BLOW UP THE MOON, JOLT THE PLANET EARTH TO A NEW ORBIT

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Alexander Abian

unread,
Aug 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/23/96
to

Simon Rowland writes:
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 03:05:14 -0400
To: space-...@isu.isunet.edu, ab...@iastate.edu
From: si...@eagle.ca (Simon Rowland)
Subject: Jolt the Earth, fallacious thought, and bad looks...

> Abian: I don't think you get it. It is beyond the capabilities of our
>civilization, and will remain so for the foreseeable future, to move the
>Earth's solar orbit. We can't blow up or move the Moon either, but that
>wouldn't effect the Earth's solar orbit anyway.

Abian answers:

Rowland I don't think you get it. Some 200 years ago it was also
said that flying to the Moon was beyond the capabilities.... It was
also said that talking from one country to another was beyond the
capabilities..... It was also said that when you had trouble with the
valves of your heart it was beyond our capabilities..... So, please
Rowland DO NOT GIVE ME THESE ASININE PARTYLINE "Beyond our
capabilities" garbage. Please stop that pathetic morbid pessimism!

Rowland continues:

> These facts are self-evident and are solidly backed. They are widely
>recognized as facts. And, you have no evidence to support your claims that
>we can move or jolt the Earth, Moon, or any other celestial body.

Abian answers:

I have good evidence - the entire history of human civilization is
my evidence - Moving planets around, altering the orbit of the planet
Earth, etc., etc IS WITHIN THE CAPABILITIES OF HUMAN GENIUS the whole history
of human Technology supports and back me up on that- solidly, very solidly.

Rowland continues:

> That is why people say you make them look bad. Because you use fallacious
>thinking, and propose things that would not only have no effect on the
>problem that supposedly has an effect on how corrupt our society is, but is
>also completely impossible. Your logic is flawed in so many places, that it
>is inexcusable.
> That is why people say you make them look bad.

Abian answers:

Rowlan , you use inane, fallacious and fatuous logic. Your logic is
flawed in so many places, that is ..........

I WISH I MAKE PEOPLE LOOK BAD that will only prove my point that people
were wrong (by the way of what "people" are you talking about ? Of what
"people" are you a self appointed representative and spokesman ?"

I WISH I MAKE PEOPLE LOOK BAD that would mean that I made the views
and the theories and the ideas of all the outstanding luminaries and
scientists look bad.

They told Galileo that "you make us the scientists look bad" Galileo
said: "I WISH I MAKE YOU PEOPLE LOOK BAD" (and used also a much vulgar
.expression ..).

So, Rowland. it would be the day of the triumph of my ideas IF I
MAKE YOU PEOPLE LOOK BAD !!! That would be the glory of my views.

O, HOW I WISH TO MAKE YOU PEOPLE LOOK BAD ! O, HOW I WISH !

I would be a giant and an extraordinary genius if I COULD MAKE YOU PEOPLE
AND YOUR IDEAS LOOK BAD !

I WISH I COULD MAKE YOU PEOPLE AND YOUR IDEAS LOOK BAD, VERY BAD !


-------

The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation
of favored races in the struggle for life. C. DARWIN (1859)

The future of species by means of rational alteration of Cosmos, or the
preservation of intelligent races in the struggle for life. A. ABIAN (1992)

Alexander Abian: Equivalence of Mass and Time (1990)
Albert Einstein: Equivalence of Mass and Energy (1905)
THERE WAS NO BIG BANG. THERE WAS A BIG SUCK INTO THE VOID OF SPACE

-------
WE MUST JOLT THE PLANET EARTH INTO A NEW ORBIT. IF JOLTING OF THE
PLANET EARTH REQUIRES THE BLOWING UP THE MOON OR BLASTING THE
MOON INTO PIECES OR AT LEAST JOLTING THE MOON IN ORDER TO JOLT THE
PLANET EARTH - SO BE IT.
--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME IS MASS. ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA T=-(10^18)Log(1-m/Mo) SECONDS
ALTERING EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOPPING GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS.
ALTERING THE SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBITING VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT
TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH.

James C. Stutts

unread,
Aug 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/23/96
to

He`s just wants attention. Ignore him and perhaps he`ll get a
life. He sounds a bit like a 12 year old (you remember, back when
we knew *everything*.)

JCS


Jim Kelly

unread,
Aug 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/24/96
to

Alexander Abian wrote:
>
If it is possible to accelerate a mass =or FTL than perhaps your
moon idea would be a little more feasable. What do you think of FTL?
High speed projectile can do some damage. What do think of a depleted
uranium shell that weighs about a ton would do to the moon if it
were going near the speed of light? Blow a big hole right through
that mother I bet-and keep going. *FTL*.

Paul A. Lane

unread,
Aug 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/25/96
to

In article <abian.8...@pv3449.vincent.iastate.edu>, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

|> They told Galileo that "you make us the scientists look bad" Galileo
|> said: "I WISH I MAKE YOU PEOPLE LOOK BAD" (and used also a much vulgar
|> .expression ..).

I believe it was something along the lines of "repent, sinner!" Besides,
the scientific method had yet to be formulated in those days. Hence, there
were no scientists. (Well, in their terms.)

--
Paul Lane Tel: (801) 581-4402 Fax: (801) 581-4801
Department of Physics (201 JFB); University of Utah; Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Moving to Sheffield, England as of 01/97 (p.l...@sheffield.ac.uk)

Richard Barnett

unread,
Aug 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/26/96
to

In <abian.8...@pv3449.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu
(Alexander Abian) writes:
>


<big snip of drivel>

The 60's were GOOD to you, huh Abian?


I wouldnt't want to be on the Earth if someone DID detonate an
explosion sufficient to "blow up" the moon. Furthermore, you have not
shown how this would have ANY positive effect on the earth. The sudden
lack of lunar tidal forces would devestate many marine ecosystems,
however.

As for comparing yourself to Galileo and Einstein, have you considered
counseling for your delusions of grandeur? Or as the other
alternative, is this all some sort of fraternity joke?

Rusty

pyotr filipivich

unread,
Aug 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/27/96
to

rr...@ix.netcom.com(Richard Barnett) writes:

:>(Alexander Abian) writes:
:> <big snip of drivel>

:>The 60's were GOOD to you, huh Abian?


:>I wouldnt't want to be on the Earth if someone DID detonate an
:>explosion sufficient to "blow up" the moon. Furthermore, you have not
:>shown how this would have ANY positive effect on the earth. The sudden
:>lack of lunar tidal forces would devestate many marine ecosystems,
:>however.

:>As for comparing yourself to Galileo and Einstein, have you considered
:>counseling for your delusions of grandeur? Or as the other
:>alternative, is this all some sort of fraternity joke?


Kind of reminds me of the old cliche about "They laughed at
Galileo, they laughed at Newton, laughed at Einstein. They also
laughed at Bozo the Clown."
--
py...@halcyon.com Pyotr Filipivich here, Nikolai Petrovich in the SCA.
Two Questions:
"Who is John Galt?" is the easy one.
"Who hired Craig Livingstone?" is the hard one.

Jim Kelly

unread,
Aug 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/27/96
to

pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
> rr...@ix.netcom.com(Richard Barnett) writes:
> :>(Alexander Abian) writes:
> :> <big snip of drivel>
>
> :>The 60's were GOOD to you, huh Abian?
>
> :>I wouldnt't want to be on the Earth if someone DID detonate an
> :>explosion sufficient to "blow up" the moon. Furthermore, you have not
> :>shown how this would have ANY positive effect on the earth. The sudden
> :>lack of lunar tidal forces would devestate many marine ecosystems,
> :>however.
>
> :>As for comparing yourself to Galileo and Einstein, have you considered
> :>counseling for your delusions of grandeur? Or as the other
> :>alternative, is this all some sort of fraternity joke?
>
> Kind of reminds me of the old cliche about "They laughed at
> Galileo, they laughed at Newton, laughed at Einstein. They also
> laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Ah but you forgot to mention who would laugh last. If you
read AA's stuff, you will find that he may not be as off the mark
as one would think. Perhaps a little vague though.


--
Best Regards,

-Jim Kelly

Sean Lehman @ IDP

unread,
Aug 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/27/96
to

The Arctic Circle is advancing toward the Pole at the rate of 0.47" a
year, so in another 180 000 years Abian wil have his wish without all
the bother of delunacy.

--

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sean K. Lehman, leh...@llnl.gov |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Alexander Abian

unread,
Aug 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/27/96
to

In article <4vtsm5$2...@news1.halcyon.com>,
pyotr filipivich <py...@chinook.halcyon.com> wrote:

>
> Kind of reminds me of the old cliche about "They laughed at
>Galileo, they laughed at Newton, laughed at Einstein. They also
>laughed at Bozo the Clown."

>--
>pyotr filipivivh

Abian answers:

Most probably you are still laughing and rolling in a laugher hysteria.
But in addition to Mr Kelly's remark who mentioned to you that:

> Ah but you forgot to mention who would laugh last. If you
>read AA's stuff, you will find that he may not be as off the mark
>as one would think. Perhaps a little vague though.

>Best Regards, Jim Kelly

I would like also to add that they laughed at those who laughed, they
laughed at those who cried, they laughed at those who laughed at those
who laughed - except they did not laugh at themselves. But they could not
resists not laughing and they laughed at those who did not laugh at
themselves, and they laughed at paradoxes and they laughed, and laughed
and laughed and still laughing at everything ....... I envy them!

Now, I laugh at the prepubescent, idealistic, inane euphoria of the
unsurpassability of the speed of light. I laugh at the brainwashing
of pathetic obsession of Einstein- type people who rever the idiotical laws
such as "unsurpassability of speed of light" This is a sheer bovine
ecstasy and succumbing to somekind of religious idealism and corrupt,
decadent mysticism.

The "unsurpassability of light concept" must be shredded and recycled
into the toilet paper.

And since "unsurpassability of the speed of light" is a basic, sacrosanct
principle of Relativity on which the entire theory is built, then

The Relativity Theory must also be shredded and recycled into
the toilet paper.


Alexander Abian
----------------


WE MUST JOLT THE PLANET EARTH INTO A NEW ORBIT. IF JOLTING OF THE
PLANET EARTH REQUIRES THE BLOWING UP THE MOON OR BLASTING THE
MOON INTO PIECES OR AT LEAST JOLTING THE MOON IN ORDER TO JOLT THE
PLANET EARTH - SO BE IT.

The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation
of favoured races in the struggle for life. C. DARWIN (1859)

The future of species by means of rational alteration of Cosmos, or the
preservation of intelligent races in the struggle for life. A. ABIAN (1992)

Alexander Abian: Equivalence of Mass and Time (1990)
Albert Einstein: Equivalence of Mass and Energy (1905)
THERE WAS NO BIG BANG. THERE WAS A BIG SUCK INTO THE VOID OF SPACE

Michael Varney

unread,
Aug 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/27/96
to
You forgot to take into account the next ice age.
--
Michael Varney

Department of Physics

Colorado State University

*************************************************************************
If as*holes could fly, it would be perpetually dark!


Of course, one kind person will lift the darkness.

*************************************************************************
mcva...@holly.colostate.edu

http://holly.colostate.edu/~mcvarney

Alexander Abian

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to


In article <4vtsm5$2...@news1.halcyon.com>,
pyotr filipivich <py...@chinook.halcyon.com> wrote:

>
> Kind of reminds me of the old cliche about "They laughed at
>Galileo, they laughed at Newton, laughed at Einstein. They also
>laughed at Bozo the Clown."
>--

>pyotr filipivich

Abian answers:

Most probably you are still laughing and rolling in a laughter hysteria.


But in addition to Mr Kelly's remark who mentioned to you that:

> Ah but you forgot to mention who would laugh last. If you
>read AA's stuff, you will find that he may not be as off the mark
>as one would think. Perhaps a little vague though.

>Best Regards, Jim Kelly

I would like also to add that they laughed at those who laughed, they
laughed at those who cried, they laughed at those who laughed at those
who laughed - except they did not laugh at themselves. But they could not
resists not laughing and they laughed at those who did not laugh at
themselves, and they laughed at paradoxes and they laughed, and laughed
and laughed and still laughing at everything ....... I envy them!

Now, I laugh at the prepubescent, idealistic, inane euphoria of the
unsurpassability of the speed of light. I laugh at the brainwashing
of pathetic obsession of Einstein- type people who rever the idiotical laws
such as "unsurpassability of speed of light" This is a sheer bovine

ecstasy and succumbing to some kind of religious idealism and corrupt,
decadent mysticism.

The "unsurpassability of the speed of light concept" must be shredded

Alan Anderson

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

In <4vvpfk$t...@news.iastate.edu>,
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

> And since "unsurpassability of the speed of light" is a basic, sacrosanct

>principle of Relativity on which the entire theory is built...

The "basic principle" is the *constancy* of the speed of light, not its
"unsurpassability". The constancy postulate says that the speed of light
is always measured to be the same value by any inertial observer.

The "unsurpassability" of that speed is merely a logical consequence of
the assumptions; it is not itself an assumption.

(Did I just post in the BLOW UP THE MOON thread? Must be my imagination.)

= === === === = = = === === === === = = === = = = === = = === =
# Alan Anderson # Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent. #
(I do not speak for Delco Electronics, and DE does not speak for me.)


JUSTIN SMITH

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

<sigh> You'd think he'd stop posting this rubbish by now? Or at least not
to so many newsgroups. Oh well, he can't get any attention (or validity of
his ideas) elsewhere.


-Justin

Alexander Abian

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to


In article <501ljb$e...@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
Alan Anderson <aran...@kosepc01.delcoelect.com> wrote:

>
>The "basic principle" is the *constancy* of the speed of light, not its
>"unsurpassability". The constancy postulate says that the speed of light
>is always measured to be the same value by any inertial observer.
>
>The "unsurpassability" of that speed is merely a logical consequence of
>the assumptions; it is not itself an assumption.


Abian answers:

I am aware of that some people take the "constancy of the speed of
light with respect to any inertial observer" as a basic principle
of Relativity.

I consider that principle also a prepubescent euphoria and an inane
need to have a fanatic-religious idealistic point of reference and a
point of departure . It is a sheer bovine ecstasy.

Thus,

THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSTANCY OF SPEED OF LIGHT IN ANY INERTIAL
FRAME MUST ALSO BE SHREDDED AND RECYCLED INTO TOILET PAPER.

----------------------

Alexander Abian: Equivalence of Mass and Time (1990)
Albert Einstein: Equivalence of Mass and Energy (1905)

Bill Brown

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

Alexander Abian (ab...@iastate.edu) wrote:

: Now, I laugh at the prepubescent, idealistic, inane euphoria of the
: unsurpassability of the speed of light. I laugh at the brainwashing


: of pathetic obsession of Einstein- type people who rever the idiotical laws
: such as "unsurpassability of speed of light" This is a sheer bovine
: ecstasy and succumbing to some kind of religious idealism and corrupt,
: decadent mysticism.

: The "unsurpassability of the speed of light concept" must be shredded


: and recycled into the toilet paper.

: And since "unsurpassability of the speed of light" is a basic, sacrosanct
: principle of Relativity on which the entire theory is built, then


:
: The Relativity Theory must also be shredded and recycled into
: the toilet paper.

Sorry Abian, the toilet paper stays intact. Relativity doesn't
say a damn thing about not being FTL. It says you cant travel at the
speed of light, but you can be faster or slower with no problem at all.
if you want to go faster than light though, you have to be able to deal
with imaginary velocities. Should be a piece of cake.

I told you you need to learn more science! Go read some books! Get these
discussions out of the kindergarten!

wfb...@cris.com

Doug Groseclose

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

In article <50265r$2...@herald.concentric.net>,
Wfb...@cris.com says...

>
> Sorry Abian, the toilet paper stays intact.
Relativity doesn't
>say a damn thing about not being FTL. It says you
cant travel at the
>speed of light, but you can be faster or slower with
no problem at all.
>if you want to go faster than light though, you have
to be able to deal
>with imaginary velocities. Should be a piece of
cake.
>
I will not jump into an Abian thread. I will not jump
into an Abian thread. I will not.....oh, hell..how
would one achieve a FTL speed without, at some point
on the acceration curve, having gone at the speed of
light?


Michael Varney

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

Actually, so long as no energy or information are transmitted, faster
than light phenomenon is possible. Take a laser that has been in
operation for a VERY long time. A bug moves in front of the beam, thus
casting a shadow. Due to the angular separation of the beam at very
large distances the shadow of the bug would appear to the observer at
the end of the beam to be moving faster than light.
Also, refer to the EPR paradox in quantum mechanics.

Mike

Jim Kelly

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

Alan Anderson wrote:
>
> In <4vvpfk$t...@news.iastate.edu>,
> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
> > And since "unsurpassability of the speed of light" is a basic, sacrosanct
> >principle of Relativity on which the entire theory is built...

>
> The "basic principle" is the *constancy* of the speed of light, not its
> "unsurpassability". The constancy postulate says that the speed of light
> is always measured to be the same value by any inertial observer.
>
> The "unsurpassability" of that speed is merely a logical consequence of
> the assumptions; it is not itself an assumption.

Perhaps an unavoidable asssumption. It
is a *fact* to some in this sense.

This does not mean I agree with the TP idea though. :-)


> (Did I just post in the BLOW UP THE MOON thread? Must be my imagination.)
>
> = === === === = = = === === === === = = === = = = === = = === =
> # Alan Anderson # Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent. #
> (I do not speak for Delco Electronics, and DE does not speak for me.)

--
Best Regards,

-Jim Kelly

Eric Albers

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

Hmm, just blowing up the moon, as in cracking it into BIG pieces, probably
wouldn't do too much to the earths orbit. So long as those pieces don't actually GO
to far


Paul Brown

unread,
Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96
to

Doug Groseclose wrote:
>
> In article <50265r$2...@herald.concentric.net>,
> Wfb...@cris.com says...
> >
> > Sorry Abian, the toilet paper stays intact.
> Relativity doesn't
> >say a damn thing about not being FTL. It says you
> cant travel at the
> >speed of light, but you can be faster or slower with
> no problem at all.
> >if you want to go faster than light though, you have
> to be able to deal
> >with imaginary velocities. Should be a piece of
> cake.
> >
> I will not jump into an Abian thread. I will not jump
> into an Abian thread. I will not.....oh, hell..how
> would one achieve a FTL speed without, at some point
> on the acceration curve, having gone at the speed of
> light?

Ok, list me with the crackpots of the week, but . . .

Could this THEORETICALLY be acheived through some sort of tunneling
effect? I realize that we may be talking about large particles or groups
of particles (spaceships for example), but perhaps tunneling could get
small particle past C without actually travelling at C.

(At least I didn't use a science fiction TV series to back up my ideas,
and I used only one word in caps.)

--
Paul

---------------------------------------------------
All thoughts and opinions in this message are mine.
They cannot and should not be attributed to my
employer or any other entity, real or imagined.
---------------------------------------------------

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages