.com/2009/05/17/seti-scientist-finds-alien-signal/
> There are religious, cultural, psychological, even neurological health
> reasons that will send people over the edge if they know about us right now.
Darwin caused just such a stir, but eventually people had to adjust to
his new ideas.
> We have to lose some, but it is incumbent upon us to see that few people as
> possible are lost.
> Right this moment, we are as a potential fire in a building made of wood.
> When official contact takes place, many will see us as a real fire set to
> burn the building to the ground.
> We just want to find ways to keep as many people as possible from jumping
> out the windows just to get away from the fire.
The more real problem is that too many people would look to you as
"saviors", and eventually become disgruntled if you did not deliver
according to their expectations.
> On a brighter note, I thought Dakota Fanning was exquisitely superb in "War
> of the Worlds"!
> Tom Cruise? Oh yes! Tom Cruise!
> Those two together were nitro and glycerine!
> But oh please!
> The climax is so contrived, and a typical human misstep.
> If a sentient society is advanced enough to cross a great expanse between
> star systems, how can one honestly think they'd be stupid enough to be
> downed by some Earthly microorganism? <G>
> As Lomriy once said to me, oh, about fifty years go, "Be real, Daddy-oh!"
When the story was written about 100 years ago, thinking was much less
sophisticated.
> --
> **** Darla
> Be well and come... be welcome
> You are the fifth star!
FOC now!
Double-A
BradGuth
100+ years ago, only mainstream religion was allowed to think.
~ BG
Double-A
Darwin thought for himself.
Double-A
Darla
When the thing you fear is far, far away, it is less fearful.
If you fear spiders, and you see one on the wall across the room, you might
holler for someone to get the bug spray.
But if you look down and the spider is crawling up your leg, you will
freeze, I guarantee it.
A SETI discovery, say, of civilization on one of the newly-discovered
Earthlike planets, would slowly shake things up.
Your religions and cultures would have plenty of perceived time to adjust.
The discovery that an advanced society is "right on your doorstep" would
cause a lot of good people to freeze and grease.
>> There are religious, cultural, psychological, even neurological health
>> reasons that will send people over the edge if they know about us right
>> now.
>
>
> Darwin caused just such a stir, but eventually people had to adjust to
> his new ideas.
>
The stir Darwin caused is a fair measure, but only a fraction of the stir
that knowledge of us would cause.
>> We have to lose some, but it is incumbent upon us to see that few people
>> as
>> possible are lost.
>> Right this moment, we are as a potential fire in a building made of wood.
>> When official contact takes place, many will see us as a real fire set to
>> burn the building to the ground.
>> We just want to find ways to keep as many people as possible from jumping
>> out the windows just to get away from the fire.
>
>
> The more real problem is that too many people would look to you as
> "saviors", and eventually become disgruntled if you did not deliver
> according to their expectations.
>
Yes, you are correct.
To these "you are our savior" types, who would do anything we ask, we can
reason with, because they, too, would be right on the edge.
And yet they would listen and be reasoned with before they "jump".
They would never have reason to be disgruntled, though.
This is another guarantee I can make.
>> On a brighter note, I thought Dakota Fanning was exquisitely superb in
>> "War
>> of the Worlds"!
>> Tom Cruise? Oh yes! Tom Cruise!
>> Those two together were nitro and glycerine!
>> But oh please!
>> The climax is so contrived, and a typical human misstep.
>> If a sentient society is advanced enough to cross a great expanse between
>> star systems, how can one honestly think they'd be stupid enough to be
>> downed by some Earthly microorganism? <G>
>> As Lomriy once said to me, oh, about fifty years go, "Be real, Daddy-oh!"
>
>
> When the story was written about 100 years ago, thinking was much less
> sophisticated.
>
>
>
> FOC now!
>
> Double-A
>
Yes, that story was written and published just before the turn of the last
century.
And yet the remake film, while it did everything to update the story to
modern times, it did nothing to modernize the unsophisticated outcome.
If you were to remake the story and modernize the outcome, how would you
have the humans defeat the aliens?
Darla
"Charles D. Bohne" <m...@PasoSchweiz.de> wrote in message
news:cu19k5dkqvtakr7kh...@pasoschweiz.de...
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 06:25:13 -0500, "Darla" <darlap...@maol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>When the thing you fear is far, far away, it is less fearful.
>>
> side of this galaxy?
What do you suppose we would fear from that great distance, Charles?
>>If you fear spiders, and you see one on the wall across the room, you
>>might
>>holler for someone to get the bug spray.
>>
> As spider are no "bugs" nor even insects, it is very unlikely that this
> may help :->
"Bugs" can refer to many things, to include spiders and insects.
Most bug sprays will either kill a spider or slow her down so she's easy to
squish with one's slipper.
The problem is with the manner in which a bug spray works.
Since a spider "breathes" differently from an insect, some bug sprays may be
ineffective against spiders.
>>But if you look down and the spider is crawling up your leg, you will
>>freeze, I guarantee it.
>>
> arachnophobia has a long history -- for a reason. Humans have had
> very negative experiences with 8-legged races...
> C.
I recently read of a tarantula that actually "shot" its hairs into its
owner's eye.
When you play with matches, you might get burned!
--
**** Darla
Fear is Ice that freezes you solid.
Train to be fearless, and set yourself free!
Nightcrawler
> "Bugs" can refer to many things, to include spiders and insects.
> Most bug sprays will either kill a spider or slow her down so she's easy to
> squish with one's slipper.
CRC brand Natural Degreaser kills 'em all.
Darla
"Charles D. Bohne" <m...@PasoSchweiz.de> wrote in message
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:48:59 -0500, "Darla" <darlap...@maol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>When the thing you fear is far, far away, it is less fearful.
>>> Is this the reason why you tell us so often of your travels to the other
>>> side of this galaxy?
>>
>>What do you suppose we would fear from that great distance, Charles?
>>
> fear.
We are not trying to help people overcome their fear, Charles.
Overcoming fear is bravery, an act of courage.
Fearlessness is very different.
There is no fear to overcome.
>>"Bugs" can refer to many things, to include spiders and insects.
>>
> Accepted. You Yankees often consider your enemies as such ...
>
>>Most bug sprays will either kill a spider or slow her down so she's easy
>>to
>>squish with one's slipper.
>>
> How gruesome ... that's what you do to terran life???
> ...
Humans do that, we don't.
We get along with spiders and other life on Earth very well!
This brings us back to that whole thing about watching our friends die.
In the other post you were just talking about humans.
We have watched friends of many species die, on Earth and other places.
For us it is what might be called a "solemn occasion".
There is no sadness, there is only a solemn feeling of peace for our friend.
Double-A
> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message
On the other hand, many people who were about to commit suicide,
might find life suddenly interesting again and want to hang around
awhile to see how things turn out!
> >> There are religious, cultural, psychological, even neurological health
> >> reasons that will send people over the edge if they know about us right
> >> now.
>
> > Darwin caused just such a stir, but eventually people had to adjust to
> > his new ideas.
>
> The stir Darwin caused is a fair measure, but only a fraction of the stir
> that knowledge of us would cause.
Darwin challenged the status of humans as special creations of God.
To explain the existence of other worldly humanoid live, the preachers
only have to quote passages such as:
John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold".
> >> We have to lose some, but it is incumbent upon us to see that few people
> >> as
> >> possible are lost.
> >> Right this moment, we are as a potential fire in a building made of wood.
> >> When official contact takes place, many will see us as a real fire set to
> >> burn the building to the ground.
> >> We just want to find ways to keep as many people as possible from jumping
> >> out the windows just to get away from the fire.
>
> > The more real problem is that too many people would look to you as
> > "saviors", and eventually become disgruntled if you did not deliver
> > according to their expectations.
>
> Yes, you are correct.
> To these "you are our savior" types, who would do anything we ask, we can
> reason with, because they, too, would be right on the edge.
> And yet they would listen and be reasoned with before they "jump".
> They would never have reason to be disgruntled, though.
> This is another guarantee I can make.
Hmmm!
Perhaps global warming raises the aliens' body temperature above some
critical level, and they all die of heat stroke? Rush Limbaugh makes
a cameo appearance at the end of the film saying that if Al Gore had
had his way in curbing green house gases, we would all be slaves to
the Martians!
Double-A
I loved the scene in then War of the Worlds television series where
the Martians enter a beauty parlor with a surgical saw, intent on
harvesting some human brains! "Just take a little of the top," one of
them said!
Darla
That is true; sort of a "What have I got to lose?" state of mind.
>> >> There are religious, cultural, psychological, even neurological health
>> >> reasons that will send people over the edge if they know about us
>> >> right
>> >> now.
>>
>> > Darwin caused just such a stir, but eventually people had to adjust to
>> > his new ideas.
>>
>> The stir Darwin caused is a fair measure, but only a fraction of the stir
>> that knowledge of us would cause.
>
>
> Darwin challenged the status of humans as special creations of God.
>
> To explain the existence of other worldly humanoid live, the preachers
> only have to quote passages such as:
>
> John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold".
>
There are many such passages in many religious texts.
If there is plenty of perceived time, then all of them could be brought to
bear.
But most religious people know little of these passages, and those who do
know presently interpret the passages in a more mundane way, and in the much
shorter time of an official contact, they would not "get" the new
application before freezing their minds.
I'm not saying all such people will react in this freezing manner, Double-A.
In fact, the index has dropped below 40%.
We are optimistic.
>>
>> Yes, that story was written and published just before the turn of the
>> last
>> century.
>> And yet the remake film, while it did everything to update the story to
>> modern times, it did nothing to modernize the unsophisticated outcome.
>> If you were to remake the story and modernize the outcome, how would you
>> have the humans defeat the aliens?
>>
>
> Perhaps global warming raises the aliens' body temperature above some
> critical level, and they all die of heat stroke? Rush Limbaugh makes
> a cameo appearance at the end of the film saying that if Al Gore had
> had his way in curbing green house gases, we would all be slaves to
> the Martians!
>
> Double-A
>
> I loved the scene in then War of the Worlds television series where
> the Martians enter a beauty parlor with a surgical saw, intent on
> harvesting some human brains! "Just take a little of the top," one of
> them said!
>
>
Humor definitely helps!
There would be at least one way for a civilization of lesser technology to
best a non-benevolent, higher technology alien invasion.